The Provider Loft

Supporting small and medium NDIS and health providers in Australia

thriving kids

Small NDIS allied health providers: keep moving, and don’t give up

· · Leave a Comment

State of play:

As at the end of November 2025, NDIS reforms include lots of parts, uncertainty, and complexity. 

Unknown unknowns:

Small allied health providers must plan for 2026. But how can we make decisions about strategy, services, marketing, recruitment, training, compliance, resources, and finances with so many balls up in the air?    

Chessboard fallacy:

More than 250 years ago, Adam Smith warned us not to look at policy reforms as a game in which governments rearrange people like chess pieces. We make better decisions if we accept that every person and organisation affected by NDIS reforms has their own goals, incentives and biases (including us). 

Not about us, or “us versus them”:

It sometimes feels like small providers have been targeted for elimination. But the stakes are much higher for participants. And we shouldn’t assume governments, regulators, the media, large providers or others are acting with malice. We all want better value services and outcomes for people with disability. We all want the NDIS to survive.  

So what do we expect in  2026, and why?

1. Increased NDIS allied health funding pressures as:

  • participants lose scheme access through eligibility reassessments;
  • children with ‘mild and moderate autism or developmental delay’ are diverted to Thriving Kids (see below);
  • the early intervention pathway is abolished for most kids;
  • new plans are approved with tighter funding controls;
  • I-CAN support needs assessments roll out for participants aged 16 and over (perhaps with algorithmically-determined funding); 
  • the permanent definition of “NDIS supports” is released and implemented;
  • the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee’s Capacity Building and Therapies Subcommittee scrutinises the cost-effectiveness and quality of evidence for different therapies (including dosages);
  • recommendations emerge from the therapy pilot (commencing in January 2026) to “better understand costs and characteristics of quality service delivery”. (Controversially, this was commissioned through a closed, non-competitive tender that locked out small providers); and
  • additional/differential pricing limits are imposed for different types of therapy, and travel (e.g., the new price limits for music and arts therapists from 24 November 2025).

2. Continued government and media narratives about “dodgy providers” and “unregistered cowboys” 

  • Politicians conflate “unregistered providers” with bad actors and fraudsters to maintain public and taxpayer support for urgent reforms. 
  • Large registered providers – with very real profitability challenges – continue to run the “unregistered = dodgy cowboy” line because it helps them lobby for special pricing arrangements, mandatory registration of all providers, and taxpayer bailouts. They know these changes would drive more small allied health providers out of the sector and reduce competition – and participant choice.  
  • Allied health professionals are regulated. Duplicative rules increase costs and distract from service delivery, which is why we endorse the NDIS Provider and Worker Registration Taskforce 2024 recommendation to “deem registration” of allied health providers based on existing allied health regulations plus worker checks.

3. More small providers will exit the sector, but others will adapt and keep going 

  • On 24 November 2025, the NDIA said that, as the market matures, some providers will decide to stop delivering all or some sorts of NDIS supports. 
  • In June 2025, the Independent Pricing Committee predicted much the same thing, recognising that pricing limits make it difficult for small allied health clinics with staff to remain viable (see links). 
  • We are not powerless pawns. Lots of small providers are advocating for “reforms to the reforms”, making submissions to consultations, meeting with MPs, working with peak bodies, unionising, and/or supporting disability advocates and  affected participant groups. 
  • No one is going to bail out insolvent small allied health providers – and nor should they. Over the last 18 months, many providers have worked hard to reduce their dependence on NDIS funding. Unavoidably, this has reduced access to therapy for participants in some areas.

4. Families will be underwhelmed by Thriving Kids programs and outcomes

  • Thriving Kids, not yet agreed, looks like a return to block-funded programs, general strategy-sharing, parent training, and (possibly) short interventions, perhaps in groups. 
  • Evidence-based early intervention programs, like Inklings, show promise. Outcome data for school programs are much less compelling (see links). 
  • We don’t know who will deliver Thriving Kids programs ‘on the ground’, although we expect large registered providers (with subcontractors), and/or state government employed workers. 

