NDIS Podcast Transcript
In this episode of the Steadway NDIS Podcast, Chris Hall sits down with Greg Barry, Founder and Principal Consultant of SDA Services, to explore the realities of Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) and the life-changing outcomes it can create for NDIS participants.
Drawing on years of experience helping people secure and optimise SDA funding, Greg shares valuable insights into SDA eligibility, funding pathways, single-occupancy housing, participant choice and control, and the evidence required to achieve successful outcomes. The conversation also explores the broader benefits of SDA, including improved safety, independence, community participation, and quality of life.
Whether you're a participant, family member, support coordinator, allied health professional, or disability provider, this episode offers practical guidance and a deeper understanding of one of the NDIS's most impactful supports.
Read the full transcript below.
Autism Support in Australia: Challenges, Innovation & the NDIS Podcast Transcript
[00:05] Chris Hall: Welcome to the Steadway NDIS Podcast. My name is Chris Hall, your host, and today I'm honoured to have Greg Barry with me.
Greg Barry is the Founder and Principal Consultant of SDA Services, who have been involved in the sector since 2017. SDA Services are well known amongst SDA providers for assisting NDIS participants to either obtain Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) funding for the first time or potentially increase, or "uplift", their SDA funding. This may involve moving from a group home arrangement to single-occupancy funding or exploring other housing scenarios.
Greg has worked alongside participants throughout their journeys for many years and has developed unique insights into the outcomes people achieve through SDA funding. Today we're going to unpack the myths, explore the realities, and discuss the life-changing opportunities that SDA can bring.
Greg, welcome to the podcast. It's a pleasure to have you on.
[01:09] Greg Barry: Thank you, Chris. It's a privilege to be here. Thanks for the invitation.
[01:12] Chris Hall: Well, if I'm honest, you're often seen as the person in the industry to speak to when it comes to SDA, so I know you're highly regarded for your consultancy services.
One of the things we do as a company is provide the SIL side of the equation. We're the on-site provider delivering core supports and all the services that typically sit alongside SDA funding. Through that work, we see people being discharged from hospital, applying for SDA funding, or navigating different housing pathways while already being NDIS participants.
To understand SDA properly, I think it's important to start with a foundational question. What do most people misunderstand about SDA and what it actually is?
[02:01] Greg Barry: I think the eligibility criteria are always front of mind for me.
People often focus on Extreme Functional Impairment and Very High Support Needs, but then there's another important component called the Needs Requirement. The Needs Requirement compares an SDA scenario with a non-SDA scenario and examines outcomes through a number of different lenses.
One of the things I really celebrate about the way the legislation is written is that it doesn't simply look at the physical building. It considers the combination of SDA and the supports that can be delivered within that SDA dwelling.
So SDA isn't just about bricks and mortar. While the design of the property is enormously important, it's also about how supports function within that environment and under that roof.
Another thing people often misunderstand is that SDA funding is attached to a dwelling. It isn't. SDA is a support attached to a person.
That means SDA is portable. Participants can choose where they live and can move between SDA properties. The funding belongs to the participant, not the building.
I also think people underestimate the permanence of SDA funding. Generally speaking, if someone qualifies for SDA, they are likely to remain eligible throughout their life unless the underlying impairment or support needs fundamentally change.
Of course, if someone's impairment improves to the point where they no longer need SDA, that's something to celebrate. But for most participants, SDA is a long-term support.
The final thing I'd mention is that SDA can significantly improve availability, security, and affordability of housing compared to the mainstream rental market.
[04:31] Chris Hall: That's a really interesting point because I think people often confuse SDA and SIL.
SIL is generally about support. SDA is about housing.
The two often intersect, but they're not the same thing. You can have SIL funding without SDA funding, and equally, having SIL funding doesn't automatically make you eligible for SDA.
One thing I notice is that people often assume SDA is only relevant for someone who uses a wheelchair or has very obvious physical disabilities. But in reality, SDA eligibility can be far broader than that.
[05:08] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
Historically, there were two groups of people commonly associated with SDA. The first were people with mobility impairments. The second were people who exhibited behaviours of concern and required robust housing solutions.
But over the years my understanding has evolved significantly.
