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

Appendix B
Additional considerations for alternative models of service delivery
Rationale
While outside the scope of the economic analysis, the headspace model currently offers additional
services such as the Outreach Teams to schools program, which provide postvention support to
school communities affected by suicide, and the eheadspace program. The eheadspace program
provides telephone and web counselling and information services. These services, which are
integrated and clinically supervised, aim to widen the availability and reach of headspace services.
Additional alternative services, which do not follow the traditional headspace centre model, have
the potential to improve youth access and, depending on the mode of delivery, could potentially be
achieved in a relatively low cost manner. As the alternative models, or modes of service delivery,
outlined below are beyond the scope of the analysis, we lack data to estimate their impact on access
and their likely cost. However, these alternative options should be considered, and empirically costed,
by the Department when considering further expansion of the headspace model.
hNO having increased responsibility for headspace centres
In the current funding model each lead agency is associated with a program management fee with
an average annual cost of $55,000 or around 7.5% of total centre costs. There are potential savings
in procurement and economies of scale in general administration if some of these activities were
managed centrally by hNO. For example, many office supplies are currently purchased by individual
centres leading to duplication of effort and reduced bargaining power.
Part-time centres
While a number of satellite centres exist, which have varying levels of service delivery and opening
hours, a greater number of part-time centres could be introduced with the aim of maximising access
whilst reducing costs. These centres could follow a hub and spoke model, as described earlier, or
alternatives such as fly-in fly-out service delivery. This could allow greater access to youth in very
remote areas. As living in remote areas is associated with increased risk of mental health distress,
maximising access in these areas where possible is desirable. These models may assist in reducing
the inequities evident between states. On the other hand, this, and some of the other models
discussed above, is not likely to be consistent with the current definition of a headspace centre. If
these models are to be developed, careful consideration would have to be given to the minimum
requirements for a ‘headspace centre’.
Increased online service provision
Continual improvements in technology, such as greater use of smart phone and tablet computers,
and increasing access to online services mean that online mental health information seeking, support
and treatment are likely to continue to grow in the future.
Online service delivery eliminates travel barriers to access services. In addition, this may eliminate
other barriers to service access, such as concerns about privacy, and may reduce physical centre
capacity issues. Further, this mode of delivery may have the potential to reduce overall delivery costs
and reduce burden on the clinical workforce if effective online clinical services, and appropriate
referral systems, are established.
However, online services cannot fully substitute face-to-face service delivery models. There are
primary care issues that may not be able to be addressed online (e.g. medical treatments). This
may disadvantage young people who are living in regional, rural and remote areas and should be
considered when developing alternative service delivery models.
Costs of National Coverage
The alternative models of centre allocation presented here are intended to demonstrate how levels
of youth access to headspace services can be altered when components of the existing model
are varied. The use of these models for future centre allocation is largely dependent on the cost of
implementation. However, due to a lack of data, costing these alternative models, or determining the
likely required number of sites, is challenging and estimates are unlikely to be robust. Outlined below
is the additional data required to allow for acceptable estimates of cost under the alternative models
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
163