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

Recommendations

Info

Appendix B Figure B22 Average number of occasions of service per centre by round, 2013/14 Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data and ABS 2011 Census tables. Figure B23 Waiting time for occasions of service by month Notes: Wait times are self-reported by young persons for each occasion of service. Young persons are asked: “How long have you waited for this appointment (from when you or someone else tried to make an appointment for you)?” Young people do not report waiting times for every occasion of service. Young people who responded “I don’t know” have been excluded from the analysis. These comprise around 9.2% of all responses. Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 150
Appendix B Current centre funding model Key messages • Current headspace grant funding is relatively inflexible. While flexibility may be gained from consortia partners, this information was not available to the evaluators. Part One has further information on this issue. • Consideration should be given to matching grant funding to relevant factors such as youth demand, population catchment size, rural location and service profile of centres. • headspace administrative data (hCSA) record the source of funds used for any given occasion of service, but crucially does not record the cost of that occasion of service. Given that two-thirds of occasions of service are funded out of a combination of MBS and other non-headspace grant funds, this is a major shortcoming. Recording cost would provide further insight into the funding model and greatly improve the quality of any future evaluation. • Where possible, non-government funding data should be included in future evaluations of the headspace model. As the headspace service model is designed to leverage off funding sources in addition to the headspace grant, a lack of information about these funds within headspace administrative reporting represents an information blind-spot for the Department and a significant data-gap for the evaluation. Rationale The current funding model for headspace centres impacts on the nature and extent of service delivery via headspace centres by placing a cap on individual centre resources. While additional funds may be provided by consortia partners, this information is not available to evaluators and therefore cannot be considered in the analysis. In assessing the current model of centre allocation, some consideration needs to be given to the funding model. Information relating to the centre-funding model was provided by hNO and DoH over the life of the project. Final audited centre-level expense (hCFA) data were provided to the evaluators in January 2015. The discussion which follows concentrates on the broad funding model. Results For the purposes of this evaluation, the evaluation team applied an indicative annual running cost based on 2013/14 headspace centre funding agreements. This places an average value of $842,000 per annum of centre funding per centre, as allocated by headspace hNO. We have also included hNO centre administration costs of $96,000 per centre per annum. The funds allocated to each fully operational centre in 2013/14 by hNO ranged from $600,000 to $1,100,000. In addition, there is a separate establishment funding provided by hNO to support the new centres in their first year of operation. This funding amounts to an additional $350,000 (for fit-out) plus $450,000 (for part-year services) to assist with centre establishment in the first year only. As the Round 7 and 8 allocated centres are in various stages of roll-out, and are yet to achieve full functionality, they will be subject to this additional establishment funding rather than the average running cost of $842,000 per annum. The headspace centre funding model allocates at least 75% of funding to staff costs, and 25% to indirect costs. Compliance with this cost structure by each centre is monitored by hNO. The grant expenditure is targeted at community engagement, infrastructure costs, centre manager salary, administrative costs, and intake workers. The system has built-in quality controls so that as data is entered at the centre-level, expenses which fall outside agreed parameters are highlighted for query by hNO finance. There is, however, some capacity for flexibility in unusual circumstances. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 151
Page 1 and 2:
Is headspace making a difference to
Page 3 and 4:
Authors This report was written by
Page 5 and 6:
5. Service Delivery Model 73 5.1 Wh
Page 7 and 8:
Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Main
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary headspace 1 aims
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary or very high leve
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary through mental he
Page 17 and 18:
value to society of the improvement
Page 19 and 20:
1. Introduction people in Australia
Page 21 and 22:
2. Evaluation Methodology 2.1 Aims
Page 23 and 24:
2. Evaluation Methodology Evaluatio
Page 25 and 26:
2. Evaluation Methodology Table 2.3
Page 27 and 28:
2. Evaluation Methodology Represent
Page 29 and 30:
3. Access and Engagement with Centr
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
Page 53 and 54:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients 35
Page 55 and 56:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ch
Page 57 and 58:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
