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

Appendix B
Based on the evaluation of the current model of allocation, alternative models were developed with
the aim of addressing weaknesses in the current allocation of headspace resources. These models
aim to incorporate community mental health needs, likely catchment areas, and centre capacity.
Alternative community mental health services and acute child and adolescent mental health services
need to be considered when allocating new headspace centres. The existence of these centres
is likely to impact on headspace service requirements. However, the assessment of competing or
complementary services is beyond the scope of this evaluation.
Alternative models of centre allocation
Background
The previous section outlines a number of issues with the current centre allocation model, including
geographic size of the area, the travel times associated with accessing headspace centre services,
and the number of young people who require mental health services within the area. In addition,
the current funding arrangement for individual headspace centres places limits on the extent to
which centres can vary their service type and service volume to meet client demand. This funding
arrangement effectively places a cap on individual centre resources and as a result limits the ability
of the model to provide equitable access to young people across Australia. While the model has
some degree of flexibility due to the ability of individual centres to leverage additional funding from
consortia, the average contribution from non-government sources is relatively small. Therefore, there
is benefit in examining possible alternative centre allocation models.
This chapter outlines the potential for alternative models of centre allocation to improve youth
access to headspace services and considers the nature of national coverage using different centre
allocation models.
Three alternative models of centre allocation are outlined below:
• a data driven approach to access, demand and capacity
• use of alternative geographic boundaries in centre allocation
• the use of a hub and spoke model of service delivery.
These models were selected to address weaknesses identified in the current model of centre
allocation and in the assumptions which underpin the current model. These alternative models
of allocation aim to maximise youth access to mental health services while providing potential
efficiencies in service delivery.
A number of factors impact on how access is defined and operationalised in the model. Varying
these interrelated factors alters the level and quality of access for an individual headspace client,
and therefore will impact on effectiveness estimates for any alternatives to the existing centre. These
components relate to service access and include;
Distance from client’s home to the nearest headspace centre:
This access component can be varied in three ways. Under the current allocation model, which
allocates a single centre to each SA4 (metropolitan) and SA3 (non-metropolitan), more centres can
be added to each area. Another way to alter geographic access is by changing the size of the unit
of geography that qualifies for a headspace centre. Thirdly, these changes can be coordinated by
altering the geographic unit and allowing for multiple centres within a single area.
Capacity of a headspace centre to service client demand:
Capacity refers to the ability of a centre to provide timely services to those who seek support. This
component can be varied by altering the staffing and service mix to better meet the demand profile
of an individual centre. It can also be varied by adding more headspace centres to a larger area
experiencing high demand/low coverage. Thirdly, centre capacity can be altered by changing the
funding received at the individual centre level and at the organisational level to ensure centres have
the service resources and physical size required to meet demand.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
154