"My situation is high-risk. Why don't I have a behaviour support plan?" Understanding NDIS Safety Plans vs. Long-Term Plans
Preface
This post is a special edition ‘Deep Dive’ into one of the many profound questions that come up often in our work. It provides a more comprehensive analysis that draws information together in one place, for those interested in reading further. We cite the sources as well - so all of the information provided here is up to date at the time of writing. Don’t trust our word on this however - always research the sources. The NDIS in particular is well known for changing regularly! We urge you to do your own research and keep informed.
Estimated Reading Time: 9-10 minutes
Reading Tip: Click on the articles - they open up to nice layout to read more easily.
Audio Tip: Use your favourite app to ‘read aloud’ - we suggest Google Read & Write as it has a solid free version and works with Google Chrome.
Image of a Black Page with the word ‘Plan’
Introductions
In today’s world introductions are often overlooked in their importance. While often these come at the end of articles, we’ve decided for good reason to introduce you to the author up front.
Dr Jorandi (Jo) Kisiku Joseph Randolph Bowers is a PhD in Health Counselling Psychotherapy, a qualification they earned from winning a doctoral teaching and research scholarship at UNE from 1998 to 2002. Doc Jo has three doctoral degrees, as well as many qualifications and years of experience. They worked full time as a Behaviour Specialist since 2012, well before the NDIS rolled out in Australia. His practice focuses often on highly complex cases with dual and multiple diagnosis.
Jo works with and founded Ability Therapy Specialists with another senior behavioural specialist, Dr Dwayne Wannamarra Andrew Kennedy. Dr Dwayne is a PhD in Counselling with many degrees in education and community based services. He has worked in disabilities since youth, and in specialist behaviour support since around 2016 with full time work in this area since 2018.
As many like to know more about the author, Jo earned a Doctor of Divinity in Ceramic Arts & Spirituality, received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity in Spirituality, and holds a Master of Education in Counselling Psychotherapy, Diploma in Ericksonian Hypnotherapy and Counselling, Practitioner Certification in Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy, and a Bachelor of Arts in Spirituality & Philosophy.
Jo is a NDIS registered specialist behaviour support practitioner and counsellor, senior honorary member with the Australian Counselling Association, senior fellow of the Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine, and author of over 250 works including a dozen books. Having worked in specialist behaviour support in the years prior to NDIS roll out, Joseph Randolph was asked by managers to stay in regional New England in NSW and set up a community practice. This led Jo to take up the work of Director and Senior Clinical Specialist with Ability Therapy Specialists Pty Ltd, a registered NDIS provider in Australia. Their work includes telehealth therapy for people across the country – often helping where waiting lists are extreme and in Australia’s most rural, remote and bush settings.
Jo is an author of over 250 works, with a dozen books including ‘Clay Art Therapy and Spirituality,’ ‘The Practice of Counselling,’ ‘Mi’kmaq Puoinaq Two Spirit Medicine,’ ‘Sacred Teachings from the Mi’kmaq Medicine Lodge,’ and ‘Solitude Awakens: The Heart, Forest, Mountain Way.’
A Guide for Participants and Families
We know that waiting for a behaviour support plan can be stressful, especially when you're managing high-risk situations. You may have heard about a "30-Day Rule" and are left wondering, "Why is my plan taking so long?"
This is a common and completely valid question. Here’s the simple answer:
That 30-day timeline is a specific legal safeguard that only applies when a 'restrictive practice' (like using locked doors, gates, or physical restraints) is involved. It’s a human rights rule to make sure those practices are monitored.
But what if your situation is high-risk, but doesn't involve those things? Does that mean you just wait?
Absolutely not.
Your provider's first legal and ethical duty is to your immediate safety. This is covered by different NDIS rules (the Code of Conduct and Practice Standards). In any high-risk case, a good practitioner's first step isn't to write a comprehensive plan, but to create an interim safety plan.
This "safety plan" is a vital document. It gives your support team and family clear, immediate steps on how to de-escalate and manage unsafe situations right now.
This immediate safety plan allows the practitioner to do the most important job: a proper assessment (we call it a "Functional Behaviour Assessment" or FBA) to understand the why behind the behaviour. A final plan written without this assessment is just guesswork.
In short: A "safety plan" comes first (for immediate risk). The full "behaviour support plan" comes later (for long-term change).
This article explores the details of these different NDIS rules. It's helpful for understanding your rights and what you should expect from your provider. For providers and other professionals, the fully cited analysis is included below.
Image of a person sitting with a laptop and puppy looking to the camera
Deeper-Dive Summary for Humans
For NDIS providers and practitioners, the "30-day rule" for behaviour support plans (BSPs) is a common point of focus. However, this timeline is widely misunderstood. Our analysis confirms this 30-day deadline applies only to cases involving a regulated restrictive practice (RP). This is a human rights safeguard, triggering the need for a lodged "Interim BSP" (Part 3, Section 12 of the NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules 2018).
But what about high-risk cases where no restrictive practices are present? The Behaviour Support Rules do not set a specific deadline for these scenarios. Instead, urgency is dictated by a different, and often more immediate, set of obligations:
Provider's Duty: The NDIS Practice Standards (Core Module, Section 4: Risk Management) require providers to have a system to "identify, analyse, prioritise and treat" risks. A high-risk history (even if stable) is a known risk requiring proactive management.
Practitioner's Duty: The NDIS Code of Conduct (Section 1(d)) mandates a Duty of Care, requiring practitioners to "provide supports and services in a safe and competent manner, with care and skill."
Reactive Duty: If a high-risk behaviour does cause harm, the NDIS (Incident Management and Reportable Incidents) Rules 2018 (Part 2, Section 6) apply, requiring a Reportable Incident notification within 24 hours.
In all cases, the Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA) must be completed before the Behaviour Support Plan (BSP). For the 30-day Interim BSP, the law explicitly requires it to be based on a "preliminary functional behaviour assessment" (Section 12(3)(a) of the Behaviour Support Rules). For high-risk, non-RP cases, best practice (driven by the Code of Conduct) involves an "interim safety plan" to ensure immediate safety and guide data collection for the full FBA.
Key Points
The 30-day (1-month) timeline is for lodging an Interim BSP and is triggered only by the use of a Regulated Restrictive Practice (RP).
Source: NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules 2018, Part 3, Section 12(1).
This Interim BSP must still be based on a preliminary FBA. The FBA always comes first.
Source: NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules 2018, Part 3, Section 12(3)(a).
For cases with no RPs (even if high-risk), the 30-day rule for BSPs does not apply. The Behaviour Support Rules timelines are tied to the lodgement requirements for RPs.
The urgency for high-risk, non-RP cases is driven by:
The provider's Risk Management obligations.
Source: NDIS Practice Standards, Core Module, Section 4: Risk Management.
The practitioner's Duty of Care.
Source: NDIS Code of Conduct, Section 1(d).
If a high-risk behaviour results in a critical incident, the 24-hour Reportable Incident timeline is the primary legal driver for an immediate response.
Source: NDIS (Incident Management and Reportable Incidents) Rules 2018, Part 2, Section 6.
Clinically, a practitioner should still create an "interim safety plan" for any high-risk case to manage immediate safety. This is a clinical best-practice tool derived from the duty of care, not the legislated "Interim BSP" document.
Navigating the Grey: Reconciling NDIS Timelines, High Risk, and the Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA) -First Principles
For NDIS Behaviour Support Practitioners and providers, navigating the legislative landscape is a complex task of reconciling clinical best practice with a rule-based framework. A central point of confusion is the timeline for intervention, particularly in high-risk cases.
The framework, especially the NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules 2018, appears to tie all urgency to the use of regulated restrictive practices (RPs). This leaves a critical question: What are the legislative provisions for a participant who presents with high-risk behaviours but has no RPs in place?
This article analyses the interplay between the NDIS Rules, Practice Standards, and Code of Conduct to clarify the required order of operations, with direct citations for verification.
Section 1: The "Known" Rule (The 30-Day RP Clock)
The most commonly cited timeline is the one-month (30-day) rule. This is found in the NDIS (Behaviour Support) Rules 2018, Part 3, Section 12.
What it is: This rule mandates that a behaviour support plan (an Interim BSP) must be lodged with the NDIS Commission.
When it applies: It is triggered only when a regulated restrictive practice is first used with a participant.
Source (Section 12(1)): "If... a behaviour support plan that provides for the use of a regulated restrictive practice... has not been developed, the NDIS provider... must ensure that... an interim behaviour support plan... is developed... and... a copy is lodged with the NDIS Commission... within 1 month after the use of the regulated restrictive practice..."
What it requires: A common misunderstanding is that this 30-day rush means the BSP is written before the assessment. This is incorrect. The Rules explicitly state the Interim BSP must be:
Source (Section 12(3)(a)): "...based on a functional behaviour assessment, which may be a preliminary functional behaviour assessment..."
The legislation correctly anticipates that a comprehensive assessment is impossible in 30 days. It therefore makes provision for a "preliminary FBA." This triage-style assessment allows the practitioner to form an initial hypothesis of function, identify immediate risks, and create a plan that, first and foremost, ensures the RP is being used as safely as possible.
The 30-day clock, therefore, is a specific human-rights safeguard triggered exclusively by the use of RPs.
Section 2: The Apparent "Gap" (High-Risk, No RPs)
This brings us to the core dilemma. What provision covers a participant with a history of severe self-injury, physical aggression toward others, or dangerous absconding, but for whom no RPs are authorised or in use?
If a practitioner searches the Behaviour Support Rules 2018 for a timeline, they will not find one. This is because the legislative urgency for this scenario is not located within the Behaviour Support Rules. The timelines in Part 3 (Interim) and Part 4 (Comprehensive) are structurally linked to the lodgement and oversight of plans containing restrictive practices.
To assume no urgency is required is a critical error. The urgency is simply driven by different, and often more immediate, legal requirements.
Section 3: The True Provisions for High-Risk, Non-RP Cases
In the absence of the 30-day RP clock, a practitioner and provider must turn to three other core pillars of the NDIS framework.
