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

3. Access and Engagement with Centres
These figures are consistent with the small body of research that confirms the widespread underutilisation
of mental health services by CALD young people (Gorman et al, 2003). One reason
cited by service providers for this under-representation was some centres’ inability to fully engage
local CALD services to facilitate mutual referral. The lack of CALD young people attending centres
may continue to perpetuate their under-representation because other young people from similar
backgrounds are less likely to hear positive stories about headspace and attend a centre.
Location of clients (state and remoteness)
The proportion of headspace clients by Australian states and territories generally aligns with
population distributions of 12-25-year olds (Table 3.1). Almost one-third of clients were located in New
South Wales (NSW). There was a small under-representation of clients from Western Australia and a
small over-representation of clients from Tasmania. This is likely to be a reflection of the placement of
centres and may also be related to centre-based engagement practices.
The majority of headspace clients (57.8% of 12-17 year olds and 60% of 18-25 year olds) live in major
cities. This is lower than the proportion of 12-25 year olds living in major cities throughout Australia
(71.6%) 17 . Hence, there was an over-representation of headspace clients living outside of major cities.
While this group make up 28.4% of the population, they accounted for 42.3% of 12-17 year olds and
40.2% of 18-25 year olds accessing headspace. This result is positive for young people living in
regional areas. It is also important to recognise that judgement of over- or under-representation of
headspace clients throughout areas across Australia may not reflect relative need.
Disadvantage / Advantage
An analysis of headspace clients’ postcodes and the ABS SEIFA Index of Disadvantage shows that
the proportions of clients living in each SEIFA quintile roughly align with proportions of young people
across the population, except for those living in the most disadvantaged and advantaged quintiles.
There is a small under-representation of young people living in the most disadvantaged areas (16.7%
of headspace clients reside in the most disadvantaged SEIFA quintile in comparison to 19.7% of
the general youth population). While the difference is small, the result is surprising given that centre
allocation prioritises low SEIFA areas. This priority is important as research indicates that the stress
associated with poverty and social disadvantage may contribute to mental health disorders (see for
example Lawrence et al, 2015).
Table 3.1 indicates that there is also a small under-representation of young people living in the most
advantaged areas with 16.7% of headspace clients residing in the most advantaged SEIFA quintile in
comparison to 20.4% of the general youth population.
Security of living arrangements
The living arrangements of headspace clients vary significantly across age groups. Not surprisingly,
younger clients (12-17 year olds) were more likely to be living in secure housing arrangements than
older clients (93% versus 83.3%). This shows a stark increase in and risk of housing insecurity as
clients age.
Seven per cent of 12-17 year olds and 16.7% of 18-25 year olds were homeless or living in unstable
housing such as refuges, hotels, motels and boarding houses. Along with the distress, social
exclusion and other compounding challenges insecure housing can cause a young person, it can
also present a barrier to service access, engagement and effective delivery. Young people who
visited headspace only once were more likely to be living in insecure housing than all headspace
clients (15.2% and 12.6% respectively).
17
The under-representation of young people in major cities becomes slightly less pronounced in the older age group
(18-25-year olds).
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
23