NDIS tool not fit for purpose

By the Editorial Team · Monday, August 31, 2026

Australia plans to introduce a new NDIS assessment tool called I-CAN in April 2027 to determine funding levels for people with disabilities using an interview and algorithm-based evaluation. Critics warn the tool lacks sufficient validation and may risk inaccurate funding decisions, prompting calls for further testing and transparency before its implementation.

Australia's new National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) assessment tool has come under scrutiny ahead of its scheduled rollout in April 2027, with concerns raised about its reliability, validity, and potential impact on funding decisions for people with disabilities.

The government plans to implement an adapted version of the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs (I-CAN) tool to evaluate participants’ support requirements. The assessment process involves a guided interview lasting approximately three hours, conducted by a non-clinical assessor who asks questions such as, "Can you go to the toilet by yourself?" Responses are then input into a computer system, where an algorithm calculates the level of funding recommended for the individual.

However, a recent analysis submitted anonymously to a Senate inquiry questions the mathematical soundness and overall usefulness of the tool. The submission, authored by a registered psychologist and PhD candidate, argues that the I-CAN instrument has not been sufficiently validated or proven reliable for making high-stakes funding decisions. According to the psychologist, relying on a tool without established precision risks not only inefficient allocation of taxpayer funds but also potentially causing harm to those dependent on disability support.

The assessment method’s dependence on a non-clinical assessor and algorithmic output has also raised broader concerns about transparency and the nuanced understanding of individual needs. Critics highlight that a purely algorithm-driven approach may overlook critical factors that qualified clinical professionals would consider in a comprehensive evaluation.

Proponents of the new system argue that a standardized tool like I-CAN could improve consistency and efficiency in assessing support needs, addressing previous issues of subjectivity and variation in funding determinations. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the adequacy of current testing to substantiate the tool’s use across diverse disability groups.

The government is moving forward with the rollout as scheduled, emphasizing the potential benefits of the updated assessment process in streamlining NDIS operations. Meanwhile, disability advocates and some experts urge a more cautious approach, calling for further validation and transparency before the tool is widely implemented, to safeguard the interests of vulnerable Australians relying on the scheme.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.