One of the cohorts that I think is often overlooked is people with self-management impairments. This might include people living with intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, dementia, acquired brain injuries, or other neurological conditions.
I remember speaking to a psychiatrist in Sydney who worked extensively with people living with schizophrenia. He made a comment that has stayed with me ever since. He said, "My homeless clients tick every SDA box except they can walk."
That really struck me because it highlighted how much SDA is about functional impact rather than physical disability alone.
The group of people who may potentially benefit from SDA is much broader than many people realise.
[06:35] Chris Hall: That's a fantastic point.
A diagnosis itself doesn't determine SDA eligibility. It's the functional impact of that diagnosis.
Someone living with dementia, for example, may not use a wheelchair, but they might require enhanced environmental design, safer flooring, assistive technology, specialised lighting, and a living environment that reduces risks associated with falls or cognitive challenges.
It's really the practical impact on daily living that matters.
[07:05] Greg Barry: Exactly.
If I look back nine years ago, there are participants I probably would have ruled out as SDA candidates who today I would confidently advocate for.
The sector's understanding has matured significantly, and that's a positive thing because it means we're identifying more people who can genuinely benefit from SDA outcomes.
[07:28] Chris Hall: One thing I've noticed as both a provider and someone who works closely with SDA participants is that there can sometimes be a misconception that SDA is just about obtaining a nice house.
But when you talk to people who actually receive SDA funding, what often changes isn't just the property. It's their independence, confidence, wellbeing, relationships, and overall quality of life.
Do you think the broader community fully understands that aspect of SDA?
[07:56] Greg Barry: No, I don't think they do.
People understandably focus on the housing because that's the visible outcome. But what SDA often creates is a platform for a completely different life experience.
People can gain more independence. They may have improved privacy, stronger relationships, better access to supports, greater safety, and increased opportunities to participate in their community.
Housing is the mechanism, but the outcomes go far beyond housing itself.
[08:35] Chris Hall: That's a beautiful way of putting it.
At Steadway, we've seen participants move from circumstances where they had very limited choice and control into environments where they suddenly have much more autonomy.
Sometimes it's the small things that matter most. Being able to decide when you wake up. Choosing who you live with. Having more privacy. Being closer to family or community.
Those things can dramatically improve someone's quality of life.
[09:03] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
And those outcomes are precisely why SDA exists.
It's not about the building in isolation. It's about what becomes possible because the participant now has access to an environment that properly supports their needs.
[09:18] Chris Hall: Let's talk a little bit about the SDA application process because many people listening may have heard that SDA applications can be complex.
For someone who's completely new to the idea of SDA, what does that journey generally look like?
[09:33] Greg Barry: The process can be quite involved because it requires a substantial amount of evidence.
Typically, participants need reports from occupational therapists and other allied health professionals. There needs to be clear evidence demonstrating how the participant meets the SDA criteria.
The evidence has to explain not only the participant's impairment and support needs but also why SDA represents a better outcome than alternative housing options.
A lot of work goes into building that evidence base.
[10:08] Chris Hall: And that's probably one of the reasons specialist support coordinators and SDA specialists play such an important role.
Because it's not simply a matter of filling out a form. You're effectively building a case.
[10:20] Greg Barry: Exactly.
It's about presenting evidence that clearly demonstrates eligibility and aligns with the SDA Rules and the legislative framework.
The stronger and more relevant the evidence, the greater the likelihood of achieving a positive outcome.
[10:39] Chris Hall: One thing I find fascinating is that SDA funding itself can also evolve over time.
For example, someone may already have SDA funding but discover that their current category or funding level no longer reflects their circumstances.
That's where the concept of an SDA uplift often comes into play.
[10:57] Greg Barry: That's right.
People's circumstances change. Their support needs change. Their goals change.
Sometimes someone who was previously funded for a shared living arrangement may reach a point where single-occupancy SDA is more appropriate.
Other times, changes in functional capacity or support requirements mean a different SDA outcome is justified.
The SDA framework allows for those conversations to occur when the evidence supports them.
[11:29] Chris Hall: And I imagine that's where much of your work sits today—helping people not only access SDA for the first time but ensuring their funding continues to reflect their actual needs.
[11:40] Greg Barry: Exactly.
