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

5. Service Delivery Model
headspace Best Practice Framework. This framework identifies four key outcome areas, along with
a set of objectives and implementation indicators which enable the provision of appropriate service
responses for young people.
In the organisational strategic plan (headspace, 2012), headspace specifies that the key elements of
the centre-based program are:
• clinical service delivery
• delivery of vocational and other youth services
• services targeted for 12-25-year olds and delivered in a youth friendly environment
• local referral network, and
• mental health promotion.
For the purposes of this evaluation, we have used these key elements to assess implementation
of the service delivery model (refer question 5.1 above). These elements are too broad to be
operationalised as criteria for assessing model fidelity; however, the development of the headspace
Best Practice Framework suggests that the organisation is moving towards further specification of
the service model. The elements are also too broad to support an analysis that links key service
elements with client outcomes.
Evaluation data indicates that all elements were implemented at centres but it does not support an
assessment of the extent to which service components impact the outcomes of young people.
5.3 What are the risk and protective factors for headspace sustainability?
The evaluation has highlighted a number of factors that enhance and threaten headspace’s long-term
sustainability. These factors are described below:
Risk factors
As previously stated, headspace operates with multiple funding streams; however, there is a heavy
reliance on government funding. This reliance on government funding is a potential risk to long-term
sustainability as any cutbacks to headspace funding streams could impact service provision. The
mental health service system competes for finite funding and a reduction in the total amount could
negatively impact headspace service delivery.
The economic evaluation also highlighted much variation in unit costs across centres. The analysis
identified a number of centres that have very high headspace grant investment with relatively low
occasions of service. It was out of the scope of the evaluation to assess operations at individual
centres so we are not able to provide an explanation for this diversity in unit costs. It is suggested
that centres established during rounds 1-4 with significantly high unit costs be investigated to identify
any operational inefficiencies that may exist.
The headspace service model relies upon collaboration between the centre’s lead agency,
consortium partners and other local service provider organisations that refer young people to centres
and/or receive referrals from headspace. Collaboration is therefore crucial to centre-based services.
The evaluation highlighted mixed results regarding collaboration with services at the community level.
Evaluation data suggests that only a small proportion of young people (3-5%) are referred to other
services within the community. This suggests that the headspace model is effective in holistically
meeting the needs of young people. Collaboration of headspace centres across the national network
is not supported by a database holding contact information. As discovered during the recruitment
phase of the Professional Stakeholders Survey, there is no centrally held database of headspace
lead agencies and their related consortium organisations. The Department of Health and headspace
National Office holds contact information on all lead agencies, but not on consortium partners. It is
suggested that such a database of lead agencies and their partners be developed. Such a database
would need to be updated regularly given the high turnover of staff within the sector.
Results from the subsample of general practitioners (n=45) who participated in the Professional
Stakeholders Survey suggest that greater engagement of this stakeholder group is required not only
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
77