5. New allied health service gaps will emerge

  • Public disability, health and education systems in many states are under stress.
  • Funding systems are built on the false premise that people’s disability, health and education needs are unrelated:
    • If you have a disability or have worked for a person with disability or delay – an autistic toddler, a dyslexic teenager, a young adult with cerebral palsy, an older adult with Parkinson’s disease, for example – you know this is untrue.
    • Health, education and disability systems and budgets are interdependent, which explains, in part, why governments have handcuffed Thriving Kids to the 5-year public hospital deal negotiations.  
    • State governments, like NSW, continue to consult on “Foundational Supports” (talking about the same cohort of kids as Thriving Kids). Thriving Kids may look very different state-to-state, region-to-region. 
  • Overall demand for allied health services remains high. But the allied health workforce is limited, especially in rural and remote settings. 
  • Many allied health providers work across multiple systems and will split their resources based on client demand, professional interests and skills, and system incentives. In states like NSW, health and education bureaucracies don’t always get along, and working between systems is inefficient, with access and other real world logistical challenges. 
  • A large chunk of the allied health workforce with disability experience is employed in the private sector because of the way the NDIS used to work. As the model changes, the workforce and employers will adapt. But this will take time, and new service gaps will emerge. 

6. Provider legal and compliance risks and costs will increase

  • Legal and compliance risks for providers, owners and managers have steadily increased over the last two years.
  • If enacted, the new NDIS reform bill (released on 26 November 2025) will further increase risks for all providers (not just the “fraudsters and cowboys”). 
  • Expect insurance premiums to rise, too.

7. A flight to quality?

Regardless of funding models and business pressures, we can’t cut corners if we want to succeed:

  • Clients deserve excellent services: including safe, timely, evidence-based, client-centred, convenient, and high quality services.  
  • Our staff deserve respect: Professionals want to learn, to belong, to create, to grow, and for their work to have an impact. They need to be trained and supervised properly. They need the right resources to deliver great services that produce real outcomes for clients.   

Bottom line:

Small allied health providers that deliver quality services to participants while supporting teams should feel proud of their hard work this year and take heart. As 2026 approaches, we should back ourselves to compete on quality and outcomes with large providers, and to provide participants with real choice and control. 

Go deeper: 

The Chessboard Fallacy

Thriving Kids Advisory Group Communique – November 2025 | Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

Foundational Supports for Children | NSW Communities and Justice

Not-for-profit disability services are closing due to untenably low price caps, NDIS architect warns

NDIS providers’ losses double, more taxpayer bailouts likely (paywalled)

New tool to deliver simpler pathway to disability supports | NDIS

NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee | Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing

Quality supports program tender | NDIS

Updated NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2025-26

Professionals Australia NDIS Allied Health Union

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)

NDIS Supports rules | engage.dss.gov.au

Independent Pricing Committee | NDIS

Small allied health NDIS providers: should we all be registered?

Thriving Kids: will ‘targeted supports’ deliver what children and families need?

Thriving Kids in Schools: Will it Work?

Thriving Kids: will ‘targeted supports’ deliver what children and families need?

· · Leave a Comment

State of play:

On 7 November 2025, the Thriving Kids Advisory Group held the second of what will be three meetings to advise the Government on the design of Thriving Kids. 

Zoom in:

Among other things, the group is considering targeted support models, including:

  • “what opportunities are provided to expand universal, [Medicare] health and development check, and community and Allied Health services”; and
  • the need for supports that “respond to complexity of children’s developmental and social needs, and the well-being of parents and families”.

Zoom out:

For thousands of children with “mild and moderate” autism and developmental delay, Thriving Kids is intended to replace NDIS-funded, individualised supports. 

Friction Points:

  • The stakes are high. Many children need targeted help but will no longer be able to access it under the NDIS. Even with improved universal information services, targeted supports will be crucial for many autistic children and children with developmental delay.  
  • Timelines are tight. The Government requires the group to finalise its advice on the design of Thriving Kids “in early December 2025”.  
  • The states are pushing back:
    • Media reports on 20 November 2025 suggest negotiations between Federal and state governments on funding are not going well.
    • In parallel, some states (like NSW) are consulting on “foundational supports”, which may or may not be completely consistent with Thriving Kids.