A large part of our work is helping participants understand their options and then assisting them to navigate the evidence and application processes required to achieve the most appropriate outcome.
15:01] Greg Barry: So there are really two sources of evidence that I always focus on.
The first is therapeutic evidence—primarily occupational therapy evidence. In our work, occupational therapists are almost always the lead practitioners conducting assessments, often supported by other allied health professionals.
The second source is evidence from the participant themselves and the people who support them. That's the non-therapeutic evidence. Then there's also the financial side of the equation—demonstrating costs and value for money, which is a critical consideration for the NDIS.
The therapeutic evidence addresses things that only qualified experts can assess. This includes Extreme Functional Impairment, whether that's related to mobility, self-care, or self-management. It also includes Very High Support Needs and the level of person-to-person support required.
Once eligibility is established, therapeutic evidence also helps determine which SDA design category is most appropriate for a person's specific circumstances.
That evidence is absolutely essential.
But beyond that, we also need to consider the participant's lived experience.
There's a provision within the Supports for Participants Rules that outlines what a decision-maker must consider when determining whether a support is effective and beneficial. One of those considerations is expert evidence and published literature, but another is the lived experience of participants and their carers.
It's our responsibility to help tell that story.
We need to understand how someone has lived, what challenges they've experienced, and how SDA could improve their outcomes.
The SDA Rules also make it clear that participant preference is a critical consideration. Before someone can express a meaningful preference, they need to understand all of their available options. Once they do, we need to capture that preference and explain the reasons behind it.
That story might include who they want to live with, their previous housing experiences, their goals, their community participation, or even their employment aspirations.
So it's really the combination of therapeutic evidence and lived experience that creates a strong application.
[17:59] Chris Hall: Absolutely.
And of course there are things like Appendix H, particularly when someone wants to live with a loved one, which can be highly relevant to that preference discussion.
One thing I see commonly is participants coming straight from hospital.
For example, someone might acquire a disability through a stroke and become an NDIS participant for the first time. In many cases, SDA funding is approved through the hospital pathway, but it's often approved for a group setting.
It's less common to see single-occupancy SDA approved immediately through that process.
That's one of the reasons we created our free e-learning program, The Insider's Guide to SDA. It's designed to educate participants, family members, support coordinators, and hospital teams about the different housing options available—including single-occupancy SDA.
A lot of people simply don't realise it's an option.
Single occupancy can obviously relate to goals and community participation, but it can also relate to evidence showing that living with others isn't suitable.
For example, if someone has a history of behavioural incidents, extensive incident reports, ABC data, or other documented evidence, those factors can support an application for single-occupancy funding.
Would you agree that evidence like that becomes critical when someone is trying to move from group-home SDA funding to single-occupancy SDA funding?
[19:43] Greg Barry: Completely.
When I think about these situations, I tend to prioritise issues in a descending order.
Safety is always at the top.
The examples you've given—incident reports, behavioural concerns, risks to the participant or others—those issues immediately bring safety into focus.
The next consideration is often the efficient delivery of supports.
There are situations where supports simply can't be delivered effectively when multiple participants are sharing a property. Someone's behaviours, support needs, or vulnerabilities may make that extremely difficult.
So yes, single occupancy can absolutely be a relevant and appropriate outcome.
We also frequently deal with situations involving two-person versus three-person living arrangements.
Sometimes a participant can comfortably live with one other person, but not two.
That becomes a more nuanced discussion because you need to explain why one arrangement works and another doesn't.
[20:45] Chris Hall: Can you unpack that a little further?
One of our SDA partners has two-bedroom properties, for example.
It's common for someone to have funding aligned to a three-person group setting, and then the question becomes: how do you demonstrate that a two-person arrangement is more appropriate?
I'd love to hear some examples.
[21:12] Greg Barry: Every participant is different, so these examples are always individual.
But one common scenario involves people who have sensory sensitivities.
They may be comfortable sharing with one other person, but two additional people becomes overwhelming.
Then you have to consider not only the residents but also visitors, family members, support workers, and everyone else moving through the property.
For some people, that additional activity becomes a tipping point.
Another common example is when support needs are extremely intensive.
The risks associated with those support needs may be significant, and support workers may need to maintain a high level of focus.
