NDIA Partners in the Community (Round One) Local Area Coordination (LAC) Services

NDIA Partners in the Community (Round One) Local Area Coordination (LAC) ServicesApril 2017

Generic Feedback

NDIA Partners in the Community Local Area Coordination Services

Feedback SummaryOverview

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is a Commonwealth statutory entity responsible for implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The NDIS aims to provide individual control and choice in the delivery of reasonable and necessary supports to improve the independence, social and economic participation of Participants.

The NDIS works to support people with disability to participate in, and contribute to, social and economic life. It works to provide certainty that people with disability will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime.

Local Area Coordination (LAC) Partners fulfil a central role in helping people with disability between the ages of 7 and 65 years live valued, quality and contributing lives by building relationships and connections within the community. LACs fulfil three key roles:

1. link people to the NDIS

2. link people with disability, their families and carers to information and support in the community

3. work with the community to make sure it is more welcoming and inclusive of people with disability.

Selection process

The Community Grants Hub (the Hub) (supported by the Australian Government Department of Social Services) administered the Partners in the Community (Round One) selection process on behalf of the NDIA. The Hub received 29 applications to deliver LAC Services.

In accordance with the Program Guidelines, compliant and eligible applications were assessed against five assessment criteria, and were subject to a set of risk assessments. Following this process, a panel of experts considered applications in the context of the NDIAs National Outcome criteria, and recommended preferred applicants for negotiation. Preferred applicants were rated highly against the assessment criteria and represented value for money.

Information about strong responses to the selection criteria and attachments is set out below.

Selection results

The NDIA sought to select one organisation per service area to deliver LAC services.

3 | Community Grants Hub

Criterion 1

Demonstrate your understanding of the requirements of the Services detailed in the NDIS Partners in the Community Program (including LAC Services) in the context of the Scheme and the opportunity that these Services need to provide for people with disability or developmental delay and their families and carers.

Applicants applying for multiple service areas were asked to respond to this criterion only once per application. Strong responses to Criterion 1 demonstrated the following strengths:

Strength

Example

Preferred applicants demonstrated a strong understanding of the requirements of the Services detailed in the NDIS Partners in the Community Program in the context of the Scheme.

Responses discussed:

the three key pillars of the NDIS (referenced in the Program Guidelines as Scheme Objectives) and how LAC Services contribute to the achievement of these objectives;

social insurance approach;

providing choice and control in the delivery of services; and

harnessing the power of the community.

the applicants understanding of the purpose, role and objectives of LAC Services (including LAC in Advance);

Information, Linkages and Capacity Building (ILC) and how LAC Services contribute to ILC.

Preferred applicants described the opportunity that LAC Services need to provide for people with disability or developmental delay and their families and carers.

Responses demonstrated that the services will:

Assist people with disability, their families and carers, to build and pursue their goals for a good life, exercise choice and control and engage with the Scheme; and

Ensure that people with disability can be supported outside the Scheme by working with communities and mainstream services to build awareness and to become more inclusive of the range of needs and aspirations of people with disability.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 with further detail regarding the opportunities that LAC Services need to provide for families and carers of people with a disability or developmental delay.

Criterion 2

Demonstrated organisational experience in:

a) delivering services and outcomes similar to the LAC Services required under the Program;

b) developing and implementing practical inclusion strategies within mainstream and community groups for people with disability; and

c) facilitating genuine community inclusion for individual children and people with disability or developmental delay and their families and carers.

Applicants applying for multiple service areas were asked to respond to this criterion only once per application. Strong responses to Criterion 2 demonstrated the following strengths:

Strength

Example

Preferred applicants demonstrated organisational experience in delivering services and outcomes similar to the LAC Services required under the Program.

Responses discussed experience and examples of:

delivering Services similar to those outlined in the Program Guidelines and Statement of Requirements;

delivering successful outcomes that are similar to the expected outcomes of LAC Services;

delivering Services to people with disability, their families and carers;

connecting people to, and building, informal and natural supports; and

working with community, providers and mainstream support services to increase inclusion and awareness of the needs of people with disability.

