Northern Grampians Shire Council Community Care Service Review Engagement Report - April 2026
1. Purpose and context
Northern Grampians Shire Council undertook a Community Care Service Review between October 2025 and March 2026. It involved a thorough community engagement process with current clients, direct care workers, shire residents and their caregivers, and industry stakeholders to understand their current experiences, future needs and potential priorities for aged care and community support services.
This report is based on insights obtained during the 2026 Community Care Service Review engagement process which included activities such as several councillor briefings and workshops, staff engagement, community and client surveys, place-based engagement activities in the community, and targeted engagement with service providers and industry personnel.
The findings are intended to guide service review recommendations regarding the future of community care service delivery, with a council decision scheduled for July 2026.
The report maps community feedback and provider perspectives, highlighting the issues most relevant to council’s deliberations and the questions that must be resolved.
The engagement was designed and committed to under the IAP2 Consult Framework. Council's public promise was:
"We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision."
This document fulfils that promise. It maps what the community told us directly against each of the four options identified in the 2025 Community Care Service Review Report and outlines the findings most relevant to the questions council must resolve.
Council has four options before it:
(1) Continue investigation before deciding;
(2) Make an in-principle decision to withdraw;
(3) Continue service delivery;
(4) Immediate withdrawal.
The engagement findings carry specific and material implications for each.
Council would like to thank all community members and stakeholders who contributed to the Community Care Service Review engagement process between October 2025 and March 2026.
We acknowledge and appreciate the time, lived experience and thoughtful feedback shared by older residents, current service users, carers and families, survey respondents, workshop participants, community groups, service providers, and Council staff and councillors. Your input has directly informed this report and will help guide council’s decision-making about the future of community care services in Northern Grampians.
2. Community survey
Before mapping the findings to the options, it is important to state clearly and plainly what the 134 survey respondents communicated. These are not edge-case voices. The respondents are, overwhelmingly, people whose lives will be most directly shaped by council's decision.
2.1 Who responded (summary)
The respondent profile closely matches the population most affected by this decision.
• 77% were aged 70 or over;
• 47% were aged 80 or over; and
• 59% are current users of council's in-home care services.
The two largest groups are Stawell residents (66%) and St Arnaud residents (26%), directly reflecting the geographic distribution of current clients
2.2 What they told us (top five summary)
01
02
They want to stay in their homes. The most consistent theme across all open-ended responses was the desire to remain living independently at home for as long as possible, with appropriate support. This is not a preference - for many it is the difference between wellbeing and crisis.
They depend on domestic assistance above everything else. Domestic assistance (cleaning and laundry) was ranked the top priority by 43.75% of respondents - more than any other service category - and is currently used by 60.63% of service users. It is the single highest-volume service council delivers (10,768 hours in 2025).
03
They want council to keep delivering services. When asked to rank how council should support older people, 75.81% ranked 'continue providing direct in-home services' as their single top priority - by a wide margin over every other option presented, including advocacy, information provision and social programs.
04
They are concerned about accessing care, not just receiving it. Over 48% of people are concerned about accessing aged care services, and 57.94% said the most helpful change would be help understanding their entitlements. Around 24% could not distinguish between My Aged Care and council services - underscoring how fragile the system navigation piece already is for people.
05
They trust their workers and are afraid of losing them. Service cancellations (15.75%) and inconsistent workers (15.75%) are the most commonly reported service challenges. When asked what would help them access services, 'continuity of care - same workers' ranked third. The community has built trust in known faces, and values this above almost everything except maintaining service quality.
2.3 Key themes (summary)
Regardless of which option council selects, the engagement findings surface five themes that must be addressed in the decision and any subsequent implementation.
Theme A: System navigation is broken and must be fixed
57.94% want help understanding their entitlements, 53.17% want better information about available services, and 24.41% cannot distinguish My Aged Care from council services.
This is not a minor communication issue. For a community where 77% are aged 70 or over, where digital literacy is low (websites and social media are the least preferred information channels), and where the aged care system has recently undergone major reform, navigating entitlements is genuinely difficult. Under any option, council should maintain or establish a system navigation function - a local, accessible, non-digital touchpoint that helps residents understand and access their entitlements. This aligns directly with the 'System Navigation and Support' role described in the Engagement Framework as something council can provide even if it steps back from direct delivery.
Theme B: Non-digital communication is non-negotiable
Printed materials (61%), in-person conversation (56%) and phone calls (55%) are the three preferred communication channels. Websites were chosen by only 6.35% and social media by 7.14%.
Any communication about service changes, transition arrangements or new providers must be delivered through printed materials, phone calls, and face-to-face sessions - not primarily through websites or social media. This has direct implications for transition planning, provider communications and the ongoing community information role council will need to maintain under any scenario.
The community was explicit:
"To be kept informed manually, not through the computer. Older people (most) like to do things through other people and not online."
Theme C: Continuity of workers is a service quality threshold
Service cancellations and inconsistent workers each effect 15.75% of respondents - the top two service complaints. 'Continuity of care (same workers)' was selected by 29.37% as one of their top three access enablers.
For older residents managing health conditions, mobility challenges and reduced social connection, a familiar face is not a nicety - it is a safety and quality threshold. If council continues, addressing cancellations and worker consistency is a direct mandate from the community. If council exits, ensuring worker continuity through transition arrangements - including exploring employment transfer opportunities with successor providers - is a core obligation.
Theme D: Affordability is a constraint on any market solution
Over 41% of people are concerned about cost of living and affordability, with 56% of shire residents having low incomes. The community cannot readily absorb increased co-contributions.
The 2025 draft report notes the shire's older population has limited capacity to pay for private services due to low incomes. The engagement confirms this - residents are already anxious about affordability. Any transition to a market-based model where co-contributions rise, even modestly, risks a significant reduction in service uptake among the most vulnerable. 'Keeping services affordable' was ranked second in priority if council changes its delivery model (weighted score 2.64 out of 6).
Theme E: Rural and remote clients carry disproportionate risk
Approximately 60 clients in rural and remote settlements rely on council as their main provider. The CDCS report identified rural clients as most exposed to reform impacts.
