Provider Tips

Thriving Kids in Schools: Will it Work?

David Kinnane · 11 November 2025 · Leave a Comment

At its core, Thriving Kids is an ambitious plan by the Federal Government to:

divert children with mild and moderate autism and developmental delay from the NDIS early intervention pathway; and
replace NDIS-funded individualised allied health therapies for these children with block-funded programs delivered in ‘natural environments’, like schools.

In Minister Mark Butler’s words, Thriving Kids represents the Federal Government’s vision for a “better system” for children with mild and moderate delay or autism that features a:

“robust system of supports to help them thrive”; and
“more rigorous evidence base for the supports being funded by taxpayers”.

Good intentions…

Bold social policy visions with noble names like Thriving Kids are hard to criticise without sounding like you’re attacking the objectives. (Who doesn’t want kids to thrive?)

We all:

want a better system for children with autism and developmental delay; and
know that publicly funded disability services must be economically sustainable.

But policy goals are not outcomes.

We want high quality services for children

In their recent Quality Support for Children booklet, the NDIA and NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission reminded us that all providers must ensure services to children with disability or delay:

represent best practice;
focus on positive outcomes for children and their families; and
improve their quality of life.

We should hold Thriving Kids to the same standards.

Two questions arise:

Is the Thriving Kids approach backed by evidence that programs will deliver improved outcomes for students with mild and moderate autism or developmental delays?
Is the Government’s vision of bringing federal, state and local government, philanthropic organisations, and community services “under one roof”, “coordinated by schools” likely to work consistently across Australia?

Question 1: Do block-funded school programs improve student outcomes?

In the Thriving Kids announcement, Minister Butler name-checked programs like Mental Health in Primary Schools (MHiPS) and Positive Partnerships as examples of existing programs that might be scaled up nationally and block-funded to support school-aged children with mild and moderate autism or developmental delay.

Over the last couple of months, we’ve looked at the resources and evidence for MHiPS and Positive Partnerships. You can read our summaries via the links below.

Across these programs, we’re concerned – both by what we found, and by what we didn’t find:

Limited independent evidence – We didn’t locate any high quality independent studies with controls for expectation and other biases. (If you know of any, please send them to us.) We don’t know if or how the programs work, or whether they achieve their stated purpose.
No data on improved student outcomes – The peer-reviewed studies we did find reported third-party perceptions and outcomes, e.g. teacher and parent views. We didn’t locate studies demonstrating improved outcomes for students.
No evidence of student feedback – We didn’t find anything substantive about what students think of the programs, or whether the programs have been adjusted to take into account preferences, criticisms, or other feedback.

Question 2: Real-world implementation issues: predictable problems for programs

In chapter 2 of his still-controversial 1995 book, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, economist Thomas Sowell outlined what he saw as a four-stage pattern of social policy failure:

Stage	Pattern
1. The Crisis	The Government labels the current system as in “crisis”.
2. The Solution	The Government proposes a new policy to end the crisis, claiming it will achieve beneficial result “X”. Any criticism that it won’t achieve X and will lead, instead, to negative result “Y “are dismissed as absurd, simplistic or dishonest.
3. The Results	The Government implements the policy. It does not achieve X, but results in Y.
4. The Response	Policy critics are dismissed for ignoring the “complexities” involved, as “many factors affect the outcome”. Critics are asked to prove that the detrimental effects (Y) were caused solely by the policy, but the Government isn’t asked to prove that the policy itself (X) improved outcomes.

To date, the Thriving Kids narrative appears to fit Stages 1 and 2 of Sowell’s pattern.

Are we headed for policy failure?

With funding yet to be agreed with states, it’s far too early to tell whether Thriving Kids will happen as announced and, if so, whether it will fit stages 3 and 4 of Sowell’s pattern.

