View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Early Childhood Intervention under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme: Characteristics and Recruitment Practices of Service Providers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Early Childhood Intervention under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme: Characteristics and Recruitment Practices of Service Providers
Language: English
Authors: Susana Gavidia-Payne (ORCID 0000-0003-0858-0049), Jessica Zoe Zanuttini (ORCID 0000-0002-6979-7981), Sarah Carlon (ORCID 0000-0002-3805-582X), Coral Kemp (ORCID 0000-0002-0333-9080)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(7):2655-2664.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Early Childhood Education, Intervention, Foreign Countries, Disabilities, Insurance, Educational Policy, Best Practices, Guidelines, Advertising, Content Analysis, Recruitment, National Programs
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01759-w
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) constitutes a major policy reform for Australian people with disabilities. Despite its ten-year implementation, little is known about the characteristics of the workforce delivering Australia's NDIS early childhood intervention services (ECI). The present study sought to identify the range of skills, knowledge, and experience of ECI professionals as listed in recruitment advertisements, and their alignment with best practice guidelines. Provider data were extracted from 246 advertisements for ECI roles over a 5-month period and assigned into various categories. Interrater reliability was determined by randomly selecting 65 of the 246 of the advertisements, which were coded independently by two researchers and assigned to service provider categories. Significant changes have occurred in the qualities of professionals providing ECI services under the NDIS, and their adherence to best practice guidelines. The limited emphasis on best practice in the recruitment process may result in an ECI workforce that is not well equipped to deliver specialised and inclusive support to young children with disabilities and their families.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483247
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFSPa8QSFXdpphn6tvEu2MqAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL5sBDR5YF9riJ0ibwIBEICBm-XFoeL7jem6tr4RLhq-B8O6zUiWHX6oubs6MTgzR8rbh3xgbN0FM8WkFBFshBMhcBbwGdB5FbGBs-M6hOvC53X618-KekbaMpiAOvZkgDTYWVeaWvD5FRv7bOibqLBYUSN7nVkrZIaTlkN4alV5aplurg8B_ePqgtWE6SohyGy20InvNUUmJjaOa8iwdUsFAomd_6N_i2SwxfU5
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187863973;5mx01oct.25;2025Sep12.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187863973-1">Early Childhood Intervention under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme: Characteristics and Recruitment Practices of Service Providers </title> <p>The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) constitutes a major policy reform for Australian people with disabilities. Despite its ten-year implementation, little is known about the characteristics of the workforce delivering Australia's NDIS early childhood intervention services (ECI). The present study sought to identify the range of skills, knowledge, and experience of ECI professionals as listed in recruitment advertisements, and their alignment with best practice guidelines. Provider data were extracted from 246 advertisements for ECI roles over a 5-month period and assigned into various categories. Interrater reliability was determined by randomly selecting 65 of the 246 of the advertisements, which were coded independently by two researchers and assigned to service provider categories. Significant changes have occurred in the qualities of professionals providing ECI services under the NDIS, and their adherence to best practice guidelines. The limited emphasis on best practice in the recruitment process may result in an ECI workforce that is not well equipped to deliver specialised and inclusive support to young children with disabilities and their families.</p> <p>Keywords: Early childhood intervention; National Disability Insurance Scheme; Workforce; Best practice; Advertisements; Medical and Health Sciences Public Health and Health Services</p> <p>Early childhood intervention (ECI) in Australia has a long history, starting in the early 1970s when families and professionals formed charitable organisations for children with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, state governments or non-government organisations, under block funding arrangements, became involved in ECI service delivery (Sukkar, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]). The work of the ECI workforce was characterised by the application of competencies with a strong foundation on evidence-based practices that enabled child and family outcomes in line with international best practice standards (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center; ECTA, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). ECI professionals provided a continuum of supports from the early identification of a developmental delay or disability and access to assessment, goal development, planning and delivery of ECI services. Practitioners generally adopted family-centred practices, and interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary team approaches, which combined early childhood educators' skills in child development and design of instruction with specialist skills of allied health and special education professionals. Central to these team-based approaches was the support provided to early childhood education and care (ECEC) professionals in the effective inclusion of young children with disabilities or developmental delays in mainstream ECEC settings.</p> <p>While ECI service providers, practices, and professional workforce have remained largely consistent for the last four decades, recent evidence suggests considerable changes at the service and community level since the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) with young children with disabilities (Boaden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]). Since its inception ten years ago, the NDIS, through an independent statutory agency (National Disability Insurance Agency; NDIA), introduced the early childhood early intervention (ECEI) approach, which has constituted a significant reform in the provision of ECI services in Australia. Based on an individualised service model, NDIS ECEI participants, if deemed eligible for funding, are encouraged to contact service providers, and purchase services suited to their needs. A service provider, an individual or organisation delivering a support or a product to an NDIS participant, can apply to be a registered NDIS provider (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>]). While information about these service providers is available (i.e., name, NDIS categories of service provided), it is generic and limited as it does not focus on the specific characteristics of the organisation and those of practitioners working within it. We propose that data describing the qualities of practitioners in the ECI field can increase our understanding of the diversity of professionals sought to support young children with disabilities, while also revealing the extent of the changes occurring in ECI service delivery in light of recent reforms.