If those staff are responsible for supporting multiple participants simultaneously, the risk profile can increase substantially.
Those are just two examples, but there are many others depending on the individual circumstances.
[22:45] Chris Hall: Exactly.
And of course, those housing decisions intersect heavily with SIL funding and core supports.
We work with a range of SDA properties, including single-occupancy villas, which are often highly attractive because many people naturally want to live independently.
But whether that arrangement works depends heavily on the participant's support funding.
A common misunderstanding is that someone can obtain single-occupancy SDA funding, but their core supports might still be funded at a ratio that doesn't align with living independently.
So it's not just about obtaining the SDA funding. The support model also has to work.
Then you've got alternatives like the 10+1 apartment model, where multiple SDA apartments are supported by a concierge-style support arrangement.
That model can work incredibly well for some participants, but again, it depends on the individual.
One thing I've learned in the NDIS is that almost every sentence needs to end with, "It depends."
[24:39] Greg Barry: I completely agree.
One of the overarching principles in SDA is participant choice and preference.
The SDA Rules make that very clear.
Australia is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 19 states that people with disability have the right to choose where and with whom they live on an equal basis with others.
That's an incredibly important principle.
At the same time, we also have to acknowledge the realities of scheme sustainability and support efficiency.
When the NDIS Review Report was released, Bill Shorten made the observation that while people don't necessarily have to share a dwelling, there may be circumstances where sharing supports becomes important.
I understand that perspective.
The challenge is balancing individual rights with sustainability considerations.
I think design has a huge role to play here.
Good SDA design can allow participants to enjoy independence while still enabling efficient support delivery.
The 10+1 model is one example, but we're seeing many innovative housing models emerge across the sector.
[26:30] Chris Hall: Absolutely.
Good design can create that middle ground where people maintain independence while support delivery remains practical and sustainable.
And community integration is still critical.
You don't want to create disability enclaves. The goal is meaningful participation in the broader community.
[27:41] Greg Barry: Exactly.
That was one of the original policy intentions behind SDA.
Community integration must remain central to the conversation.
[28:03] Chris Hall: I suppose another important distinction is diagnosis versus functional impairment.
Someone can have a diagnosis, but the functional impact of that diagnosis can vary enormously between individuals.
Can you unpack that distinction and explain why functional impact is so important compared to diagnosis alone?
[28:25] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
I think diagnosis is relevant at the margins, but functional impairment and support needs are absolutely central.
It's actually quite straightforward when you look at the SDA eligibility criteria.
Extreme Functional Impairment is focused on impairment—not diagnosis. Whether we're talking about mobility, self-care, or self-management, the criteria are assessing the person's functional limitations and the impact those limitations have on daily life.
Likewise, the requirement for Very High Support Needs is focused on the level of support required, not the diagnosis itself.
The second pathway—Very High Need for Person-to-Person Support for a significant part of the day—is also entirely focused on support needs rather than diagnosis.
Of course, diagnosis helps explain the cause of the impairment and support requirements, so it's certainly relevant. But it's not the core issue.
The core issue is always impairment and support needs.
[29:50] Chris Hall: Let's unpack the value-for-money conversation a bit more because I think that's one of the most misunderstood parts of SDA.
Let's use a practical example.
Imagine someone already has an NDIS plan, but they're experiencing a functional decline. Dementia is a good example.
Let's say they're currently living in a private rental and receiving six hours of support each day. However, the property isn't suitable. There's a significant falls risk, and over time the evidence clearly demonstrates that the current arrangement isn't working.
So they apply for SDA funding.
As part of that process, they may also seek an increase in support funding. Let's say they move from six hours per day to twelve hours per day.
From a layperson's perspective, that can sound expensive.
Someone might say, "Hang on a minute. You're doubling the support hours and adding SDA funding on top. How is that value for money?"
I'm asking that deliberately because I know it's a question many people have.
How do you approach that conversation?
[31:40] Greg Barry: It's a really important question.
We actually spent a lot of time exploring exactly that issue because we would occasionally see decisions suggesting that SDA wasn't value for money.
At one point I found myself scratching my head and thinking, "How do we actually quantify this properly?"
That's when I started working with a colleague named Jason, who was studying mathematics and economics at the time.