But – so we can check in later – let’s make some predictions about foreseeable problems with block-funded national programs for children with mild and moderate autism and developmental delays delivered in schools:

Accountability issues – No one organisation will bear single responsibility for program outcomes (successes or failures). No single organisation will be accountable to students or families for improved student outcomes. Instead, responsibility will be split, e.g., between federal and state governments, program-designers/researchers, lead providers, the school leadership team, teachers, subcontractors and the workers actually delivering the programs in schools.
Delivery-model limitations – Some children will be missed, including children who are home-schooled, and children who do not or cannot regularly attend school for any reason.
Uneven implementation – Block grants are likely to result in regional variation in the availability and quality of services. (This is a valid criticism of the current system, too.)
Increased complexity in schools – Real-world “on-the-ground” issues will affect program fidelity and delivery, e.g. degree of leadership and teacher support, capacity and training, competing curriculum and extracurricular demands, student socioeconomic, cultural and language differences, existing behavioural and other supports, state education and health and disability policies, and all the many other things that affect school operations, day-to-day. Education, health and disability sector politics are also likely to affect delivery differently in different states.
Indirect supports may not improve individual student outcomes – Programs that provide evidence-based strategies and information to teachers and families (like Positive Partnerships) are of course useful. But, many autistic children and children with developmental delay need tailored therapy, delivered directly.
Loss of expertise and targeted supports – Some programs, like MHiPS, require educators to spot children who need individualised therapy and to refer them to allied health providers. But this presupposes such services exist. The independent pricing review report acknowledged that ongoing NDIS reforms and price settings may push some allied health providers and clinicians out of the sector, limiting access to well-trained, properly supervised, and experienced clinicians (see links below for more detail).
Increased bureaucracy will reduce funding for front-line supports – Block-funded programs delivered in schools may involve a mix of providers and systems, private and public sector organisations, large and small. Funds may flow through multiple layers of bureaucracy, with red tape and risk aversion practices eating into funds intended for students.
Checks on competition and innovation – Locking in specific programs at scale may stymie research and innovation. Shirky’s principle says that organisations will try to preserve the problems to which they are the solution. Organisations may resist better solutions that would eliminate the need for ‘their’ program. Providers may be incentivised to create dependencies that ensure continued need for their programs. They may be disincentivised to invest in quality improvements, especially if tenders are awarded to closed panels and/or to the lowest bidder.

Bottom line

“Taxpayers deserve to know that the big investment made in the NDIS is paying for supports that are actually going to make a difference.” – Minister Butler.

This is equally true for Thriving Kids.

We hope that Thriving Kids defies Sowell’s pattern and succeeds. But, before we scale up, block-fund and deliver programs through schools nationally, we should – at the very least – demand high-quality evidence that they improve student outcomes and provide value for money for taxpayers, compared with other options.

Go deeper:

Unless otherwise stated, all comments attributed to Minister Butler are to his Speech to the National Press Club on 20 August 2025

Thriving Kids Programs Part 2: Mental Health in Primary Schools (MHiPS)

Thriving Kids Programs Part 3: Positive Partnerships

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

For more on Thomas Sowell’s work applied to education policy, we recommend this recent article by David Didau

Quality support for children | NDIS

Allied health providers and pricing controls: independent providers that employ, train, and supervise staff are caught in the middle, and might not survive (and the NDIA knows it)

Thriving Kids Programs Part 3: Positive Partnerships

David Kinnane · 5 November 2025 · Leave a Comment

In his National Press Club Announcement of 20 August 2025, Minister Mark Butler name-checked some programs that might be scaled up and block-funded under Thriving Kids. In this series, we’re taking a brief look at them.

This time, we’re looking at Positive Partnerships.

Context:

Thriving Kids is intended to replace the NDIS early intervention pathway – and individualised NDIS therapy supports – for children with mild and moderate autism and developmental delay. As of now, the states have yet to agree funding, timing and other details for Thriving Kids with the Federal Government.

Overview:

Positive Partnerships (PP) is a national project to support autistic school students.

History:

PP was launched in 2008, as part of the Helping Children with Autism Initiative, and has been expanded through a number of phases.

Who “owns” it:

PP is funded by the Australian Government Department of Education and is now delivered by Aspect (Autism Spectrum Australia).

Goals:

PP supports (amongst other things) families, educators and communities to “strengthen positive outcomes for autistic young people”.

What does it do?

PP delivers free professional learning and other resources to parents, carers and school staff, including teachers.
It does this through its website resources, workshops, webinars and online modules.

Resource examples:

Information sheets and tools, e.g. about reacting to diagnosis, supporting self-care and independence, communication, and dealing with transitions.
1-2 day parent and carer workshops about autism, how it affects children at home and school, ways to strengthen home-school-community partnerships, advocacy, sensory processing, and behaviour management.
Whole -school and individual professional learning for teachers, e.g. about teaching strategies, curriculum adjustments, student mental health, strengthening social relationships, and dealing with change.
Combined parent/carer/teacher workshops.
Online modules and webinars about autism-related topics

Cost to date:

The Government has invested more than $100 million into PP.

