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

Appendix B
Table B10 Summary of strengths and weaknesses of current and proposed alternative models of centre allocation
and model expansion
Measure Strengths Weaknesses Notes
Current model
Assigns headspace centres to SA4s (metropolitan)
and SA3s (non-metropolitan). Centres are
prioritised by weighted youth population and
a ‘human intelligence’ factor which considers
additional parameters such as existing mental
health services and availability of consortia
partners in the area
- Good information relating to headspace grant
funding
- Use of existing, stable ASGS boundaries
make roll-out administratively straight forward
- Areas at higher risk of mental health
problems are prioritised due to use of a
weighting algorithm
-Definition of access unlikely to reflect
realistic access for all young people in the
SA4 or SA3.
-Human intelligence factor difficult to
evaluate and incorporate in modelling
- Difficult to determine non-headspace
funding contributions and their impact on
service delivery and capacity
Existing information allows this model
to be costed to hypothetical national
expansion based on well-defined
headspace grant information and
estimates of MBS funds. The contribution
of lead agency funding and in-kind input
cannot be evaluated
Data driven approach to access, demand and
capacity
Catchment areas determined to have a maximum
radius of 30 kms to reflect likely access to
services. Centre allocation prioritised based on
population of youth at risk for a mental health
disorder.
- Maximises access to services for all young
people across Australia
- Likely to better reflect true access to centre
services compared to the current model
- More complex weighting algorithm better
reflects likely demand
- Number of centres required to service
all small areas defined by the model is
excessive resulting in potentially prohibitive
costs.
- Many small areas have small population
sizes. The lower limit population size for
efficient service delivery is not known.
- The implications for lead agency input and
ability to leverage off existing services in
very small geographic areas is unknown.
Smaller populations are likely to
necessitate either smaller sites, with lower
average headspace and MBS funding, or
a lower limit on the region size in-scope
for allocation. This information is not
available to the evaluation team and
therefore determining robust estimates of
costs with expansion based on this model
is not possible.
Alternative geographic boundaries (UCL)
Assigns centres to SA4s (metropolitan) and UCLs
(non-metropolitan) defined by the ASGS. Those
UCLs within 1 hour’s travel time of an existing
centre are considered to have access and are
therefore out of scope for a new centre. Allocation
weighted using SEIFA and ARIA
- UCLs are more likely to reflect functional
communities, and therefore service catchment
areas, than SA3s in non-metropolitan areas
- Unlikely to reflect true access for all young
people, particularly those in rural and remote
areas
- Model would result in a large number
of sites in regions with small populations.
Again, a lower limit may be required based
on region size.
As above, allocation to UCLs includes
areas with very small populations and
will likely require smaller centres or limits
placed on the smallest in-scope region
size. Therefore, costing is not possible
Hub and spoke model
A formalised network in which smaller spoke sites
are supported by the larger hub sites.
- Likely to be associated with some cost saving
if smaller spoke sites have lower funding
requirements
- May provide greater access to rural and
remote areas whose small populations will not
support a full time headspace centre
- Well established model of service delivery
- Very little information within the current
headspace model to determine impacts on
service delivery, number of sites and costs
- Diverges from the current headspace model
- Potential implications for quality and
timeliness of service delivery in spoke sites
- Unknown implications for ability to attract
consortia partners
The evaluation team have no information
on which to base the costs of smaller
spoke sites. In addition, the lack of
information regarding the efficient and
effective geographic distribution of hub
and spoke sites mean that determining
the number of centres and the cost
implications of this model is not possible.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
162