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

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C All interviews were coded using the coding framework. Each node represents a conceptual category, used to integrate data into themes. Coding therefore enables data to be managed easily by reducing it and linking data across transcripts and related themes. Following the coding process, analytical memos were written that summarised key data within each node. Further, a number of queries were run to identify frequencies and relationships across nodes. Through this intensive process of searching through data and writing up results, key findings emerged and are presented throughout this report. Centre Managers Survey An online survey was administered to all managers at the 40 operational headspace sites that were established during Rounds 1-3. The survey asked managers to identify the types of practitioners operating at the centre, the capacity of the staff, and the range and approximate numbers of services offered. The survey asked managers to rate their satisfaction with the support received by centres, and to provide their opinion on the effectiveness of headspace services. The survey sought information about the governance of each centre, including managers’ satisfaction with their lead agency and consortium partners. Finally, the survey included a section on perceived sustainability of headspace, asking managers to rate the importance of various factors. The online survey template was created using KeySurvey, a survey software program. The survey was launched following the receipt of contact names and email addresses for all headspace centres opened during Rounds 1-3 (n=40). The survey was sent to the sample of survey managers on 6 June and a reminder email was sent to all non-respondents 1 week later. A final reminder email was sent to non-respondents a day before the advertised survey closing date, 17 June. At closing, 57.5% of managers (n=23) had responded to the email invitation and had submitted completed surveys. While this response rate is lower than desired, the average response rate for studies of organisations (that is, seeking information about the organisation from individual representatives) is around 35% (Baruch & Holton, 2008). Following recommendations from the headspace Technical Advisory Group and Evaluation Executive Committee, an email was sent to non-participant centre managers to indicate that the survey would be re-opened on 15th of August for a period of 15 days. This resulted in a further 6 managers completing the survey, bringing the total of respondents to 29 out of 40 – a response rate of 72.5%. headspace centres from across Australia, located in urban, regional and remote areas, and established in all specified rounds (1-3) are represented among survey respondents (n=29). Survey responses were received from managers of centres located in all states and territories, except for Tasmania. Table C3 provides a description of the range of sites whose managers completed the survey. Table C3 Profile of headspace Centres whose managers completed the survey State NSW 9 Vic 7 Qld 4 WA 4 SA 3 ACT 1 NT 1 Remoteness Major Cities 15 Inner Regional 8 Outer Regional 5 Very Remote 1 Round 1 8 2 15 3 6 Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 182
Appendix C The KeySurvey software system includes an analysis and reporting function that details frequencies and other details for all responses. This function was used to generate an analysis report. Further analysis was conducted by exporting the survey data to excel where an analyst developed graphs and tables to highlight key findings. The survey contained some non-compulsory open-ended questions and the small amount of textual data contained herein was exported to NVivo and thematically analysed through coding. Survey of Professional Stakeholders Affiliated with headspace The Survey of Professional Stakeholders was included in the evaluation to examine a number of features of collaborative practice specified by the Department in RFQ DoHA 093-1213 and on which limited administrative data are available including: • The type and extent of connections and linkages between headspace centres, other government funded programs, and the broader service system; • The facilitators and barriers of effective and efficient collaborative practice; • The impact of collaborative practice on other service providers; • The transition of clients from headspace to adult services; and • Whether and how headspace has improved the skill and confidence of general practitioners in providing youth mental healthcare. The survey was designed to be conducted as an online survey and as a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI), however, only one participant used CATI. The survey was also designed to be completed by a diversity of practitioners from different organisational types (for example, government agencies, NGOs, private organisations) and sectors (such as education, primary healthcare, mental health care) as there were multiple pathways through the survey depending on answers provided. The survey items were based on specified evaluation requirements. The survey was distributed and implemented using KeySurvey, a software system supported by UNSW. This system enables survey launch through invitations emails containing a unique survey link, and through blanket distribution of the survey URL. Prior to implementation, the evaluators piloted the survey with a small number of consortium organisations and general practitioners located near headspace centres (n=15). The pilot launch was undertaken to assess participants’ understanding of survey questions and system operations. We received four responses to the pilot launch and one question was modified as a result. The survey was conducted online over a 2 month period from 9 September to 4 November, 2014. Survey participants were recruited using two methods: sending email invitations to identified contacts in headspace lead agencies and consortium organisations; and advertising the survey. After 5 weeks of survey promotion, a total of 207 professionals had responded to the survey. This result is somewhat disappointing and reflects the fact that service providers are often short of free time and need to prioritise their activities, and that no incentive was offered to boost respondent numbers. headspace National Office does not have a database containing contact details for the partner organisations that make up each headspace centre’s consortium. This would have been valuable to use as a sampling frame, and without this information it is not possible to calculate a response rate for stakeholders’ organisations, or to estimate the validity of responses. Despite efforts of the evaluators to encourage stakeholder organisations to participate in the survey, we received a poor response to requests to lead agencies to provide consortium contact details, as well as to complete the survey. In circumstances where we did not receive contact details for consortium organisations, we sent an invitation with the survey URL to the lead agency and asked them to forward to their consortium organisations. This method was implemented only because we did not receive responses from all lead agencies. While we are unable to confirm this, it is likely that the majority of consortium organisations that participated in the survey are those where a nominated manager received a direct email invitation. This suggests that we received the majority of survey responses from lead agencies and consortium organisations that are working together well - or at least better than the consortiums where lead agencies did not provide contact details. This is Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 183
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 and 160: Appendix B The current model of cen
Page 161 and 162: Appendix B Current centre funding m
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: Appendix C Figure C8 Demographic ch
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 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 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 235 and 236: Appendix G Figure G1 Percentage of
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?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?