Building a Strong Case: Evidence Gathering for NDIS Support with applications
- Jackie
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
Over the past year, securing funding for participants, whether through a Change in Circumstances application or during plan reassessment meetings, has become increasingly complex. With the rollout of the NDIS Reform, it can feel like a cycle of endless data collection, report writing, and submissions, often without the outcomes that participants and teams are striving for.
The reality is that successful applications are dependent on presenting clear, robust, and well-aligned evidence that meets the following fundamental principles:
Person-Centred – Evidence must reflect the participant’s lived experience in a meaningful and authentic way.
Goal-Driven – Supports must be directly linked to goals that are both relevant and achievable.
Reasonable & Necessary – Evidence must justify why the requested supports meet NDIS criteria.
Collaborative – Evidence should be co-developed with the participant, their informal supports, and relevant professionals.
Through ongoing collaboration with Complex Support Needs Planners, I’ve identified key strategies to strengthen applications and avoid common pitfalls, ensuring that the evidence submitted is clear, targeted, and impactful.
Common Pitfalls in NDIS Evidence and Tips on How to Overcome Them
1. Generic Reports
Pitfall: Reports that use templated language or broad statements like “requires support with daily living” without specifying how or why.
Example (Weak): "Participant has autism and requires support with communication."
Example (Strong): "Due to sensory processing challenges and limited verbal communication, the participant becomes distressed in noisy environments and is unable to initiate or maintain social interaction without support. Speech therapy has facilitated the use of visual aids, improving engagement during community outings."
Tip: Use individualised examples and functional descriptions, include real-life scenarios and outcomes of current supports.
2. Overemphasis on Diagnosis
Pitfall: Focusing solely on the medical label (e.g., schizophrenia, cerebral palsy) without linking it to functional impact.
Example (Weak): "Participant has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and is under psychiatric care."
Example (Strong): "In the context of living with schizophrenia, the participant experiences persistent auditory hallucinations—such as hearing voices that issue commands or make distressing remarks. These symptoms impact their ability to manage daily tasks independently. The participant requires support to initiate or complete activities like preparing meals, attending scheduled appointments, and maintaining personal hygiene due to confusion, distraction, or emotional distress caused by these hallucinations. These challenges are compounded in unstructured or unpredictable environments. With consistent support, structured routines, the participant demonstrates increased capacity to engage in daily activities and maintain safety. Support workers assist with medication adherence and provide emotional regulation strategies, reducing hospital admissions."
Tip: Frame the diagnosis as context but centre the evidence on how it affects daily functioning and what supports mitigate those impacts.
3. Missing Functional Impact
Pitfall: Reports that don’t explain how the functional impact on a participant’s ability to perform tasks across domains like mobility, communication, self-care, and social interaction.
Example (Weak): "Participant has limited mobility."
Example (Strong): "Participant requires assistance to transfer from bed to wheelchair due to spasticity in lower limbs. Without daily physiotherapy and support worker assistance, the risk of pressure injuries and social isolation increases."
Tip: Use the NDIS functional domains as a checklist:
Mobility
Communication
Social interaction
Learning
Self-care
Self-management
4. Inconsistent or Outdated Information
Pitfall: Conflicting reports from different providers, or evidence that’s more than 12 months old.
Example (Weak): One report says the participant is independent in self-care; another says they need full assistance.
Example (Strong): All reports consistently state: "Participant requires prompting and physical assistance with hygiene tasks due to cognitive impairment and poor executive functioning."
Tip: Ensure all providers are aligned with the participants current goals and progress made towards achieving these. Use a shared evidence template or checklist to align language and focus.
Presenting the best case
1. Tell a Cohesive Story
What it means: Ensure all reports and evidence align to paint a consistent, holistic picture of the participant’s needs, challenges, and goals. Avoid contradictions between disciplines.
Example (Weak):
The OT report says the participant is independent with personal care.
Support worker logs show daily assistance with showering and dressing.
Example (Strong): Allied health and support staff consistently report that the participant requires daily prompting and physical assistance with hygiene due to cognitive impairment and low motivation linked to psychosocial disability.
Tip: Hold a care team meeting or use a shared evidence summary template to align language and observations across disciplines.
2. Use Clear Language
What it means: Avoid clinical jargon or overly technical terms. Use plain English that communicates the participant’s needs and the impact of their disability
Example (Weak): "Participant demonstrates deficits in executive functioning and adaptive behaviour."
Example (Strong): "Participant struggles to plan and complete daily tasks such as preparing meals or managing appointments. Without support, they often forget to eat or miss critical medical care."
Tip: Ask providers to include real-life examples and outcomes. Use language that a non-clinical assessor can easily understand.
3. Highlight Gaps
What it means: Clearly describe how the participant’s ability to access or engage in specific activities is limited without the requested support, and how the right supports can enable meaningful participation and improved outcomes. Focus on highlighting risks, missed opportunities, or negative outcomes.
Example (Weak): "Support is recommended to improve outcomes."
Example (Strong): "Without transport support, the participant is unable to attend therapy sessions, resulting in regression in mobility and increased falls risk at home."
Tip: Frame the gap in terms of risk, safety, wellbeing, or participation. Use data available (e.g., number of missed appointments, hospital admissions).
4. Link to Outcomes
What it means: Demonstrate how the requested support will lead to measurable improvements in the participant’s life, capacity building, independence, or community participation.
Example (Weak): "Support will help with daily tasks."
Example (Strong): "With daily living support, the participant has begun preparing simple meals independently and now attends a weekly art group, improving both nutrition and social engagement."
Tip: Link supports directly to the participant’s NDIS goals. Use before-and-after comparisons or progress tracking where possible.
Wrapping Up
To support with presenting strong evidence successful applications, it is increasingly important for evidence to be clear, evidence based, current and directly linked to the functional impact on the participant.
For further guidance and useful links, please check out these official NDIS resources:
If you’d like to read more about the work MR2V do, or you would like support with evidence gathering through Specialist Support Coordination, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Click below to download our free resource on Building a Strong Case - Evidence Gathering for NDIS Support
Comments