Not for Service Report
Not for Service Navigation
Not for Service was compiled by
and the
in association with
PART THREE: RESULTS OF SURVEYS
- 3.1 Survey One: A review of implementation of community priorities in mental health
- 3.2 Survey Two: Consumer and carer experiences of care
After the Mental Health Council of Australia (MHCA) launched its national review of mental health services in Australia in 2003 (“Out of Hospital, Out of Mind!”), it set about gathering more specific data from government agencies about the status of mental health services at local, regional and state/ territory levels. Together with the Brain and Mind Research Institute (BMRI), the MHCA developed two surveys as tools to collect the relevant information. This process was completed prior to the commencement of community consultations with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
The following data summarises the results of those surveys.
3.1 SURVEY ONE: A REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY PRIORITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH
The first survey, conducted over 2004-04, sought the views of mental health stakeholders about the progress in the implementation of community priorities in mental health. The survey was divided into three sections:
- The first asked some demographic information about the respondent and their service.
- The second asked the respondent to rate how the priorities have been implemented or supported within their LOCAL area.
- The third asked respondents to rate how the priorities have been implemented or supported at a STATE level.
3.1.1 SURVEY ONE - NATIONAL DATA SET
As of 2 November 2004, 714 complete surveys had been received. The majority of respondents described their role within the mental health sector as public providers of specialist treatment (n=246, 34%). This is followed by consumers and carers (n=162, 22%) and then non-government community service providers (n=74, 10%). Across Australia , most respondents were located in New South Wales (NSW; Table 3.1.1.1).
Table 3.1.1.1: Total number of respondents by state; N=714.
| STATE | TOTAL NUMBER (%) OF RESPONDENTS |
| New South Wales | 239 (33%) |
| Victoria | 134 (19%) |
| Western Australia | 99 (14%) |
| Queensland | 95 (13%) |
| South Australia | 69 (10%) |
| Australian Capital Territory | 43 (6%) |
| Tasmania | 26 (4%) |
| Northern Territory | 9 (1%) |
With regards to the national priorities as identified in “Out of Hospital, Out of Mind!”, respondents rated the extent to which they have been implemented or supported in their LOCAL areas (Table 3.1.1.2).
Table 3.1.1.2: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level; N=714.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 171 (24%) | 414 (58%) | 121 (17%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 244 (34%) | 379 (53%) | 77 (11%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 213 (30%) | 406 (57%) | 85 (12%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 158 (22%) | 421 (59%) | 110 (15%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 225 (32%) | 399 (56%) | 67 (9%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 265 (37%) | 352 (49%) | 73 (10%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 173 (24%) | 414 (58%) | 99 (14%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 172 (24%) | 413 (58%) | 114 (16%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation’, ‘research’ and ‘service evaluation’ in mental health | 260 (36%) | 358 (50%) | 81 (11%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 235 (33%) | 379 (53%) | 83 (12%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 176 (25%) | 400 (56%) | 121 (17%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 184 (26%) | 440 (62%) | 70 (10%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 235 (33%) | 361 (51%) | 76 (11%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 223 (31%) | 378 (53%) | 90 (13%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 714 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.1.3).
Table 3.1.1.3: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level; N=714.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 184 (26%) | 410 (58%) | 89 (13%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 190 (27%) | 438 (61%) | 73 (10%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 195 (27%) | 433 (61%) | 68 (10%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 178 (25%) | 445 (62%) | 79 (11%) |
| 5. | Support for general mental health promotion | 185 (26%) | 437 (61%) | 81 (11%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 191 (27%) | 421 (59%) | 81 (11%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 221 (31%) | 380 (53%) | 75 (11%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 175 (25%) | 424 (60%) | 97 (14%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 173 (24%) | 421 (59%) | 98 (14%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 201 (28%) | 395 (56%) | 81 (11%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 210 (30%) | 406 (57%) | 68 (10%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 173 (24%) | 440 (62%) | 85 (12%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 172 (24%) | 447 (63%) | 67 (9%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 196 (28%) | 435 (61%) | 64 (9%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 211 (30%) | 397 (56%) | 73 (10%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 151 (21%) | 463 (65%) | 77 (11%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 714 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Finally, respondents living and/or working in regional or rural and poorly resourced areas were asked to rate the extent to which such factors have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.1.4).
Table 3.1.1.4: Implementation or support for regional or rural and poorly resourced areas.
| Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support | ||
| 1. | IN YOUR STATE, what is the level of support for service development in rural and regional areas? (n=366)** | 25 (7%) |
| 2. | IN YOUR STATE, what is the level of support for service development in poorly resourced areas? (n=369)** | 7 (2%) |
** The total number of respondents answering this question reduced from 714 depending on whether the respondent identified as living in either a rural or regional area (n=366) or a poorly resourced area (n=369).
Table 3.1.1.5: Implementation or support of TOP TEN national priorities at a LOCAL level; N=714.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 171 (24%) | 414 (58%) | 121 (17%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 244 (34%) | 379 (53%) | 77 (11%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 213 (30%) | 406 (57%) | 85 (12%) |
| 4. | Support for service development in rural and regional areas (n=372)** | 94 (26%) ** | 243 (66%) ** | 25 (7%) ** |
| 5. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 158 (22%) | 421 (59%) | 110 (15%) |
| 6. | Support for service development in poorly resourced areas (n=373)** | 133 (36%) ** | 227 (62%) ** | 7 (2%) ** |
| 7. | Support for programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 225 (32%) | 399 (56%) | 67 (9%) |
| 8. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 265 (37%) | 352 (49%) | 73 (10%) |
| 9. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 173 (24%) | 414 (58%) | 99 (14%) |
| 10. | More genuine consumer participation | 172 (24%) | 413 (58%) | 114 (16%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 714 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
** The total number of respondents answering this question reduced from 714 depending on whether the respondent identified as living in either a rural or regional area (n=366) or a poorly resourced area (n=369).
Conclusions
The responses of local providers of services, and many consumers, carers and non-government organisations, indicate clearly that the key community priorities for national mental health reform have not been implemented. The results are an indicator of the performance of government in turning mental health policy into real local action in Australia . Very basic structural issues of implementation of the National Mental Health Standards, accountability for funds, involvement of consumers and carers and engagement and support of the non-government sector have not been attained. Real program development such as implementation of early intervention strategies, management of concurrent alcohol and drug problems and development of a greater range of acute care settings remain largely on the drawing board. Rural and regional areas and areas within states with low levels of other resources still appear to be neglected. The perceptions of the providers and users of services continue to reinforce the data originally described in “Out of Hospital, Out of Mind!”.
As there are likely to be significant variations by both region and state in the degree of mental health reform, this same data is presented on a state-by-state basis.
3.1.2 SURVEY ONE - NEW SOUTH WALES
Table 3.2.1.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in NSW; N=239.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 58 (24%) | 143 (60%) | 36 (15%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 90 (38%) | 121 (51%) | 23 (10%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 71 (30%) | 140 (59%) | 26 (11%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 50 (21%) | 147 (62%) | 33 (14%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 80 (34%) | 131 (55%) | 19 (8%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 92 (39%) | 111 (47%) | 27 (11%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 54 (23%) | 144 (60%) | 32 (13%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 57 (24%) | 137 (58%) | 40 (17%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 94 (39%) | 115 (48%) | 24 (10%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 82 (34%) | 126 (53%) | 26 (11%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 49 (21%) | 141 (59%) | 43 (18%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 52 (22%) | 154 (64%) | 26 (11%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 71 (30%) | 126 (53%) | 27 (11%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 77 (32%) | 119 (50%) | 35 (15%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 239 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.2.1.2 ).
