05.12.2016 Views

Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Executive Summary<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> 1 aims <strong>to</strong> improve the mental health and social and emotional wellbeing of <strong>young</strong> people in<br />

Australia through the provision of evidence-based, integrated, youth-centred and holistic services. In<br />

January 2013, the Australian Government Department of Health (DoH) commissioned a consortium<br />

of researchers from the Social Policy Research Centre and the Centre for Social Impact, UNSW<br />

Australia; Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Curtin University; and the Telethon Kids Institute,<br />

University of Western Australia <strong>to</strong> evaluate the effectiveness of <strong>headspace</strong>.<br />

The evaluation aimed <strong>to</strong>:<br />

• examine <strong>young</strong> <strong>people’s</strong> access <strong>to</strong> and engagement with the centre-based program<br />

including the demand for services at centres and barriers and facilita<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> service use<br />

• assess the outcomes of <strong>young</strong> people who have received services from <strong>headspace</strong> <strong>to</strong><br />

determine the effectiveness of the treatment<br />

• assess the centre-based program’s service delivery model including aspects of the<br />

model that are most and least effective in assisting <strong>headspace</strong> <strong>to</strong> meet its objectives, and<br />

• conduct a cost effectiveness analysis of the program as it currently operates, as well as<br />

an expanded version of the program that seeks national coverage.<br />

This report presents the evaluation findings.<br />

Evaluation Method<br />

The evaluation used qualitative and quantitative methods <strong>to</strong> answer the evaluation questions. The<br />

main methods and data sources included:<br />

• program datasets (including the <strong>headspace</strong> Centres Service Application and the <strong>headspace</strong><br />

Centres Finance Application): these datasets contain information relating <strong>to</strong> over 45,000<br />

<strong>young</strong> people who received almost 200,000 occasions of service across operational<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> centres<br />

• the 2011 Census of Population and Housing<br />

• interviews with key program stakeholders including <strong>headspace</strong> clients (n=50), centre<br />

managers and staff (n=25), and parents and carers of <strong>young</strong> people with mental health<br />

concerns (n=38)<br />

• surveys of 1,515 <strong>young</strong> people attending <strong>headspace</strong> and 4,774 <strong>young</strong> people 2 who were not<br />

attending <strong>headspace</strong> <strong>to</strong> compare the outcomes of <strong>headspace</strong> clients with those who have<br />

not used <strong>headspace</strong> or have received alternative forms of mental health care<br />

• surveys conducted with various stakeholder groups, including 226 parents and carers of<br />

1<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> is not capitalised throughout this report <strong>to</strong> align with <strong>headspace</strong> branding.<br />

2<br />

These figures relate <strong>to</strong> wave 1 of each survey.<br />

Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> Evaluation Final Report<br />

1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!