While the survey predominantly captured Stawell (66%) and St Arnaud (26%) residents, the 2025 draft report is clear that smaller townships - Navarre, Stuart Mill, Great Western, Halls Gap - face the greatest risk of service gaps. Any decision that results in council withdrawal must include specific, credible arrangements for these cohorts. The survey's open-ended responses referenced transport barriers, lack of alternatives, and the physical impossibility of travelling to access services elsewhere.
2.4 What the findings do and do not resolve
What community engagement DOES resolve What community engagement DOES NOT resolve
The direction of community preferenceunambiguously, residents want Council to continue direct service delivery.
The most important service to protect: domestic assistance, used by 60.63% of current clients and ranked first priority by 43.75% of all respondents.
The communication channels that must be used in any future model: printed materials, phone, in-person - not digital.
The three highest-risk service failures to avoid: service cancellations, inconsistent workers, and gaps in system navigation support.
The legitimacy of Council's process - a robust, public engagement has been completed, and Council can now make a final decision with confidence that it has listened.
Whether continuation is financially sustainable beyond 2027 under the fee-for-service model. This remains a critical open question.
Whether alternative providers can scale to absorb Council's client load if it exits - provider consultation has not yet been fully concluded.
The unit pricing and financial viability question under the Support at Home model, pending Federal Government release of funding structures in Q2 2026.
The capacity of the local labour market to sustain a workforce for aged care services under any provider configuration.
The views of service providers on their capacity and willingness to step in - this dimension of the investigation is still required.
2.5 Strengths, gaps and opportunities
Council activities supporting older people to “live well”
(Evidence based, excluding in home care)
Council activity / asset
Parks and reserves
Libraries
Aquatic and leisure centres
Senior citizens centres
Community centres
Council events and programs
Healthy ageing / physical activity programs
Information provision and service navigation
Advocacy (health, transport, funding)
Age friendly infrastructure and planning (e.g. pool access upgrades)
How it supports “living well” Direct link to engagement findings
Concerns about safety, calls for elderly units, age appropriate housing.
Clear strengths
Strong physical and social infrastructure
• High usage of parks, libraries, leisure facilities, senior and community centres.
• These directly support health, connection and independence
Trusted, local council presence
• Council seen as a legitimate and trusted source of information and advocacy.
• Preference for non-digital, human communication aligns with council capability
Place based role
• Council assets already align strongly with how residents define “living well”.
Clear gaps
Transport
• Repeatedly cited as a barrier to:
o Healthcare
o Social participation
o Family connection
• Community transport described as limited and unaffordable
Information and navigation
• Majority want help understanding entitlements and available services
• Significant confusion between My Aged Care and council services
Health access beyond council control
• Persistent unmet need for:
o Podiatry
o Physiotherapy
o Allied health
o Local doctors
Age-appropriate housing and infrastructure
• Calls for elderly units
• Concerns about safety at home and in the community
Strategic opportunities for council
(Still excluding inhome care)
Reposition council as the “front door”
• Information, navigation and human support as a core living-well function
Strengthen transport as a living well enabler
• Planning, partnerships and advocacy framed explicitly around ageing well
Activate facilities more deliberately for ageing well
• Align libraries, centres and leisure assets explicitly to living well outcomes
Sharpen advocacy
• Use engagement evidence to advocate for allied health, transport affordability and housing.
Key findings
77% of respondents are aged 70 years or over, and 47% are aged 80 years or over.
59% of respondents currently use council in-home care services.
Domestic assistance (cleaning/laundry) is the most widely used and most highly prioritised service.
76% are concerned about maintaining independence; 62% are concerned about falls and accidents.
40% of current service users are satisfied with their services with no identified challenges.
58% want help understanding their entitlements; 53% want better information about available services.
75% of respondents want council to continue providing direct in-home services as the top priority.
2.6 Survey analysis (detailed)
2.6.1 Who responded
A total of 134 people completed the survey. The following provides an overview of the respondent profile.
Age
The survey respondents were predominantly older adults.
to 49 years
to 39 years
Over three-quarters of respondents (77.61%) are aged 70 years or over, with nearly half (47%) aged 80 years or over. This reflects the intended audience of the survey and the demographic profile of aged care service users in the region.
Gender
The majority of respondents were female.
Location
The majority of respondents reside in or near Stawell or St Arnaud
Cultural background
Most respondents (98.51%, n=132) speak only English at home. One respondent (0.75%) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
Relationship with aged care services
Respondents were asked to describe their relationship with aged care services
2.6.2 Community connection
Questions 7–11 explored how connected respondents feel to their community and how often they connect with family, friends and community groups.
Sense of community connection
Most respondents feel connected to their community, with over 82% describing themselves as very or somewhat connected:
Frequency of connection
Most respondents maintain regular contact with family and friends. Connection with community groups is less frequent.
Desire to connect more
The majority of respondents (77.34%, n=99) do not feel a need to connect more. However, 22.66% (n=29) indicated they would like to connect more often with family, friends or community. Key themes from their responses include:
• Distance from family members, many of whom live interstate or several hours away
• Loss of the ability to drive, limiting access to activities and social events
• Cost of transport as a barrier to visiting family or attending community events
• Physical health limitations restricting participation in activities
• Lack of awareness about what social and community activities are available
• A desire for more council-run activities to facilitate connection
"Only been in the area for three years. Don't know what's out there in the community or where to start to get connected."
2.6.3 Service priorities
Most important aspects of aged care services (Q12)
Respondents were asked to rank services in order of priority. Based on the weighted ranking (where ranking 1st is highest priority), the top priorities were:
2nd - Personal care (showering, dressing etc) Second most common #1
3rd - Access to healthcare services Third most common #1
4th - Home maintenance (gardening, repairs etc)
5th - Transport to appointments or activities
respondents
4th priority overall -
5th priority overall -
Domestic assistance was by far the single most important service, selected as the top priority by 43.75% of respondents. Personal care and access to healthcare services were also frequently ranked in the top three. Social and recreational activities, learning opportunities and community events were generally ranked lower.
Other important aspects (Q13)
When asked to identify any additional important aspects not covered in the priority ranking, key themes raised by respondents included:
• Access to allied health services at home (physiotherapy, podiatry, occupational therapy)
• Access to podiatry, which was mentioned multiple times as a significant gap
• Regular welfare check-in visits for people living alone
• Local doctor access as a critical priority for the community
• Human interaction and support to avoid social isolation
• Community transport - noted as very limited and unaffordable for pensioners
"More accessible access to Allied Health at home - physiotherapy, OT, podiatry."
