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

Appendix B
chapter 39 . To determine the order in which centres were allocated, the current centre allocation model
was used. Centre allocation was determined based on the weighted youth population within each
region. There was no additional stratification by state or remoteness. This hypothetical allocation
consisted of 4 rounds of 16 centres (rounds 9-12) and 2 rounds of 15 centres (rounds 13 and 14).
In order to extend the cost-modelling of headspace centres, some assumptions were made in order
to simplify the model specification and interpretation, and retain consistency to allow for direct
comparisons with previous rounds. Some of these assumptions include:
• constant hNO centre support costs (in reality, they may vary by centre remoteness, but hNO
are not able to disaggregate support costs)
• centre running costs are input as the average for all centres (in reality, they vary by centre
remoteness, but providing a breakdown of costs by remoteness can be difficult without a full
understanding of lead agency subsidisation)
• similar staff profiles (in reality, they vary by centre remoteness)
• non-headspace costs are input as the average for all centres. These data are only available
at a national aggregate, so regional disaggregation is not possible.
Similarly, in estimating ‘effects’ we are assuming that the effects of each new centre are ‘constant’
and proportionate to population with access.
Flexibility of the headspace grant model for centre funding
Key Messages
• The headspace grants model provides fixed funding to successful lead agencies over
an agreed contractual term.
• This section analysed only fully operational centres, as including centres in the
establishment phase introduces considerable variation to the cost analysis and would
have resulted in misleading conclusions.
• The headspace grant funding amount is tightly constrained across a wide range of
service catchment areas. This means that although areas servicing high numbers
of young people typically receive larger amounts of grant funding, they are not
compensated proportionally in comparison with areas servicing low numbers. In some
instances, areas servicing over 100,000 young people can receive less grant funding
than areas servicing only 20,000 young people.
• There are also cases whereby areas servicing low numbers of young people have
widely varying grant amounts compared to other similar areas. This may indicate
inequity in grant funding or variation in lead agency and consortia contributions.
• The provision of a headspace grant takes into account contributions of the lead agency
and consortia partners across the grant term. It also weighs the impact of competing
and complementary services around each selected headspace site. Information about
these contributions is not available to the evaluation team and has not been factored
into the analyses shown here, but may go some way to explaining the apparent
discrepancies on display here.
• Even without access to information about lead agency contributions and the existence
of non-headspace services, the disproportionally low funding of high service
population areas warrants further investigation.
39
As previously mentioned, Lord Howe Island and Illawarra Catchment Reserve were excluded due to small youth
populations.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
123