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

5. Service Delivery Model
centre actually does (Survey Response No. 3)
As the headspace initiative has expanded, there seems to be less time from National
Office to deal with local issues at centre level. All centres are seen as homogenous.
The communication from National Office regarding campaigns, high level partnerships is
inconsistent. The older centres seem to be penalised for the way they are set up, with little
resourcing to support centres to come up to speed with how new centres are being rolled
out (Survey Response No. 28)
During fieldwork, it was clear that centre staff had differing levels of knowledge about and contact
with hNO. A small number of interviewed staff commented on hNO, with most agreeing that they
play a useful support function as centre staff know who to speak to if an issue arises. The training
opportunities provided through hNO, particularly through the Collaborative Learning Network, were
highly valued by some staff members.
The opportunity for learning and development – that’s phenomenal and the fact that they
are even including our private practitioners in that access to learning – it’s sponsored by
hNO. I just think that’s phenomenal (Site Manager)
The high regard of managers for the Collaborative Learning Network was evident in the Centre
Managers Survey, with 23/29 respondents (79%) reporting this component to be ‘useful’ or ‘very
useful’ in supporting the work of centres.
In the Professional Stakeholders Survey, a small number of respondents (8/207) wrote comments
about headspace National Office in non-compulsory open-ended questions that asked for
suggestions about how headspace could be improved. All of these comments were critical of the
National Office, with comments focusing on two issues: centralisation of control, and the role of the
National Office in promoting collaboration and integration.
The national office needs to encourage close liaison and integration rather than
continually promoting ‘stand-alone’ sites and services (Survey Response No. 5)
headspace National Office could work on communicating better and being more
consultative with headspace centres, after all the headspace model is meant to be
collaborative (Survey Response No. 41)
Less authoritarian approach and more responsive support from hNO.Divestment of hNO
dollars to local services, with direct contracting with DoH (Survey Response No. 177)
Returning to the original vision for developing strong local collaborations, building local
capacity (not replacing it with a ‘vanilla’ solution), re-orienting primary care to the needs
of young people etc. Fundamentally the ‘command and control’ approach of hNO must
end or headspace will be a failure as a service innovation… headspace National Office
is a constant source of frustration and interference in the management of the centre and
the development and enhancement of local partnerships. hNO has a strong emphasis on
control, engages in continual micro-management, runs ‘interference’ in local partnerships
and community engagements. hNO has not focussed on its prime roles – workforce
development, evidence based practice development, systems development, monitoring
and evaluation (Survey Response No. 57)
Need more local control over budget, facilities, marketing, community engagement,
service integration (with existing service providers) etc. will all help build community
ownership and commitment to services to young people. hNO appears to believe IT is
the service for all young people. This is simply wrong and counter-productive (Survey
Response No. 57)
These comments indicate that there are some tensions between headspace National Office and
centres, focusing around how much authority the National Office should have over centres. As
these quotes illustrate, some stakeholders believe that centres should have more autonomy to
meet local needs and develop the services in different ways. The development of the headspace
Best Practice Framework implies, however, that the National Office is seeking more control in
relation to the range and quality of activities provided at centres.
The economic evaluation indicates that around 1/8th of centres’ funding is allocated to hNO, which
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
86