NDIA Partners in the
Community (Round One) –
Local Area Coordination
(LAC) Services
Generic Feedback
April 2017
NDIA Partners in the Community – Local Area
Coordination Services
Feedback Summary
Overview
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. LAC’s 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 NDIA’s 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.
2 | 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;
o social insurance approach;
o providing choice and control in the
delivery of services; and
o harnessing the power of the
community.
Preferred applicants described the opportunity
that LAC Services need to provide for people
with disability or developmental delay and their
families and carers.
3 | Community Grants Hub

the applicant’s 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.
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.
4 | Community Grants Hub
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:
Preferred applicants demonstrated
organisational experience in developing and
implementing practical inclusion strategies
within mainstream and community groups for
people with disability.
Preferred applicants demonstrated
organisational experience in facilitating
genuine community inclusion for people with
disability their families and carers.
5 | Community Grants Hub

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.
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.
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,
Strength
Example
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):
o
Networking – developing links
between participants, families,
carers, individuals, allies and
organisations;
o
Self-help – bringing people
together to learn from each
other through the sharing of
stories;
o
Participation – facilitating the
reduction or removal of
obstacles to participation in
decision making and service
delivery;
o
Resource provision –
supporting and encouraging
the provision of funds and
resources; and
o
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.
6 | Community Grants Hub
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:
Preferred applicants demonstrated
effectiveness of people, process and systems,
and any other aspects of organisational
capability relevant to the grant.
Preferred applicants described governance
structures and people management strategies
that include and develop the voice of people
with disability.
7 | Community Grants Hub

how the organisation’s values and
delivery of services align to the NDIS’
Scheme Objectives; and

how the organisation’s values and
delivery of services align with the
objectives of a LAC Partner.
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.
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
Strength
Example
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:


Preferred applicants described establishing
effective organisational activity in similar
timeframe and scale as required under the
Program.
the organisation’s policies and people
management strategies that ensure
the safety of children including:
o
screening of new and existing
staff (e.g. vulnerable persons
checks, police checks and
criminal offences checks);
o
mandatory reporting protocols
(including critical incident
reporting);
o
processes to identify risks and
implement safe guards (as
detailed in the SOR); and
o
policies for staff working in a
client’s home.
governance structures that ensure the
safety of children (e.g. monitoring and
feedback processes as detailed in the
SOR).
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 organisation’s:

governance structures and people management strategies that include and develop the
8 | Community Grants Hub
Areas for improvement
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.
9 | Community Grants Hub
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 Applicant’s
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
organisation’s 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;
o at least one location for permanent
premises in each Service Area;
o how they will expand their premises
to cater for an increased number of
clients (if applicable);
o whether the premises is a colocated space and if so who with
and to what benefit (including
identification of any conflicts of
interest if applicable);
o whether the premises is a public
facing space;
o whether the premises is accessible
for people with disability; and

Preferred applicants demonstrated experience
in working with existing community, including
10 | Community Grants Hub
plans, processes, actions and
resources that will ensure an effective
presence in the Service Area within the
timeframes required.
Responses discussed experience and
Strength
Example
opportunities and constraints.
examples of:
Preferred applicants described the nature of
community and mainstream supports within
the Service Area.
Preferred applicants demonstrated an
understanding of Participant Intake within the
Service Area.
11 | Community Grants Hub

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.
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 applicant’s 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.
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
Strength
Example

Preferred applicants described their
organisation’s methodology and/or workforce
allocation or effort to deliver LAC Services.
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.
an understanding of LAC in Advance
activities for prospective Participant’s.
Responses discussed:

the organisation’s 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 LAC’s 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.
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,
12 | Community Grants Hub
Areas for improvement
and experience working with the existing community opportunities and constraints;

demonstrating an understanding of Participant intake within the Service Area;

describing the Applicant’s 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.
13 | Community Grants Hub
Criterion 5
The Applicant’s 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
organisation’s 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:



Preferred applicants described their
organisation’s approach to developing a
Community Capacity Building Plan in the
Service Area.
14 | Community Grants Hub
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:
o knowledge of local diversity
within the population;
o knowledge of geographical
challenges and disadvantaged
areas; and
o an awareness of local
challenges (i.e. what works and
doesn’t work when engaging
with the community).
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 organisation’s 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.
15 | Community Grants Hub
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
Workforce Deployment table
Workforce Deployment response
Example
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:

Staff Development table
Table demonstrated:

16 | Community Grants Hub
A recruitment and deployment strategy
which was consistent with the Phasing
Date of the Service Area in which the
Applicant was applying.
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;
Strength
Staff Development response
Example

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 Applicant’s training
requirements must cater for changes in
volumes.
Responses demonstrated:
 A strong understanding of the Train-theTrainer 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:

17 | Community Grants Hub
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 NDIA’s 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 preimplementation 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.
18 | Community Grants Hub