Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?
Evaluation-of-headspace-program
Evaluation-of-headspace-program
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