As Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) continues to evolve, one of the biggest shifts on the horizon is how participant needs for funding will be assessed. The NDIA is moving toward the I-CAN (Instrument for Classification and Assessment of Support Needs), a standardised tool developed by the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) at the University of Sydney on its 6th iteration since 2002. Previously, participants submitted reports created by their allied health practitioners.
On paper, I-CAN sounds like progress. It maps a person’s functional support needs across 12 life domains such as communication, mobility and self-care while rating both the frequency and level of support required. The tool is designed to be consistent, transparent and function-based rather than diagnosis-based.
The Centre for Disability Studies state that becoming an assessor is open to several types of allied health clinicians with tertiary qualifications such as:
| – Psychologist | – Physiotherapist |
| – Occupational Therapist | – Exercise physiologist |
| – Speech Pathologist | – Rehabilitation counsellor |
| – Social Worker | – Counsellor |
| – Dietitian | – Psychotherapist |
While this aligns closely with the professional’s participants already engage for reports, recent additions to the eligible list have raised concern. Registered and enrolled nurses, along with clinicians holding education degrees, are now included. Most notably, Behaviour Support Practitioners have been added – a role that is not a protected title and has no legally required qualifications under either Australian law or the NDIS.
A streamlined assessment process led by allied health professionals seems appealing, particularly given former NDIS CEO Rebecca Falkingham’s admission that planners often did not read participant reports before making funding decisions, many of whom are not medically trained or required to hold relevant qualifications.
However, many in the disability community fear it will not be tertiary qualified clinical professionals operating the I-CAN assessment, instead behaviour support practitioners.
But it raises an important question: Who really understands a person’s support needs – the professionals who work with them every day or the results of a standardised test?
Consistency and Transparency
The I-CAN aims to standardise how support needs are documented and compared. For people entering the scheme who must pay for their own reports, this could mean a fairer and more equitable process. For those with complex disabilities that can’t be covered in a 3-hour meeting, it spells disaster.
Can Complexity Really Be Captured by a Checklist?
The disability industry errs on the side of caution – done correctly and with adequate assessment in places of residence and the community I-CAN reduces the reliance on costly reports. This can mean more money in a participant’s plan can be used for their wellbeing.
A meaningful assessment takes time to understand a person’s environment, routines, communication style and the informal supports that hold everything together.
Many in the disability community and advocacy sector are urging caution. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) has called for a pilot and independent evaluation of the proposed I-CAN version 6 before any national rollout.
“A single tool can’t capture the full picture. People with disability must help shape the process with safeguards and appeal rights.”
This reflects a broader worry that structured tools, while objective, can sometimes oversimplify lived experience. A participant’s day-to-day reality often depends on subtle factors such as how pain fluctuates, the impact of sensory environments or the support of a trusted person who knows their cues. These nuances risk being flattened into data points.
Allied health practitioners, support coordinators and families often spend years building a deep understanding of how someone’s disability interacts with their goals, personality and community. Can any structured framework, no matter how well designed, fully capture that human complexity?
What Should Come Next
Ultimately, the goal of any assessment tool should be to enhance, not replace, person-centred understanding.
If implemented carefully, I-CAN could bring consistency to an NDIS that desperately needs it, but only if:
- Assessors are highly trained and allowed enough time for genuine engagement, some people quote a minimum of 5 hours.
- People with disability are actively involved in shaping and reviewing the tool
- Clinical insights and lived experience are valued equally alongside assessment data
- There are clear appeal pathways if participants disagree with their results
The Bottom Line
The I-CAN tool may help the NDIS make more consistent decisions, but standardisation must never come at the expense of individuality. Every NDIS plan should still reflect the lived experience, goals and context of the person behind the paperwork. Because no matter how sophisticated the system becomes, real understanding still begins with listening.