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

Recommendations

Info

5. Service Delivery Model to ensure that they view headspace as a preferred treatment option for young people with emerging mental health and related issues, but also to facilitate greater collaboration with the aim of improving young people’s outcomes. This issue is described here as a risk to organisational sustainability because general practitioners are important gatekeepers to mental health care treatments, including funded psychological services. Survey findings indicate that a little more than half of the general practitioners surveyed (51%, n=23/45) were more likely to refer a young patient with an emerging mental health problem to another youth mental health provider rather than headspace. Many general practitioners reported that this was because they had established referral networks that they preferred to use or had developed relationships with individual practitioners that they relied upon. Moreover, findings from survey data analysis indicate that some brand awareness activities could better target GPs as almost a sixth of the sample (7/45) did not understand what headspace does or how their own patients could benefit from headspace. Workforce issues were identified in evaluation data as a risk to the sustainability of centres. This centred on the difficulties in recruiting qualified staff, particularly to work in regional or remote centres. Finally, the Stakeholder Survey highlighted tensions between centres, consortium members and headspace National Office. This is examined below and is posed here as a risk to organisational stability. Protective factors The rapid expansion of headspace centres as a result of increased government funding demonstrates the organisation’s ability to promote the brand and secure increased funding. This suggests that headspace may be successful in seeking diversified funding sources. This would provide a protection against any reduction to government funding or cutback to specific funding streams. Another protective factor to headspace sustainability is the organisation’s ongoing commitment to improving the quality and impact of its service delivery. This commitment is evident in a number of projects that have been implemented by headspace National Office including the Data Capture Project that resulted in the development of a new, fully customised web-based system to collect data on service delivery, thereby supporting ongoing monitoring and evaluation; and the Service Innovation Project, one outcome of which has been the development of the headspace Best Practice Framework. This framework summarises Best Practice within centres with the aim of optimising outcomes for young people (headspace 2014b). Facilitation of the National Collaborative Learning Network that acts as a forum for knowledge sharing and network formation is another initiative that signifies the organisations’ commitment to improving its practices and impact. Evaluation data also identified strong community links as a key factor that enhances the sustainability of headspace. In a non-compulsory open-ended question contained within the Centre Managers Survey, in seven of the total 12 responses, managers identified community support as a key factor in enhancing centre sustainability. Community connections were described as valued local relationships, forged through a positive approach to partnership. The consortium model forms local connections for each centre and as evidenced in evaluation data, some centres are successful in building bigger networks by partnering with other organisations. While the Professional Stakeholders Survey identified some tensions with local service provider organisations, not part of the headspace consortium, it is clear that some centres manage relationships with local stakeholders well, thereby facilitating easier transition to services that young people cannot access through the headspace centre. Finally, the community awareness work also highlights headspace’s commitment to promoting help seeking among vulnerable young people. This component of work is important to the sustained viability of centres that rely on young people seeking assistance. 5.4 How could the headspace service model be improved to better meet the needs of young people? There was a high level of consistency among stakeholders about the three main gaps in headspace service provision. These were: the provision of family based services, the expansion of outreach Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 78
5. Service Delivery Model services, and the provision of more GP services. It is suggested that the service model could be improved to better meet the needs of young people by addressing these gaps. Twelve staff members across all five of the fieldwork sites believed that headspace should be providing family support for some young people. A number of reasons were provided for offering family services. Some staff argued that family support is required because a young person’s problems are often intertwined with family problems and hence cannot be treated in isolation. This was evident in the Parents and Carers Study where parents often talked about the whole family struggling to deal with problems such as multiple family members with mental health problems, family breakdown, and the suicide or death of a family member. Other staff members simply wanted to help families in crisis: We get a lot of parents in crisis on the phone; they don’t know where to go, they don’t know where to start if they’ve sort of just discovered that their son or daughter is self-harming or using drugs or something. They’re in complete crisis themselves as well as the young person and they’ve just got nowhere to go. We sort of don’t have access to the funding to support the family, but because we’re human we try to do as much as we can (Administrative Officer) I think that’s a gap because it really means that when young people have come here and they’re feeling a lot better, if they’re going back into the same environment, well what does that mean for that young person? (Service Manager) Moreover, some staff felt that the provision of family based services, and treating the young person in the family context, was required for headspace to offer a truly holistic preventative service. There is a rigidity about what headspace will provide to young people. There is a lack of family therapy skills, which is crucial to an early intervention service for this age group. (Clinical Leader) I think the more that there can be a focus on how do we produce or provide preventative interventions – so parenting groups would be a great place to start (Clinical Psychologist) Staff and other stakeholders also identified the provision of outreach services as a way to better meet the needs of some young people, particularly those located in more isolated areas. headspace is achieving some success in engaging young people with high levels of psychological distress; however, some enhancements