Table 3.2.1.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in NSW; N=239.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 58 (24%) | 145 (61%) | 30 (13%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 66 (28%) | 150 (63%) | 19 (8%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 61 (26%) | 145 (61%) | 28 (12%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 56 (24%) | 153 (64%) | 28 (12%) |
| 5. | Support for general mental health promotion | 67 (28%) | 146 (61%) | 25 (11%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 69 (29%) | 137 (57%) | 25 (11%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 70 (29%) | 128 (54%) | 28 (12%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 57 (24%) | 142 (59%) | 39 (16%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 55 (23%) | 144 (60%) | 32 (13%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 75 (32%) | 131 (55%) | 23 (10%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 72 (30%) | 136 (57%) | 20 (8%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 55 (23%) | 157 (66%) | 25 (11%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 54 (23%) | 154 (64%) | 21 (9%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 60 (25%) | 154 (64%) | 16 (7%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 81 (34%) | 126 (53%) | 22 (9%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 47 (20%) | 152 (64%) | 33 (14%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 239 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.3 SURVEY ONE - VICTORIA
Table 3.1.3.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in VIC; N=134.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 32 (24%) | 71 (53%) | 28 (21%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 39 (30%) | 74 (56%) | 15 (11%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 39 (29%) | 70 (52%) | 21 (16%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 35 (26%) | 67 (50%) | 23 (17%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 45 (34%) | 70 (53%) | 12 (9%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 53 (40%) | 59 (44%) | 12 (9%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 37 (28%) | 72 (54%) | 15 (11%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 32 (24%) | 80 (60%) | 19 (14%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 43 (32%) | 69 (52%) | 19 (14%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 37 (28%) | 74 (56%) | 17 (13%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 37 (28%) | 76 (57%) | 16 (12%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 40 (30%) | 76 (57%) | 12 (9%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 49 (37%) | 62 (46%) | 9 (7%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 44 (33%) | 69 (52%) | 13 (10%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 134 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.3.2).
Table 3.1.3.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in VIC; N=134.
| No action taken or no suppor N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 42 (31%) | 63 (47%) | 16 (12%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 33 (25%) | 76 (57%) | 22 (16%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 36 (27%) | 84 (63%) | 8 (6%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 35 (26%) | 84 (63%) | 12 (9%) |
| 5. | Support for general mental health promotion | 35 (26%) | 79 (59%) | 16 (12%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 37 (28%) | 74 (55%) | 17 (13%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 45 (34%) | 59 (44%) | 14 (10%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 35 (26%) | 70 (53%) | 21 (16%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 40 (30%) | 67 (50%) | 17 (13%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 41 (31%) | 53 (40%) | 26 (19%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 35 (26%) | 71 (53%) | 18 (14%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 32 (24%) | 76 (57%) | 21 (16%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 34 (26%) | 76 (57%) | 16 (12%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 38 (28%) | 77 (58%) | 14 (10%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 39 (29%) | 65 (49%) | 16 (12%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 33 (25%) | 80 (60%) | 13 (10%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 134 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.4 SURVEY ONE - QUEENSLAND
Table 3.1.4.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in QLD; N=95.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 29 (31%) | 49 (52%) | 15 (16%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 37 (39%) | 47 (50%) | 9 (10%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 32 (34%) | 53 (56%) | 7 (7%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 22 (23%) | 51 (54%) | 18 (19%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 33 (35%) | 48 (51%) | 8 (9%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 33 (35%) | 46 (48%) | 13 (14%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 25 (26%) | 54 (57%) | 11 (12%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 33 (35%) | 46 (48%) | 12 (13%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 38 (40%) | 40 (42%) | 13 (14%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 35 (37%) | 45 (47%) | 11 (12%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 32 (34%) | 41 (43%) | 18 (19%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 34 (36%) | 48 (51%) | 8 (8%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 36 (38%) | 38 (40%) | 12 (13%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 34 (36%) | 46 (48%) | 10 (11%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 95 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.4.2 ).
Table 3.1.4.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in QLD; N=95.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 25 (27%) | 54 (57%) | 10 (11%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 22 (23%) | 58 (61%) | 11 (12%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 23 (25%) | 57 (61%) | 10 (11%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 26 (27%) | 49 (52%) | 15 (16%) |
| 5. | Support for general mental health promotion | 19 (20%) | 54 (57%) | 18 (19%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 20 (21%) | 55 (58%) | 14 (15%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 26 (27%) | 52 (55%) | 10 (11%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 19 (20%) | 55 (58%) | 14 (15%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 19 (20%) | 57 (60%) | 15 (16%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 23 (25%) | 47 (50%) | 16 (17%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 28 (30%) | 48 (51%) | 13 (14%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 23 (25%) | 49 (52%) | 17 (18%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 24 (25%) | 57 (60%) | 7 (7%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 29 (31%) | 51 (54%) | 11 (12%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 21 (22%) | 56 (59%) | 11 (12%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 20 (21%) | 62 (65%) | 7 (7%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 95 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.5 SURVEY ONE – SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Table 3.1.5.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in SA; N=69.
