01 / QUICK START
Your first gap.
Your next action.
A two-page checklist across the Core and SIL areas. Choose where to begin.
2 pages · 8 topic checks · fillableFREE DOWNLOAD / SIL PROVIDERS
Two free tools for your SIL audit preparation. Start with the brief checklist, then use the complete workbook to test the evidence and work through the gaps.
2 free resourcesPDF + browser editionsNo purchase required
Get both free resourcesFree, with no obligation. You can download without joining a mailing list.
01 / QUICK START
A two-page checklist across the Core and SIL areas. Choose where to begin.
2 pages · 8 topic checks · fillable02 / COMPLETE WORKBOOK
Concise checks for every Core and SIL indicator, practical tests, a worked example and an action record.
14 pages · 148 individual checks · fillableFROM REQUIREMENT TO EVIDENCE
Start with eight topic checks. In the complete workbook, review all 148 Core and SIL indicators individually, including their subparagraphs.
Use a practical test for each outcome, evidence prompts and participant and worker conversations. Follow the completed fictional example.
Record the gap, cause, owner and due date. Capture completion evidence, re-test the change, and record closure or reopening.
The 14-page detailed checklist has one status and evidence field for each indicator; the browser edition adds the full wording. The online starting-point review below remains an outcome-level check. Other modules may apply to your service.
REGISTRATION / CHECK YOUR PATHWAY
For existing unregistered SIL providers applying after 1 July 2026, the Commission requires a valid application for 0138 and other relevant groups before 1 October 2026. Eligible existing providers may continue during the application process. Audit and registration decisions follow their pathway.
The transition application date has now passed. Check the current Commission guidance and your application status promptly.
Existing registered providers and people starting a new SIL service have different pathways. The detailed checklist explains where to start.
Check your official Commission pathway ↗Sources checked 29 September 2026. The checklist helps you prepare; the Commission decides registration.
YOUR TWO FREE RESOURCES
You do not need every answer today. Download the quick start and complete workbook together. Choose a starting area, check real evidence, and record the next action.
Free PDF. Enter your name and email to download it here. No payment or account needed.
Use a PDF reader to save completed fields, or use the browser edition to save and restore a review file. Download links last 15 minutes. Save your copies for ongoing use.
Need the documents? Explore the SIL Kit →TRY IT HERE / NO ACCOUNT NEEDED
Review the 28 outcomes below. The count updates as you go. Your answers stay in this open page and are cleared when you reload; download a CSV to keep them. Keep personal or participant information in your secure records.
Self-assessed evidence readiness = ready / (28 minus justified N/A). Needs-review items stay in the denominator. This is a preparation measure, not an independent audit rating or pass prediction.
Can participants understand their rights, choose how support is delivered and stay connected to people and community?
Evidence to look for: Accessible rights information; participant-led support plans; records of preferences, communication needs and chosen community connections.
Do daily supports respect each person's culture, identity, values and beliefs?
Evidence to look for: Participant-led cultural and personal preferences; agreed support adjustments; worker guidance and participant feedback.
Do people understand how information is used, and do workers protect dignity and privacy?
Evidence to look for: Accessible privacy information and consent records; private support arrangements; access controls and worker practice observations.
Can people make informed choices, take supported risks and access an advocate with time to decide?
Evidence to look for: Decision records in the person's preferred format; dignity-of-risk discussions; advocacy information; evidence of choice, autonomy and relationships.
Can workers recognise and respond to violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation and discrimination?
Evidence to look for: Safeguarding procedures; participant advocacy access; response, investigation and follow-up records; training and improvements after incidents.
Is leadership accountable for safe services, with participant input, clear responsibilities and managed conflicts?
Evidence to look for: Governance roles and meeting records; participant input; business plans; delegated authority, performance review and conflict-of-interest register.
Are risks identified, treated and reviewed across the organisation and each service?
Evidence to look for: Current risk register and treatment actions; insurance; infection and emergency controls; records showing risks inform support delivery.
Does your quality system reflect your service and turn reviews into improvements?
Evidence to look for: Document control; internal audit program; participant and worker feedback; corrective actions with owners and evidence of closure.
Are records accurate, secure, accessible to authorised people and managed with informed consent?
Evidence to look for: Information-management procedure; consent and access records; retention/disposal rules; secure storage, backups and tested retrieval.
Can people complain in a way they understand, without disadvantage, and see a response?
Evidence to look for: Accessible complaints information, including the Commission; complaint register; fair resolution records; worker training and improvement reviews.
Are incidents recognised, recorded, responded to and used to improve safety?