The goal: 

  • The advisory group wants Thriving Kids targeted supports to be “inclusive, strengths-based, neuro-affirming…trauma informed and effective in identifying children who may benefit from additional support”.  
  • Identifying kids who need additional support is of course important. But, naturally, many families want to know what specific supports will be provided to their child.

Use what we know:

  • Lots of work has already been done to outline what’s needed to improve outcomes for young autistic people. 
  • In December 2022, AutismCRC published a National Guideline for supporting the learning, participation and wellbeing of autistic children and their families (Guideline). The Guideline:
    • was developed by a group that included autistic people, families, researchers, and health professionals; and
    • includes 84 consensus-based, evidence-informed recommendations that explain how to work with autistic children and their families in ways that are “safe, effective, and desirable”.
  • While the Guideline’s scope is limited to helping autistic children, many of its recommendations apply to children with developmental delay.

Reality check:

The Guideline gives us a framework to evaluate any proposed targeted supports for children.

What we’re watching*:

In line with the Guideline, Thriving Kids targeted supports should be:

  • Child and family-centred (1);
  • individualised for each child and family (2);
  • ethical (7);
  • evidence-based (10);
  • delivered only with the informed consent of parents (12);
  • delivered by people who:
    • are properly qualified and supervised, and engaged in continuous professional development (13); or
    • (if not regulated health professionals) have:
      • the appropriate knowledge, skills, experience, training and regulation; and
      • adequate supervision and support from the professional who has overall responsibility for the delivery of supports (51); 
  • timely and accessible (16);
  • focused on family-led goals, with support from practitioners and other relevant people (22);
  • meet the child’s sensory needs across activities, interactions, and settings (28);
  • delivered in setting(s), formats, and dosages likely to lead to the most meaningful and sustained increase in the child’s learning, participation and wellbeing (53, 54 and 56);
  • designed to:
    • allow children and families to give feedback and make complaints(78); and
    • require providers to inform the child and family about any potential or actual conflicts of interest in providing supports or making referrals(79). 

Bottom line: 

  • There’s an awful lot we don’t know about Thriving Kids; and its funding is uncertain. But, whatever happens, we all want better outcomes for autistic children and children with developmental delay. 
  • The Guideline distills years of research and multiple perspectives into specific recommendations to achieve better outcomes. It should be used to help finalise the design of targeted supports under Thriving Kids – and to evaluate whether they are likely to help the  kids who need them.    

Go deeper:

Thriving Kids Advisory Group Communique – November 2025

Fiscal Fisticuffs Turn into Health Funding Brawl (The Australian, 20 November 2025)

Supporting Autistic Children Guideline – AustismCRC

Thriving Kids in Schools: Will it Work?

Thriving Kids Programs Part 1: Inklings

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

Thriving Kids Programs Part 3: Positive Partnerships

Breaking news: “Thriving Kids” – more than just a new name for Foundational Supports for children?

*References to numbers are to Guideline recommendations.

Thriving Kids in Schools: Will it Work?

· · 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:

  1. Is the Thriving Kids approach backed by evidence that programs will deliver improved outcomes for students with mild and moderate autism or developmental delays? 
  2. 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: 

StagePattern
1. The CrisisThe Government labels the current system as in “crisis”.
2. The SolutionThe 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 ResultsThe Government implements the policy. It does not achieve X, but results in Y. 
4. The ResponsePolicy 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

· · 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. 

Further reading:

Positive Partnerships: What We Do

Kilham, C., (2011). An evidence based approach to evaluation: A case study of the Positive Partnerships web space. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. (pp.729-734)

Syeda, N., & Bruck, S. (2022). We Are on the Same Page! Strengthening Parent– Teacher Partnerships Through Autism-Focused Training Workshops. School Community Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1.

