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

Appendix B
Evaluation of the current model of centre allocation
Based on the analysis of the current model of centre allocation outlined above, a number of strengths
and weakness have been identified. These inform the design of the proposed alternative definitions of
access and centre allocation.
Strengths
The current allocation model recognises differences in access between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas. The model assigns centres at the SA4 level in metropolitan areas and SA3 level
in non-metropolitan areas. The use of smaller SA3 units in non-metropolitan areas acknowledges
the greater area of geographic units in regional and remote areas, which is likely to reduce access to
centre services. There are two key strengths in the current model:
• The model makes use of a weighted youth population to prioritise the allocation of centres
to more remote areas and areas with low socio-economic status. As these factors are
associated with mental health risks, they are likely to be indicative of community need.
Therefore, use of these youth population weights is likely to prioritise areas with greater need
when determining centre allocation relative to a more simplistic, unweighted model.
• The current model utilises the ASGS boundaries. These boundaries, which remain relatively
stable over time, simplify allocation from an administrative perspective.
Limitations
While strengths were identified, there are a number of weaknesses of the current model:
• The ASGS boundaries, and in particular SA3 and SA4 units, are not constructed with the
primary aim of defining or capturing communities. The areas can contain large populations
in metropolitan areas. In addition, many regional and remote areas in Australia cover a
substantial geographic area. As a result, it is possible that these areas do not adequately
represent mental health service catchment areas in proportion to the service capacity of an
individual headspace centre, which has implications for equality of access within each region.
• With the aim of achieving access for all young people across Australia, the current model
aims to assign a single headspace centre to each SA4 or SA3 in Australia. However, this
model does not take into account the service capacity of centres. In highly populated areas,
a single centre may not be resourced to provide timely and adequate services to all young
people in the community who seek help. It is important to note that the current funding model
effectively caps the service capacity of any individual centre (although it may be that this is
made up by other sources of funding in some centres, as indicated above).
• Some areas allocated a centre contain very small youth populations, yet may still contain
a full service headspace centre. Although this may be defensible on the basis of equity of
access, allocation of a centre to areas with very small youth populations is inefficient and
results in very high costs per occasion of service. The current model of allocation lacks
specified upper and lower bounds on centre capacity.
• As outlined above, the current model of allocation prioritises remote areas and areas with
low socioeconomic status with the use of ARIA and SEIFA weights. However, the basis for
the assigned weights is unknown. Additional factors have been identified which contribute
to likely community need for youth mental health services. These include family type,
Indigenous status, language spoken at home, being born overseas and housing tenure.
Inclusion of these factors in determining allocation priority may provide for a more targeted
service allocation.
It is important to note that the DoH allocation of existing centres includes a degree of local knowledge
and judgement, which would likely address some of the weaknesses outlined above, such as the
allocation of centres to areas with very small populations. Other factors such as the availability and
cost of suitable accommodation are also taken into account when final decisions are made about the
location of headspace centres. However, this is not made explicit in the current model and is therefore
difficult to evaluate.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
153