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.

5. Service Delivery Model<br />

The Professional Stakeholders Survey did collect some information on one of the primary functions<br />

of the Centre of Excellence – <strong>to</strong> disseminate best practice information. Results indicate that while<br />

the majority of respondents rated <strong>headspace</strong> <strong>to</strong> be ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ (113/199 respondents<br />

or 57%) in disseminating best practice information about youth mental health care <strong>to</strong> local service<br />

providers, a significant sample (30/199 or 15%) rated <strong>headspace</strong> as ‘ineffective’ or ‘very ineffective’ in<br />

this role. Further, a higher proportion of survey respondents rated <strong>headspace</strong> as ‘very ineffective’ or<br />

‘ineffective’ in disseminating best practice information about youth mental health care (15%) than they<br />

were in undertaking other tasks including facilitating connections between local service providers<br />

(23/198 or 12%), providing increased treatment options for <strong>young</strong> people (13/198 or 7%), or increasing<br />

the capacity of local service delivery (25/199 or 12%).<br />

5.7 To what extent are <strong>headspace</strong> services linked with other government funded<br />

programs?<br />

As described above, <strong>headspace</strong> utilises existing government funding streams, in particular the<br />

Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS); the ATAPS, the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP)<br />

and the Rural Primary Health Services (RPHS) <strong>to</strong> provide direct services at centres. As evidenced<br />

in Figure 5.4 below, just under half of <strong>headspace</strong> services are funded through the MBS (45.5%) and<br />

just over a third by the <strong>headspace</strong> grant (36%), with the remaining 14.9% of occasions of service<br />

funded through other government funding programs (ATAPS, MHNIP, RPHS), in-kind contributions<br />

from centre lead agencies and consortium members, and other sources of funding. While the<br />

funding source for 3.6% of occasions of service are not known, the results shown highlight that the<br />

overwhelming majority of services provided (89.9% of occasions of service) are funded through<br />

government programs and grants.<br />

Figure 5.4 Direct funding source for <strong>headspace</strong> occasions of service 30<br />

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

The results highlight the great extent <strong>to</strong> which <strong>headspace</strong> services are linked <strong>to</strong> other government<br />

funded programs. In the Centre Manager’s Survey, respondents acknowledged the important<br />

30<br />

Funding source is reported for occasions of service. Funding source is not reported for approximately 3.6% of<br />

occasions of service within the 2013/14 financial year. Authors calculations from hCSA.<br />

Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />

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

88

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!