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

6. The Costs of headspace
In-scope government investment
Government investment into headspace services is facilitated through a number of funding streams.
Leveraging off the headspace platform, these funding streams include the headspace grant, MBS
and other funding streams such as Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS), the Mental
Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) and the Rural Primary Health Services (RPHS).
Out of the 194,968 occasions of service recorded in the 2013/14 financial year, 70,140 (36%) were
directly funded by the headspace grant, and 88,691 (45.5%) occasions of service were funded out of
MBS (Figure 6.2). The remaining 36,137 (18.5%) occasions of service were funded from a variety of
other sources, including ATAPS (5.6%), MHNIP (1.8%) and the RPHS (1.0%).
Figure 6.2 Direct funding source for headspace occasions of service, 2013/14 financial year
Note: Funding source is reported by the service provider for each occasion of service. Funding source has not been
reported for approximately 3.5% of occasions of service within the 2013/14 financial year.
Source: Authors calculations from hCSA
It is important to note that while a particular occasion of service may attract a certain funding stream,
the overall course of treatment for a young person can have a large degree of heterogeneity. For
example, a young person may initially visit headspace and receive an engagement and assessment
service, with the service provider being funded by the headspace grant. The young person may then
be referred to a psychologist within the centre with each occasion of service delivered being funded
by the MBS. This same young person could then be referred to an alcohol and drugs specialist who
is funded by headspace, or a mental health nurse who is funded by the MHNIP.
Furthermore, individual services and treatment courses delivered at a headspace centre have been
made possible by both direct (staffing) and indirect (operational) costs related to that service. These
costs can be borne by multiple funding sources. For example, an occasion of service may attract the
MBS for direct salary component, while other components related to the occasion of service such as
the physical space and administrative support required and other indirect components may be funded
from the headspace grant.
Consequently, it is not practical or prudent to separate out government investment for a headspace
treatment into the various funding streams. The headspace grant component that is directed towards
centre operations (indirect costs) is an important component of valuing a headspace treatment
against outcomes for young people.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
105