Jason developed a financial model that compared SDA and non-SDA scenarios. That model was eventually peer-reviewed by an Australian university.
The model examined a range of variables.
One major factor was future support requirements.
Sometimes SDA requires an investment now, but that investment prevents significantly greater costs in the future.
Using your example, if someone remains in an unsuitable environment and experiences falls, injuries, or hospital admissions, their future support needs may increase substantially.
So SDA can actually prevent escalating costs.
Another major factor is assistive technology.
The return on investment from assistive technology was genuinely remarkable.
Something as simple as environmental controls can reduce the need for direct support in many situations.
For example, a participant might be able to independently open doors, control lights, or manage household functions through technology rather than relying on a support worker.
There are also efficiencies created through SDA design itself.
Supports can often be delivered more effectively and more safely within an SDA dwelling than within a standard property.
And then there's informal support.
In some housing arrangements, family members may struggle to visit or provide assistance.
In well-designed SDA settings, families are often more involved and able to contribute additional support, which also creates savings for the scheme.
When you put all those factors together, the value-for-money argument becomes much stronger than simply comparing support hours on paper.
[35:07] Chris Hall: Exactly.
And I raised the example deliberately because I wanted to demonstrate that value for money isn't simply about today's dollar figure.
It's about the broader picture.
When we talk about falls prevention, avoiding hospital admissions, reducing injuries, improving independence, and enabling assistive technology, suddenly the economics start looking very different.
Would you say that's where quantitative and qualitative outcomes begin to intersect?
[35:39] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
Initially our work was heavily quantitative.
We were modelling future outcomes and estimating future savings.
But then something occurred to me.
By 2023, people had actually been living in SDA for years.
Instead of only predicting outcomes, we could measure them.
So we commissioned independent surveys to examine the lived experience of participants already living in SDA.
Originally I was interested in validating the quantitative modelling.
What surprised me was how powerful the qualitative outcomes were.
The stories people shared about their lives were extraordinary.
[36:53] Chris Hall: Let's take assistive technology as an example.
Imagine a participant with a mobility impairment who can independently open their front door using environmental controls and voice technology.
On one level that's a demonstration of value for money because it reduces reliance on direct support.
But it also directly supports a participant's goals.
If someone's goal is to live as independently as possible, then being able to answer the door without assistance is hugely meaningful.
Would you agree that's where goals and value for money intersect?
[37:40] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
I've always been incredibly enthusiastic about SDA because the outcomes are so positive for participants.
But what's equally important is that SDA creates positive outcomes for the scheme itself.
It's genuinely a win-win.
The participant benefits.
The NDIS benefits.
Other government systems benefit.
Health systems benefit.
Even justice systems can benefit in some circumstances.
The more data we gather, the more those outcomes become evident.
[38:09] Chris Hall: That's probably a perfect segue into the survey data you shared with me.
One of the most striking findings was around participant safety.
Can you walk us through what the survey revealed?
[38:42] Greg Barry: Absolutely.
The results were extraordinary.
In the 2023 survey, participants rated their sense of safety before moving into SDA at approximately 3.5 out of 10.
After moving into SDA, that figure increased to almost 8 out of 10.
That's a profound improvement.
The 2024–2025 survey showed very similar trends.
The sample included approximately 150 participants who had been living in SDA for more than six months.
The increase in perceived safety was consistent across both surveys.
[39:46] Chris Hall: That's remarkable.
Were these surveys conducted independently?
[39:55] Greg Barry: Yes.
The first survey was conducted by ORIMA Research.
The second was conducted independently by Tamara Ranisch, who had previously worked with ORIMA before establishing her own business.
The surveys weren't limited to people who had used our services.
The SDA Alliance also helped facilitate participation through its membership network, which ensured broad representation.
[40:41] Chris Hall: Another statistic that really stood out to me was hospitalisation data.
The average number of hospital nights before SDA was above 25 nights.
After SDA, it dropped to roughly nine nights.
That's a massive reduction.
Why do you think those outcomes occur?
[41:28] Greg Barry: It really comes back to safety and the effective delivery of supports.
When someone lives in an environment specifically designed around their needs, many risks are reduced.
Supports are delivered more safely and more efficiently.