</p> <p>As part of the implementation of the ECEI approach, the NDIA commissioned Early Childhood Intervention Australia (ECIA) to develop the ECI best practice guidelines soon after the NDIS roll-out. These guidelines are meant to support ECI providers in delivering services to children and families, and form part of the NDIS Workforce Capability Framework, which has been recently introduced (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]). The best practice guidelines focus on four key quality areas; namely a) family (family-centred, strengths-based, and culturally responsive practices); (b) inclusion (inclusive and participatory practice and engaging the child in natural environments); (c) teamwork (collaborative teamwork and capacity-building practices); and (d) universal principles (evidence base, standards, accountability and practice, and outcome-based approach). Despite the availability of these best practice guidelines, the ECEI approach has been limited in its implementation, presenting considerable challenges to children, families, ECI and ECEC professionals alike. Families have described a series of obstacles, including limited access to the scheme, confusing service pathways, and poor planning of supports for themselves and their young children with disability/developmental delay (Russo et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]). Similarly, ECI administrators and professionals have identified difficulties in maintaining quality of practice, funding limitations and workforce capacity (Gavidia-Payne et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; Marchbank, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]; Purcal et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given these concerns, finding markers that provide some indication of the degree to which service providers seek 'best practice' in their workforce is a worthy undertaking. In particular, understanding the characteristics of the organisations providing ECI and the practices used to recruit ECI practitioners seems critical considering the significant role of staff selection in the effective implementation of early childhood programs and services. The skills, attitudes, knowledge, and experience of staff contained in staff selection efforts are key competency drivers in the application of new early childhood program practices (Metz et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]). Furthermore, Bertram et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]) suggests that the stipulation of required skills in staff selection criteria is not only possible, but necessary in targeting and supporting populations with specific characteristics such as those of young children with developmental disabilities or delays. NDIS policy has given some consideration to the development of capabilities for NDIS service providers through the implementation a workforce capability framework, which contains generic descriptors relevant to services for children and their families (National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Evidence of how those capabilities are reflected in service providers' recruitment and selection of ECI staff, however, remains unclear.</p> <p>Based on subsequent concerns about access and planning for NDIS support (Children and Young People with Disability Australia: CYDA, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>]; Tune, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>]), the NDIA undertook a review leading to the reset of the ECEI approach. It made a series of recommendations, including the development of guidelines for a relabelled ECEI approach as 'early childhood approach' using ECI practice as its basis (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]), and the establishment of 'early connections' (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]). The latter links families to an early childhood partner, which consists of a team of professionals with expertise in working with children with developmental disabilities or delays and their families. Partners focus on delivering family-centred supports and connecting families with information, community services, early supports, other families or applying for NDIS funding (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). NDIS partners play a key role in assessment and planning for services, which technically families choose according to formulated goals. When compared to ECI services prior to the NDIS implementation, early childhood partners and planners are new elements in the NDIS service pathway for young children with disabilities and, as such, are an important step in supporting them. Yet, information about the standard of skills and knowledge sought for partner positions delivering the early childhood approach is not publicly available.</p> <p>Furthermore, the entire workforce delivering services to young children with disabilities or developmental delays has received scarce attention. Indeed, the published NDIS National workforce plan: 2021–2025 (Department of Social Services, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]) solely focusses on the workforce shortages and training needs of the care and support sector for adults with disability. NDIS policies that enable ECI service providers and practitioners with the competencies necessary to effectively support young children with disabilities or delays participating in the NDIS has not been forthcoming either. Comparatively, a ten-year workforce strategy, commenced in 2022, has been developed for their counterparts in the ECEC sector who support young children without disabilities (Education Services Australia, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). It is then possible that, in the absence of a unified and specialised workforce competency framework, NDIS partners and service providers of the early childhood approach, particularly those who are new to the NDIS market system, will have limited and inadequate access to resources and guidelines that are specifically tailored for young children with disabilities or developmental delays and their families. Moreover, the highly unregulated and market driven NDIS system has undeniably given way to a vast number of service providers whose ECI expertise remains unknown (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]). The proliferation of such an extensive and varied workforce thus necessitates an exploration of the indicators (i.e., selection conditions, experience, skills, and knowledge) that service agencies use to enlist ECI professionals, who will eventually form the workforce that will support young children with disabilities and their families.</p> <p>Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model of human development, which emphasises the interactions between children and the contexts in which they are situated, informed the conceptualisation of the present study (Tudge et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Policies, service organisations and institutional processes and practices constitute powerful contexts influencing children's development and learning and, as such, their qualities and attributes warrant investigation. Thus, the aim of the present study was to identify the characteristics of service providers that are currently delivering services to young children with developmental delays or disabilities and their families under the NDIS system. Specifically, we maintain that a detailed examination of the criteria used in ECI workforce recruitment through job advertisements can assist in our understanding of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>) the nature of the ECI workforce; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>) the extent to which the ECI service landscape has evolved in configuration and quality because of the NDIS implementation. Specifically, the following research questions were posed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the characteristics (skills, knowledge, and experience) of the organisations and professionals providing ECI Services?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the types of practitioner skills, knowledge, and experience listed in advertisements vary according to the category of service provider advertising for ECI roles?</item> <p></p> <item> Are service providers advertising ECI roles in line with practitioner skills, knowledge, and experience associated with best practice guidelines?