05.12.2016 Views

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

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

Evaluation-of-headspace-program

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

5. Service Delivery Model<br />

The Professional Stakeholders Survey did collect some information on one of the primary functions<br />

of the Centre of Excellence – <strong>to</strong> disseminate best practice information. Results indicate that while<br />

the majority of respondents rated <strong>headspace</strong> <strong>to</strong> be ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ (113/199 respondents<br />

or 57%) in disseminating best practice information about youth mental health care <strong>to</strong> local service<br />

providers, a significant sample (30/199 or 15%) rated <strong>headspace</strong> as ‘ineffective’ or ‘very ineffective’ in<br />

this role. Further, a higher proportion of survey respondents rated <strong>headspace</strong> as ‘very ineffective’ or<br />

‘ineffective’ in disseminating best practice information about youth mental health care (15%) than they<br />

were in undertaking other tasks including facilitating connections between local service providers<br />

(23/198 or 12%), providing increased treatment options for <strong>young</strong> people (13/198 or 7%), or increasing<br />

the capacity of local service delivery (25/199 or 12%).<br />

5.7 To what extent are <strong>headspace</strong> services linked with other government funded<br />

programs?<br />

As described above, <strong>headspace</strong> utilises existing government funding streams, in particular the<br />

Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS); the ATAPS, the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP)<br />

and the Rural Primary Health Services (RPHS) <strong>to</strong> provide direct services at centres. As evidenced<br />

in Figure 5.4 below, just under half of <strong>headspace</strong> services are funded through the MBS (45.5%) and<br />

just over a third by the <strong>headspace</strong> grant (36%), with the remaining 14.9% of occasions of service<br />

funded through other government funding programs (ATAPS, MHNIP, RPHS), in-kind contributions<br />

from centre lead agencies and consortium members, and other sources of funding. While the<br />

funding source for 3.6% of occasions of service are not known, the results shown highlight that the<br />

overwhelming majority of services provided (89.9% of occasions of service) are funded through<br />

government programs and grants.<br />

Figure 5.4 Direct funding source for <strong>headspace</strong> occasions of service 30<br />

Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data.<br />

The results highlight the great extent <strong>to</strong> which <strong>headspace</strong> services are linked <strong>to</strong> other government<br />

funded programs. In the Centre Manager’s Survey, respondents acknowledged the important<br />

30<br />

Funding source is reported for occasions of service. Funding source is not reported for approximately 3.6% of<br />

occasions of service within the 2013/14 financial year. Authors calculations from hCSA.<br />

Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />

<strong>headspace</strong> Evaluation Final Report<br />

88

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!