| No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 15 (22%) |
49 (71%) |
5 (7%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 27 (39%) |
36 (52%) |
6 (9%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 21 (30%) |
40 (58%) |
8 (12%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 20 (29%) |
44 (64%) |
5 (7%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 20 (29%) |
45 (65%) |
4 (6%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 31 (45%) |
34 (49%) |
4 (6%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 20 (29%) |
40 (58%) |
9 (13%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 15 (22%) |
43 (62%) |
11 (16%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 27 (39%) |
38 (55%) |
4 (6%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 24 (35%) |
39 (57%) |
6 (9%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 21 (30%) |
38 (55%) |
10 (15%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 14 (20%) |
49 (71%) |
6 (9%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 30 (44%) |
34 (49%) |
5 (7%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 20 (29%) |
41 (59%) |
8 (12%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 69 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.5.2 ).
Table 3.1.5.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in SA; N=69.
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
||
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 21 (30%) | 43 (62%) | 4 (6%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 22 (32%) | 43 (62%) | 4 (6%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 22 (32%) | 40 (59%) | 6 (9%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 19 (28%) | 48 (70%) | 2 (3%) |
| 5. | Support for general mental health promotion | 20 (29%) | 45 (65%) | 4 (6%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 24 (35%) | 41 (59%) | 4 (6%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 27 (39%) | 37 (54%) | 5 (7%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 22 (32%) | 41 (59%) | 6 (9%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 26 (38%) | 38 (55%) | 5 (7%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 24 (35%) | 41 (59%) | 2 (3%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 27 (39%) | 39 (57%) | 3 (4%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 23 (33%) | 42 (61%) | 4 (6%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 27 (39%) | 39 (57%) | 3 (4%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 26 (38%) | 40 (58%) | 3 (4%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 25 (36%) | 38 (55%) | 6 (9%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 16 (23%) | 47 (68%) | 6 (9%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 69 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.6 SURVEY ONE – WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Table 3.1.6.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in WA; N=99.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 26 (26%) | 47 (48%) | 26 (26%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 30 (30%) | 54 (55%) | 15 (15%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 35 (35%) | 50 (51%) | 13 (13%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 18 (18%) | 62 (63%) | 17 (17%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 30 (30%) | 57 (58%) | 12 (12%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 31 (31%) | 56 (57%) | 11 (11%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 25 (25%) | 54 (55%) | 18 (18%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 22 (22%) | 61 (62%) | 15 (15%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 36 (36%) | 50 (51%) | 12 (12%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 34 (34%) | 47 (48%) | 17 (17%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 23 (23%) | 60 (61%) | 15 (15%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 31 (31%) | 57 (58%) | 10 (10%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 32 (32%) | 53 (54%) | 12 (12%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 31 (31%) | 54 (55%) | 13 (13%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 99 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.6.2 ).
Table 3.1.6.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in WA; N=99.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 25 (25%) | 56 (57%) | 16 (%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 29 (29%) | 58 (59%) | 11 (11%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 28 (28%) | 60 (61%) | 11 (11%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 22 (22%) | 63 (64%) | 14 (14%) |
| 5 | Support for general mental health promotion | 26 (26%) | 64 (65%) | 9 (9%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 29 (29%) | 58 (59%) | 12 (12%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 32 (32%) | 58 (59%) | 8 (8%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 23 (23%) | 67 (68%) | 9 (9%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 22 (22%) | 62 (63%) | 15 (15%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 22 (22%) | 69 (70%) | 7 (7%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 31 (31%) | 59 (60%) | 8 (8%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 21 (21%) | 68 (69%) | 9 (9%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 13 (13%) | 76 (77%) | 9 (9%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 23 (23%) | 63 (64%) | 12 (12%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 29 (29%) | 60 (61%) | 9 (9%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 18 (18%) | 72 (73%) | 8 (8%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 99 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.7 SURVEY ONE – AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Table 3.1.7.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in the ACT; N=43.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 4 (9%) | 30 (70%) | 9 (21%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 7 (16%) | 29 (67%) | 7 (16%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 5 (12%) | 29 (67%) | 9 (21%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 7 (16%) | 26 (61%) | 10 (23%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 6 (14%) | 27 (63%) | 10 (23%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 12 (28%) | 27 (63%) | 4 (9%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 3 (7%) | 27 (63%) | 12 (28%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 6 (14%) | 24 (56%) | 13 (30%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 6 (14%) | 27 (63%) | 9 (21%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 10 (23%) | 27 (63%) | 5 (12%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 9 (21%) | 18 (42%) | 16 (37%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 6 (14%) | 32 (74%) | 5 (12%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 5 (12%) | 30 (70%) | 7 (16%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 7 (16%) | 27 (63%) | 8 (19%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 43 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.7.2 ).