But beyond that, I think wellbeing itself plays a role.
Better housing leads to better wellbeing.
Better wellbeing often contributes to better health outcomes.
While that's difficult to measure perfectly, I strongly suspect it's part of the story.
And the economic implications are significant.
A hospital bed can cost approximately $2,500 per day.
When you reduce hospital admissions and hospital stays, the savings become substantial.
Those savings aren't just relevant to the NDIS either.
They're relevant to state health systems and federal budgets as well.
[43:26] Chris Hall: Exactly.
If you reduce hospital stays by fifteen days and each day costs around $2,500, you're already talking about tens of thousands of dollars in savings.
When you look at it that way, the value-for-money argument becomes incredibly compelling.
And we see real-world examples all the time.
We've supported participants who were previously living in unsuitable properties and experiencing falls, injuries, and avoidable incidents.
Once they moved into appropriate SDA housing, those risks reduced dramatically.
It's one of those situations where the benefits become obvious when you see them firsthand.
[45:15] Chris Hall: Another outcome measured in the surveys was overall life satisfaction.
And again, the increase was dramatic.
Participants consistently reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction after moving into SDA.
What do you think drives those improvements?
[45:49] Greg Barry: Honestly, the results speak for themselves.
The improvements were overwhelmingly positive.
Participants reported better safety, improved standards of living, stronger relationships, greater future security, and overall improvements in life satisfaction.
The outcomes were consistently positive across multiple domains.
It's incredibly encouraging data.
[46:01] Chris Hall: One of the things that strikes me when listening to these outcomes is how relevant SDA is to the broader housing crisis conversation.
Australia is obviously experiencing housing pressures across the board. Rental affordability is a challenge for many people, and vacancy rates remain low in many areas.
For people with disability, those challenges can be even more significant.
Do you think SDA sometimes gets overlooked as part of the broader housing conversation?
[46:36] Greg Barry: I do.
One of the things that SDA provides is housing security. That's something we don't always talk about enough.
When participants move into SDA, they often experience a level of housing stability that they've never had before.
Many participants have experienced years of housing insecurity, unsuitable accommodation, temporary arrangements, or constant uncertainty about where they will live next.
SDA can fundamentally change that.
And when you think about wellbeing, housing security is incredibly important. It's very difficult to focus on employment, education, relationships, health, or community participation if you're constantly worried about where you're going to live.
[47:42] Chris Hall: Absolutely.
Housing becomes the foundation that everything else sits on top of.
One thing I've observed in the SDA space is that decision-making can sometimes appear inconsistent. Different participants with seemingly similar circumstances can receive different outcomes.
Do you think that's improving?
[48:05] Greg Barry: I think it's improving, but there's still work to do.
The SDA Rules themselves are actually quite detailed.
The challenge is ensuring those rules are applied consistently across a large scheme.
Any time you have human decision-makers interpreting evidence, there will naturally be some variation.
That said, I think we've seen increasing maturity in the way SDA decisions are being made.
There's a much stronger evidence base now than there was several years ago, and I think that's helping improve consistency.
[49:01] Chris Hall: Looking ahead, what do you think the future of SDA looks like?
If we fast-forward five years, what do you hope to see?
[49:15] Greg Barry: I hope we continue seeing innovation.
The SDA market today is dramatically different from what it looked like seven or eight years ago.
We're seeing better design, more participant choice, greater housing diversity, and a much stronger focus on outcomes.
I think we'll continue seeing more sophisticated housing models emerge.
We'll also continue seeing greater integration of assistive technology and smarter environmental design.
Most importantly, I hope we continue seeing participants empowered to make meaningful choices about where and how they live.
Because ultimately, that's what SDA is about.
[50:16] Chris Hall: One thing that's generating a lot of discussion at the moment is the future introduction of support needs assessments through the ICAN process.
People naturally wonder how those changes may influence SDA eligibility and housing pathways.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
[50:38] Greg Barry: It's obviously a developing area, and we'll need to see how it unfolds in practice.
My general view is that SDA eligibility remains grounded in legislation and the SDA Rules.
Whatever assessment processes are introduced, they still need to support decision-making against those existing criteria.
The fundamental questions remain the same:
- Does the person have Extreme Functional Impairment or Very High Support Needs?
