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

Executive Summary
young people with mental health concerns; 207 headspace centre managers, professionals
affiliated with headspace and/or the mental health care service system; and 29 centre
managers
• a cost effectiveness analysis including estimates of government investment directed towards
treating young people and estimates of the effectiveness of headspace centres
• an analysis of centre expansion under the current headspace allocation model, an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the current centre allocation model to provide access to headspace
services, and a discussion of alternative methods of achieving national coverage for
headspace services.
The findings presented in this report are subject to the limitations and assumptions of the
underpinning modelling as well as the limitations of the data. The evaluators have sought to identify
and minimise, to the greatest extent possible, these limitations. While the analysis is firmly based on
best practice and has been subjected to rigorous quality assurance procedures, the use of different
datasets coupled with ongoing developments and improvements in data may potentially produce
different results in different components of the analysis.
The outcomes analysis reports the progress of young people over the course of their engagement
with headspace. One key issue for the evaluation is the existence of two datasets which were used
to examine the outcomes of headspace clients. The evaluation was originally designed to measure
outcomes using a single source of data: a survey of headspace clients and a comparison group of
young people. However, the implementation of a new administrative dataset (hCSA) at the beginning
of the evaluation (January 2013) presented an opportunity to examine client outcomes using a
comprehensive administrative data source. In using these two datasets the evaluation employed two
complementary approaches to examine the effectiveness of headspace in relation to client outcomes:
• a difference-in-difference (DID) approach, and
• the clinically significant change (CSC) method.
The CSC method utilises the administrative data collection (hCSA) and focuses on changes in
psychological distress for different groups of headspace clients over the course of headspace
treatment, comparing the progress of headspace clients with benchmarks derived from functional
populations.
The DID approach analyses survey data collected from a sample of headspace clients and a
comparison group of young people. The analysis compares the progress of young people in the
‘headspace treatment’ group with those in two comparison groups – an ‘other treatment’ group
comprising those in the general population who have sought mental health treatment outside the
headspace program, and a ‘no treatment’ group comprising those in the general population who have
sought no mental health treatment.
The results of these distinct analyses align; both show headspace has a small program effect. The
key findings related to client outcomes and the other evaluation scope areas are presented below.
Key Findings
A selection of key findings related to the scope areas are presented below.
Access and Engagement
The evaluation indicates that headspace is an accessible program. During the 2013/14 financial year,
67 headspace centres provided 194,968 occasions of service to 45,195 young people with mental
health or other issues (approximately 9,000-12,000 clients per month).
Findings show that the centre-based program is being accessed by a diverse group of young people
whose need for mental health care is evidenced by high levels of psychological distress. Almost
three-quarters of young people who sought help at centres during the 2013/14 financial year had high
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
2