Table 3.1.7.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in the ACT; N=43.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 7 (16%) | 24 (56%) | 11 (26%) |
| 2. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 11 (26%) | 26 (61%) | 5 (12%) |
| 3. | Introduction to specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 10 (23%) | 30 (70%) | 2 (5%) |
| 4. | Support for specific disease prevention initiatives (e.g. In anxiety, depression, alcohol or substance abuse) | 8 (19%) | 29 (67%) | 5 (12%) |
| 5 | Support for general mental health promotion | 8 (19%) | 26 (61%) | 8 (19%) |
| 6. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 4 (9%) | 31 (72%) | 8 (19%) |
| 7. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 8 (19%) | 28 (65%) | 7 (16%) |
| 8. | Ongoing support for suicide prevention campaigns | 10 (23%) | 28 (65%) | 4 (9%) |
| 9. | Development of datasets for monitoring the quality of local services | 5 (12%) | 27 (63%) | 11 (26%) |
| 10. | Service development for those in forensic (i.e. prison-based) services | 7 (16%) | 31 (72%) | 5 (12%) |
| 11. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforces | 8 (19%) | 28 (65%) | 6 (14%) |
| 12. | Service enhancement for persons from culturally – and linguistically-diverse backgrounds | 7 (16%) | 29 (67%) | 7 (16%) |
| 13. | Support for community leadership in mental health | 9 (21%) | 24 (56%) | 9 (21%) |
| 14. | Support for professional leadership in mental health | 10 (23%) | 28 (65%) | 5 (12%) |
| 15. | Development of specific procedures for reporting Human Rights abuses or neglect | 7 (16%) | 28 (65%) | 8 (19%) |
| 16. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 9 (21%) | 28 (65%) | 6 (14%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 43 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
3.1.8 SURVEY ONE – NORTHERN TERRITORY
Table 3.1.8.1: Implementation or support for priorities at a LOCAL level in the NT; N=9.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Implementation of early intervention services | 2 (22%) | 6 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
| 2. | Development of innovative services for people with mental health and alcohol or substance abuse disorders | 2 (22%) | 5 (56%) | 1 (11%) |
| 3. | Development of a wider spectrum of acute and community-based care settings | 4 (44%) | 4 (44%) | 1 (11%) |
| 4. | Implementation of the national standards for mental health services | 2 (22%) | 6 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
| 5. | Programs that promote attitudinal change among mental health workers | 2 (22%) | 5 (56%) | 1 (11%) |
| 6. | Increased support for stigma reduction campaigns | 4 (44%) | 4 (44%) | 0 (0%) |
| 7. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. Between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 4 (44%) | 3 (33%) | 1 (11%) |
| 8. | More genuine consumer participation | 1 (11%) | 7 (78%) | 0 (0%) |
| 9. | Direct support for ‘innovation', ‘research' and ‘service evaluation' in mental health | 5 (56%) | 4 (44%) | 0 (0%) |
| 10. | Introduction of specific schemes to enhance access to mental health specialists | 3 (33%) | 6 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
| 11. | More genuine carer participation | 2 (22%) | 6 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
| 12. | Support for enhanced role of non-government organisations in all aspects of care | 2 (22%) | 5 (56%) | 1 (11%) |
| 13. | Clear accountability for expenditure of mental health strategy funds | 5 (56%) | 3 (33%) | 0 (0%) |
| 14. | Specification of clear primary care and specialist workforce roles | 3 (33%) | 6 (67%) | 0 (0%) |
*Where numbers do not tally to 9 (100%), respondents have either responded “Don't know” or left the question blank.
Next, respondents rated the extent to which priorities have been implemented or supported within their STATE (Table 3.1.8.2 ).
Table 3.1.8.2: Implementation or support of priorities at a STATE level in the NT; N=9.
|
No action taken or no support N (%)* |
Discussion and planning or low level support PLUS implementation begun or moderate support N (%)* |
Nearly complete or high level support PLUS fully implemented or full support N (%)* |
|
| 1. | Development of specific inter-governmental service agreements (e.g. between health, education, housing, employment, and social security) | 4 (44%) |