Influence:

PP reports that, between 2015 and 2021:

30,000 educators across more than 1,860 schools, and more than 8,600 parents and carers, have accessed the workshops or online learning resources; and
705,000 people have used the website.

Does it work?

PP appears to be helpful for parents, carers and teachers:

A 2011 conference paper/case study concluded that PP resources increase parent/carer and teacher knowledge and confidence in meeting the needs of autistic students.
A 2022 study of nine parents of autistic students and nine teachers found that the parent-teacher workshops strengthened parent-teacher partnerships through an improved understanding of autistic students’ needs.

Yes, but:

The purpose of PP is to improve outcomes for autistic students:

The studies we found focus on indirect measures (parent /carer and teacher perceptions). We haven’t found an independent, peer-reviewed study that includes direct measures of student outcomes. (If you know of one, please let us know!)
The published studies have small sample sizes and lack controls. For example, researchers did not control for expectation bias: if someone expects a resource or treatment to be effective, they tend to focus more on positive outcomes and discount negative ones, which can distort research findings that rely on parent and teacher interviews or reports.
Improving educational outcomes for students with communication challenges requires much more than information-sharing and training. For example:
- teachers and other staff need time, resources, and support from leaders to implement tools, strategies and practices in busy classrooms; and
- different students can have very different support needs at different stages, sometimes requiring individualised supports that go far beyond general teaching and communication strategies.

Bottom line:

PP includes lots of useful, free resources for parents, carers, and teachers of autistic students. It would be great to see peer-reviewed research measuring student outcomes directly. For Thriving Kids, it would also be useful to see if any of the resources could be used or adapted to support other students, e.g. students with language or learning disorders, ADHD, and/or developmental delays.

The Key Worker Model for young children with developmental delay or disability: does it actually improve child outcomes?

David Kinnane · 28 October 2025 · Leave a Comment

Almost always, children with developmental delays or disabilities need the support of more than one health professional.

Health and education professionals should always work as a team with the family to support the child.

This requires a lot of communication and teamwork.

If no one coordinates services, you end up with different professionals working on different goals without reference to each other, potentially creating service gaps and duplication.

A “siloed” approach is challenging for families, and inefficient for everyone.

In Australia, the key worker model is viewed as a best practice approach:

for early childhood intervention services (ECIS); and
under the Early Childhood Early Intervention Framework of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The multimillion dollar question

Does the key worker model deliver better outcomes for children with developmental delays or disabilities?

Spoiler alert: The evidence (so far) is less convincing than expected!

But, first, we’ll outline an example of a Key Worker model used currently in Australia.

Key Workers and the NDIS early childhood approach (current system)*

In Australia, if a family has concerns about their young child’s development or disability, they usually have a chat with the child’s GP, child health nurse, or early childhood educator.
If, after those discussions, the family remains concerned, they can contact the NDIS or an “early childhood partner” – often large organisations funded by the NDIS to deliver early childhood support to families in particular areas.
If the child has a developmental delay or disability, early childhood partners can support families to apply for NDIS funding.
Under current pricing arrangements, NDIS Plans can include Key Worker funding (under Capacity Building supports) for early childhood supports to assist a child (younger than 9) with developmental delay or disability and their family or carers in home, community, and early childhood education settings, to work towards increased functional independence and social participation.
The Key Worker – usually an allied health professional (e.g. a speech pathologist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist) or early childhood educator – is appointed and funded both as the main service provider and as the main point of contact for the family and the team.
In theory, families can nominate a Key Worker of their choice. In practice, Key Workers often work for the early childhood partner.
Based on the child’s needs, a transdisciplinary team is assembled to support the child (e.g. a team might include a speech pathologist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and one or more educators). In theory, families can choose their own therapists. In practice, team therapists often also work for the early childhood partner.
Coordinated by the Key Worker, and in partnership with the family, the team delivers services to the family and/or the child – usually in natural environments, like homes and preschools, using family-centred practices.

