Home and Living Supporting Evidence: Getting the OT Half Right
Every home and living request stands or falls on its supporting evidence, and the functional half of that evidence is occupational therapy’s job. This page is for the support coordinators assembling the document: what the OT evidence has to establish, who writes what, and why requests built on strong clinical letters still come back.
The request is decided on the evidence, and the evidence is a team document
A home and living request asks the NDIA to fund where and how somebody lives: SIL, SDA, ILO, MTA or STA. The supporting evidence is the case for it, assembled by the support coordinator from documents other people write.
When a participant has a home and living goal, the request that follows is only as strong as the evidence assembled behind it. The support coordinator generally pulls that evidence together: the participant’s situation and goals, the clinical picture from the treating team, and the functional picture from an occupational therapist. Three authors, one argument. When the three halves tell one consistent story, requests move. When they contradict each other, or one is missing, requests circle.
The exact forms and templates the NDIA uses change, and the planning process itself is being reworked under the 2024 legislation, so always work from the current version of whatever the NDIA is asking for. What does not change is the underlying evidence question, and that is what this page, and our reports, are built around.
The NDIS planning process is under reform, with consultation continuing through 2026 and details proposed rather than final. Confirm current forms and requirements with the NDIA or your local area coordinator before submitting.
Who writes which part of the evidence
The fastest way to diagnose a weak file is to ask which of these four contributions is thin or missing.
The goal and the story
- What living arrangement they want, and why
- What is not working about the current one
- What matters to them: people, places, routines
- What they have already tried
The clinical picture
- Diagnosis and current presentation
- Treatment history and what is likely ahead
- Whether the impairment is likely to persist
- Anything clinical the arrangement must accommodate
The functional picture
- What the person can and cannot do, from observation
- The support actually required: type, timing, ratio
- Alternatives considered: modification, equipment, ILO
- What happens without the support
The assembly
- The request itself, framed to the right support type
- Consistency across every document in the file
- Currency: evidence recent enough to describe today
- The options explored, documented as explored
The pattern we see most: the first two contributions are strong, the third is missing or generic, and the fourth inherits the gap. A clinical letter cannot carry the functional argument, however well it is written, because it was never written to describe what a person does between waking and sleeping. That gap is ours to fill.
What the OT evidence has to establish, whatever the form looks like
Function, observed rather than reported
What the person actually does across a day and a week: which tasks happen, which need prompting or supervision, which are done by someone else, evidenced from assessment in the home rather than interview alone.
The support pattern, precisely
Not “requires support with daily living” but the shape of it: what kind of help, at which points of the day and night, at what ratio, and how consistent the need is across good and bad periods.
The informal support currently absorbing the need
Who does what, how many hours it amounts to, and how sustainable it is. Unrecorded informal support is the most common reason an assessed need looks smaller than the real one.
The alternatives, addressed in writing
Whether modification, equipment, routine change or a different living arrangement could meet part of the need. A file that is silent on alternatives invites the question, months later, as a request for further information.
The consequence of no support
What deteriorates, what becomes unsafe, and what breaks first if nothing is funded. This is the question every delegate weighs, and the one most evidence never answers plainly.
Which support type the evidence points to
SIL, SDA, ILO, MTA or STA, stated honestly. Evidence that points at the requested support because it was written to is weaker than evidence that arrives at it, and delegates can tell the difference. The map of the five types is on our home and living hub.
Why well-assembled files still come back
Document-level problems, distinct from choosing the wrong support in the first place.
- The evidence is staleAn FCA from three years and two addresses ago describes a person who no longer exists. Currency expectations vary with the decision’s size, but evidence that predates a major change in circumstances is spent.
- The documents disagree with each otherThe clinical letter says improving, the OT report says deteriorating, the request assumes stable. Each document is defensible alone; together they cancel out. Consistency is the coordinator’s hardest and most valuable job.
- The goal and the evidence do not meetThe participant’s goal says independence, the evidence argues for maximum support, and nothing in the file explains how both are true. The explanation usually exists; it just was never written down.
- Everything is asserted at the same volumeA file where every need is described as critical gives the delegate no way to see which needs actually are. Graded, specific evidence funds better than uniform emphasis.
- The functional evidence is a summary of the clinical evidenceAn OT report that restates diagnosis and quotes the psychiatrist adds pages, not evidence. The functional report earns its place by containing things nobody else in the file could know.
What a coordinator gets from a Youcentric report
Supporting evidence: coordinator questions
When in the process should the OT assessment happen?
The participant already has an FCA. Do they need another assessment?
How recent does the evidence need to be?
Can you write the whole supporting evidence document?
Does strong evidence guarantee the request is approved?
What does the OT assessment cost, and who pays?
Refer a participant, or send us a stalled file
Send a referral below or call 1300 316 664. If a home and living request has already come back, send what was submitted and we will tell you honestly which half of the evidence is missing.
The functional half, done properly
Talk to our mobile OT team about the evidence behind a home and living request, anywhere in Greater Sydney.
Make a referral or call 1300 316 664