Evidence to look for: Incident and reportable-incident procedures; incident register; participant involvement and support; notification, investigation and learning records.
Are workers screened, inducted, competent and supported for the tasks they actually perform?
Evidence to look for: Role descriptions; screening and qualifications; induction, supervision and competency records; training matrix, including infection and emergency preparation.
Can agreed support continue when a worker is absent or the service changes?
Evidence to look for: Continuity and replacement-worker arrangements; participant-specific handovers; rosters matched to needs; tested contingency and communication records.
Can essential supports continue safely through an emergency or disaster?
Evidence to look for: Participant-informed emergency plans; governing-body oversight; rehearsals and reviews; worker preparation; communication and recovery arrangements.
Do people understand entry criteria, available supports, adjustments and any limits on service?
Evidence to look for: Accessible service information; fair eligibility decisions; reasonable adjustments; explained conditions and records of risk-informed access decisions.
Are support plans developed with the person, current, risk-informed and reviewed against their goals?
Evidence to look for: Agreed plans and reviews; participant consent; individual risks, health and emergency needs; information shared with authorised workers and other providers.
Does each person understand what you will provide and how the agreement works?
Evidence to look for: Accessible service agreement and explanation; signed copy or recorded reason; SIL accommodation arrangements where relevant; agreed emergency changes.
Are supports timely, person-centred and based on the least intrusive appropriate approach?
Evidence to look for: Participant choice and worker matching; support delivery records; collaboration with other providers; worker knowledge of the person's needs and preferences.
Are transitions into or out of the service planned with the person and their risks addressed?
Evidence to look for: Agreed transition plans; risk assessment; handover and communication records; temporary and permanent transition reviews.
Is the support environment safe and responsive to individual health, communication and emergency needs?
Evidence to look for: Home safety and infection controls; participant communication and health-escalation plans; emergency protocols; worker first-aid/PPE training and supplies.
When you support money or property, are the person's choices and possessions protected?
Evidence to look for: Agreed limits of assistance; transaction records and reconciliations; secure property records; participant access and financial decision-making support.
Where medication is supported, can workers give it safely and respond to an error or adverse effect?
Evidence to look for: Accurate medication records; authorised instructions; safe storage and access; task-specific competency; incident and emergency response arrangements.
Where mealtime support is needed, is it assessed, planned and delivered safely and enjoyably?
Evidence to look for: Qualified assessment and current mealtime plans; worker training; food texture and storage controls; participant preferences; review and emergency arrangements.
Are waste, infectious material and hazardous substances handled safely?
Evidence to look for: Waste procedures and segregation; safe storage/disposal; worker training and PPE; spill and exposure response records.
Can each person make genuine decisions about home and daily life with the support they choose?
Evidence to look for: Accessible information; recorded will and preferences; risk-and-benefit conversations; time and culturally appropriate decision support; mainstream-service choices; initial and refresher worker training.
Do home routines protect rights, prevent harm and strengthen the person's own safeguards?
Evidence to look for: Participant-led safeguarding discussions; Code of Conduct practice; de-escalation, trauma-informed and positive behaviour support training; stable relationships and community access; harm/conflict responses and follow-up.
Can leadership show that home support is competent, participant-led and consistently supervised?
Evidence to look for: Training and assessed competence in person-centred, trauma-informed and active support; mentoring and cultural safety; participant input into co-tenants; governance oversight of tailored, rehearsed emergency arrangements.
Are housing rights and support choices clear, with separate agreements when you provide both?
Evidence to look for: Separate tenancy and service agreements where applicable; accessible explanations and conflict controls; independent advocacy/legal access; house keys and private spaces; visitor, vacancy, change and exit arrangements; copies of agreements.
Record N/A reasons and detailed actions in your workbook. CSV includes statuses and references, not proof of conformity.
Yes. Enter your name and email to download the free PDF. No purchase, account or subscription is required. Email updates are a separate, optional choice.
Yes. The complete workbook has 148 individual indicator checks across 24 Core and four Module 5A outcomes: supported decision-making, safeguarding, practice governance, and agreements about tenancy, housing and support arrangements. These sit alongside 24 Core outcomes.
It prompts you to check accessible communication, supported decision-making and participant choice. The workbook itself is written for providers. Choose or develop participant information in the person's preferred format, including Easy Read where appropriate.
No checklist can make that decision. Use it to organise evidence and address gaps. Your approved auditor assesses conformity and the Commission decides registration.
Quality Indicators Guidelines 2018, compilation F2026C00528, effective 1 July 2026, and the Commission's SIL pathways. Source links and section references are in the workbook. Checked 29 September 2026.