Examples of Real World Challenges

Lots of factors affect how well the model works in practice, including:
- each child’s support needs;
- each family’s circumstances, needs, priorities, and language and cultural backgrounds;
- where the family lives, and whether early childhood partners and experienced key workers and therapists are available (a significant challenge in some rural and remote areas);
- the workplace cultures, policies, and capacities of the organisation(s) involved (including how they manage potential conflicts of interest);
- each key worker’s experience, training, and skills to coordinate and deliver supports;
- each team member’s experience, supervision, discipline-specific and transdisciplinary training, access to resources, and overall work loads;
- specifics of the place(s) in which the services are delivered (e.g. including access arrangements); and
- funding models, regulatory settings and announced reforms – including incentives to support high quality transdisciplinary care.
Under this model, it’s unclear how many families have real choice and control over the individual professionals who work with them to support their child.

Crucial Research Gaps

A recent systematic review found significant limitations in the research base underpinning the key worker model for children with developmental delay or disability (see link below).

Just six studies qualified for inclusion in the review (including two Australian studies).
There is no single definition or description of exactly what is meant by “family-centred practices”.
It’s difficult to identify “active ingredients” of the model that lead to positive outcomes for children.
Based on the review findings, the key worker model appears to:
- be significantly correlated with better family outcomes (like family satisfaction, and quality of life); BUT
- have no significant relationship with improved child developmental outcomes! This is potentially a big problem.

Bottom line

In light of the review’s findings, and the current speed and direction of NDIS and Thriving Kids reforms, we need urgent research – including experimental group comparison studies – to ensure key worker models actually improve developmental and functional outcomes for children with delays or disabilities.

Unregistered allied health NDIS providers: Do not ignore the NDIS Practice Standards Review

David Kinnane · 23 October 2025 · Leave a Comment

Registered NDIS providers must meet the NDIS Practice Standards (Standards) to become and remain registered.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, with the help of KPMG, is consulting on revisions to the NDIS Standards, and has released a discussion paper about it (the Paper).

Unregistered allied health providers are not subject to the Standards. But they should follow the consultation anyway.

Why?

Participants deserve excellent services: The revised Standards will include practical guidance and examples to help providers deliver higher quality, safer supports to participants – something we all want.

Mandatory registration of allied health providers seems likely: Back in August 2024, a task force recommended that AHPRA and/or self-regulatory certification may suffice, with additional worker checks (see link below). We don’t yet know what the government thinks about this idea. But, if any form of NDIS registration becomes mandatory, allied health NDIS providers will have to meet the Standards.

NDIS Code of Conduct: The Code of Conduct already applies to all providers. The Standards overlap with the NDIS Code of Conduct. The practice guidance and examples in the Standards may help inform unregistered allied health providers about how to meet their Code obligations to participants.

Key proposals

Revised Standards: a core focus on participant rights, provider leadership, safe supports and effectiveness of supports, with supplemental quality standards for things like early childhood supports, behaviour supports, and meal assistance.

Revised structure: Standards with clearer outcome statements, reflective questions, and specific participant-centric, outcome focused, and evidence-based requirements for each Standard.

For providers of low risk supports: replacement of the Verification Module with specific conditions on registration and guidance.

New Quality Framework: with principles, standards and provider obligations, a revised quality assessment approach, evidence categories, and transparent performance information.

More resources to support compliance: practical guidance to support implementation of the Standards for frontline workers, managers, and provider leadership, including case studies, self-reflection tools, and focused resources.

Contingency planning (practical takeaways)

The Paper highlights several themes all allied health providers should think about as they look to improve their systems and supports:

Improved participant safety: e.g., better systems for risk identification and management, supporting participant decision-making, connecting participants to other services, incident management, and complaints management.

Improved provider leadership: e.g., better systems for pre-employment checks, staff induction and ongoing competence assessments, and supervision training.

More effective supports: e.g., better systems for continuous practice improvement and quality management, including structured practice supervision, improved staff development and performance plans, and better workforce training.

Consultation open: below, we’ve linked to the Paper, and a survey that providers can fill in at any time before close of business on 13 November 2025. Providers can also make written, audio or video submissions by 14 November 2025.

Bottom line

Regardless of what happens with mandatory registration, the revised Standards will shape expectations for how reputable NDIS providers think about the safety, effectiveness, and quality of their NDIS supports; as well as the quality improvement and other systems we must implement and test to deliver them to participants.