Preferred applicants demonstrated organisational experience in developing and implementing practical inclusion strategies within mainstream and community groups for people with disability.

Responses discussed experience in:

developing strategies to engage mainstream services and the community to be more inclusive of people with disability; and

implementing these strategies.

Preferred applicants demonstrated organisational experience in facilitating genuine community inclusion for people with disability their families and carers.

Responses discussed experience in:

working with Participants, their families and carers, the community and other parties to encourage change in societal beliefs and structures so that people with disability feel empowered, valued and included; and

facilitating activities and opportunities that improve the social participation of people with disability, their families and carers in the community;

community inclusion strategies (such as those described in Annex D of the SOR and detailed below):

Networking developing links between participants, families, carers, individuals, allies and organisations;

Self-help bringing people together to learn from each other through the sharing of stories;

Participation facilitating the reduction or removal of obstacles to participation in decision making and service delivery;

Resource provision supporting and encouraging the provision of funds and resources; and

Information collection gathering information on community needs, attitudes and responses.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 2 by describing organisational experience in:

developing and implementing practical inclusion strategies within mainstream and community groups for people with disability, and

facilitating genuine community inclusion for individual children and people with disability and their families and carers.

Criterion 3

Demonstrated alignment to the values of the Scheme and effectiveness of people, process, and systems, and any other aspects of organisational capability including:

a) governance structures and people management strategies that include and develop the voice of people with disability and ensure that the Applicant is a child safe organisation; and

b) establishing effective organisational activity in similar timeframes and scale as required under the Program.

Applicants applying for multiple service areas were asked to respond to this criterion only once per application. Strong responses to Criterion 3 demonstrated the following strengths:

Strength

Example

Preferred applicants described how their organisation aligns with the values of the Scheme.

Responses discussed experience and examples of:

how the organisations values and delivery of services align to the NDIS Scheme Objectives; and

how the organisations values and delivery of services align with the objectives of a LAC Partner.

Preferred applicants demonstrated effectiveness of people, process and systems, and any other aspects of organisational capability relevant to the grant.

Responses discussed:

established facilities, human resources, business processes, policies and systems that enable the organisation to deliver services effectively; and

measures, accreditations or accolades that demonstrate the effectiveness of each aspect of organisational capability outlined by the applicant.

Preferred applicants described governance structures and people management strategies that include and develop the voice of people with disability.

Responses discussed:

a separate, dedicated governance structure for the delivery of LAC Services;

strategies and processes to include, consult and collaborate with people with disability or developmental delay, their families and carers in the design, development and delivery of services; and

forums or groups established or engaged by the organisation to better consult, collaborate and include people with disability or developmental delay, their families and carers.

Preferred applicants described governance structures and people management strategies that ensure their organisation is child safe.

Responses discussed:

the organisations policies and people management strategies that ensure the safety of children including:

screening of new and existing staff (e.g. vulnerable persons checks, police checks and criminal offences checks);

mandatory reporting protocols (including critical incident reporting);

processes to identify risks and implement safe guards (as detailed in the SOR); and

policies for staff working in a clients home.

governance structures that ensure the safety of children (e.g. monitoring and feedback processes as detailed in the SOR).

Preferred applicants described establishing effective organisational activity in similar timeframe and scale as required under the Program.

Responses discussed experience and examples of:

the organisation establishing effective services in a similar timeframe and scale as required under the Program;

planning and actions that ensured the successful establishment of these services;

the successful outcomes delivered by these services.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 3 by describing their organisations:

governance structures and people management strategies that include and develop the voice of people with disability;

governance structures and people management strategies that ensure that the Applicant is a child safe organisation; and

establishment of effective organisational activity in similar timeframes and scale as required under the Program.

