JCPSLP Vol 21 No 3 2019

did not fare as well as younger children. There were no changes in uptake of communication aids in children aged 7–12 years, and a reduction in use in children aged 13–18 years. For participants who had been through the planning process, some stated that the practical planning information had been valuable in their NDIS planning session. NDIS funding outcomes appeared improved, with an increase from 30% of children with communication aid funding in their plans to 60% following KC2Y attendance. This is suggestive of the role of KC2Y as a conduit of information needed for the NDIS planning session. Disappointingly, the number of children receiving communication aid funding overall was lower than expected given the needs of the children who attended KC2Y services. Findings suggest however that children aged 0–6 years experienced greater success in receiving communication aids and SLP funding in their NDIS plans, and in accessing their SLP supports. In terms of children’s disabilities, use of communication aids decreased in children with ASD and/or intellectual disability. Given that it is widely accepted that children with ASD, intellectual disability, and those with multiple disabilities benefit from communication aids, it was surprising to see so few school-age children with these diagnoses receiving funding for communication aids. Neither KC2Y, nor the children’s prior use of communication aids appeared to influence these funding outcomes. It is therefore evident that continued SLP services are needed to upskill and support families, regardless of their past experiences with AAC. This appeared to be made worse by a low uptake of NDIS-funded SLP support across the school-age group: that is, only a third of children with ASD and 10% of children with intellectual disability with NDIS plans were accessing SLP support. Family members’ experience of the NDIS is consistent with the growing trend of NDIS participants receiving plans that do not meet their needs (Michael, 2019). Survey results suggested that overall NDIS planners recognised the need for communication support; however, funding was inconsistent. Some participants had communication aids funded but not SLP, and conversely, others received funding for SLP and not communication aids. It would appear that NDIS planners did not understand the complexities of AAC prescription and need for ongoing SLP support. In light of best practice guidelines for successful AAC intervention, which includes a combination of training, therapy and ongoing decision-making (Speech Pathology Australia, 2012), the inconsistency in funding across participants is cause for concern. Access to a SLP is important for AAC modifications to continue meeting changing communication needs (McNaughton et al., 2019). Limitations KC2Y SLP had visited regions prior to or at the time of the NDIS rollout; however, only two-thirds of the participant group had funding plans in place 9-months later, which detracted from the extent to which the impact of KC2Y on NDIS planning could be explored. Findings from this study were insufficient to determine the precise aspects of the KC2Y service that might have enhanced participant access to and uptake of AAC due to the heterogeneity of children and the communication aids received. In addition, as all participants attended both a workshop and consultation, and without conducting a controlled study, the extent to which results could be

attributed to service, or its most effective components remains unknown. Although the survey response rate was high, the self- reported data was from a small sample of 58 families and caution should be taken in generalising the results. The survey wording of some questions may have been confusing as similar terms, communication aids and communication support, could have been more clearly differentiated. Clarification will be sought through future in- depth interviews that will provide richer and more nuanced information. Conclusion KC2Y aimed to connect families of children with communication difficulties with communication aids and AAC information via workshops and individual information consultations. The findings from this study indicate that knowledge barriers exist to access and use communication aids. An AAC education service model offers the potential to lead to improvements in family members’ knowledge and skills in AAC. Results from the survey suggest families’ willingness to take up AAC intervention, though, this did not always result in provision of funding. Children most needing AAC support (namely those with multiple diagnoses and children with ASD) appeared at the highest risk of failure to access AAC and SLP support. Additionally, school age children 13–18 years of age were under-represented both in the data and worryingly, in receiving positive NDIS planning outcomes. Continued parental advocacy for their children’s AAC is important in the new NDIS environment and continuation of community capacity building services are needed. It is vital that key stakeholders, including families and NDIS planners, are educated on the value of AAC and what is needed to maximise children’s access to education and full participation in the community. Of concern was that these capacity-building services in AAC have been funded through philanthropy and are not viable under the current NDIS funding model. Cost-effective service models that are sustainable under the NDIS need to be found. Acknowledgements Thank you to the generosity of the Bowness Family Foundation, Scope Australia and Westfield for providing funding. References Allen, A. A., Schlosser, R. W., Brock, K. L., & Shane, H. C. (2017). The effectiveness of aided augmented input techniques for persons with developmental disabilities: a systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 33 , 149–159. doi:10.1080/07434618.201 7.1338752 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). Australians living with communication disability . Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ Latestproducts/4430.0Main%20Features872015?opendoc ument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4430.0&issue=2015& num=&view#Children Bailey, R. L., Parette, H. P., Jr., Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., & Carroll, K. (2006). Family members’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 37 , 50–60. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2006/006) Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults

146

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 3 2019

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology