NDIA Partners in the
Community (Round One) –
Early Childhood Early
Intervention (ECEI) Services
Generic Feedback
April 2017
NDIA Partners in the Community – Early Childhood Early
Intervention 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.
The Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) approach is focused on children with developmental
delay aged 0 to 6 years, their families and carers in a family-centred manner. ECEI focuses on the
individual needs of each child and working with families to link them with mainstream supports. The
ECEI approach is designed to:
assist children with developmental delay or disability, their families and carers to build and
pursue their goals for life, exercise choice and control and engage with the Scheme; and
ensure that children with developmental delay or disability can be supported in their local
communities and mainstream services enabling greater awareness and social inclusion for
children with a developmental delay or 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 26 applications to deliver ECEI 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 ECEI 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 ECEI 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 (the Program) in the
context of the Scheme.
Responses discussed:
Preferred Applicants demonstrated a strong
understanding of the opportunity that these
services need to provide for people with
disability or developmental delay and their
families and carers.
3 | Community Grants Hub

the three key pillars of the NDIS
(referenced in the Program Guidelines
as Scheme Objectives and detailed
below) and how ECEI 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.

The applicant’s understanding of the
purpose, role and objectives of ECEI
services;

an understanding of the ECEI approach
(outlined in the Annex E of the SOR)
including but not limited to:
o
evidenced based best practice
early intervention which can
improve the functional capacity
and well-being for a child with a
developmental delay or
disability; and
o
a culture which focuses on
family centred practices
delivered in a child’s natural
setting.
Responses demonstrated that the services will:

assist families and carers with children
with disability to build and pursue their
goals, exercise choice and control and
engage with the Scheme;

ensure that children with developmental
delay or disability can be supported in
their local communities and mainstream
services enabling greater awareness
and social inclusion for children with a
developmental delay or disability; and

assist in seamless and effective
referrals by developing strong
relationships in the community and with
mainstream services.
Areas for improvement
Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 1 with further
detail regarding the opportunities that ECEI 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:
delivering services and outcomes similar to the ECEI Services required under the
Program;
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 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 ECEI
services required under the Program.
Responses discussed experience in:
Preferred Applicants demonstrated
organisational experience in developing and
implementing practical inclusion strategies
within mainstream and community groups for
people with disability.
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
ECEI Services;

delivering Services to children with
disability or developmental delay, 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;

early childhood development and best
practice early childhood intervention
methods.
Responses discussed experience in:

developing strategies to engage
mainstream services and the community
to be more inclusive of people with
disability or developmental delay;

implementing these strategies; and

working at the community level to
increase capacity of community and
mainstream organisations to provide
services and/or supports to ensure that
people with disability or developmental
delay can fully participate in a way that is
meaningful for them.
Preferred Applicants demonstrated strong
organisational experience in facilitating
genuine community inclusion for individual
children and people with disability and their
families and carers.
6 | Community Grants Hub
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;

facilitating activities and opportunities
that improve the social participation of
people with disability, their families and
carers in the community; and

community inclusion strategies (such
as those described in Annex E of the
SOR and detailed below):
o
Awareness Raising – educating
the general community about
disability issues, inequalities,
the impact this has on a child’s
life choices and the benefits of
change;
o
Peer support – bringing people
together to learn from each
other through sharing
information and support;
o
Resource provision –
identification of gaps in the
appropriate allocation of
attention from mainstream
service providers; 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
demonstrating:

the outcomes achieved through stated experience.

experience in having developed or implemented practical inclusion strategies rather than
simply demonstrating an understanding of the types of strategies they intend to provide as
a Partner.

experience in having facilitated genuine community inclusion strategies rather than simply
demonstrating an understanding of the types of strategies they intend to provide as a
Partner.
In addition, responses that focused on Health/Child Services related business models, or made
references to disease/function prevention as opposed to capacity building model and early
childhood intervention, were not considered desirable.
7 | 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:
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;
establishing effective organisational activity in similar timeframes and scale as
required under the Program; and
the approach to ensuring the Applicant has the appropriate clinical and early
childhood intervention leadership, staffing capability (with a strong understanding
and knowledge of early childhood development) and governance to deliver the ECEI
approach and expected outcomes for children.
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
Preferred Applicants described how their
organisation aligns with the values of the
scheme.
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.
8 | Community Grants Hub
Example
Responses discussed:

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 an ECEI 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 culture which values the child and
family/carer as central, at all levels of
governance, leadership, recruitment,
and service establishment, evaluation
and delivery;

a Clinical Governance Structure which
is separate for the management of
ECEI Services and addresses any
conflict of interest with the governance
structure or systems of a Registered
Provider of Supports;
Preferred Applicants described governance
structures and people management strategies
that ensure their organisation is child safe.

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.
Responses discussed:


Preferred Applicants described establishing
effective organisational activity in similar
timeframes and scale as required under the
Program.
9 | Community Grants Hub
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 in :

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.
Preferred Applicants demonstrated a strong
approach to ensuring they have:
Responses demonstrated an approach which
includes:

appropriate clinical and early childhood
intervention leadership;

an appropriate clinical governance
model;

staffing capability (with a strong
understanding and knowledge of early
childhood development); and

leadership with experience in best
practice principles of early intervention;

a staffing structure that has a
combination of early childhood
educators and paediatric allied health
professionals, (for example speech
pathologists and occupational
therapists); and

staff that have experience in early
childhood intervention and understand
the difference between typical and nontypical development.

governance to deliver the ECEI
approach and expected outcomes for
children.
Areas for improvement
Unsuccessful applicants could have strengthened their responses to Criterion 3 by:

demonstrating the types of governance structures and policies that they have in place and
how these demonstrate alignment to the Scheme and a commitment to developing a voice
for ECEI clients.

providing greater detail on their experience in establishing new/similar activities or
services within similar timeframes.

providing the qualifications, skills and experience relevant to key personnel positions and
the delivery of ECEI services.
10 | Community Grants Hub
Criterion 4
Demonstrated capability to deliver ECEI Services in each Service Area including:
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 have or will be taken to ensure a presence
within a Service Area;
experience in working with the existing community opportunities and constraints,
and the nature of community and mainstream supports within the Service Area;
an understanding of Participant Intake within each Service Area, and the Applicants
methodology and/or workforce allocation or effort to deliver ECEI Services; and
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:


11 | Community Grants Hub
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
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 the existing
community including opportunities and
constraints.
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.
12 | Community Grants Hub
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.
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 ECEI Services in the Service
Area; and

how the organisation would engage and
utilise community and mainstream
supports in the Service Area.
Responses demonstrated:

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 the ECEI Partner
would be required to assist children with
disability who do not meet the access
requirements of the Scheme as well as
families and carers of children with
disability, and communities.
Preferred Applicants described their
organisation’s methodology and/or workforce
allocation or effort to deliver ECEI 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.
13 | Community Grants Hub
Responses discussed:

the required effort to deliver the
services within the Service Area and
how resources will be allocated
(including a multidisciplinary approach);

the proposed ratio of ECEI Coordinators
to active Participants (or clients) and
how this 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 a
portion of their work effort will be used
to work with children with disability who
do not meet the access requirements of
the Scheme as well as families and
carers of children 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:

demonstrating an understanding of the nature of available supports in the service area
and how they will complement or inhibit the work of the partner if successful.

demonstrating an understanding of the participant numbers and demographics of the
cohort of participants in each service area.

providing details of workforce allocation and staff to client ratios that were adequate for the
participant intake numbers in the service area applied for.

demonstrating knowledge of the ATSI and CALD 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.
14 | Community Grants Hub
Criterion 5
The Applicant’s approach to service delivery in the Service Area including:
the approach to building stakeholder awareness, engagement and commitment to
the Scheme based on demonstrated knowledge, understanding and connectedness
within the Service Area; and
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 demonstrated a strong
approach to developing a Community
Capacity Building Plan in the Service Area.
15 | 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:
o
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 how their organisation would engage with other mainstream or community
groups in the Service Area.
describing the types of engagement and capacity building activities that would be used
and why these activities would work in the service area.
demonstrating a broader ‘whole of community’ approach for capacity building rather
than simply focusing on the individual and the family/carers.
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.
16 | 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:

17 | 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:

18 | Community Grants Hub
How each Activity and requirement of the
Establishment Services 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 ECEI
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.
19 | Community Grants Hub