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

Appendix B
Level of funding available to support a given headspace centre:
The existing centre allocation model has a tightly bound funding envelope per centre, with an
average of $842,000 per annum supplied to each individual centre, with a range of approximately
$600,000 to $1.1m per annum provided to the smallest and biggest fully operational centres
respectively. While individual centres receive additional funding and in-kind support from lead
agencies and consortia partners, the limited information available to the evaluation team suggests
the average contribution from non-government sources may be relatively low. As a result, the current
funding model effectively caps the level of service capacity provided, irrespective of service demand.
It is important to note that the extent to which service capacity is limited by the funding model is not
known, as information regarding non-headspace funding at a centre level was not available to the
evaluation team. For example, it is possible that individual centres effectively seek consortia partners
and external funding which may increase their service capacity.
The relatively inflexible model of headspace funding means that there may be long waiting times
to obtain services in high demand areas. In low demand areas the current funding model may
represent diseconomies of scale and/or a level of cross-subsidisation of lead-agency business for
non-headspace purposes. The ability to vary the centre funding in a manner which better represents
client demand may improve equity of access to services. Flexibility in funding may open the way for
such concepts as headspace supercentres for high demand areas, infill of extra centres into high
population SA4s that currently have only one centre, and alternative delivery mechanisms in rural
areas such as hub-and-spoke, or fly-in fly-out service models.
The alternative models of centre allocation presented here are intended to demonstrate how levels
of centre access can be altered when components of access described above are varied. Each
alternative model has its own focus and set of specifications, but ultimately they each use different
combinations of the three main components of “access”, as described above, to demonstrate the
impact of their application of headspace centre expansion.
It is important to note at this stage that there are other options affecting headspace access that could
be considered, but are deemed outside the scope of the evaluation. These include eheadspace,
which may be a useful tool in reducing barriers to service access. In addition, the Outreach Teams
to schools program, which provides postvention support to school communities affected by suicide,
provides additional support to communities. Given the significant impact these programs may have
on youth access to mental health services, some discussion of their impact and possible extension is
included in the following section. However, as they are not within the scope of the report, they are not
explored in detail.
Detailed below is the rationale for selection, proposed method for allocation and discussion of the
strengths and weaknesses of three alternative models. It is, however, important to note that this
discussion does not propose an optimal model of centre expansion. A number of factors which
drive decisions regarding allocation of centres are not able to be incorporated into modelling.
These factors include, for example, the existence of complementary and competing mental health
services in the area, presence of potential lead agency and consortia partners, centre capacity and
the impact on service delivery with modifications to the traditional model (i.e. smaller or part-time
sites). Therefore, these models have not been fully specified. Instead they aim to provide additional
considerations for the Department when expanding the current model.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
155