could be made to better meet the needs of specific vulnerable groups. The profile analysis and qualitative data indicates that meeting the needs of CALD young people with mental health problems is a challenge that headspace is not yet meeting. Further, while a higher proportion of Indigenous young people than those in the general population are accessing headspace services, the qualitative data indicates that engaging with this is a challenge for some centres. Evaluation data suggests that engagement with more marginalised groups will require partnerships with community organisations, as well as ongoing relationship building activities that include local community members and leaders. Further research may be required to determine if specific Indigenous and CALD workforce development as well as changes to treatment practices (such as provision of outreach services, and/or increased capacity to see those that drop in to centres without a pre-arranged appointment) would improve the engagement and outcomes of these highly vulnerable young people. Finally, while young people offered valuable insights into the services that they have received at headspace and the impact of these, they were generally not able to suggest any changes to improve the service. This is because the overwhelming majority of those interviewed were satisfied with the treatment they had received: I couldn’t think of anything right now, to be honest. I think it’s great with what they’re doing already. Improvements – I couldn’t say that they need improvements, and the staff are all nice and I think it’s a great place (Female, 20) There wasn’t anything I didn’t like (Female, 13) Of the few young people that offered suggestions for improvement, one recommended that headspace should do more work in schools to make them more accessible; two young people suggested that the service should be advertised more; and another wanted the counsellor to exclude Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 79
Page 1 and 2:
Is headspace making a difference to
Page 3 and 4:
Authors This report was written by
Page 5 and 6:
5. Service Delivery Model 73 5.1 Wh
Page 7 and 8:
Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Main
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary headspace 1 aims
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary or very high leve
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary through mental he
Page 17 and 18:
value to society of the improvement
Page 19 and 20:
1. Introduction people in Australia
Page 21 and 22:
2. Evaluation Methodology 2.1 Aims
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:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38: 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 and 74: y three percentage points, and 2.1
Page 75 and 76: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients So
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: 5. Service Delivery Model headspace
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,
Page 125 and 126: 7. Conclusion Overall the evaluatio
Page 127 and 128: Appendix A Evaluation scope areas h
Page 129 and 130: Appendix B The current model of hea
Page 131 and 132: Appendix B and each SA3 in non-capi
Page 133 and 134: Appendix B chapter 39 . To determin
Page 135 and 136: Appendix B While there is an overal
Page 137 and 138: Appendix B Figure B3 describes the
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix B Figure B5 Cost per young
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix B The concept of access as
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix B Figure B7 Heard of heads
Page 145 and 146:
Figure B10 Proportion of headspace
Page 147 and 148:
Appendix B Table B5 Females 18-25 y
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix B following section. Figur
Page 151 and 152:
Appendix B and less access to mains
Page 153 and 154:
Appendix B Figure B17 Estimated pre
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix B Figure B18 SA1s within 1
Page 157 and 158:
Figure B20 Hypothetical allocation
Page 159 and 160:
Appendix B The current model of cen
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix B Current centre funding m
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix B Evaluation of the curren
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix B Level of funding availab
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix B provide a method for ide
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix B centres and Localities i
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix B for greater flexibility
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix B Additional consideration
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix B of achieving more effici
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix B • Used the simulation
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix C information relating to
Page 181 and 182:
Appendix C Regarding gender, in bot
Page 183 and 184:
Appendix C Figure C5 Total number o
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix C Table C1 Information Sum
Page 187 and 188:
Appendix C Data Cleaning and Analys
Page 189 and 190:
Appendix C groups. The age and sex
Page 191 and 192:
Appendix C Figure C8 Demographic ch
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix C The KeySurvey software s
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix C different client groups.
Page 197 and 198:
Appendix D Round State Centre Name
Page 199 and 200:
Appendix E Characteristics HS clien
Page 201 and 202:
Table E4 Cell Sizes for Figure 3.4
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix F Figure F1 Changes in K10
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix F three SEIFA quintiles. A
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix F Occasion of service inte
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix F Table F1 Cell sizes for
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix G Supplementary material f
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix G Table G3 Round 3 (10 cen
Page 219 and 220:
Appendix G Table G7 Round 7 (10 cen
Page 221 and 222:
State (youth population) a headspac
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Appendix G Table G12 Round 11(16 ce
Page 227 and 228:
Table G16 Additional youth populati
Page 229 and 230:
Round Region State Additional youth
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix G Figure G1 Percentage of
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix G Table G22 Australians 18
Page 245 and 246:
Appendix G Synthetic small area est
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix G Figure G16 Estimated pre
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix G Figure G22 SA1s within 1
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix G Table G25 Centres alloca
Page 261 and 262:
References Atkins, D.C., Bedics, J.
Page 263:
References Smith, E., Jones, T., Wa
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?