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

Appendix B
an estimate of MBS expenses.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as the cost per young person with access to headspace
centre services under the access definition provided by the current centre allocation model.
Part one of this section described the current model of centre allocation as used by the Department.
This model allocates headspace centres to SA3s and SA4s across Australia. Implicit in this model is
the assumption that all young people residing within each SA3 or SA4 playing host to a headspace
centre have access to headspace services. Based on this definition of access, at the conclusion of
the 8 rounds of centre expansion which the Department have committed to by the end of 2016, some
80% of Australian young people will have access to headspace centre services.
In order to address the overall cost-effectiveness of expanding headspace beyond 100 centres, the
Departmental model of centre allocation was used by the evaluation team to simulate expansion of
the headspace centre model to its hypothetical natural conclusion. This provided an estimate of the
number of centres and indicative cost of centre based coverage for all young people aged 12–25
years in Australia, using the Department’s definition of youth access to centres. This modelling
suggested that following the existing eight rounds with an additional two hypothetical rounds of
expansion (for 10 rounds in total giving 32 additional centres) would result in 93% of the youth
population having access to centre services. While the greatest returns are achieved with the earliest
rounds of headspace centre allocation, this expansion to hypothetical round 10 is achieved at a
similar level of efficiency to several observed measures for existing rounds seven and eight. From
hypothetical round 11 and onwards, there are apparent declines in the return on investment.
The strengths and limitations of the current model of expansion were investigated using empirical
data. These analyses identified that expansion of headspace, under the stipulations of the current
model, may have inefficiencies and some weaknesses regarding the assumption of access,
prioritisation of regions to centre allocation and funding. The ability of centres to provide services
appeared to be constrained by the inflexibility of the headspace grant allocation. This analysis
suggests consideration should be given to matching grant funding to relevant factors such as youth
demand, population size of catchment regions, rural locations and service profiles of individual
centres. While the consortia model may address some of the observed centre level variation in
funding requirements, the impact of additional funding via these sources was unavailable to the
evaluation team. Access to additional data resources such as lead agency and consortia funding
for the purpose of future evaluations would substantially improve the interpretation of evaluation
observations and outcomes.
Based on the evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the current model of headspace
expansion, three alternative models were developed and outlined in Part Three. These models
addressed specific weaknesses identified in the existing model. These alternative models of centre
allocation included a data driven approach to access, demand and capacity; the use of alternative
ASGS geographic boundaries; and a hub and spoke model of service delivery. In addition, while
outside the scope of the evaluation, alternative methods of service delivery, which deviate from the
traditional headspace centre as a means of service delivery, were discussed. An example of this is
the expansion of online service delivery via eheadspace which could increase cost-efficiency while
reducing barriers to access for young people. Rather than identifying an optimal model of expansion,
which is challenging due to data availability, these alternative models of centre allocation aimed to
address specific, identified weaknesses in the current model. The most efficient model of allocation
would likely involve using a combination of the alternatives described. These alternative models aim
to inform further investigation and discussion of a more efficient and effective model of headspace
centre expansion which balances costs against youth access to mental health services. Additional
scoping and data access would be required to provide robust estimates of the additional number of
centres required and the cost of expansion under these models.
In summary, this section of the evaluation described the current model of centre allocation, estimated
costs, and calculated the youth population coverage for the eight rounds of centre expansion that the
Department has already committed to. The evaluators have:
• Simulated expansion of the current allocation model, and estimated cost and costeffectiveness
for each additional hypothetical round to the natural conclusion of the model. This can
be considered to represent National Coverage
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
166