"Community transport is very limited in our region. Available community transport is still too expensive for pensioners."
"A service to keep a regular check on my wellbeing while I am in my own home."
2.6.4 What 'living well' means to people
Question 14 asked respondents to describe what 'living well' means to them as they age or as a person living with a disability. This was one of the most richly answered questions in the survey, with 96 substantive responses. Several strong themes emerged
Remaining at home independently
The single most consistent theme across respondents was the desire to remain in their own home for as long as possible, with appropriate support. Many respondents used phrases like 'staying in my own home,' 'living independently,' or 'remaining at home with a little help.'
"Staying at home is most important and having wonderful services to make that happen."
"Living safely and healthily in my own home and not requiring care in a hospital bed or aged care facility."
Health and physical wellbeing
Many respondents described living well in terms of maintaining good health, staying mobile and active, and managing pain and health conditions. Access to healthcare, including specialist and allied health services, was frequently mentioned.
"Staying upright and out of a wheelchair."
"Being healthy, active, able to move around by myself. Keeping contact with family and friends and social groups."
Connection and social life
Remaining socially connected - to family, friends and community - was a key aspect of living well for many respondents. Isolation was explicitly referred to as something to be avoided.
"Living independently but with assistance with basic needs and opportunities to socialise and stay connected with my community."
"Dignity, comfort, connection and security."
Autonomy and dignity
A significant number of respondents emphasised the importance of choice, self-determination and dignity.
"Being able to do what I want to do when I want to do it."
"Being able to make my own decisions and for these to be respected."
"It means feeling supported and not judged."
Support being available when needed
Many respondents noted that while they may not currently need extensive support, knowing that services are available and accessible when needed provides peace of mind.
"It is important to know there are services available to help when needed. Living at home is what most people want."
"Having support when it is needed, and not having funds from packages used predominantly for administrative purposes."
2.6.5 Key concerns
Areas
of concern
Multiple selections were permitted. The results reveal strong concerns about independence, safety and health.
Maintaining independence is overwhelmingly the top concern, with more than three in four respondents selecting it. Falls, declining health and mobility issues are also major concerns, consistent with the predominantly older age profile of respondents. Notably, nearly half of respondents (48.44%) are concerned about accessing aged care services, and over 40% are concerned about affordability.
Barriers to Living Well (Q16)
Question 16 asked respondents to describe any barriers that prevent them from living the life they want. Health and mobility emerged as the dominant themes:
• Health conditions (chronic illness, pain, vision and breathing difficulties) cited by a large proportion of respondents.
• Loss of ability to drive, leading to reliance on others for transport and social participation.
• Mobility limitations, including use of wheelchairs and difficulty getting around.
• Age and physical decline generally.
• Caring responsibilities for a partner or family member.
• Affordability of care and services.
• Communication and access barriers when trying to navigate the aged care system.
"I'm aging and on my own,
and worry about the future."
2.6.6 Current service use and experience
Council facilities used regularly (Q17)
Respondents were asked which council facilities they regularly use (at least weekly). Parks and reserves were the most used facility
In-home aged care services currently used (Q18)
Of those currently receiving council in-home aged care services, domestic assistance is by far the most used service
How services are funded (Q19)
Most people are receiving funding support through the government’s home support program.
Challenges with council services (Q20)
Respondents were asked whether they had experienced challenges when receiving council in-home services. The overall picture is positive - 40.16% of respondents reported no challenges and expressed satisfaction.
Service cancellations and inconsistent workers are the two most commonly reported challenges, each affecting 15.75% of respondents. These issues have a direct impact on trust, continuity of care and the sense of security that service users depend on.
Challenges navigating My Aged Care (Q21)
When asked about challenges with the My Aged Care system, respondents highlighted significant difficulties
Almost a quarter of respondents (24.41%) were confused about the difference between My Aged Care and the council's Community Care team. This points to a significant communication opportunity for the council. Difficulty accessing and understanding the system was reported by the same proportion as those who were satisfied (31.50% each).
2.6.7 Accessing services and information
What would help you access services? (Q22)
Respondents were asked to select the top 3 things that would help them better access services and support.
The two most pressing access needs are help understanding entitlements (57.94%) and better information about available services (53.17%). Together these point to a significant gap in the clarity, accessibility and proactive communication of aged care information in the community. Continuity of care (same workers) was also a high priority for many, reinforcing the finding from Q20 that inconsistent workers are a key challenge.
Preferred information channels (Q23)
Respondents were asked how they prefer to receive information about services. Traditional, personal communication channels are strongly preferred over digital options.
The strong preference for printed materials, in-person conversations and phone calls - compared with very low interest in websites (6.35%) and social media (7.14%) - is consistent with the predominantly older age profile of respondents and reinforces the importance of non-digital communication channels.
"To be kept informed manually, not through the computer. Older people (most) like to do things through other people and not online."
Services needed but cannot access (Q24)
Respondents identified the following unmet service needs, with the most commonly mentioned including:
• Gardening and yard maintenance - the most frequently cited unmet need, with many respondents expressing frustration at the limited availability and hours for this service
• Podiatry - mentioned by multiple respondents as an inaccessible service, both from council and locally more broadly.
• Home maintenance including small repairs, gutter cleaning, window cleaning and odd jobs.
• Transport - including to medical appointments and community activities.
• Allied health services (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dental).
"Help with my garden beds, mowing, weeding, planting, general tidy up - very expensive now. Home maintenance, small jobs, changing light bulbs."
"Podiatry. More maintenance."
"Frequent physio service in St Arnaud."
2.6.8 Future needs and priorities
Services expected in the next 3–5 years (Q25)
Respondents were asked to look ahead and identify what aged care services they may need in the next 3 to 5 years. The most anticipated future needs were:
• Domestic assistance (cleaning, laundry) - the most frequently anticipated service.
• Personal care (showering, dressing) - anticipated by many as health and mobility decline.
• Home maintenance and gardening.
• Transport to appointments and activities.
• Meals on Wheels / meal delivery
• Home modifications and equipment to support safe living.
• Increased hours or upgrade of current services.