1. The NDIS Practice Standards (Proactive Risk Management)
This is the provider's primary proactive obligation. Under the NDIS Practice Standards and Quality Indicators, Core Module, Section 4: Risk Management, providers must demonstrate:
"Each participant’s support plan includes a risk assessment that identifies risks to the participant... Risks are managed through a risk management system... The provider’s risk management system supports the provider to identify, analyse, prioritise and treat risks..."
A referral for a participant with a "history of high risk" (even if currently stable) is a clearly identified risk. The provider's own NDIS-audited system legally obligates them to "treat" this risk. In this context, "treatment" is the commissioning of a specialist behaviour support assessment (an FBA) to proactively mitigate that risk.
2. The NDIS (Incident Management and Reportable Incidents) Rules 2018 (Reactive Response)
This is the provider's primary reactive obligation. If the participant's high-risk behaviour results in a "Reportable Incident" (RI)—such as those defined in Section 5 (e.g., "the serious injury of a person with disability")—an immediate legal timeline is triggered.
Source (Section 6(1) & 6(2)): The provider must notify the NDIS Commission of the RI within 24 hours of becoming aware of the incident.
Following this notification, the Commission will require the provider to detail the "remedial action" taken. This action would, by necessity, include an urgent clinical response, such as commissioning an immediate FBA and safety plan. In this scenario, the 24-hour RI rule provides a far more rapid trigger for intervention than the 30-day BSP rule.
3. The NDIS Code of Conduct (Practitioner's Duty of Care)
This is the provision that governs the individual practitioner. All NDIS workers and practitioners are bound by the NDIS Code of Conduct, which is a legislative instrument under the NDIS Act 2013.
Source (Section 1(d)): The Code requires that practitioners must:
"provide supports and services in a safe and competent manner, with care and skill."
A "competent" practitioner, upon receiving a referral detailing high-risk behaviours, has an ethical and professional duty of care. They must use their clinical judgment to triage this case at a high priority. De-prioritising the case simply because it lacks an RP—and therefore a legislative lodgement deadline—would be a failure to act with "care and skill."
Section 4: The Interim Plan Dilemma (Legislative vs. Clinical)
Given these provisions, why does the legislation not offer an "Interim BSP" provision for high-risk, non-RP cases?
The answer lies in the critical distinction between a legislative document and a clinical tool.
The Legislative "Interim BSP": This is a formal, legal document. Its sole purpose is to be lodged with the NDIS Commission to provide oversight for a human rights-impacting restrictive practice (as defined in Section 12 of the Behaviour Support Rules). Because there are no RPs in our scenario, the Commission does not require a document for lodgement. Therefore, the legislative provision is not "triggered."
The Clinical "Interim Safety Plan": This is a best-practice tool. It is what any competent practitioner should develop in any high-risk case. It is not called an "Interim BSP" and it is not lodged with the Commission.
This clinical document is mandated by the practitioner's Duty of Care (under the NDIS Code of Conduct). Its purpose is to:
Provide immediate risk-mitigation guidance to the support team.
Outline clear de-escalation strategies.
Establish the specific data collection methods required to complete the full FBA.
This interim safety plan is the provision. It is the first step in the FBA process, not a replacement for it.
Image of a lady on mobile phone at a laptop outside at table in garden
Conclusion: The Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA) is Always First
The logical and legal progression for any behaviour support case is clear, though it requires looking at the entire NDIS framework, not just one set of rules.
The FBA is the Priority: A BSP—whether interim or comprehensive—can never be written without an FBA. The assessment always comes first. This is explicitly stated for Interim BSPs in Section 12(3)(a) of the Behaviour Support Rules.
The Trigger Defines the Timeline:
If RPs are present: The 30-day lodgement clock for an Interim BSP starts (Behaviour Support Rules, S12). The first job is a preliminary FBA.
If RPs are absent (but risk is high): The provider's Risk Management standards (Practice Standards, Core Module, S4) and the practitioner's Duty of Care (Code of Conduct, S1(d)) create the urgency. The first job is to create an interim safety plan based on a preliminary FBA.
If an incident occurs: The 24-hour RI rule forces an immediate organisational response (Incident Management Rules, S6).
Disclaimer
The content provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, clinical, or specialist behaviour support advice. It should not be relied upon as such.
All information is provided in good faith, however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, or completeness of any information. The NDIS legislative framework, including the NDIS Act 2013 and associated Rules and Practice Standards, is complex and subject to change.
This article is not a substitute for professional advice from a qualified NDIS Behaviour Support Practitioner. You should always consult with an appropriate professional to address your specific circumstances. Under no circumstance shall Ability Therapy Specialists Pty Ltd have any liability to you for any loss or damage incurred as a result of the use of this information. Reliance on any information provided in this post is solely at your own risk. This article, website, and your participation are governed under the Client Booklet - Privacy Policy: Disclaimer, Terms, Conditions as a necessary provision under Australian service quality standards.
Thank You from Dr Jo - And Safe Holidays Ahead
We wanted to take this moment as we head to end of November - can you believe it? To say Thank You to all the people who supported our service this year with referrals and to clients who rely on our roles in their lives - a huge thank you.