Criterion 4

Demonstrated capability to deliver LAC Services in each Service Area including:

a) capability to establish and/or expand an active, visible presence on the ground in the timeframes required. The Applicant should detail where there is a current outlet within a Service Area, or what action has or will be taken to ensure a presence within a Service Area;

b) experience in working with the existing community opportunities and constraints, and the nature of community and mainstream supports within the Service Area;

c) an understanding of Participant Intake within each Service Area, and the Applicants methodology and/or workforce allocation or effort to deliver LAC or ECEI Services; and

d) development and retention of an appropriately skilled workforce including to ensure that the Applicant is able to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in the Service Area.

Applicants were asked to respond to, and were assessed against, this criterion for each Service Area applied for. Strong responses to Criterion 4 demonstrated the following strengths:

Strength

Example

Preferred applicants described their organisations capability to establish and/or expand an active, visible presence on the ground in the timeframes required.

Responses discussed:

current and/or proposed outlet(s) within the Service Area including details of;

at least one location for permanent premises in each Service Area;

how they will expand their premises to cater for an increased number of clients (if applicable);

whether the premises is a co-located space and if so who with and to what benefit (including identification of any conflicts of interest if applicable);

whether the premises is a public facing space;

whether the premises is accessible for people with disability; and

plans, processes, actions and resources that will ensure an effective presence in the Service Area within the timeframes required.

Preferred applicants demonstrated experience in working with existing community, including opportunities and constraints.

Responses discussed experience and examples of:

working with the community to identify opportunities and constraints that affect service delivery;

actions to make practical and effective use of opportunities that improve service delivery in the Service Area;

actions to alleviate existing gaps in services within the Service Area;

actions to reduce obstacles to service delivery in the Service Area; and

establishing collaborations, links and/or referral networks to improve service delivery.

Preferred applicants described the nature of community and mainstream supports within the Service Area.

Responses discussed:

the types of available supports and services in the service area and the nature of their work including gaps or overlap between these available services;

how existing community and mainstream supports would complement the applicants proposed delivery of LAC Services in the Service Area; and

how the organisation would engage and utilise community and mainstream supports in the Service Area.

Preferred applicants demonstrated an understanding of Participant Intake within the Service Area.

Responses discussed:

an awareness of participant intake requirements in the Service Area (as detailed in Annex A of the SOR), research into the demographics of the service area and participant cohort; and

an understanding that twenty per cent of Local Area Coordinators total work effort must be used to work with people with disability who do not meet the access requirements of the Scheme, families and carers of people with disability, and communities; and

an understanding of LAC in Advance activities for prospective Participants.

Preferred applicants described their organisations methodology and/or workforce allocation or effort to deliver LAC Services.

Responses discussed:

the organisations methodology and/or proposed workforce allocation to deliver services in the Service Area, including LAC in Advance activities;

the proposed ratio of LACs to active Participants (or clients) and how this ratio will enable the organisation to provide an individualised, flexible and efficient response;

the need for recruitment of staff and how this will be managed; and

how the organisation will ensure that twenty per cent of LACs total work effort will be used to work with people with disability who do not meet the access requirements of the Scheme, families and carers of people with disability, and communities.

Preferred applicants described strategies for the development and retention of an appropriately skilled workforce including to ensure that the Applicant is able to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in the Service Area.

Responses discussed:

organisational policies and/or processes for developing and maintaining an appropriately skilled workforce;

organisational policies and/or processes that support the retention of an appropriately skilled workforce; and

organisational policies and/or processes for developing and maintaining a workforce that is able to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in the Service Area.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 4 by:

describing the nature of community and mainstream supports within the Service Area, and experience working with the existing community opportunities and constraints;

demonstrating an understanding of Participant intake within the Service Area;

describing the Applicants methodology and/or workforce allocation or effort to deliver LAC Services; and

describing the development and retention of an appropriately skilled workforce, including to ensure that the Applicant is able to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in the Service Area.

In addition weak applications replicated the same information for each service area applied for. This did not demonstrate clear knowledge and understanding of the unique nature of each service area.

Criterion 5

The Applicants approach to service delivery in the Service Area including:

a) the approach to building stakeholder awareness, engagement and commitment to the Scheme based on demonstrated knowledge, understanding and connectedness within the Service Area; and

b) the approach to developing a Community Capacity Building Plan in the Service Area.

Applicants were asked to respond to, and were assessed against, this criterion for each Service Area applied for. Strong responses to Criterion 5 demonstrated the following strengths:

Strength

Example

Preferred Applicants described their organisations approach to building stakeholder awareness, engagement and commitment to the Scheme based on demonstrated knowledge and understanding of, and connectedness to, the Service Area.

Responses demonstrated:

a clear approach to working with other mainstream services including details about existing relationships or partnerships within the service area applied for;

the types of engagement activities that will be established; and

a clear understanding of and connection to the service area for example:

knowledge of local diversity within the population;

knowledge of geographical challenges and disadvantaged areas; and

an awareness of local challenges (i.e. what works and doesnt work when engaging with the community).

Preferred applicants described their organisations approach to developing a Community Capacity Building Plan in the Service Area.

Responses discussed:

an approach to developing a Community Capacity Building Plan in the Service Area that aligns with Section 2.9 of the Statement of Requirements.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 5 by describing:

their organisations approach to building stakeholder awareness, engagement and commitment to the Scheme based on demonstrated knowledge, understanding and connectedness within the Service Area.

In addition weak applications replicated the same information for each service area applied for. This did not demonstrate clear knowledge and understanding of the unique nature of each service area.

Attachment: Workforce Deployment, Staff Development and Pre-Implementation Schedule

Applicants applying for multiple service areas were asked to complete this attachment, using the template provided, once per application as an example of the proposed workforce model.

Generally this attachment was not satisfactorily completed and did not provide sufficient detail for assessors to develop a strong understanding of how the Applicant intended to deploy a workforce, undertake staff development activities or complete the pre-implementation requirements.

Strength

Example

Workforce Deployment table

Workforce Deployment response

Table demonstrated:

An understanding of all positions required under the Statement of Requirements and a reasonable allocation of these positions across functions;

An understanding of the Establishment and Pre-Phasing Requirements and resources allocated appropriately when compared to the Phasing Date of the Service Area in which the Applicant was applying; and

The allocation of positions and allocation of FTE was consistent with the resources allocated in the Pricing Response Schedule.

Responses demonstrated:

A recruitment and deployment strategy which was consistent with the Phasing Date of the Service Area in which the Applicant was applying.

Staff Development table

Staff Development response

Table demonstrated:

An understanding of the NDIA required training competencies and a demonstration that this training will be provided to staff prior to or at commencement, as well as during the life of the grant agreement;

An understanding of all organisational training that may be required, and a demonstration that this training will be provided to staff prior to or at commencement, as well as during the life of the grant agreement; and

An understanding of the participant volumes within the Service Area in which the Applicant was applying, and how the Applicants training requirements must cater for changes in volumes.

Responses demonstrated:

A strong understanding of the Train-the-Trainer requirement and how the Applicant will implement this within their organisation; and

How the Applicant ensures continuity of service delivery and assurance of all training competencies.

Pre-Implementation table

Pre-Implementation response

Table demonstrated:

A project schedule which addressed all requirements of the Establishment Services in accordance with the Statement of Requirements; and

A strong understanding of when each Activity is to be implemented.

Responses demonstrated:

How each Activity and requirement of the Establishment will be delivered during the pre-implementation phase.

Areas for improvement

Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses by:

Demonstrating an understanding of the NDIAs pre-implementation requirements and a demonstration that the workforce, staff development and pre-implementation activities are fully understood, resourced and delivered.

Providing a full response. Many applicants did not utilise the text box to really demonstrate an understanding of the workforce deployment, staff development or pre-implementation requirements.

Attachment: Pricing Response Schedule

Applicants were asked to complete this attachment, using the template provided, for each LAC service applied for. The NDIA is committed to ensuring grant applicants offered value for money in their application.

In general, unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses by:

Demonstrating a stronger understanding of the applicants methodology in their costing;

Understanding a balance of funding to be directed toward coordinators and direct service delivery whilst ensuring that supervision, administration, and corporate support were sufficient to ensure a good level of quality assurance and oversight.