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187863973-2">Method</hd> <p>The present study involved data collected from publicly available online job advertisements, as they provide accessible cultural-artefact data on recruitment material (Messum et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]; Nuttall et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]). The data collection approach was based on existing Australian research that used content from job advertisements in areas such as health (Broome & Gillen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]; Messum et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]), librarianship (Hider et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]), and education (Nuttall et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]; Stephenson & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]). These past studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using qualitative and quantitative approaches to extract and analyse data from these advertisements (e.g., Broome & Gillen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]). Based on the approach taken by Stephenson and Carter ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]), in the present study, authors (i) searched for and saved copies of online advertisements for ECI roles, (ii) extracted data from these ads across several categories, and (iii) completed inter-rater reliability checks to ensure that included advertisements met the inclusion criteria and that data extracted for each of the categories were extracted accurately and in full.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-3">Data Extraction</hd> <p>Provider data were extracted by all four researchers from 246 advertisements for ECI roles advertised over a five-month period in 2021. Among the data extracted were the names of service providers advertising for staff to work in ECI roles within their services. The fourth author listed all service providers advertising ECI positions and, for each of these, the advertisement numbers for each provider were also listed. Service providers were then categorised as one of the following: (a) a not-for-profit generic disability/therapy provider; (b) a not-for-profit generic human service provider; (c) a not-for-profit ECI provider; (d) a not-for-profit early education provider, (e.g., KU Children's Service), (e) a for-profit therapy/ECI provider, (f) a government service provider and (g) not specified.</p> <p>In order to determine which were not-for-profit providers, a search was made of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) website. All organisations listed by the ACNC were listed as not-for-profit providers. As not all not-for-profit organisations are registered charities, the following criteria agreed to by the research team, were used to determine which other providers were not-for-profit organisations: (a) providers who had an '.org' website URL, and (b) a statement that the organisation was not-for-profit was included in the advertisement or on the organisation's webpage. All provider websites were also checked for relevant information, such as information about fundraising, donations, and advocacy. Where this information was provided, the organisation was listed as not-for-profit. Where information about payment systems and health benefit claims were included, the organisation was listed as for profit.</p> <p>Information from the websites was also used to determine whether the not-for-profit service providers were generic human services or early childhood organisations or whether they were disability or ECI service providers. A service was categorised as a generic human service provider organisation if the target population included individuals without disabilities or, in cases where individuals with disabilities or delays and their families were included, they were not listed as the sole service recipients. This category included human services organisations or health or therapy organisations providing for a range of individuals, including those with disabilities. Services were categorised as disability services if they provided services for a range of disabilities or a single disability across age ranges. Services were only categorised as an ECI service provider if it were stated on their websites that this was specifically an ECI provider. Some early childhood organisations stated that they offered ECI services; however, as they also offered services across the early childhood sector they were categorised as early childhood service providers. Where services were listed as providing therapy services to children and families, they were categorised as generic services as not all children accessing therapy services have a disability or a developmental delay.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-4">Interrater Reliability</hd> <p>A random 65 of the 246 (26.4%) of the advertisements were checked by a second researcher for the coding of service provider using the website random.org. The providers were then listed from 1 to 56 and a random 15 (26.8%) checked by a second coder for reliability of assignment to specific not-for-profit categories, the for-profit category, and the government category. The second coder checked both the ACNC website and the websites for each of the randomly selected organisations to ensure the reliability of the coding. Percentage interrater agreement for the two sets of data was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The percentage agreement for allocation of advertisements to service providers was 96.9%. Percentage agreement for categories for service provider organisations was 100%. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the primary and second coders. In a small number of instances, the primary coder referred to the research team for a final decision with regard category of provider.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-5">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863973-6">Characteristics of Service Providers</hd> <p>The names of the organisations advertising for positions were reported in all but seven advertisements. For three of the seven advertisements where the provider was not named, the recruitment agent stated that the service provider was a not-for-profit organisation. In total, 39 of the 56 service providers advertising for ECI positions were either registered charities or other not-for-profit organisations. Fourteen of the organisations were for-profit providers and three were government providers. Eight of the for-profit organisations offered ECI services only. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the category of organisations offering services. Although over 3/4 of the advertisements were for roles in not-for-profit organisations, only 13.8% were for roles provided by organisations specialising in early childhood intervention. Of the 33 advertisements for roles in not-for-profit ECI organisations, 24 were for roles in the one autism specific early childhood intervention program.</p> <p>Table 1 Percentage of advertisements for service provider categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Provider category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number (<italic>N</italic> = 239)</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Not for profit</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Disability Provider</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generic human/education service provider</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Early childhood intervention provider</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Early education provider</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Total</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>170</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>71.1</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>For profit</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Therapy and Early Childhood Education Provider</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>66</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>27.6</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Government provider</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>3</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.3</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note For seven of the advertisements, the service provider was not named. Therefore, data for these advertisements could not be included in this table; Percentage is calculated correct to the first decimal point</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-7">Essential Skills across Categories of Service Provider</hd> <p>The skills listed as essential in the advertisements across category of service provider are shown in Table 2. Skills relating to management and communication (e.g., negotiation, problem solving, manage continuous improvement/change) appear to be the most valued skills, along with personal attributes (e.g., highly motivated, good listening skills, willingness to learn). As illustrated, only 10 of the 66 advertisements for positions with for profit therapy/ECI providers required skills related to the four ECI best practice areas.