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

Executive Summary
or very high levels of psychological distress 3 at first assessment (74.2%).
headspace has been successful in attracting some young people from marginalised and at-risk
groups, as well as young people traditionally disadvantaged in their access to mental health care.
Most notably, headspace is being accessed by significantly higher proportions of Indigenous
young people and those living in regional areas than the proportions of these groups in the general
population.
The strategic placement of centres in regional areas has been effective in facilitating access to
community based mental health for young people living outside of major cities. While this group
represents 26.2% of young people nationally, 39% of headspace clients lived in regional areas (inner
and outer regional).
Indigenous young people are also over-represented as headspace clients. Approximately 7.4% of
clients identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, which is double their representation in the
general population (3.7%). This is another significant finding as research indicates that Indigenous
people have higher rates of mental health and substance misuse conditions than the general
population, but are more reluctant to seek help (Jorm et al, 2012). The proportion of Indigenous
clients varies greatly according to the geographic location of centres and qualitative data indicates
that some centres could do more to make their services more culturally appropriate for Indigenous
clients.
headspace is being accessed by a higher proportion of female young people (62.8%) than males
(37.2%). This finding is consistent with results from the National Survey of Mental Health and
Wellbeing, which reports higher rates of mental disorders in women (ABS, 2007), as well as the
higher overall usage of health services by women in general (ABS, 2010).
One in five headspace clients (20.2%) identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender or inter-sex
(LGBTI). While no age-specific comparison data is available, the Second Australian Study of Health
and Relationships reports that of the adult population, only 3% of men and 4% of women identify as
LGBTI (Richters et al., 2014).
Other groups of vulnerable young people over-represented at headspace are young people
disengaged from work or study (20.2% of clients compared to only 10.7% of the general youth
population); and young people who are homeless or living in insecure housing, such as couch surfing
or sleeping rough. This group represented one in 10 clients (11.7% of 12-25 year olds; 7% of 12-17
year olds; and 16.7% of 18-25 year olds). The latter group was far less likely to return to headspace
after their first visit than all other clients, indicating that sustained engagement with mobile young
people is challenging.
These findings indicate that headspace has achieved much in initially engaging a significant
proportion of vulnerable young people and disadvantaged groups. However, CALD young people are
under-represented as headspace clients. Almost all young people attending headspace were born in
Australia (92.8%), compared to 82% of all young people across Australia. Of the 7.2% of clients that
were born overseas, only 6.6% speak a language other than English at home (compared to 19.3% of
Australian young people). This finding suggests that centres may need to target CALD young people
in promotion activities and connect more with local CALD services to facilitate integrated service
provision for this group of young people.
Stakeholders (clients, staff and parents) generally identified headspace to be an accessible and
engaging service. The youth-friendly environment and innovative engagement approaches; the
friendly, non-judgemental and relatable staff; the free or low cost service; wide-range of services
provided; and practical assistance (such as transportation) were all commonly mentioned as
important factors that helped young people access and stay engaged with headspace. Despite the
high value that many young people and their parents placed on these program features, a number of
barriers to service access were raised by stakeholders. These included the stigma of mental illness,
practical barriers (such as standard opening hours and lack of transportation), centre waiting lists,
and concerns around the cultural appropriateness of services provided in some centres.
3
As measured by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) which categorises distress levels into four groups:
low, moderate, high and very high.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
3