The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability drew a sharp distinction between two types of service provision. On one side, the commission observed providers focused on supervision and containment, what some in the sector call “babysitting”. On the other, it identified providers whose work was genuinely oriented toward building capability and independence in the people they supported.
The Commission's findings reinforced what many disability leaders already believed: funding should reward impact, not just presence. This conviction is now reshaping how NDIS plans are designed, how providers must operate, and how the relationship between funder and service provider has fundamentally changed.
The philosophical shift
The NDIS was originally conceived as an insurance scheme. Its earliest conceptual home was in policies designed for catastrophic injury in working-age adults. In that frame, funding existed to compensate for lost capacity. A person supported with disability services was receiving a benefit, not investing in their own growth.
That model never fully captured disability service reality, and it certainly did not fit the broader disability sector, particularly services for children, young people, and those with intellectual disability or complex support needs. But the mental model persisted: NDIS funding as a benefit flowing to participants, with outcomes somewhat secondary to the fact that participants were receiving support.
The Royal Commission shifted that framing decisively. Services funded by taxpayers and administered through the NDIS should demonstrate measurable progress toward participant goals. Funding should fuel capacity building. Support should be oriented toward independence, choice, and inclusion, not dependence. The shift is philosophical, but it is also deeply practical: it changes what providers must measure, report, and ultimately deliver.
This is not a subtle reframing. It is a reordering of priorities. A participant's goal might be to use public transport independently, or to develop new friendships, or to secure paid employment. The support they receive should be demonstrably moving them toward those goals. A support worker's job is no longer simply to be present; it is to actively work toward participant outcomes, to document progress, and to help the participant build their own agency.
The operational pressure on providers
The philosophical shift has operational consequences. Providers operating in this new environment face genuine new costs.
First, there is the machinery of outcome measurement itself. Providers need systems to define participant goals clearly, to track progress against those goals, and to surface that progress to both participants and the NDIS. Some providers have built quality teams dedicated to this work. Others have invested in software platforms to automate the capture and reporting of outcome data. Both approaches require time and money. Minikai helps providers capture evidence of participant progress as part of everyday workflows, turning support worker notes and interactions into structured outcome data without adding manual work.
Second, there is the shift in how participants engage with their service provider. The Royal Commission affirmed what disability advocates have long argued: participants must have real agency. That means choice. Real choice means competition. Providers can no longer assume a steady participant base simply because they exist. Participants increasingly select their providers based on perceived quality and value. Some providers have responded by repositioning themselves as service partners rather than care administrators, using language that emphasises collaboration and choice. That reframing is not merely semantic; it changes hiring, training, and how support workers are supervised.
Third, the nature of the support work itself has changed. Capacity building is harder to fund and schedule than supervision. If the goal is to teach a participant to use public transport, the support worker must plan a series of graduated outings, allow for learning time, document skill development, and transition the participant toward independence. This is time-intensive, it cannot be easily standardised, and it is harder to bill than a fixed weekly service block. Yet it is increasingly what the NDIS expects. This stepwise approach to building capacity is a skill that needs to be taught.
Fourth, providers now face enhanced compliance and audit requirements. The capacity building funds available through NDIS are more tightly scoped and more heavily scrutinised than general support services. Providers must demonstrate that their spending on capacity building has actually built capacity. That requires record-keeping, evidence, and the ability to articulate to the NDIS what was learned and what changed for the participant.
The shift in power
Underpinning all of this is a shift in power. Historical funding models enabled providers to set the program of services and participants accessed what they could.
The new model inverts some of that power. Participants choose their providers. If a provider is not delivering outcomes, is not responsive, or is not treating the participant as a genuine agent in their own care, the participant can choose another provider. This is theoretically how the market was always meant to work. In practice, the shift toward outcome-based funding and the cultural emphasis on participant agency have made it real.
For providers accustomed to working in a more paternalistic frame, this is an adjustment. The language has changed. Some providers now talk about “customers” rather than “clients”, reflecting the reality that participants hold market power. Service agreements have shifted in tone, becoming less about what the provider will do to the participant, and more about how the provider will support the participant in achieving their goals.
Capacity building funds are restricted, and they are restrictive. They cannot be used simply to provide comfortable support; they must be used to build skills. A participant cannot be funded for five years of transport assistance if the goal is independence. Eventually, the participant must demonstrate the skill, or the funding must cease.
The role of support workers in a new era
Within this landscape, support workers have taken on a more complex role. They are no longer primarily supervisors or care attendants, although those functions remain. They are educators, coaches, and allies working with participants toward participant-defined goals.
This requires different training. It requires different supervision. It requires systems that allow support workers to document not just what they did, but what the participant learned. It requires understanding each participant's plan deeply enough to know how specific support sessions contribute to specific goals.
For many providers, this has meant investing in training and professional development at a level that was not previously necessary. A support worker helping someone with personal care also needs to understand goal-based planning, motivational interviewing, and how to create opportunities for learning within everyday routines.
The opportunity ahead
Technology plays an important role in supporting this transition. Systems that help providers structure participant goals clearly, that allow support workers to easily document progress against those goals, and that generate evidence for compliance and reporting can meaningfully reduce the administrative burden. This frees time for the actual work of supporting participants.
Providers that have invested in systems to capture outcome data report significant benefits. They can see patterns in what kinds of support drive progress. They can demonstrate to the NDIS that their services are working. They can show participants evidence of their own growth. They can identify when an approach is not working and adjust.
The shift from volume to impact is not a temporary policy adjustment. It reflects a genuine change in how the sector thinks about the purpose of disability support. Participants deserve support that builds their capability and respects their agency. Providers deserve systems that make that possible without drowning in administration. Technology can bridge that gap.
Organisations that embrace this transition, those that invest in outcome measurement, train their teams in goal-based planning, and build systems to support evidence gathering, will find themselves positioned for sustainability. The NDIS is moving toward funding impact. Those providers best equipped to demonstrate impact will be the ones that not only survive but thrive.