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

Appendix B
Table B8 Young people aged 12-17 at risk of a mental health disorder by distance to nearest
headspace centre, and state
Distance to nearest headspace centre (Rounds 1-8)
Less than 10
kilometres
10 - 30 kilometres 30 kilometres or
more
New South Wales Number 103,347 33,418 32,546 169,311
Per cent 61 19.7 19.2 100
Victoria Number 78,895 22,747 16,008 117,650
Per cent 67.1 19.3 13.6 100
Queensland Number 64,151 39,146 31,414 134,711
Per cent 47.6 29.1 23.3 100
South Australia Number 23,769 9,444 10,150 43,363
Total
Per cent 54.8 21.8 23.4 100
Western Australia Number 32,279 12,703 19,222 64,204
Per cent 50.3 19.8 29.9 100
Tasmania Number 5,002 3,893 6,155 15,050
Per cent 33.2 25.9 40.9 100
Northern Territory Number 2,619 2,379 12,970 17,968
Per cent 14.6 13.2 72.2 100
Australian Capital Territory Number 4,205 3,571 0 7,776
Per cent 54.1 45.9 0 100
Australia Number 314,267 127,301 128,465 570,033
Per cent 55.1 22.3 22.5 100
Figure B19 displays the allocation of round 9 (16 sites) and 10 (16 sites) centres based on the current
model of allocation. Figure B20 displays the allocation of sites if centre allocation is prioritised based
on the number of young people within each SA3 or SA4 at risk of a mental health disorder. These
figures were obtained from YMM small area estimates. For the purpose of data display, hypothetical
centres have been assigned to the most highly populated SA1 (Figure B19) within the SA3/ SA4 of
interest, or SA1 with the highest predicted number of young people at risk of a mental health disorder
(Figure B20) within the selected region (SA3/SA4). These figures indicate some difference in the
allocation of centres based on these weighting algorithms. There were 32 centres allocated in the
hypothetical rounds 9 and 10. The 2 models allocated centres to the same SA3 / SA4 21 times and
to a different geographic region 11 times. The use of estimated demand to assign centres tends to
prioritise centre allocation to urban areas, with higher total youth populations and therefore number
of young people at risk, whereas the current weighting method used by the Department results in
more non-urban centres in Rounds 9 and 10. SA3 and SA4 regions selected using the current and
alternative weighting system are included in Appendix G).
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
144