The Youth Mental Health Grant
A youth health service wants to apply for a $50,000 grant to improve mental health support for 16–24-year-olds in a rural area. The service has data showing that 38% of local young people report high psychological distress, compared with 25% nationally. The nearest specialist mental health service is 90 minutes away. The service has one part-time counsellor and a waiting list of 40 people. The grant guidelines require 'evidence of community consultation' and 'a measurable evaluation plan'. The service has already run two focus groups with 12 young people and one survey with 60 responses. A local philanthropist offers $10,000 on the condition that the service reports only positive outcomes.
1. Evaluate whether the service has enough evidence to apply for the grant, and identify what additional data it should collect.
Read the worked answer
Strengths of current evidence. The service has local prevalence data (38% vs 25% national), two focus groups (12 participants), and a survey (60 responses). This is a reasonable start and shows community consultation has begun.
Weaknesses. The focus groups are small and may not represent the 16–24 population - 12 people is a narrow sample, and the method may attract only those already engaged with services. The survey of 60 gives some quantitative data but the sampling method is not stated, so representativeness is uncertain. There is no data on waitlist experiences, no data from young people who have not accessed the service, and no data from Aboriginal or culturally diverse young people if those groups are present locally.
Additional data needed.
- A short survey of young people who have not used the service, to capture unmet need.
- Interviews with 6–8 people on the waiting list about their experience and barriers.
- Consultation with local Aboriginal health workers and culturally diverse groups if relevant.
- A mapping of existing services and transport options, to show the gap.
- Baseline measures for evaluation, such as waitlist length, distress scores (e.g., K10), and satisfaction.
Conclusion. The service has enough to draft an application but should strengthen the consultation and baseline data before submitting, because the guidelines require evidence and a measurable plan.
2. The philanthropist's $10,000 offer requires reporting only positive outcomes. Explain the ethical and methodological problems with accepting this condition, and propose an alternative.
Read the worked answer
Ethical problems. Accepting the condition would require the service to suppress negative or mixed findings. This is dishonest to the community, to the grant body, and to future service users. It breaches the principle of integrity in research and evaluation, and it could mislead funders and policymakers about what works. It also risks harm: if an intervention is not working, hiding that prevents improvement.
Methodological problems. Selective reporting biases the evidence base. It undermines the evaluation plan required by the grant, because a valid evaluation must report all pre-specified outcomes, not just favourable ones. It also creates a conflict of interest that could influence how data are collected and interpreted.
Alternative. Thank the philanthropist and explain that the service cannot accept conditions that compromise reporting integrity. Offer instead: (1) an unrestricted donation; (2) a donation with agreed reporting that includes both positive and negative findings; or (3) sponsorship of a specific, non-evaluated element such as transport vouchers, which does not affect outcome reporting. If the philanthropist insists, decline the $10,000 and seek other funds. The service's credibility and the community's trust are worth more than the money.