</p> <p>Table 2 Percentage of advertisements with skills required by skill type and service category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Provider category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Best practice</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Personal attributes</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Policy &</p><p>legislation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Communication</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Management</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> = 239</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP D</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>81.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP generic</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 91</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p></td><td align="left"><p>47.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP ECE</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 13</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>46.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>69.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>69.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>FP therapy/</p><p>ECI <italic>n</italic> = 66</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>54</p></td><td align="left"><p>81.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Government <italic>n</italic> = 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note NFP D = Not-for-profit disability service; NFP Generic = Not-for-profit human services/education service; NFP ECE + Not-for-profit early childhood education service; NFP ECI = Not-for-profit early childhood intervention service; FP Therapy/ECI = For-profit therapy/early childhood intervention service; Percentage is calculated correct to the first decimal point</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-8">Essential Experience Across Categories of Service Provider</hd> <p>Sector or service delivery experience was the most valued area of experience by all categories of service provider except for Government services. However, under half of the advertisements listed such experience as essential. As shown in Table 3, which illustrates the type of experience required of applicants across category of service providers, experience in management was the least valued among all service categories.</p> <p>Table 3 Percentage of advertisements with essential experience required by experience type and service category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Provider category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Best practice</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Sector/service delivery</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Management</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> = 239</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>n</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td><td align="left"><p>N</p></td><td align="left"><p>%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP D</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>48.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP generic</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 91</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP ECE</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 13</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>46.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>23.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>FP therapy/</p><p>ECI <italic>n</italic> = 66</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>50.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Government</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Total</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>34</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>14.2</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>103</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>43.1</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>21</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>8.8</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note NFP D = Not-for-profit disability service; NFP Generic = Not-for-profit human services/education service; NFP ECE + Not-for-profit early childhood education service; NFP ECI = Not-for-profit early childhood intervention service; FP Therapy/ECI = For-profit therapy/early childhood intervention service; Percentage is calculated correct to the first decimal point</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-9">Best Practice Skills across Categories of Service Provider</hd> <p>Table 4 provides a breakdown of skills required by each category of service provider into the four best practice areas of: (a) Family, (b) Inclusive practice, (c) Collaboration, (d) Universal Principles. Collaboration appears to be the most favoured skill area for all but two categories of service provider. Not-for-profit disability providers favoured Family-Centred Practice, and Universal Principles, which includes a focus on assessment, outcomes, and evidence-based practice, was most favoured by the generic human service/education providers and not included as an essential skill set by not-for-profit ECI providers. It is important to note that only 29 of the 56 providers listed best practice skills as essential, with 27 not listing any of these skills as essential for the role. Of the 14 for-profit providers, 11 did not list essential best practice skills for any of its advertisements. Of the 39 not-for-profit organisations, 13 did not list essential best practice skills for any of its advertisements.</p> <p>Table 4 Percentage of advertisements requiring skills in best practice areas across category of provider</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Provider category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="8"><p>Best practice skills required</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>BP 1: family</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP2: inclusion</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP3: collaboration</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP 4: universal principles</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> = 239</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP disability</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP generic</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 91</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>NFP ECE</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 13</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>NFP ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>FP therapy/ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 66</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Government</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note NFP Disability = Not-for-profit disability service; NFP Generic = Not-for-profit human services/education service; NPF ECE = Not-for-profit early childhood education service; NFP ECI = Not-for-profit early childhood intervention service; FP Therapy/ECI = For-profit therapy/early childhood intervention service; Percentage is calculated correct to the first decimal point</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-10">Best Practice Experience Across Categories of Service Provider</hd> <p>Fewer services required experience with the four best practice areas than required skills in these best practice areas. As illustrated in Table 5, little experience with best practice was required by all categories of provider except for disability services. Inclusive practice was the best practice experience least required by services.