05.12.2016 Views

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

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3. Access and Engagement with Centres<br />

This is largely due <strong>to</strong> program expansion and the opening of new centres 13 . Of the 67 centres, all<br />

were established in rounds 1-5 and were operating by the end of the 2013/14 financial year; however,<br />

14 of these were opened during the year and so not all were operating at maximum capacity.<br />

As shown in Figure 3.1, <strong>headspace</strong> centres generally saw between 9,000 and 12,000 clients each<br />

month. The number of clients decreased in December and January, which may indicate lower service<br />

availability and less service demand because many people, including <strong>young</strong> people, are on holidays.<br />

Figure 3.1 Number of clients by centre round, 2013/14<br />

Note: Population are those <strong>young</strong> people that received a <strong>headspace</strong> service within the 2013/14 financial year.<br />

Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data.<br />

3.2 What is the profile of <strong>young</strong> people accessing <strong>headspace</strong> services? Which groups<br />

are over/ under-represented?<br />

This section profiles the <strong>young</strong> people attending <strong>headspace</strong> centres and compares them <strong>to</strong> 12-25-<br />

year olds across the population and <strong>to</strong> 16-24 year olds with identified mental health disorders.<br />

This comparative analysis draws on hCSA data, the 2011 Census of Population and Housing and<br />

evaluation survey data.<br />

The socio-demographic characteristics of <strong>headspace</strong> clients compared <strong>to</strong> <strong>young</strong> people in the<br />

population are reported in Table 3.1 and described below. The same analysis by different age<br />

categories (12-17 years and 18-25 years) is reported in Appendix E.<br />

13<br />

Total client counts reported in the first evaluation (Muir et al, 2009) and the preliminary output for this second<br />

evaluation under-estimated client numbers as figures were calculated from the old MHAGIC administrative dataset,<br />

which had large amounts of missing data.<br />

Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> Evaluation Final Report<br />

19

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!