Page 59 and 60:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
Page 61 and 62:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Fi
Page 63 and 64:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients A
Page 65 and 66:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
Page 67 and 68:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients nu
Page 69 and 70:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
Page 71 and 72:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
Page 73 and 74:
y three percentage points, and 2.1
Page 75 and 76:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients So
Page 77 and 78:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients I
Page 79 and 80:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients in
Page 81 and 82:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Wh
Page 83 and 84:
5. Service Delivery Model For the a
Page 85 and 86:
5. Service Delivery Model the provi
Page 87 and 88:
5. Service Delivery Model headspace
Page 89 and 90:
5. Service Delivery Model services,
Page 91 and 92:
5. Service Delivery Model services
Page 93 and 94:
5. Service Delivery Model Further,
Page 95 and 96:
5. Service Delivery Model that we
Page 97 and 98:
5. Service Delivery Model is a cons
Page 99 and 100:
5. Service Delivery Model connectio
Page 101 and 102:
5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.2
Page 103 and 104:
5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.3
Page 105 and 106:
5. Service Delivery Model I don’t
Page 107 and 108:
5. Service Delivery Model group is
Page 109 and 110: 5. Service Delivery Model Figure 5.
Page 111 and 112: 6. The Costs of headspace One of th
Page 113 and 114: 6. The Costs of headspace Table 6.1
Page 115 and 116: 6. The Costs of headspace In-scope
Page 117 and 118: 6. The Costs of headspace Revenue/
Page 119 and 120: 6. The Costs of headspace Other gov
Page 121 and 122: 7. Conclusion The evaluation of hea
Page 123 and 124: 7. Conclusion treatment); however,
Page 125 and 126: 7. Conclusion Overall the evaluatio
Page 127 and 128: Appendix A Evaluation scope areas h
Page 129 and 130: Appendix B The current model of hea
Page 131 and 132: Appendix B and each SA3 in non-capi
Page 133 and 134: Appendix B chapter 39 . To determin
Page 135 and 136: Appendix B While there is an overal
Page 137 and 138: Appendix B Figure B3 describes the
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B Figure B5 Cost per young
Page 141 and 142: Appendix B The concept of access as
Page 143 and 144: Appendix B Figure B7 Heard of heads
Page 145 and 146: Figure B10 Proportion of headspace
Page 147 and 148: Appendix B Table B5 Females 18-25 y
Page 149 and 150: Appendix B following section. Figur
Page 151 and 152: Appendix B and less access to mains
Page 153 and 154: Appendix B Figure B17 Estimated pre
Page 155 and 156: Appendix B Figure B18 SA1s within 1
Page 157 and 158: Figure B20 Hypothetical allocation
Page 159: Appendix B The current model of cen
Page 163 and 164: Appendix B Evaluation of the curren
Page 165 and 166: Appendix B Level of funding availab
Page 167 and 168: Appendix B provide a method for ide
Page 169 and 170: Appendix B centres and Localities i
Page 171 and 172: Appendix B for greater flexibility
Page 173 and 174: Appendix B Additional consideration
Page 175 and 176: Appendix B of achieving more effici
Page 177 and 178: Appendix B • Used the simulation
Page 179 and 180: Appendix C information relating to
Page 181 and 182: Appendix C Regarding gender, in bot
Page 183 and 184: Appendix C Figure C5 Total number o
Page 185 and 186: Appendix C Table C1 Information Sum
Page 187 and 188: Appendix C Data Cleaning and Analys
Page 189 and 190: Appendix C groups. The age and sex
Page 191 and 192: Appendix C Figure C8 Demographic ch
Page 193 and 194: Appendix C The KeySurvey software s
Page 195 and 196: Appendix C different client groups.
Page 197 and 198: Appendix D Round State Centre Name
Page 199 and 200: Appendix E Characteristics HS clien
Page 201 and 202: Table E4 Cell Sizes for Figure 3.4
Page 203 and 204: Appendix F Figure F1 Changes in K10
Page 205 and 206: Appendix F three SEIFA quintiles. A
Page 207 and 208: Appendix F Occasion of service inte
Page 209 and 210: Appendix F Table F1 Cell sizes for
Page 211 and 212:
Appendix F Table F4 Cell sizes for
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix F Table F9 Cell sizes for
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix G Supplementary material f
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix G Table G3 Round 3 (10 cen
Page 219 and 220:
Appendix G Table G7 Round 7 (10 cen
Page 221 and 222:
State (youth population) a headspac
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Appendix G Table G12 Round 11(16 ce
Page 227 and 228:
Table G16 Additional youth populati
Page 229 and 230:
Round Region State Additional youth
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix G Figure G1 Percentage of
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix G Table G22 Australians 18
Page 245 and 246:
Appendix G Synthetic small area est
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix G Figure G16 Estimated pre
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix G Figure G22 SA1s within 1
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix G Table G25 Centres alloca
Page 261 and 262:
References Atkins, D.C., Bedics, J.
Page 263:
References Smith, E., Jones, T., Wa
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?