</p> <p>Table 5 Percentage of advertisements requiring experience in best practice areas across category of provider</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Provider Category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="8"><p>Best Practice Experience Required</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>BP 1: Family</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP2: Inclusion</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP3: Collaboration</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>BP 4. Universal Principles</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> = 239</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>n</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>%</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP Disability</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>45.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>NFP Generic</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 91</p></td><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>NFP ECE</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 13</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>NFP ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>FP Therapy/ECI</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 66</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Government</p><p><italic>n</italic> = 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note NFP Disability = Not-for-profit disability service; NFP Generic = Not-for-profit human services/education service; NPF ECE = Not-for-profit early childhood education service; NFP ECI = Not-for-profit early childhood intervention service; FP Therapy/ECI = For-profit therapy/early childhood intervention service; Percentage is calculated correct to the first decimal point</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of the present study was to explore the characteristics of service providers and professionals delivering ECI services under the NDIS. Based on the criteria used to recruit ECI practitioners, significant changes in the characteristics (skills, knowledge, and experience) of professionals sought to operate under the NDIS, were identified. In addition, variations in practitioners' skills and experience according to service provider category and their adherence to best practice guidelines were observed.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-12">What are the Characteristics of Organisations and Professionals Providing ECI Services?</hd> <p>Not-for-profit service providers advertised for more ECI roles than for-profit organisations. At the time of data collection, not-for-profit service providers still constituted the bulk of ECI service provision in the NDIS environment. However, compared to ECI service delivery before the NDIS implementation, when services were generally provided by not-for-profit ECI or government organisations (Sukkar, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref33">29</reflink>]), only one in eight of all advertisements were made by not-for-profit ECI provider organisations. The shift in recruitment practices may be due to an unintended consequence of the market-driven nature of the NDIS early childhood approach model, whereby the service sector has been amplified to include a range of for-profit and non-for-profit service providers. Indeed, Purcal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]) found that under NDIS service arrangements, service providers needed to modify staff roles, upskill their staff and often employ novice staff with little ECI expertise. Staff changes of this nature may have ultimately had an impact on the quality of service provision. Furthermore, it is possible that generic not-for-profit organisations may not have the historical, conceptual, and experiential background needed in child development, assessment, and intervention with young children with disabilities and their families. Professionals in these generic organisations may not have the specialised skills, knowledge and experience required to effectively support young children with disabilities or developmental delays. This could provide one of the possible explanations underlying the difficulties (i.e., limited-service coordination, poor quality control, inequities in service provision; families' unmet needs) young children with disabilities/ developmental delays, their families, and service providers currently experience (Boaden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]; Young et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). Whether these concerns are directly related to changes in the characteristics of service providers delivering the early childhood approach is a question that remains to be tested.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-13">Do the Types of Practitioner Skills, Knowledge, and Experience Listed in Advertisements Vary...</hd> <p>While some variation of practitioner skills and experience listed in advertisements according to the category of service provider was revealed, the most sought-after practitioner skills across all categories were in management and communication, with an emphasis on personal attributes. These general qualities of professional performance are common and would be generally expected and highly desirable for roles in most, if not all human service fields. While crucial to any professional positions, these 'soft skills' do not highlight the specialised attributes required in the delivery of ECI services, particularly those deemed to endorse best practice. Whether this partial consideration of expert skills is a consequence of limited dissemination of knowledge of best practice, challenges experienced by service providers in the implementation of the early childhood approach, or other factors related to unavailability of a specialised workforce remains unknown. Nevertheless, this situation is magnified by the finding that less than half of all categories of organisations sought experience in the sector in their advertisements for ECI professionals. If practitioners are enlisted based on limited ECI essential skills, knowledge, and experience, it is possible that the currently available workforce working with young children with disabilities or delays and their families may still be grappling with the implementation of the NDIS early childhood approach.</p> <p>In all, based on the job advertisements seeking ECI professionals, answers to questions regarding the characteristics of the organisations and professionals providing ECI services and possible expectations of the ECI workforce remain somewhat unclear. Considering that a mix of practitioners with and without expertise in ECI service delivery, generic and disability focussed, and with education or allied-health characteristics, it is apparent that ECI as a sector does not form a collective whole with the strong foundations that characterised it before the NDIS implementation (Sukkar, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-14">Are Service Providers Advertising ECI Roles in Line With Practitioner Skills, Knowledge and E...