As the national peak body for over 80 individual disability advocacy organisations, Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA) is uniquely positioned to contribute to the Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative (‘Inquiry’).
Our insights are grounded in the lived experience and advocacy work of our members, who support children and families navigating multiple, often fragmented, service systems. It is based on this experience of system interface issues – and the inequities these cause – that we provide this submission.
This provides a strong foundation to critically assess the systemic barriers and enablers that will impact children and families once a new service system or program is potentially established to deliver ‘Thriving Kids’.
As a result, this submission is specifically focused on the role of interfaces in the design of Thriving Kids and the elements of the Terms of Reference that relate to ‘equity and intersectional issues’ and ‘mechanisms that would allow a seamless transition’.
DANA supports CYDA’s and The Alliance’s recommendations
DANA supports the recommendations put forward by Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) and The Australian Autism Alliance (The Alliance) in their submissions to the Inquiry and intends for this submission to provide further detail on the specific challenge of interfaces when designing a new system or program.
In particular, this submission supports and reinforces:
CYDA recommendations:
- 3: Building on existing supports rather than starting from scratch.
- 3.3: Parents need tailored support to navigate services.
- 4.3: Tailoring supports to the specific needs of First Nations, LGBTIQA+ multicultural, and regional/remote-based children with disability facing intersectional discrimination and marginalisation.
The Alliance’s recommendations:
- 5: Building on, not duplicating, what already works that is evidence based.
- 8: Local navigation be considered an essential component of the Thriving Kids initiative—not an optional extra.
- 25: Require all Thriving Kids programs to demonstrate how they will reach and serve marginalised groups and monitor outcomes.
Interface considerations for Thriving Kids
This submission outlines the likely interface issues children and families may experience with the rollout of Thriving Kids as a new system or program.
Our intention is to assist the Committee and Government in considering the trade-offs in the design of the initiative when attempting to simultaneously ensure service continuity and minimise disruption for children transitioning from the NDIS to Thriving Kids, as well as integrating the supports within mainstream settings such as education or health.
Transitioning from the NDIS to Thriving Kids: The short- and long-term trade off
It is critical that Government quickly clarifies the primary objective for the Thriving Kids initiative, in terms of whether it is prioritising:
- Maintaining service continuity and minimising disruption for children and families in the shorter-term who have NDIS plans but will be diverted to Thriving Kids; or
- Establishing a long-term model for children and families that is embedded within mainstream supports, such as in education and health.
To-date, Government has suggested it is attempting to achieve both priorities. However, there is an inherent tension between these objectives because the closer Thriving Kids is in design to the NDIS the less disruption for existing children and families – but the further it is from being embedded in mainstream settings. Whereas the more Thriving Kids is embedded in mainstream settings the further it will be from the NDIS (as a specialised disability support) and the more change diverted children and families will experience.
The tension between the two objectives plays out in the two general approaches available for Thriving Kids:
- A Thriving Kids model that reflects an NDIS-style model will minimise disruption for existing children being diverted from the NDIS, but would create a much larger interface with mainstream services (such as education, health) as it would create another specialised system.
- A Thriving Kids model that is embedded in mainstream settings will create greater disruption for existing children being diverted from the NDIS but has the benefit of minimising or removing the interface with education or health systems.
This is a critical design choice for Government to provide further clarity on. It is not realistic to continue pursuing both objectives unless Government is willing to minimise disruption for diverted children through an alternative mechanism such as grandfathering.
The choice between short-term continuity and long-term integration has direct implications for how Thriving Kids will interact with both the interfaces of the NDIS and mainstream supports. Clarifying the objective for the Thriving Kids initiative is essential to resolving the interface challenge and improving the experience and equity of both Thriving Kids and the NDIS.
Potential models for Thriving Kids
Based on existing service systems across Australia, we anticipate Government intends to deliver Thriving Kids using an existing and tested approach. There are four main existing models we assume Government is considering:
| Consumer-directed | Government-commissioned | |
|---|---|---|
| Disability-specific | 1) Individualised plans: Families are allocated a pool of funds they are permitted to use on services and supports of their choice (akin to a ‘Mini NDIS’). | 3) Block funded services: Community based organisations are commissioned to deliver services and supports (through grants or service contracts) |
| Mainstream-embedded | 2) Health and Medicare: Similar to mental health care plans, individuals receive time bound and session limited rebated sessions they can use with their selected allied health professionals. | 4) Centralised supports within educational settings: Schools receive funding to deliver supports and services (this could be extended to other educational settings for young children). |
We outline the opportunities and risks for each of these potential models in Table 1 below.