- Do they satisfy the Needs Requirement?
- Is SDA value for money?
- Will SDA deliver better outcomes?
Those questions don't disappear.
So while assessment processes may evolve, the legislative framework remains critically important.
[51:47] Chris Hall: That's a really helpful distinction.
Another thing I've noticed is that the SDA market itself feels more mature than it did a few years ago.
There was a period where investors were flooding into the sector because they heard stories about high returns.
Now the conversation seems more sophisticated.
Do you think the market has matured?
[52:12] Greg Barry: Definitely.
In the early days there was a lot of enthusiasm and, frankly, a lot of misunderstanding.
People sometimes viewed SDA purely through an investment lens.
What we've learned over time is that SDA is fundamentally about people.
Good outcomes require:
- Good housing
- Good supports
- Good participant matching
- Good operational management
It's a much more complex ecosystem than many people initially appreciated.
I think we're now seeing a more mature market where quality and participant outcomes are receiving greater attention.
[53:13] Chris Hall: And that's probably a healthy evolution because ultimately participants are the people who matter most.
If the focus stays on outcomes, the rest tends to follow.
For people listening who may not be familiar with SDA Services, can you explain how you typically work with participants?
[53:33] Greg Barry: Certainly.
Most commonly, we work with participants who are either seeking SDA funding for the first time or looking to review and potentially improve their existing SDA funding arrangements.
That might involve:
- Initial SDA eligibility assessments
- SDA evidence development
- Housing pathway planning
- Single-occupancy funding applications
- Change-of-circumstance requests
- SDA funding reviews
- Collaboration with occupational therapists and support coordinators
Ultimately, our role is to help participants understand their options and navigate the evidence requirements associated with SDA.
[54:31] Chris Hall: One thing I appreciate about your work is that you're always very evidence-focused.
You don't seem to approach SDA from a "one-size-fits-all" perspective.
Everything comes back to the participant's individual circumstances.
[54:45] Greg Barry: It has to.
Every participant is different.
Their support needs are different.
Their goals are different.
Their preferences are different.
The evidence needs to reflect those individual circumstances.
The SDA Rules themselves are designed around individualised decision-making, so that's always the lens through which we approach our work.
[55:23] Chris Hall: I think that's probably one of the biggest lessons anyone can learn in the NDIS.
The answer to almost every question is: "It depends."
There are principles and frameworks, but ultimately everything comes back to the individual.
[55:41] Greg Barry: Exactly.
And that's why participant preference is so important.
The system is built around choice and control.
Those principles should always remain central to the conversation.
[56:05] Chris Hall: Before we wrap up, if there was one message you could leave with participants, families, support coordinators, and providers regarding SDA, what would it be?
[56:18] Greg Barry: I would encourage people not to make assumptions about SDA eligibility.
Sometimes people assume they're not eligible when they actually are.
Sometimes they assume a particular housing outcome isn't possible when it may be.
The best thing people can do is seek advice, understand the criteria, and explore their options properly.
SDA has the potential to create life-changing outcomes for the right participants.
And as we've discussed today, those outcomes extend far beyond housing itself.
[57:08] Chris Hall: I love that.
For anyone listening, we'll include links to SDA Services in the show notes so you can learn more about Greg's work.
We'll also include links to our free SDA education resources, including The Insider's Guide to SDA, which helps participants and families understand the different pathways available.
Greg, thank you so much for joining us today.
It's been an incredibly insightful conversation.
[57:37] Greg Barry: Thank you, Chris. It's been a real pleasure.
[57:41] Chris Hall: And thank you to everyone listening.
This has been the Steadway NDIS Podcast. My name is Chris Hall, your host.
Please like, comment, subscribe, and share if you found today's discussion helpful.
We'll see you next time.
Steadway supports people with disability to live independent, meaningful lives on their own terms. As a registered NDIS provider and SDA specialist, we deliver high-quality, personalised supports and acoommodation designed around each person’s goals, needs, and aspirations.
We proudly serve Sydney’s Sydney and Hornsby, as well as the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, and the Hunter Valley. Our experienced team is committed to compassionate, reliable, and forward-thinking disability support—focused on building trust, consistency, and real outcomes that last.