"Personal Care, Domestic Assistance, Garden maintenance, Meal Support, Equipment to enable me to stay at home safely, Transport to appointments and activities, Access to Healthcare Services."
"Help with household activities - changing bed linen, hanging laundry, help showering, extra cleaning, help with shopping and paying bills."
"I want to die at home. The older I get, the more incapacitated I get."
"More regular 'serious' healthcare and transport assistance to access it."
Support for carers (Q26)
Of the 62 respondents who answered the carers question, the following types of support were most identified as helpful for those in caring roles:
• Respite care and time out from caring responsibilities.
• Better information and guidance on available services and supports
• Assistance navigating the My Aged Care system and Carer Gateway
• Good, consistent communication with service providers
• Regular check-ins and direct human contact
• Access to more healthcare services and medical professionals
"Time out. Respite care. Someone to keep an eye on my partner while I have a day or two away to enjoy my life."
"Assistance to navigate the My Aged Care system. Also the services available through Carer Gateway."
"It would get me out of the house, also relieve some of the pressure of being a carer."
2.6.9 Future role of council
How should council support older people? (Q27)
Respondents were asked to rank how council could best support older people in the future. The results show an overwhelming preference for council continuing to directly deliver in-home services
Continue providing direct services (personal care, domestic help etc)
Provide information and guidance about available services
High priority (ranked 2nd–3rd) -
Help people connect with services from other providers High priority (ranked 2nd–4th) -
Advocate for better services and funding from State/Federal governments
Ensure services are affordable and accessible
Maintain and improve community facilities
Support community groups and volunteers
Run social and recreational programs
Connect people with social and healthy ageing activities
Mid-tier priority -
Mid-tier priority -
Lower priority -
Lower priority -
Lowest priority -
Lowest priority -
The data is unambiguous with 75.81% of respondents ranked continuing to provide direct in-home services as their single top priority. This is a very strong signal that the community does not want council to step back from direct service delivery and is deeply concerned about any potential changes to current arrangements.
"The council In Home Support Service is very much appreciated and valued in our community. I hope you can keep it and make it work."
"Please retain our valuable services."
If council changes how it delivers services, what matters most? (Q29)
Respondents were asked to rank what would be most important to them if council were to change its service delivery model. The results highlight quality and continuity above all else.
Facilitating a smooth transition with no gaps in service
Encouraging greater choice of providers
Ranked #5 - Weighted score: 4.73 1.61% ranked 1st
Ranked #6 -
Maintaining quality of care was the clear top priority (weighted score 1.89 out of 6), followed by ensuring services remain available locally (2.49) and keeping services affordable (2.64). Notably, 'facilitating a smooth transition with no gaps in service' was ranked 5th overall, suggesting that while people accept that transitions may be necessary, ensuring quality, local availability and affordability takes precedence.
2.6.10 Additional community voice
Further comments from respondents (Q31)
Question 31 invited respondents to share anything further about their experiences, current or future needs, or ideas for aged and disability services in the community. Sixty-two respondents provided substantive responses. Key themes from these comments include the following.
Appreciation for current services
Many respondents expressed genuine appreciation for the quality of care provided by council's community care workers, highlighting their professionalism, warmth and reliability.
"My experience with the home help is tremendous. Staff in the office are very considerate. Working in the homes, staff are very caring."
"I'm 100% happy with the people and services you already supply - thank you."
"I am very happy with the cleaning services I currently use. The staff are friendly, caring and do a great job."
"The local people who do the work now are fantastic and we want to keep them too."
Concerns about service continuity
Several respondents expressed anxiety about potential changes to current services, reflecting a strong attachment to established relationships and local service delivery.
"I hope you can keep it and make it work. I would hate to have to contact someone out of town every time I needed help or to change something."
"Please stay in home care services."
Need for transparency and information
Respondents requested clearer, more proactive communication about services, funding arrangements and entitlements.
"CLEARER INFORMATION AS TO HOW THE FUNDING IS DISTRIBUTED. ALL INFO RE THE CLIENT'S FUNDING SHOULD BE UPFRONT."
"The services provided need to be relevant to the individual person. One size does not fit all."
Infrastructure and community needs
Some respondents highlighted specific local infrastructure concerns and gaps in community services.
"St Arnaud really needs some elderly units for residents."
"I take part in the 'Active 50 Plus' exercise group at Senior Citizens in St Arnaud. It is an excellent program. I think a few more ancillary programs could be included such as Tai Chi, Yoga, Relaxation, Meditation."
"Would like a big green bin for garden waste."
Broader community care perspective
A small number of respondents offered broader systemic observations about the direction of aged care and community care services.
"Further support to those with chronic health conditions rather than the focus all being on Aged Care."
"Many aged in our community cannot afford the care needed."
2.6.11 Summary of key themes
Across all questions, the following key themes emerged consistently and are presented here as a summary of what we heard.
Theme 1: Independence at home
Staying in one's own home is the primary goal. Many respondents equate 'living well' to remaining at home independently, with support available when needed.
Domestic assistance, personal care, home maintenance and meal support are the services that most directly enable this. Any reduction in these services would have a significant impact on people's ability to remain at home.
Theme 2: Health and access to healthcare
Health concerns dominate. Maintaining independence, falls prevention, mobility and declining health are the top four areas of concern. Access to healthcare - including specialist and allied health services - is a recurring unmet need.
There is a strong community need for improved access to podiatry, physiotherapy and other allied health services locally, particularly in St Arnaud.
Theme 3: Keep council delivering services
The community strongly wants council to continue directly providing in-home services. 75.81% ranked this as the single top priority for how council can support older people.
There is significant anxiety about the prospect of council withdrawing from direct service delivery. Continuity, familiarity and local relationships are deeply valued.
Theme 4: Information and navigation
Understanding the system is a major barrier. 57.94% want help understanding their entitlements and 53.17% want better information about available services.
The confusion between My Aged Care and council services (24.41%) suggests a proactive communication campaign is needed. Preferred channels are strongly non-digital: printed materials (61%), in-person conversations (56%) and phone calls (55%).
Theme 5: Quality and consistency of workers
Consistency of care workers is a priority. Service cancellations (15.75%) and inconsistent workers (15.75%) are the most commonly experienced challenges. Continuity of care was ranked third among access enablers.