</hd> <p>Knowledge and skills aligned with ECI best practices were least included, particularly by for-profit therapy/ECI service providers. Similarly, regarding the experience required of practitioners, less than half of service providers across all categories specified experience in ECI best practices. It is evident that with changes in the service environment, new players have emerged who may not to be familiar or have experience with ECI recommended practices; thus, associated skills and experience are not listed as essential in the employment of practitioners supporting young children with disabilities or developmental delays and their families. The prospect of an unprepared workforce presents a new challenge to the field; that is, not only may the sector have lost ground in terms of its adherence to good practice when compared to ECI practice before the NDIS implementation, but it may be also reinforcing practices that compromise the quality of service provision, and thus detrimental to the learning and development of young children with disabilities. Importantly, aside from some limited research in the area (Gavidia-Payne et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]; Marchbank, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]; Purcal et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]), the degree to which current practitioners' skills, knowledge and experience are associated with good practice is unknown given the absence of data about how well services adhere to best practice guidelines in the NDIS early childhood approach landscape.</p> <p>That some best practices such as collaboration and family-centred approaches emerged as the most valued skill requirements across most service provider categories is reassuring and unsurprising to an extent. These practices have been a hallmark of ECI service delivery in Australia for the last 50 years and are also part of 'on the job' training, which is regularly available to professionals from a variety of allied health and education disciplines (ECIA, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]). Despite this finding, however, approximately half of all service providers, regardless of category, did not list any of the best practice skills as essential in their advertisements (e.g., inclusion, teamwork). Moreover, it is puzzling that skills and experience focussed on the best practice of assessment, outcomes, and evidence-based practice, which have been the cornerstone of ECI services (ECTA, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]), were not included at all as an essential skill set by not-for-profit ECI providers in their recruitment efforts. It is likely that these providers have had to adjust their services to the demands imposed by the NDIS structure. Indeed, it has been reported that a great deal of services delivered under the NDIS have not considered the everyday experiences of participants and use of strengths-based approaches. Instead, they have been generally more focussed on administrative arrangements, which have proven to be a burden on participants as well as service providers (Carey et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; Tune, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another explanation for the limited emphasis on practitioners' skills and experience in alignment with best practice guidelines may be the difficulties associated with translating policy into practice. It is possible that in the design and implementation of the NDIS early childhood approach, insufficient attention was given to concepts, variables, processes, and outcomes related to the actual implementation of policy, which may, in turn, affect the effectiveness of practice (Bullock et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]). This is particularly evident when considering the core and specialist capabilities expected of the NDIS workforce as stated in the NDIS Workforce Capability Framework (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]). This framework outlines the Australian Government's expectations about the attitudes, skills and knowledge of the workforce funded under the NDIS, including the expectations of those providing services to young children with disabilities and their families. The framework, among other objectives, is meant to drive workforce planning and on-boarding as illustrated in various of their resources (e.g., position description tool; NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]). Yet, the expected skills and knowledge were not reflected in our sample of service providers' recruitment efforts, which is possibly due to the absence of a current mandate for services to adhere to the framework (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>The best practice 'universal principles' was most favoured by the generic human service/education providers in their advertisements. It is possible that, as these service providers tend to be NDIS partners, they may be more likely to be aware of the best practice guidelines. Based on this conjecture, we further examined advertisements of partners and non-partners. This analysis indicated that the former indeed sought a higher percentage of skills in overall best practice and specifically in the best practice universal principles than their non-partner counterparts. Interestingly, however, NDIS partners sought experience in best practice universal principles to a much lesser extent than skills in the same best practice category. It is puzzling that service providers may be seeking professionals with skills but not necessarily experience in any given area. This could be at least partially explained by the lack of a cohesive set of ECI principles and practices that can guide organisations, and thus their practitioners, in their recruitment efforts with the view of implementing evidence-based practices.</p> <p>The practice of inclusion was the least required of all best ECI best practices in the advertisements for ECI professionals. This is an unsurprising finding considering the NDIS model of service delivery is based on pricing arrangements that tend to emphasise singular therapy sessions and limited contact and collaboration with professionals in the ECEC sector. This is perhaps one of the most concerning of our study findings; it reflects a failure in the implementation of the NDIS in terms of upholding one of its key principles which focussed on greater inclusion and access for people with disability to mainstream services and community activities (NDIS, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]). For young children with disabilities and their families, this has contributed to a breakdown of service pathways as well as limitations in the continuity of care which have undermined implementation efforts and, in turn, participants' scheme experiences (Gilchrist & Perks, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>In sum, our findings highlight aspects of the ECI workforce operating under the NDIS that are vital to consider in the implementation of Australian early childhood intervention policy and practice. At the policy level, the lack of clarity in terms of the infrastructure and methodologies that support ECI services in their staff recruitment and selection under the NDIS continues to be problematic. From a practice perspective, implementation of the NDIS early childhood approach may be hampered by the limitations of the skill sets of workforce selection which, in turn, may diminish the capacity of practitioners to exercise what we know works best in the provision of ECI services. Importantly, for the overall ECEC sector, both in Australia and internationally, our findings are a reminder of how the effective implementation of new initiatives requires de consideration of all aspects pertaining the workforce that will ultimately enable quality outcomes for young children and their families.