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

· · Leave a Comment

Background:

In his National Press Club speech of 20 August 2025, Minister Mark Butler name-checked some specific programs that might be scaled up and block-funded under Thriving Kids.

This week, we’re looking at Mental Health in Primary Schools (MHiPS).

Context:

Thriving Kids is intended to replace the NDIS early intervention pathway for most children, including children with mild and moderate autism and developmental delay. Families want to know about the support that might be available for their kids in mainstream settings.

Overview:

MHiPS is a program that upskills experienced teachers to become “Mental Health and Wellbeing Leaders” (MHWLs*) within primary schools.  

Goals:

MHiPS is designed to help schools promote good mental health and to reduce mental health problems in students. 

Why is MHiPS relevant toThriving Kids? 

  • As a group, children with mild and moderate developmental delay or autism are at greater risk of mental health challenges than the general population.
  • MHiPS is an example of a program in which teachers in mainstream settings act as “bridges” between education and allied health services. It may become a model for how other mainstream supports are structured and delivered nationally under Thriving Kids.

Who “owns” MHiPS?

It’s a partnership between the Centre for Community Child Health at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. 

Who funded MHiPS?

The Victorian Government, some prominent family trusts and foundations, and Bupa.

What do MHWLs do? 

  • Provide support to teaching staff to increase their knowledge, skills and confidence in supporting students’ mental health.
  • Improve care pathways between education and health sectors, including to identify and connect students that require mental health assessments and treatments to mental health professionals.

Are MHWLs mental health therapists?

No. They are experienced teachers who:

  • understand the realities of delivering support in busy classrooms; and
  • have knowledge of their local school, and relationships with school staff members, students and families.

Do MHWLs treat students’ mental health issues?

No: they are coordinators, not clinicians. MHWLs do not provide therapy to students. 

How are MHWLs trained?

They must be qualified teachers. They complete three, one-day, online training modules about mental health literacy, supporting needs, and building capacity, and attend ongoing “Communities of Practice sessions” with mental health experts.

Real World challenges: 

  • Teacher shortages: MHiPS requires an experienced teacher in each school to be trained and appointed as a full-time MHWL. In many parts of the country, we are experiencing a shortage of experienced classroom teachers.  
  • Mental health professional shortages: The model assumes MHWLs can connect at-risk students to mental health services. But, right now, there are lots of professional service and funding gaps in mental health systems for children.
  • Role clarity: Some teachers report confusion about the scope of the MHWL role and how it fits (or overlaps) with existing school wellness programs and the roles of other staff members, such as assistant principals and school counsellors.  
  • Different views on education priorities: Almost everyone agrees that students’ mental health in schools is important. But some teachers think that educators and primary schools should prioritise teaching kids to read, write, and to be numerate, which can also positively impact students’ mental health. 

Evidence:

Recent feasibility research suggests that, despite some of the challenges, the MHWL role is feasible, and has the potential to improve mental health and wellbeing in schools (see citation below).  

Roll-out status:

In Victoria, MHiPS is due to reach every government and low-fee non-government primary school in the state by 2026. In Queensland, the MHiPS team is adapting and evaluating the feasibility of a MHiPS in Mount Isa schools. In South Australia, the team is working with the government to run a pilot in South Australian primary schools.

Bottom line:

MHiPS shows promise. But, before it is rolled out nationally, it would be good to see high quality effectiveness studies showing positive downstream effects on student and family outcomes. Families of children with mild or moderate developmental delay or autism will want to understand how, exactly, the program will help connect their kids to evidence-based mental health professionals and services if they need them.

Go deeper:

Johnson, C., Dawson, G., Smith, R. et al. Feasibility and Acceptability of Mental Health and Wellbeing Coordinators in Australian Primary Schools: A Mixed-Methods Study. School Mental Health 17, 674–684 (2025).

Read more:

Mental Health in Primary School (MHiPS)

*In the research, MHWLs are sometimes referred to as Mental Health and Wellbeing Coordinators or MHWCs.

Check out our NDIS provider and health provider resources Go to Shop