New NDIA Therapy Guideline: 11 things allied health NDIS providers should do now to check compliance

David Kinnane · 15 October 2025 · Leave a Comment

On 13 October 2025, the NDIA published their guideline on therapy supports (the Therapy Guideline).

The Therapy Guideline outlines how the NDIA makes decisions about therapy supports for children aged 9 years and older. But it contains some guidance for therapists working with younger children, too.

NDIS providers – registered and unregistered – need to review the guide to ensure they comply with it (see link below).

Numbers in brackets below refer to page numbers of the Therapy Guideline.

Things to do now:

Review the NDIA’s special meaning of “evidence-based” therapy supports (2-3): For example, it includes whether the therapy uses the “most up-to-date and reliable research studies” and whether it is “value for money compared to the supports available from other mainstream systems, like health or education”.
Review your outcomes measures (4, 18, 20): The requirement to measure and report therapy outcomes is a recurring theme in the Therapy Guideline.
If you are providing early childhood supports to children younger than 9, review the National Best Practice Framework for Early Childhood Intervention (6) (see link): Pay special attention to guidance on professionals working together as a team to support young children and their families.
Confirm all your therapists are qualified allied health professionals for the purpose of the Therapy Guideline (6-7, 8-14): Check they are AHPRA registered, or accredited by a recognised peak body referred to in the Therapy Guidelines (8-14). For example, speech pathologists must be Certified Practising Speech Pathologists approved by Speech Pathology Australia (14).
Make sure you are not claiming NDIS funds for work done by allied health students on unpaid student placements (8): You can claim for some of the supervising therapist’s time supervising the student’s delivery of therapy to a participant – but only with the agreement of the participant. (It’s not entirely clear which supervision costs you can claim, but we assume they must be related to the therapy delivered to the relevant participant.)
Check that your therapy supports meet the NDIS funding criteria specific to the type(s) of therapy you provide(8-14): This includes taking steps to…
…Ensure all your services to participants are NDIS supports (15-16, 19): In addition to staying on top of the current definition of NDIS Supports (see link below), pay close attention to any:
- Group programs (16, 19): In principle group sessions may be OK (19), but make sure there is enough evidence they are effective (e.g. the NDIA does not consider Lego therapy, yoga, art and music lessons, and drama groups to be effective therapy supports).
- Home programs or ‘therapy in a box’ and kits (16): The NDIA does not consider therapy kits or therapy-at-home programs, once-off or ongoing subscriptions, or programs posted out by allied health practices to be NDIS supports because they are not individually tailored or evidence-based programs, and they are not overseen or delivered by a qualified therapist with a measurable outcome.
Check that your client-participants aren’t working on the same goal with you and another therapist (17): The NDIA won’t fund two therapists working on the same goal.
Review your assessment report templates and practices (17, 18): They need to include recommendations for NDIS supports, dosage (including how often they are delivered), and rationales. They also need to include information about how gains or expected outcomes will be measured, and expected timeframes to achieve goals.
Review your therapy planning tools (19): For example, do they contain strategies and recommended supports to help participants build or maintain skills, that participants might want to share with other providers and informal supports?
Review progress report templates and practices (19-20): For example, progress reports should include the information referred to in pages 19-20 of the Therapy Guideline, including any measurable, functional gains, and best-practice recommendations for further therapy (if relevant).

Thriving Kids in Schools: Will it Work?

Good intentions…

We want high quality services for children

Two questions arise:

Question 1: Do block-funded school programs improve student outcomes?

Question 2: Real-world implementation issues: predictable problems for programs

Are we headed for policy failure?

Bottom line

Go deeper:

Thriving Kids Programs Part 3: Positive Partnerships

Context:

Overview:

History:

Who “owns” it:

Goals:

What does it do?

Resource examples:

Cost to date:

Influence:

Does it work?

Yes, but:

Bottom line:

Further reading:

The Key Worker Model for young children with developmental delay or disability: does it actually improve child outcomes?

The multimillion dollar question

Key Workers and the NDIS early childhood approach (current system)*

Examples of Real World Challenges

Crucial Research Gaps

Bottom line

Further reading

Unregistered allied health NDIS providers: Do not ignore the NDIS Practice Standards Review

Why?

Key proposals

Contingency planning (practical takeaways)

Bottom line

Related reading:

New NDIA Therapy Guideline: 11 things allied health NDIS providers should do now to check compliance

Things to do now:

Further reading: