Case example 1
Dale has a psychosocial disability. He has been found guilty of a crime and his lawyer has asked the magistrate to let him stay in the community due to his disability. The magistrate has agreed on the condition that Dale has 24 hour 1 to 1 supervision to reduce the risk of him reoffending.
To help him obey the community supervision order, Dale asks us to fund 24 hour 1 to 1 support from a support worker in his plan.
Would we fund this?
No, we wouldn’t fund 24 hour 1 to 1 supervision to help make sure Dale doesn’t reoffend. The justice system is responsible for funding the management of community supervision orders. This includes supervision for people on community orders.
Why wouldn’t we fund this?
To work out whether this support is reasonable and necessary for Dale, we look at the information he has given us, against the NDIS Funding Criteria.
Among other things, we need to work out whether the support Dale has asked for is most appropriately funded by us. Or whether the support is more appropriately funded by, or given through, another service system such as the justice system.
We’re not responsible for funding the management of community supervision orders.
The justice system is responsible for this. This includes supervision needed by people with disability who are on community supervision orders.
What else do we think about?
The justice system is responsible for linking you to community and mainstream supports that can help you to live in the community. However, we may fund support coordination if you need help connecting to or managing the reasonable and necessary supports in your plan because of your disability.
Case example 2
Ben has a mild intellectual disability. He works in supported employment and is very friendly and social. He’s been living with friends in a shared care house and getting drop-in shared support for 4 hours per day. He got involved with some new people who persuaded him to steal things from shops.
Ben was assessed as being able to understand what he had done and was convicted of stealing. He applied for parole when he was eligible. The magistrate has agreed to this, if Ben moves into accommodation where there are staff always available to monitor him.
This is to reduce the chances of him getting involved with his previous crowd and reoffending. Ben asks us for funding for Supported Independent Living (SIL) supports in his next plan.
To work out whether funding for shared supervision is reasonable and necessary, Ben’s planner will look at the information he has given us against the NDIS Funding Criteria. Along with other reasonable and necessary criteria,
we think about whether:
- Ben needs SIL supports to manage his disability
- the support is value for money, when comparing the benefits from it, with the cost of other supports
- the request for SIL supports is related to Ben’s disability
- 24 hour shared supervision for Ben is most appropriately funded by us or whether another system, such as the justice system, is responsible for supervision.
In Ben’s case, the planner decides:
- shared SIL support is not due to Ben’s disability support needs. It’s related to Ben’s criminal offending and is needed to prevent him reoffending. Therefore, the support is not related to Ben’s disability.
- Due to his disability support needs, Ben requires 4 hours of shared supports per day.
- The supervision Ben needs to prevent him reoffending is not most appropriately funded by us, but is the responsibility of another system, such as the justice system.
The planner decides the funding for SIL supports is not reasonable and necessary, and this funding is not approved however funding for 4 hours of shared supports is reasonable and necessary and funding for this is approved in Ben’s plan.
Case example 3
Jane is 30 years old and has mild autism and a borderline personality disorder. She doesn’t identify as having a disability and is homeless, with no informal supports involved. Jane’s family have taken out an intervention order against her and she has repeatedly breached this order and gone to her family home.
Jane has been getting case management support from the justice system to coordinate services to reduce her risk of reoffending.
Jane’s justice case manager asks us to fund full time 1 to 1 supervision to reduce the risk of Jane breaching the intervention order and returning to her parents’ home.
To work out whether funding for the full time 1 to1 supervision is reasonable and necessary, we’ll look at the information Jane’s justice case manager has given us, against the NDIS Funding Criteria.
Along with other reasonable and necessary criteria, we’d think about whether:
- Jane needs full time 1 to1 supervision to manage her disability
- the full time 1 to1 supervision is related to Jane’s disability
- 1 to 1 supervision for Jane is most appropriately funded by us, or is more appropriately funded or given through another service system, such as the justice system
In Jane’s case, the planner decides:
- She doesn’t need full time supervision for her disability support needs. The 1 to1 supervision is related to reducing the risk of Jane breaching the intervention order. Therefore, the support doesn’t relate to Jane’s disability.
- The supervision is more appropriately funded by another service system, not by us. Community supervision is the responsibility of the justice system.
The planner decides funding for full time supervision for Jane is not reasonable and necessary, and funding is not approved.
For more information, refer to: