Every time I speak with a senior NDIS Support Coordinator and ask what the biggest issue in the role is, the answer is almost always the same.
Burnout.
Not because Coordinators don’t care.
Not because they aren’t skilled or committed.
But because the structure of Support Coordination has quietly become unsustainable for individuals operating alone.
This isn’t a wellbeing conversation.
It’s a structural one.
Unless it is addressed properly, burnout will continue to impact Coordinators, participants, families, and the stability of the system itself.
Burnout Is a Structural Problem, Not a Personal One
Support Coordination today carries a very real and unavoidable load.
— increasing compliance and audit pressure
— growing admin and billing complexity
— expanding reporting and governance expectations
— ongoing policy uncertainty
None of these pressures are optional.
None of them disappear if you are good at your job.
In fact, the more experienced and conscientious a Support Coordinator is, the more acutely these pressures are felt.
The key point is simple.
These costs exist regardless of how Support Coordination is delivered.
Whether a Coordinator is:
— operating solo
— subcontracting
— running a small practice
— or working within a larger organisation
The compliance burden does not go away.
What changes is who carries it, how it is spread, and whether it is sustainable.
The Hidden Cost Base of Support Coordination
Support Coordination is often framed as a choice between independence and organisational models.
In reality, it is an economic reality rather than a philosophical one.
Support Coordination has a fixed cost base that must be covered to operate properly and defensibly.
— compliance systems and record keeping
— invoicing, claiming, and reconciliation
— supervision, governance, and oversight
— insurance, policies, and audit readiness
— technology, data security, and reporting
These costs exist before a single participant outcome is delivered.
When Coordinators operate alone, these costs are:
— absorbed personally
— pushed into unpaid time
— or carried as ongoing stress and risk
Over time, this leads to exhaustion, increased errors, or people exiting the role entirely.
None of this benefits participants.
Why Burnout Matters to Participants
Burnout is often treated as a workforce issue.
In reality, it is a participant outcomes issue.
When Support Coordinators burn out, participants experience:
— staff turnover
— inconsistent relationships
— delayed follow ups
— reduced availability
— loss of system knowledge
Support Coordination works best when:
— relationships are stable
— Coordinators are present and responsive
— knowledge builds over time
— handovers are minimised
Burnout undermines all of this.
A sustainable model of Support Coordination is not just good for Coordinators.
It is essential for participant continuity, choice, and safety.
Increasing Policy Risk in Support Coordination
There is also a broader risk that is rarely discussed openly.
There is a genuine possibility that, over time, Support Coordination shifts toward block funded or tender based arrangements.
This does not mean panic.
It does not mean immediate change.
And it does not mean the removal of participant choice.
However, it does mean that scale, governance, and structural readiness will matter more than they do today.
Individual Coordinators operating in isolation are exposed to this risk in a way they should not have to be.
The question is not whether change will happen.
The question is whether the sector prepares responsibly.
Why a National Collective Model Makes Sense
The national Support Coordination collective model is a response to these realities.
It is not driven by fear or speculation.
At its core, the model does one simple thing.
It spreads unavoidable costs and risks across a collective footprint, rather than placing them on individuals.
The model works whether there are:
— 100 Support Coordinators
— or 500 Support Coordinators
As long as Coordinators:
— already have their own participants
— operate compliantly
— and want a stable, long term base
This is not about centralising control or removing professional judgement.
It is about building enough structure so that:
— compliance is handled properly
— admin does not consume coordination time
— governance is real and defensible
— Coordinators can focus on participant outcomes
How This Model Reduces Burnout
Burnout occurs when responsibility outweighs capacity.
A collective model reduces burnout by:
— removing duplicated admin work
— centralising billing and compliance systems
— providing governance and supervision infrastructure
— reducing personal exposure to audit and policy risk
Most importantly, it creates breathing room.
That space allows for:
— better decision making
— more sustainable caseloads
— stronger professional boundaries
— longer careers in the sector
This is not about working less.
It is about working properly.
Why This Works for Participants
Participants do not lose choice in a collective model.
They gain stability.
A properly structured collective provides:
— continuity during staff leave or transition
— clear escalation and support pathways
— consistent documentation and records
— stronger safeguards and oversight
Participants continue working with their Coordinator.
What changes is the invisible structure supporting that relationship.
When that structure is strong, outcomes are more consistent and sustainable.
Why This Is the Most Sustainable Path Forward
Support Coordination is becoming more complex, not less.
— compliance expectations are increasing
— administrative requirements are expanding
— scrutiny is intensifying
Expecting individual resilience to absorb this indefinitely is unrealistic.
A national collective footprint allows the sector to:
— retain experienced Coordinators
— reduce churn and burnout
— remain compliant at scale
— absorb policy and funding changes
— protect participant outcomes
This is not a short term solution.
It is a long term structural response to where the NDIS is heading.
Optional Upside Without Pressure
For Coordinators who want it, a collective model can also offer:
— access to inbound referrals
— exposure to national and telehealth pathways
— the ability to grow selectively
None of this is mandatory.
The model stands on its own for Coordinators who simply want:
— stability
— compliance support
— reduced admin
— a sustainable way to continue their work
Final Thoughts
Burnout in Support Coordination is not an individual failing.
It is the predictable outcome of a system that has outgrown its original structures.
The solution is not asking Coordinators to work harder.
The solution is building models that allow them to work longer, better, and more sustainably.
A national Support Coordination collective is not about scale for its own sake.
It is about protecting Coordinators, participants, and the integrity of the role now and into the future.
Author: Phil Bamback is a Director within regulated disability services, focused on governance frameworks and structured operating pathways across the NDIS.