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-15">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations can be observed in the present study. While the sample size of advertisements was considered acceptable, the period of data collection could have been extended to capture a greater number of organisations recruiting ECI practitioners and perhaps a greater variety of professionals. Further research in this area would help us clarify whether, for example, the dearth of advertised specialist early childhood positions is in fact due to the limited emphasis from service providers on the significant skills and experience of such practitioners, or to a restricted time of data collection. Another limitation concerns the possibility that several other factors at the organisational, NDIA administration, and practitioner levels may have had an impact on the way organisations develop and conduct their recruitment and advertising of positions; these were not measured in the present study. Research that specifically focusses on the workforce delivering ECI services and supports is critical, particularly considering that about half of NDIS participants are children.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>The present study is the first to identify the characteristics of service providers and professionals delivering ECI services, and as such, it provides the groundwork on which to build future research endeavours. Our findings indicate changes in the skills, knowledge, and experiences being sought by service providers when recruiting ECI practitioners following the implementation of the NDIS. Although not-for-profit organisations still represent the majority of ECI service provision, findings highlight a lack of emphasis on ECI best practice guidelines in the recruitment process. Over time, this may result in an ECI workforce that is not well equipped to deliver specialised and targeted support to young children with disabilities and their families. There is, therefore, a real need for a cohesive set of ECI principles to guide recruitment efforts. Further research in the area is required to fully understand the factors influencing recruitment and workforce development. Overall, the present study highlights the need for continued attention on ECI best practice to ensure that service providers recruit practitioners with appropriate expertise and experience to provide high-quality support to young children with disabilities or developmental delays. Addressing these issues is crucial to fulfilling the goal of the NDIS to deliver effective innovative support to people with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-17">Author contributions</hd> <p>All authors have contributed to, seen, and approved of the manuscript and agree to the order of authors as listed on the title page.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-18">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187863973-20">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0187863973-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187863973-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bertram RM, Blase KA, Fixsen DL. Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social Work Practice. 2015; 25; 4: 477-487. 10.1177/1049731514537687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Boaden N, Purcal C, Fisher K, Meltzer A. Transition experience of families with Young Children in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Australian Social Work. 2021; 74; 3: 294-306. 10.1080/0312407X.2020.1832549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Broome K, Gillen A. Implications of Occupational Therapy Job Advertisement Trends for Occupational Therapy Education. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2014; 77; 11: 574-581. 10.4276/030802214X14151078348558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref45" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bullock HL, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Mulvale G, Miatello A. Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: A critical interpretive synthesis. Implementation Science. 2021; 16; 1: 1-24. 10.1186/s13012-021-01082-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref43" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carey G, Malbon E, Blackwell J. Administering inequality? The National Disability Insurance Scheme and administrative burdens on individuals. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2021. 10.1111/1467-8500.12508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Children and Young People with Disability Australia. (2019). Improving the NDIS for children and young people with disability and their families: Establishing a participant service guarantee and removing legislative red tape review. CYDA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Social Services (2021). NDIS National Workforce Plan: 2021–2025. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-publications-articles/ndis-national-workforce-plan-2021-2025">www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-publications-articles/ndis-national-workforce-plan-2021-2025</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref41" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Early Childhood Intervention Australia Victoria/Tasmania (2023). ECIA VIC/TAS Learning and Development. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.eciavic.org.au/events/category/ecia-victas-learning-development">www.eciavic.org.au/events/category/ecia-victas-learning-development</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (2023). DEC recommended practices. Retrieved from https://ectacenter.org/decrp/decrp.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Services Australia (2021). Shaping Our Future A ten-year strategy to ensure a sustainable, high-quality children's education and care workforce 2022–203. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.education.gov.au/child-care-package/early-childhood-workforce/national-childrens-education-and-care-workforce-strategy">www.education.gov.au/child-care-package/early-childhood-workforce/national-childrens-education-and-care-workforce-strategy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gavidia-Payne, S, Rossell, R, Bull, K, & Forster, J. (2024). The changing narrative of early childhood intervention in Australia: Service providers' perspectives on the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Children and Youth Services Review, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilchrist D, Perks B. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: The grey literature and Australia's failure to address change in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Australian Journal of Social Issues. 2023. 10.1002/ajs4.270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hider P, Rankin C, Wakeling S, Garner J, Jamali HR. Occupations and preoccupations of the Australian Library Profession: An analysis of Job Advertisements and Professional Literature. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association. 2023; ahead-of-print; ahead-of-print: 1-26. 10.1080/24750158.2023.2233751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchbank AM. The National Disability Insurance Scheme: Administrators' perspectives of agency transition to user pay for early intervention service delivery. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2017; 42; 3: 46-53. 10.23965/AJEC.42.3.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messum D, Wilkes L, Jackson D. Employability skills: Essential requirements in health manager vacancy advertisements. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management. 2011; 6; 2: 22-28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metz, A, Halle, T, Bartley, L, & Blasberg, A. (2013). The key components of successful implementation. In T. Halle, A. Metz, & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.). (2013). Applying implementation science in early childhood programs and systems. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission (2023). Position Description Tool. Retrieved from https://workforcecapability.ndiscommission.gov.au/tools-and-resources/position-description-builder</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2021). NDIS Workforce Capability Framework. Commonwealth of Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS. (2020). National Disability Insurance Agency. Retrieved from National Disability Insurance Agency | NDIS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS (2022a). Find a provider. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/working-providers/find-registered-provider">www.ndis.gov.au/participants/working-providers/find-registered-provider</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS (2022b). Getting help through the early childhood approach. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/families-and-carers/early-childhood-approach-children-younger-7/getting-help-through-early-childhood-approach">www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/families-and-carers/early-childhood-approach-children-younger-7/getting-help-through-early-childhood-approach</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS (2022d). Provider finder. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/working-providers/find-registered-provider/provider-finder">www.ndis.gov.au/participants/working-providers/find-registered-provider/provider-finder</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS (2022c). What type of connections are available? Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/families-and-carers/early-childhood-approach-children-younger-7/what-types-early-connections-are-available">www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/families-and-carers/early-childhood-approach-children-younger-7/what-types-early-connections-are-available</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NDIS (2023). What is early childhood intervention? Retrieved from https://ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au/early-childhood/early-childhood-approach/what-early-childhood-intervention</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuttall J, Brennan M, Zipin L, Tuinamuana K, Cameron L. Lost in production: The erasure of the teacher educator in Australian university job advertisements. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2013; 39; 3: 329-343. 10.1080/02607476.2013.799849</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purcal, C, Hill, T, Meltzer, A, Boden, N, & Fisher, K. R. (2018). Implementation of the NDIS in the early childhood intervention sector in NSW – final report. Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. SPRC Report 2/18. https://doi.org/10.4225/53/5b2ae9c2563c5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russo F, Brownlow C, Machin T. Parental experiences of engaging with the National Disability Insurance Scheme for their children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2020; 32; 2: 67-75. 10.1177/1044207320943607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephenson J, Carter M. The work of teacher aides in Australia: An analysis of job advertisements. International Journal of Special Education. 2014; 29; 3: 145-153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sukkar H. Early childhood intervention: An Australian perspective. Infants and Young Children. 2013; 26; 2: 94-110. 10.1097/IYC.0b013e31828452a8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tudge JRH, Navarro JL, Merçon-Vargas EA, Payir A. The promise and the practice of early childhood educare in the writings of Urie Bronfenbrenner. Early Child Development and Care. 2021; 191; 7–8: 1079-1088. 10.1080/03004430.2020.1844193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tune, D. (2019). Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. Removing red tape and implementing the NDIS participant service guarantee. Commonwealth of Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young D, Gibbs L, Gilson KM, Williams K, Reddihough D, Tracy J, Carter R. Understanding key worker experiences at an Australian early childhood intervention service. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2021; 29; 6: e269-e278. 10.1111/hsc.13350</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susana Gavidia-Payne; Jessica Zoe Zanuttini; Sarah Carlon and Coral Kemp</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483247
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Early Childhood Intervention under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme: Characteristics and Recruitment Practices of Service Providers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susana+Gavidia-Payne%22">Susana Gavidia-Payne</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0858-0049">0000-0003-0858-0049</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+Zoe+Zanuttini%22">Jessica Zoe Zanuttini</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6979-7981">0000-0002-6979-7981</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+Carlon%22">Sarah Carlon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3805-582X">0000-0002-3805-582X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Coral+Kemp%22">Coral Kemp</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-9080">0000-0002-0333-9080</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(7):2655-2664.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Insurance%22">Insurance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Best+Practices%22">Best Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guidelines%22">Guidelines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advertising%22">Advertising</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recruitment%22">Recruitment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Programs%22">National Programs</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01759-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) constitutes a major policy reform for Australian people with disabilities. Despite its ten-year implementation, little is known about the characteristics of the workforce delivering Australia's NDIS early childhood intervention services (ECI). The present study sought to identify the range of skills, knowledge, and experience of ECI professionals as listed in recruitment advertisements, and their alignment with best practice guidelines. Provider data were extracted from 246 advertisements for ECI roles over a 5-month period and assigned into various categories. Interrater reliability was determined by randomly selecting 65 of the 246 of the advertisements, which were coded independently by two researchers and assigned to service provider categories. Significant changes have occurred in the qualities of professionals providing ECI services under the NDIS, and their adherence to best practice guidelines. The limited emphasis on best practice in the recruitment process may result in an ECI workforce that is not well equipped to deliver specialised and inclusive support to young children with disabilities and their families.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483247
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483247
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01759-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 2655
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Insurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Best Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guidelines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advertising
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recruitment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Early Childhood Intervention under the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme: Characteristics and Recruitment Practices of Service Providers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susana Gavidia-Payne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jessica Zoe Zanuttini
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah Carlon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coral Kemp
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1