Table 1 The pro’s and con’s of different models (focused on interfaces)
| Models | Opportunities | Risks |
|---|---|---|
| 1) Individualised plans | - Enables maximum choice and control as consumer directed model - Minimal disruption for families and children diverted from NDIS - Strong link between individual needs and support levels |
- Creates another specialised system which is distanced and siloed from mainstream services - Little integration with mainstream settings (based on NDIS experience to-date) - May allow for cost shifting to continue (from mainstream to specialised) without improving mainstream accessibility |
| 2) Health and Medicare (e.g., hospitals, primary / community health networks) | - Strong connection into health reduces friction and interfaces - Families can continue to work with a trusted and familiar GP (if they have previous working history) |
- Assumes families are connected into health settings - Bulk billing, gaps in rebate and service fees disadvantages families from lower SES backgrounds - Difficult for all GPs to be suitable for completing initial assessment to refer to appropriate allied health professional |
| 3) Block funded services | - Government has better oversight of commissioned organisation who deliver services - Potential for more collaboration between different services and therapists as they are not competing in the market |
- Significant shift away from the consumer directed care evolution that NDIS introduced - Gives significant power to service providers as the contract holders compared to service users - Funding and availability of the service is typically estimated which may not reflect actual need on the ground (creating service gaps or waitlists) |
| 4) Centralised supports in educational settings (e.g. Mental Health in Primary Schools – MHiPS) | - Strong connection into education if supports are embedded reduces friction and interfaces - Support provided in the setting where children spend the majority of their time (or will be able to with additional support) - Expected to provide educational benefits and outcomes from greater supports in classrooms |
- Significant shift away from the consumer directed care evolution that NDIS introduced - Jurisdictional issues with schools delivered by state and territories, creates interface between levels of government - Teaching staff may not have disability expertise to identify and refer to in-school supports - Potential for children that receive additional support in school to be alienate from an inclusive education |
Navigating support under Thriving Kids
The analysis above highlights the significance of careful interface design for Thriving Kids. In addition to helping to remove structural interfaces, Government should also invest in support for children and families that helps to ‘smooth’ the interface by providing information and guidance on how things work, where to go, answer questions and connect to supports. This support can be delivered by Navigators who are commissioned by Government alongside the introduction of Thriving Kids to ensure the accessibility and effectiveness of the new program.
Families having access to navigation support within Thriving Kids is critical to the success of the initiative. Navigators can provide tailored information and link families with local supports, reduce the administrative and emotional burden on families by finding and referring to them to services, and can capture and map the needs of the local communities they support.
Equally, Navigators can provide a critical role for Government in collecting intelligence and data on what supports are needed and how systems are working on the ground. There will be significant conflicting information about the performance of Thriving Kids as it ramps-up – whether it is truly meeting need, whether it can be improved, or whether a totally different approach is needed. This needs to be provided by Navigators who are alongside people – embedded in their communities – helping to navigate different systems. Navigators who won’t benefit financially from Thriving Kids or children or families.
Independent Advocacy support Thriving Kids
Advocates will also play a critical role in providing support for families and their children to address interface issues associated with Thriving Kids. Unlike Navigators, advocates focus on providing information and support to people with disabilities so they can understand their rights, and the responsibilities of different services. They work to ensure that a person’s voice is heard to resolve issues or make complaints about matters that affect them.
We expect that there will be an increase in advocacy issues related to Thriving Kids. Government should invest in advocacy support for families and children who may require guidance to work through the changes to the supports and services that they can access. Advocates will play an integral role in resolving tensions that may arise between families and Thriving Kids services. We anticipate these will largely stem from misunderstandings about the boundaries of multiple services systems, and the types and levels of support and services that are available in each. Advocates will work with families to identify and explore viable pathways - outside of the NDIS - to work toward the outcomes they want for their child. This will be critical to the success of the initiative.
Advocates will also act as a ‘canary in the coal mine’ collecting on the ground information that identifies emerging systemic issues within Thriving Kids. Advocacy originations can track trends and collect data, providing an early warning system for Government to address issues before they become deeply entrenched.
DANA’s ask of the Committee and Government
DANA calls on the Committee to make recommendations in its report that Government:
- Clarify the objectives of Thriving Kids – to provide guidance on whether Thriving Kids is intended to be NDIS aligned or a mainstream embedded model, as well as if grandfathering is being considered to support a transition from the NDIS to a mainstream model.
- Focus on service integration – to have a stated objective for Thriving Kids to be integrated into other service systems to prevent further fragmentation and program silos that many families struggle to navigate.
- Support families with Navigators – to establish Navigator supports for families as part of ramping-up Thriving Kids initiative to support families understand another new, and likely confusing service system.
- Support families with advocates – to supplement disability advocate program funding in recognition of the extra demand that the establishment of a new Thriving Kids system or program – as well as diverting children from the NDIS – will create for advocacy support from 1 July 2026.
- Guarantee equity of access – to prevent ‘post-code lotteries’ and inequities from creeping into Thriving Kids and Foundational Supports, including no out of pocket models and addressing fee gaps if Medicare is used.
- Learn from advocacy – to bring lived experience and advocacy organisations into the design and implementation of Thriving Kids, as advocacy organisations bring unique expertise working at the frontline of the challenges families face navigating multiple service systems and interfaces.
We look forward to the opportunity to appear before the Committee to provide further information on this submission.
Contact: Endorsed by: CYDA and The Alliance
DANA
Dr. Cherry Baylosis
Director of Policy and advocacy
redacted