Respondents have formed trusting relationships with their regular care workers and value these relationships highly.
Theme 6: Transport as a barrier
Transport is a recurring barrier across multiple questions - to appointments, social activities, shopping and family visits. 31.25% of respondents are concerned about transport access.
The inability to drive is a common theme in barriers to living well, and improved transport options were highlighted by 12.70% as one of the top three things that would help them access services better.
Theme 7: Affordability
Cost is a significant concern, particularly for pensioners. 41.41% are concerned about cost of living and affordability. Transport costs, service fees and broader living costs all featured in open-ended responses.
3. World café workshops analysis
3.1 Purpose and context
Council ran two world café style workshops in Stawell and St Arnaud involving a total of approximately 20 participants. The workshops were designed to deepen survey findings to help inform council’s decision regarding the future of community care service delivery.
Consistent with the workshop intent, discussions focused on:
• Identifying what must be preserved from the current model
• Defining minimum conditions for any transition.
• Understanding barriers to system navigation
• Surfacing unmet needs not captured in survey data.
• Testing community views on Council’s role and trade-offs
The following findings are structured in alignment with the five workshop tables.
3.2 Key findings by theme
What must be protected
Participants consistently identified that the value of the current service model is not primarily the service itself, but how it is delivered. Critical elements to be preserved include:
• Local workforce and relationships
• Trust is built through familiarity and continuity of staff
• Workers provide informal welfare checks, social connection, and early risk identification.
• Reliability and consistency.
o Missed or cancelled services have significant day-to-day impacts, particularly for older residents living alone.
• Accessibility and responsiveness
o Ability to contact a known, local person was highly valued.
Key insight
The perceived value of council’s service extends beyond transactional care and includes social, safety and relational functions that the community perceive are not easily replicated in standardised service models.
Implication
Council must advocate that any future model must explicitly preserve these relational and local elements or risk a measurable decline in service quality and community trust.
Conditions for an acceptable transition
Participants were willing to support the possibility of council exiting direct service delivery, but only under strict, clearly defined conditions.
Non-negotiable conditions identified:
• Continuity of care workers where possible.
• No gaps in service delivery during transition
• Strong local presence of any new provider.
• Clear, early and ongoing communication
• Dedicated transition support (navigation role).
High-risk groups identified:
• Residents in rural and remote areas
• Individuals with limited mobility, low digital literacy, or limited support networks.
Key insight
A poorly managed transition is seen as carrying real risk of harm, not just inconvenience.
Implication
If Council withdraws, a transition plan must be treated as a critical risk management exercise, with resourcing proportionate to that risk.
The
navigation gap
There was strong and consistent evidence that the aged care system is difficult to navigate, particularly for older residents.
Key barriers identified:
• Low digital literacy and limited use of online systems.
• Confusion between My Aged Care and local services.
• Complexity of processes and forms.
• Language barriers for some community members
Preferred access methods:
• Phone-based support.
• Face-to-face assistance
• Printed information.
Key insight
The system assumes a level of independence and digital capability that does not reflect the lived reality of many users.
Implication
Regardless of Council’s decision on service delivery, the community believe that there is a clear and ongoing role for Council in:
• System navigation
• Information provision
• Local coordination
This role must be practical, visible and human-centred, not informational only.
Transport, isolation and hidden need
Participants highlighted that transport is a foundational issue that directly affects access to services, healthcare and social connection.
Key issues identified:
• Loss of ability to drive significantly reduces independence.
• Limited availability of transport options, particularly in smaller townships.
• Cost and coordination barriers.
Isolation:
• Social isolation is present but often under-recognised.
• Community connection is strongly linked to wellbeing and ability to “live well”.
Key insight
Transport and isolation are systemic issues that extend beyond aged care but directly impact service effectiveness.
Implication
Council’s role extends beyond service provision to broader community infrastructure and coordination, including transport solutions and social connection initiatives.
What council should do
Discussions highlighted the core decision tension - balancing financial sustainability with service quality, accessibility and equity.
Key considerations raised:
• Strong preference for council to continue service delivery
• Recognition of financial pressures and subsidy implications.
• Concern about whether alternative providers can deliver equivalent local quality Conditions for withdrawal (if considered):
• Demonstrated ability of provider to deliver locally
• Guaranteed service continuity.
• Strong council oversight of quality and availability
• Clear reinvestment of any savings into community benefit.
Key insight
Participants did not reject withdrawal outright but set a very high threshold for acceptability.
Implication
Council’s decision must clearly articulate:
• The conditions under which quality and access will be maintained
• The ongoing role of Council, even if not as provider
• How community interests will be protected post-decision
Overall workshop findings
The workshop findings reinforce and deepen the survey results:
• There is strong community preference for council to continue service delivery, driven by trust, local knowledge and accessibility.
• However, participants also prioritise quality and local availability over provider type, provided strict conditions are met.
• Any move away from council delivery introduces material risk, particularly for vulnerable cohorts.
4. Emerging recommendations
These draft recommendations reflect consistent findings across the engagement
The survey results show a strong preference for council to continue delivering in-home services (75.81% ranked this as the top priority) and also identify the highest-risk failure points to avoid under any scenario (service cancellations, inconsistent workers, low digital access and difficulty navigating My Aged Care).
The workshops reinforced these themes and clarified that the community defines quality by how services are delivered (local presence, continuity, reliability and human-centred communication) and that, if any change is pursued, it must be managed as a high-risk transition. For that reason, the recommended response is framed as a set of non-negotiable conditions that should be met whether council continues delivery or moves to an alternative model.
Recommendation 1: Establish non-negotiable service standards (regardless of delivery model)
Council should formally adopt a set of minimum service standards that it expects to be met under any future model (council-delivered or external provider).
These should include:
• Local presence and accessibility (physical or embedded in community)
• Continuity of care workers wherever possible.
• Maximum acceptable thresholds for service cancellations and gaps
• Direct, non-digital access pathways (phone and in-person).
• Culturally and linguistically appropriate service delivery.
Why this matters
The community has made it clear quality is defined by how services are delivered, not who delivers them. Without standards, quality will drift.
Recommendation 2: If council withdraws, require a structured and resourced transition plan
Council should not exit direct service delivery unless a comprehensive transition plan is in place and independently verified.
