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

Appendix B
of expansion. It is important to note here that the alternative models component represented by Part
3 has been provided in addition to the evaluation requirements. Further investigation would require
separate project funding to complete if pursued externally to the Department or hNO.
While the current model of expansion can be costed based on detailed information regarding current
headspace grant funding and estimates of MBS contributions at a centre level being available to
the evaluation team, costing alternative models requires additional information not provided for the
evaluation. These alternative models of centre allocation propose the use of smaller sites and make
use of different geographic boundaries. For example, spoke sites may be identified by a defined
catchment area much smaller than the SA4/SA3 regions currently used; they are likely to have
reduced service capacity, and may run on a part-time basis. There is no information on which to
base the costing for these smaller or part-time sites which diverge from the traditional model. We lack
enough cost information for such sites to make even indicative estimates, and attempting to do so
with the information made available for this evaluation would risk misleading evaluation stakeholders
and undermine the confidence of the public in the integrity of other results of the evaluation.
In addition, the population size required to justify either a full or smaller headspace centre is
unknown. The region which contains the smallest youth population and an existing headspace
centre has a youth population of around 3,500 12-25 year olds. It is unknown whether this can
be interpreted as a lower limit on efficient service provision, or whether smaller populations could
support a centre. In addition, the upper service capacity is unknown and difficult to estimate. This
is largely due to the paucity of information regarding additional, non-government funds and in-kind
support provided to existing centres. These additional funds have the potential to substantially
increase the capacity of a centre. Additional information regarding non-government funding input
would provide insight into centre capacity. Further, the impact of smaller region sizes on the ability
of the model to leverage off existing services and partners is not able to be evaluated but has
significant implications for site allocation.
The impact of competing and complementary services is unknown. This variable is likely to be
evaluated in the current model within the ‘human intelligence’ component. This factor has substantial
implications for service need and, as a result, likely centre allocation. This may have greater impact
when region sizes are small.
Additional information required to allow for robust estimates of costs of centre expansion under the
alternative models include:
• defined lower and upper bound on the population size of a region to allow for efficient centre
allocation. This is closely related to centre service capacity.
• costing information for smaller sites (e.g. part-time centres, centres with limited services)
• information regarding alternative and complementary mental health services within in-scope
areas.
Conclusions
Summary of factors for consideration in the future roll-out of headspace
• flexibility in the headspace funding allocation to tailor allocation to relevant factors
such as rurality, demand and service requirements
• investigation of the use of alternatives to traditional sites. For example, hub and spoke
sites, part-time or centres staffed by fly-in fly-out staff
• potential use of alternative modes of service delivery such as online treatment
methods
• prioritisation of centre allocation based on direct measures of service need.
The report provides a data driven approach to evaluation of the current model of centre expansion
and the assumptions that underpin this model. It identifies weaknesses and proposes a number of
alternative models of centre expansion, which alter components of the existing model with the aim
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
164