Could a Different Model Deliver Better Outcomes?

Rethinking Support Coordination Funding

At CoAbility, we spend every day working alongside participants, carers, and providers to navigate the NDIS. We see the good the scheme brings – but we also see the challenges.

One of the biggest issues we encounter isn’t the people or the plans, but the way the NDIS funding model is structured.

We’d like to share a thought we’ve been musing on: perhaps the struggles Support Coordinators and participants face could be eased if the funding model were tweaked slightly. These are simply our thoughts – not a formal policy proposal – but we believe they’re worth considering.

The Problem: The “Billable Hour” Trap

Currently, Support Coordination is funded as a set amount in a participant’s plan, allocated into funding periods. In practice, this creates a model where:

• A provider knows they can claim a set amount in each funding period, whether real outcomes are achieved.
• Less scrupulous providers have an incentive to bill time without a strong focus on capacity‑building or progress, simply because the money is sitting there for the taking.

This isn’t the experience for everyone, of course. Many providers, including CoAbility, work hard to deliver meaningful outcomes. However, we frequently receive referrals where the participant has no funding left and has achieved little to no progress. With a funding model that doesn’t actively encourage best practice, it’s easy to see how some plans get drained without much to show for it.

Why This Conversation Matters Now

The NDIA and politicians have recently stated they are cracking down on “shonky” providers. We know these providers exist – but the truth is, the current funding system makes it easy for them to thrive.

Our Leadership Team often discusses how we would ‘fix’ things if we could. Drawing on an extensive background in employment services management, our GM has argued that many issues stem from the funding model itself. If we want to lift standards and protect participants, we need to rethink how the money flows.

A Lesson from the Employment Sector?

We don’t have influence with those in the know, but having operated under the NDIS for eight years, we know what works. So, what if Support Coordination funding looked more like the model recently introduced in Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA)?

The new IEA model, which rolled out on 1 November 2025, moves beyond the old structure into a model that combines base funding with outcome incentives:

• Base Funding: Stable, upfront payments to cover core service delivery and day-to-day engagement.

• Milestone Payments: Triggered when a participant reaches specific points on their pathway (e.g., completing training or work-readiness milestones).

• Outcome Payments: Released when sustained, meaningful outcomes are achieved (e.g., retention in a role for 12 or 26 weeks).

• Capacity-Building Payments: Additional funding for specialist interventions for those with significant barriers.

How This Could Work for Support Coordination

To make this tangible, imagine a participant starting with a new Support Coordinator under an IEA-inspired model:

1. Base Funding: The provider receives a stable payment to support onboarding, building rapport, and setting goals. We aren’t watching the clock for every phone call.

2. Milestone Payments: As the participant demonstrates progress—like building service linkages or completing a skill-building program—payments are released. These are tied to verified evidence of progress, not just time spent.

3. Outcome Payments: Longer-term payments are released when sustained outcomes are achieved, such as demonstrating ongoing independence in navigating supports.

4. Capacity-Building Payments: If the participant requires crisis support or complex technology, specific additional funding is accessed.

This structure would incentivise outcomes rather than just time, and put a clear timeframe on capacity building. Without outcomes, the payments simply wouldn’t flow.

The Impact on the Workforce (And You)

The current funding model shapes the employment landscape for Support Coordination—and not always for the better.

Many providers rely on contractors simply because cash flow is too uncertain to sustain permanent staff. It feels risky to take on permanent employees when income fluctuates so wildly based on billable hours.

With a stable, outcome-based model:

• Job Security: Support Coordinators could be employed directly, leading to a more stable workforce.

• Better Support: Participants would benefit from continuity. You wouldn’t have to worry about your Coordinator leaving because their contract ended or the agency couldn’t afford to keep them.

• Accountability: Providers would have more leverage to manage performance. In the current “contractor-heavy” market, enforcing quality standards is difficult when staff can simply leave and take their caseload with them.

Just Our Musings

This isn’t a policy submission—it’s simply us sharing an idea. We know there are no “one-size-fits-all” solutions, and we recognise the risks (employment programs have their own history of providers chasing payments over people). Safeguards would need to be built in to ensure the focus remains on genuine participant needs.

But at CoAbility, we believe rethinking the funding model could shift the focus back to where it belongs: predictability, progress, and outcomes.

We’d love to hear what you think. Do you agree that the funding model shapes the quality of support?