Minimum requirements:
• Zero-gap transition for all existing clients
• Retention or transfer of existing care workers where feasible.
• Clear, staged communication plan (not one-off notification)
• Dedicated transition support/navigation role for at least 3–6 months.
• Explicit identification and support plans for high-risk clients
Why this matters
The workshop made it clear - a poorly managed transition is not just inconvenient, it is potentially harmful, particularly for vulnerable residents.
Recommendation 3: Work with providers to support navigation and local coordination
Regardless of the delivery model, council should support the delivery of visible navigation function.
This should include:
• A single, locally contact point (library display, phone + in-person)
• Active support to understand entitlements and access services.
• Outreach to vulnerable and digitally excluded residents.
• Coordination with:
o GPs
o Community health services
o Neighbourhood houses
o Informal support networks
Why this matters
System navigation is a structural barrier. Without intervention, access inequity will increase-especially if service delivery becomes more fragmented.
Recommendation 4: Protect service access for rural and high-risk cohorts
Council should explicitly recognise that market-based service provision may not adequately service rural and isolated communities.
Council should:
• Identify rural and high-risk client cohorts (e.g. remote locations, low mobility, low support networks)
• Seek guaranteed service coverage from the Commonwealth for these groups under any model.
• Consider targeted intervention mechanisms, such as:
o Service subsidies
o Brokerage arrangements
o Partnership models
o Transport coordination
Why this matters
Risk is not evenly distributed. Without deliberate safeguards, the most vulnerable residents will be the first to lose access.
Recommendation 5: Retain strong council oversight of quality and local availability
If council is not the provider, it must still act as a strong advocate for local service quality and accessrepresenting community expectations, escalating issues early, and pressing for timely improvements where standards are not being met.
This should include:
• Monitoring of service quality and continuity.
• Mechanisms for community feedback and issue escalation.
• Clear performance expectations for providers
• Regular public monitoring on:
o Service availability
o Access issues
o Complaints and resolution
Why this matters
Stepping back from delivery does not remove accountability. Community expectation is that council will still ensure services are working locally.
Recommendation 6: Clearly articulate the community benefit of any financial decision
If council chooses to withdraw based on financial considerations, it must explicitly demonstrate community benefit.
Council should:
• Clearly explain the subsidy trade-off in practical terms.
• Identify where any savings will be reinvested.
• Ensure reinvestment is:
o Visible
o Relevant to community wellbeing
o Not absorbed without trace into general budget
Why this matters
There is low confidence that savings will translate into tangible benefit. Without transparency, this becomes a trust issue, not just a financial one.
Recommendation 7: Commit to ongoing communication and accountability postdecision
Council should make a clear, public commitment to how it will engage with the community after the July 2026 decision. This should include:
• Regular updates on implementation.
• Clear timelines and milestones
• Feedback loops showing how community input shaped outcomes
• Continued engagement with affected residents.
Why this matters
The process itself has built expectations. Failure to close the loop will undermine trust in both the decision and future engagement.
5. Community engagement conclusion
Taken together, the survey and workshop findings present a consistent message: the community’s priority is to remain living safely at home, supported by reliable, local and human-centred services.
There is a strong preference for council to continue direct delivery, underpinned by trust in known workers and concern about cancellations, inconsistency and system complexity. If council determines a change in delivery is necessary, the engagement evidence makes clear that any transition must be approached as a high-risk exercise with non-negotiable safeguards no gaps in service, continuity of workers wherever possible, strong local presence, and practical navigation support delivered through phone, face-to-face and printed communication.
Council’s final decision should therefore explicitly state how these conditions will be met, how rural and highrisk residents will be protected, and what ongoing oversight and advocacy role council will maintain to ensure service quality and access remain strong across the shire.
6. Provider survey
This summary synthesises the key themes and claims made in the provider survey responses included in the appendix (please refer to Provider Response 1: Grampians Community Health Limited; Provider Response 2: East Wimmera Health Service).
It highlights areas of alignment with community priorities (continuity, local presence, non-digital access) as well as risks and constraints identified by providers.
1. Current footprint and service coverage
• Grampians Community Health Limited (GCH) reported delivering a broad mix of in-home supports in Northern Grampians, including personal care, domestic care, transport, home modifications and nursing, across Stawell, St Arnaud and multiple smaller communities.
• East Wimmera Health Service (EWHS) reported delivering nursing and allied health services in Northern Grampians, primarily centred on St Arnaud and surrounding communities within a defined boundary.
• Both providers described existing operations across multiple programs/funding types and anticipated ongoing local presence beyond June 2027.
2. Capacity to absorb clients if council withdraws
• GCH indicated willingness and capacity to step in, referencing prior experience taking over services from another provider in 2021 and stating it would prioritise minimising client impacts and supporting continuity of employment for staff.
• EWHS indicated it could potentially take on clients, but described a geographic limitation (within its current boundary) and noted it would likely need to acquire existing NGSC frontline staff (and additional coordination capacity) to maintain continuity and deliver non-clinical home support locally.
• EWHS highlighted operational prerequisites for scale-up, including understanding current Council service delivery systems and implementing a data migration plan to protect data integrity.
3. Continuity of care, navigation support and communication
• GCH described a continuity approach based on informed frontline staff (“Care Partners”), a dedicated “client and community connector” role, and monthly information sessions to support questions about aged care reforms and Support at Home.
• GCH stated it aims to maintain continuity with existing workers “wherever possible” and described internal coordination across the wider Grampians Region to enable seamless transitions between funding programs with no interruption to services.
• Both providers emphasised the need for planned transitions (rather than abrupt change). GCH referenced a four-month project plan to identify gaps; EWHS similarly described a minimum four-month project plan to support staff and client transition.
• EWHS emphasised transparency and regular communication with clients and families during any transition, noting that transition anxiety is a predictable risk and that acquisition of existing NGSC staff would support client confidence and continuity.
4. Workforce constraints (recruitment, availability and retention)
• Both providers identified recruitment and workforce availability as current staffing challenges.
• GCH specifically identified staff shortages as the key client risk in a council withdrawal scenario if workers do not move across to a successor provider.
• EWHS identified workforce shortages (including retention of specialised nursing and allied health staff and recruitment/retention of home support staff) as a potential factor influencing ongoing viability and service responsiveness in “thin markets.”
