Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?
Evaluation-of-headspace-program Evaluation-of-headspace-program
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Table 4.8 Changes in outcomes, ‘headspace treatment’ and matched ‘other treatment’ groups Note: Average changes in outcomes are presented for those observations that are present in both waves, have K10 observations in both waves, and have a propensity-score match from the other treatment comparison group. Total sample will vary for each indicator due to non-responses. N=631 represents young people who met the criteria for inclusion in treatment groups and were able to be matched according to the propensity score matching technique described in Appendix C. Significance at the 1% and 5% levels are denoted by *** and ** respectively. Source: Authors calculations from headspace evaluation survey data. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 64
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Social inclusion As with the previous comparison, the ‘headspace treatment’ group had much lower proportions of young people feeling included at Wave 1 when compared with the matched ‘other treatment’ group at the same reference point (42% compared to 53% of young people felt supported). The differences between the Wave 1 reference points are highly statistically significant (p
- Page 23 and 24: 2. Evaluation Methodology Evaluatio
- Page 25 and 26: 2. Evaluation Methodology Table 2.3
- Page 27 and 28: 2. Evaluation Methodology Represent
- Page 29 and 30: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 31 and 32: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 33 and 34: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 35 and 36: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 37 and 38: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 39 and 40: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 41 and 42: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 43 and 44: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 45 and 46: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 47 and 48: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 49 and 50: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
- Page 51 and 52: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
- Page 53 and 54: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients 35
- Page 55 and 56: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ch
- Page 57 and 58: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
- Page 59 and 60: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
- Page 61 and 62: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Fi
- Page 63 and 64: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients A
- Page 65 and 66: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
- Page 67 and 68: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients nu
- Page 69 and 70: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
- Page 71 and 72: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
- Page 73: y three percentage points, and 2.1
- Page 77 and 78: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients I
- Page 79 and 80: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients in
- Page 81 and 82: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Wh
- Page 83 and 84: 5. Service Delivery Model For the a
- Page 85 and 86: 5. Service Delivery Model the provi
- Page 87 and 88: 5. Service Delivery Model headspace
- Page 89 and 90: 5. Service Delivery Model services,
- Page 91 and 92: 5. Service Delivery Model services
- Page 93 and 94: 5. Service Delivery Model Further,
- Page 95 and 96: 5. Service Delivery Model that we
- Page 97 and 98: 5. Service Delivery Model is a cons
- Page 99 and 100: 5. Service Delivery Model connectio
- Page 101 and 102: 5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.2
- Page 103 and 104: 5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.3
- Page 105 and 106: 5. Service Delivery Model I don’t
- Page 107 and 108: 5. Service Delivery Model group is
- Page 109 and 110: 5. Service Delivery Model Figure 5.
- Page 111 and 112: 6. The Costs of headspace One of th
- Page 113 and 114: 6. The Costs of headspace Table 6.1
- Page 115 and 116: 6. The Costs of headspace In-scope
- Page 117 and 118: 6. The Costs of headspace Revenue/
- Page 119 and 120: 6. The Costs of headspace Other gov
- Page 121 and 122: 7. Conclusion The evaluation of hea
- Page 123 and 124: 7. Conclusion treatment); however,
4. Outcomes of <strong>headspace</strong> Clients<br />
Social inclusion<br />
As with the previous comparison, the ‘<strong>headspace</strong> treatment’ group had much lower proportions of<br />
<strong>young</strong> people feeling included at Wave 1 when compared with the matched ‘other treatment’ group<br />
at the same reference point (42% compared <strong>to</strong> 53% of <strong>young</strong> people felt supported). The <strong>difference</strong>s<br />
between the Wave 1 reference points are highly statistically significant (p
Change language