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

Appendix B
A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the current and proposed methods of defining
access, for the purpose of centre expansion, is included in Table B9.
Table B9 Strengths and weaknesses of definitions of youth access to headspace for evaluation
purposes
Measure Strengths Weaknesses
ASGS boundaries
A young person is considered to have
access to a headspace centre if they
reside in the same SA3/ SA4 as the centre
Distance to nearest centre
A young person has access to a
headspace centre if they live within a
defined distance (10 kms metro, 30 kms
non-metro) of the centre.
Distance to nearest centre for young
people at risk of mental health distress
As above, a young person has access
to a headspace centre if they live within
a defined distance (10 kms metro, 30
kms non-metro) of the centre. However,
access is evaluated based on the number
of young people estimated to have a need
for services rather than the total youth
population.
- Simple to determine access under
this definition as population counts for
areas are easily accessible via the ABS
- Likely to better reflect true access to
services compared to models which
are based on administrative boundaries
- Relatively easy to calculate youth with
access
- May better reflect access for those
who are more likely to seek services
and allow for those areas likely to have
greater demand to be prioritised in
centre allocation
- Does not reflect true access
particularly in rural and remote
areas in which regions are often
geographically large and do not
reflect service hubs
- Distance does not reflect likely
travel routes of transport hubs which
could improve or prevent access.
This weakness could be addressed
with higher quality geographic data.
- Requires small-area estimates
of mental health problems. The
methodology presented in this paper
is indicative of a methodological
approach, but does not reflect an
optimal product.
- Areas at high risk of mental health
problems may already have greater
availability of alternative services.
This was not possible to evaluate due
to a lack of data.
- headspace does not exclusively
provide services to those at risk of
mental health distress. Therefore,
this model may not accurately
estimate demand.
Centre service capacity
Key messages
• Centre capacity is largely constrained by the relatively inflexible headspace grant
funding allocated to centres.
• No information was available to the evaluation team regarding non-government
funding. As a result, the impact of this additional funding of centre capacity via Lead
Agency or Consortia sources is unknown.
• Further analysis is required to determine whether funding flexibility could allow
individual centres to provide access to young people in a more efficient manner.
• The Department should consider whether future evaluations of headspace might
allow evaluators access to some level of information around Lead Agency and
Consortia contributions, where it is legal to do so. Even access to indicative data,
with the Department’s approval, would allow a clearer interpretation of the evaluation
observations and outcomes
While proximity to a headspace centre and the distribution of mental health needs across the
community are important demand side factors which influence centre access, the capacity of
centres to provide services to young people within their community may represent a limiting factor in
delivering equity of access and is an important consideration in the assessment of unmet needs and
future centre allocations.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
148