5. Financial viability, pricing and reform readiness
• Both providers stated they consistently meet current funded service hours.
• GCH expressed high confidence in financial viability and compliance under new pricing/funding caps, citing established program delivery experience, governance/oversight, and investment in technology to support financial management under Support at Home.
• EWHS described existing clinical governance structures aligned to strengthened aged care standards and reported financial security as a multi-campus rural health service with multiple funding sources.
• Both providers nominated financial viability as a key factor that could influence a decision to exit the market; EWHS also nominated workforce shortages.
• On pricing, GCH indicated it does not expect to adjust prices for personal/domestic services before July 2027 but anticipated allied health pricing revision; EWHS stated pricing changes were unconfirmed, but a further review would be likely prior to July 2027.
6. Anticipated transition risks and suggested mitigations
• Key risks identified included: client anxiety and uncertainty, potential staff shortages (if workers do not transfer), and implementation risks associated with data migration/system integration.
• Both providers proposed that transition should be managed through a defined project plan over a minimum four-month period, allowing time for rostering, workforce transfer, service set-up and early identification of gaps.
• EWHS emphasised “full transparency” and regular communication with clients and families throughout the transition journey to reduce anxiety and manage expectations about continuity.
• Both providers indicated that continuity of staff (where feasible) is a key mitigation, aligning with community feedback that worker familiarity and reliability are core quality thresholds.
7. Support requested and implications for council
• Providers identified reform-related compliance and operating pressures as material; GCH explicitly requested government financial support to meet increased compliance requirements, while EWHS emphasised the importance of funding certainty and the ability to commercially assess new opportunities aligned with strategic priorities.
• Both sets of responses reinforce the need for Council to treat any transition as a risk-managed program with clear roles and accountabilities, including practical navigation support and non-digital communication for clients and families.
• Where provider capacity is geographically bounded (as described by EWHS), council would need to explicitly test and secure coverage arrangements for rural and remote clients to avoid gaps in access.
• The provider responses suggest that continuity of workforce is a key lever available to reduce transition risk; this supports council maintaining an active facilitation and advocacy role to enable staff transfer pathways and monitor service continuity post-transition.
Overall, the provider responses indicate willingness to continue operating locally and to plan for continuity under the reforms but also highlight practical constraints that align with the community’s stated risks: workforce shortages, the need for a locally visible point of contact, and the importance of careful transition planning to avoid cancellations or gaps.
These responses therefore support a council approach that sets clear local service standards, requires a structured transition plan (if change occurs), and maintains strong council oversight and advocacy to protect continuity, access and communication for clients across the shire.
7. Appendix
NGSC Community Care Review – Local Provider Survey Responses –
Provider y Responses
Provider Response 1
Organisation Name
Grampians Community Health Limited
Type of Provider Not-for-profit
Which services do you currently deliver in Northern Grampians
Personal Care; Domestic Care;Transport;Home Mods;Nursing;Other; Approximate number of active clients in Northern Grampians 758 for NGSC
Geographic Coverage - Please include all towns you currently service in NGSC
Stawell, Halls Gap, Great Western, Glenorchy, Marnoo, St Arnaud, Glenorchy, Pomonal, Wallaloo and many more smaller communities within the council.
Under Support at Home, do you expect your client numbers to Increase
Which services do you expect to prioritise under Support at Home?
As the new Aged Care Reforms roll out, what steps are you taking to ensure continuity of care and minimise disruption for clients?
Personal Care / Domestic / Home Maintenance (Bushfire Prevention) / Meals / Social Support / Social Support Groups
GCH is committed to ensuring that we have well informed Care Partners and Staff, this allows our participant and families to trust us with the information we share, we are recently appointed a “client and community connector” as part of our Aged team, to ensure that Participants and Supporters have someone they can communicate with at any time, this ensures that each contact gets the support they need with any aged care or SAH questions. As we already support Participants through State & Federal funding for HACC-PYP, CHSP and the new Support at Home programs, our Aged Care teams work collaboratively across the entire Grampians Region to ensure that any transition between the different funding models are seamless to the participant. This coordinated approach ensures there is no interruption to the Participant’s services and that continuity of care is maintained with their existing worker wherever possible.
We are holding information sessions which are run by our ‘Client and Community Connector” monthly, where Participants/ Supporters can connect with each other and ask the important questions they may have
Do you consistently meet your current funded service hours? Yes
if no, what are the main barriers?
If Council were to withdraw from service delivery, would your organisation have
GCH is committed to supporting our community. In early 2021, when HRCC withdrew from the service delivery of CHSP and
the capacity and resources to take on Council’s existing client numbers and geographic spread? please describe any condi
HACC services, GCH stepped in with limited time for transition and reduced staffing levels. Despite these challenges, we successfully stabilised service delivery and have since built a strong footprint in the aged and disability sector.
Over this period, we have gained significant learnings and developed a highly committed team with deep sector knowledge. We understand the challenges faced during rapid transitions, and we are well positioned to apply these insights to ensure an even smoother process moving forward.
If given the privilege of taking on NGS service delivery, our priority would be to minimise any impact on clients and to support continuity of employment for staff. With the strong and collaborative relationship already established between NGSC and GCH, we are confident that together we can achieve a well organised, respectful, and seamless transition.
Current staffing challenges
How confident are you that your organisation can maintain financial viability, compliance, and quality standards under the new pricing and funding cap?
Recruitment;Workforce Availability;
Our organisation is highly confident in its ability to maintain financial viability, compliance, and quality standards under the new pricing and funding cap. We have a strong track record of sound financial management across both CHSP and previous Home Care Package programs, supported by healthy cash reserves and prudent budgeting practices.
Our long history of effectively administering government funded programs demonstrates our capability to adapt to changing funding environments while continuing to deliver high quality, compliant services. GCH has invested in technology that assists with the financial management under the new SaH model. This stability, combined with robust governance and financial oversight processes, ensures we remain well positioned to operate sustainably under the new pricing framework.
Are you planning to continue providing services in Northern Grampians after June 2027?
What would most influence a decision to exit the market?
Do you collaborate with other providers to share overheads or workforce?
Do you expect to adjust service prices before July 2027 when the government fee-for-service model takes effect?
What support (from Council, government, or others) would help you remain viable and responsive under the reforms?
Yes
Financial Viability;
GCH utilises a range of Associated Providers to assist with the delivery of services to ensure client choice and control over service delivery.
Not for Personal / Domestic services. Allied Health service pricing will be revised.
Government financial support towards the increased compliance requirements under reform.
Should Council decide to relinquish services, what challenges do you anticipate for clients during the transition?
The risk of staff shortages if staff choose not to move across from NGSC. Ideally, we would have a 4-month project plan established which would identify any known gaps before we got to commencement date.
If the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing selected you as a replacement provider, what steps would you take to ensure continuity of care and minimise disruption for clients? We would insist that a project plan be established so that there would be a seamless transition of both staff and clients over a minimum of 4 months. This would allow for the creation of services / rosters / staffing to be completed and ready for commencement on selected date.
Provider Response 2
Organisation Name East Wimmer Health Service (EWHS)
Type of Provider Government
Which services do you currently deliver in Northern Grampians Nursing; Allied Health;
Approximate number of active clients in Northern Grampians
Geographic Coverage - Please include all towns you currently service in NGSC
Estimated 190-210 Nursing / Allied health clients.
St Arnaud & surrounding communities to a defined boundary line (best visualised in a PDF map, which can be provided electronically). These surrounding communities include Gooroc, Swanwater, Avon Plains, Slaty Creek, Traynor's Lagoon, Gray's Bridge, Marnoo East, Gre Gre, Kooreh, Beazley's Bridge, Carapooee, Tottington, Rostron, Stuart Mill, Winjallock, Paradise, Navarre & Moyreisk.
Under Support at Home, do you expect your client numbers to Stay steady
Which services do you expect to prioritise under Support at Home?
As the new Aged Care Reforms roll out, what steps are you taking to ensure continuity of care and minimise disruption for clients?
In Northern Grampians - Nursing and Allied Health, as not currently funded to deliver non-clinical Home Support services here (only in Buloke Shire).
First & foremost, EWHS will seek to continue providing a full Continuum of Care across the five (5) campuses it operates as a multidisciplinary, rural health service (i.e. St Arnaud, Donald, Charlton, Wycheproof & Birchip). For our current CHSP clients (clinical & non-clinical), we are already well advanced in implementing all the new compliance requirements that came into effect on 01/11/25, plus we have commenced strategic discussions within the Executive Team & with some of our key external partners / stakeholders, re. how EWHS should best navigate & position itself for the ongoing Aged Care Reforms. This includes consideration of becoming an Approved Support at Home (SAH) Provider, in addition to our other existing funding types / streams. This option would allow fluid internal transition of service delivery for our community clients, as their care needs change or increase.
Do you consistently meet your current funded service hours?
Yes
if no, what are the main barriers?
If Council were to withdraw from service delivery, would your organisation have the capacity and resources to take on Council’s existing client numbers and geographic spread? please describe any condi
Yes, I believe so, but only to our current boundary line W/ SW of St Arnaud (which can be provided to NGSC if required). Given we do not currently have EWHS Home Support staff or related service delivery in St Arnaud (only in Buloke Shire), we would need to consider acquisition of existing NGSC frontline staff (plus perhaps a PT / FT Coordinator), to ensure continuity of care for existing NGSC community clients. Our current Home & Community Services Manager is based in Donald, along with the rest of our Home Support Team, so could still oversee program delivery & governance / compliance from Donald. We would also need to discuss / understand current NGSC systems & processes used to support service delivery, including IT (client information) systems. There would need to be a well thought out data migration plan / exercise to ensure ongoing data integrity.
Current staffing challenges
How confident are you that your organisation can maintain financial viability, compliance, and quality standards under the new pricing and funding cap?
Recruitment;Workforce Availability;
EWHS has a well-established care / clinical governance framework that aligns to the strengthened aged care standards. Any identified gaps are captured in our ongoing self-assessments / gap analyses & then progressively actioned through our Governance Committee structure (which feeds up to the Quality & Clinical Risk Committee (a Board Sub-Committee). We are also financially secure as a well-established, multidisciplinary rural health service, with a multitude of Government / other funding sources.
Are you planning to continue providing services in Northern Grampians after June 2027?
What would most influence a decision to exit the market?
Do you collaborate with other providers to share overheads or workforce?
Do you expect to adjust service prices before July 2027 when the government fee-for-service model takes effect?
What support (from Council, government, or others) would help you remain viable and responsive under the reforms?
Yes
Financial Viability;Workforce Shortages;
In a minority sense (e.g. shared MOW funding in Buloke shire with Inglewood & Districts Health Service), as well as some shared staffing at times.
Unconfirmed at this time, but a further pricing review for EWHS Community Health & Home Support Services would seem likely, between now & July 2027.
Security of current funding renewals, as well as opportunity to commercially assess new funding streams & opportunities that align with EWHS's strategic priorities & our values. With an existing Continuum of Care already in place, we would seek to be strategic in how we choose to bolster this. Biggest risk / threat is retention of our existing specialised clinical workforce (Nursing & Allied Health), as well as recruitment & retention of our Home Support (non-clinical) workforce, given we already operate (often in isolation) within various thin markets.
Should Council decide to relinquish services, what challenges do you anticipate for clients during the transition?
If the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing selected you as a replacement provider, what steps would you take to ensure continuity of care and minimise disruption for clients?
Anxiety re. transition process to a new provider / natural change impacts that come with that. Also, there is always a need for full transparency & regular communication with new clients & families regarding the transition journey, particularly regarding how the new provider will aim to ensure service continuity as close as possible to what the clients need & are accustomed to. There are also inevitable challenges & hurdles regarding data migration and/or system integration issues, that may make initial service delivery transition a little bumpy. Acquisition of existing NGSC frontline staff would certainly assist the clients' sense of relative service continuity.
As per Q.19. In addition, EWHS is a well-known & trusted provider of Community Health & Home Support Services within the communities we serve. EWHS has demonstrated clinical competence & expertise within the workforce that is a key organisational strength. This is particularly significant in light of the heightened focus within the Strengthened Aged Care Standards on clinical capability, as providers seek to continue effectively supporting an ageing population with increasing acuity & chronic disease prevalence within the community.
