Evaluation Delievrable1A Brief1 CSS

California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1 of 7: Community Services and Supports UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Youth and Families June 30, 2011 The following report was funded by the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports I. Service Categories Funded under Community Services and Supports Community Services and Supports are envisioned to be part of a ―System of Care.‖ i The California Department of Mental Health describes Community Services and Supports as: the programs and services identified by each County Mental Health Department (County) through its stakeholder process to serve unserved and underserved populations, with an emphasis on eliminating disparity in access and improving mental health outcomes for racial/ethnic populations and other unserved and underserved populations. (p. 2) Table 1.1 displays the number of counties who, through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, documented spending money on Community Services and Supports during the time period for which data was provided. ii Recall from the Overview/Summary Brief that all counties/ municipalities were approved for monies out of CSS Component Allocations in each fiscal year displayed below. Note that although there are 58 counties in California, two counties jointly receive funding. There are also two city-run programs, bringing the total number of counties/ municipalities to 59. iii Table 1.1 Number of Counties/Municipalities Expending Funds on Community Services and Supports (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) Acronym Component 06-07 07-08 08-09 CSS Community Services and Supports 54 95% 58 98% 59 100% The data contained in Table 1.1 show that as of FY 2008 – 2009, all counties/municipalities were expending funds on Community Supports and Services (CSS). CSS was the first component to be launched under the MHSA, per the timeline displayed in Table 1.2. Table 1.2 Key CSS Fiscal Events Key CSS Event Date Fiscal Year Citation Planning Estimates Released February 2005 2004 - 2005 iv Plan Guidance Released May 2005 2004 - 2005 v Table 1.3 displays the total amount of money documented as expended on each category, in each of the State‘s Fiscal Years. It also shows the amount of money that was available to be spent, but was not spent. vi Note that the data source used for this brief was the Revenue and Expenditure Reports submitted by counties and municipalities for FY 2006 – 2007, 2007 – 2008 and 2008 – 2009. Therefore, expended funds represent monies that counties and municipalities:  received approval from DMH to spend on Community Services and Supports,  received money from DMH to spend on Community Services and Supports, and  actually spent money on Community Services and Supports. 1 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Unexpended funds represent monies that counties and municipalities:  received approval from DMH to spend on Community Services and Supports,  received money from DMH to spend on Community Services and Supports,  were unable to actually spend on Community Services and Supports for various reasons (but it is available to be spent), and  monies that have been carried over from previous fiscal years from Community Services and Supports (that are not subject to reversion). Unexpended funds does not include ―undistributed‖ funds – monies at DMH that have not yet been sent to counties/municipalities. Undistributed funds are not included in the analysis because they are not included in the Revenue and Expenditure Report. The Revenue and Expenditure Report was chosen as the primary data source because it provides an accounting of expended funds (monies spent). The key questions for the Cost briefs (Overview and Summary Brief, p. 2) are all related to monies spent. Analysis of undistributed funds was not deemed essential to answering these questions at this point in time. Table 1.3 displays the amount of money statewide expended and unexpended for Community Services and Supports. Figures 1.1a, 1.1b, and 1.1c display the percentage expended and unexpended for Community Services and Supports (p. 3). vii , viii , ix , x , xi , xii Table 1.3 Monies Expended and Unexpended by Fiscal Year (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Expended Unexpended Expended Unexpended Expended Unexpended Community Services and $237,605,916.58 $339,859,118.10 $559,787,291.16 $378,682,676.99 $857,639,572.60 $290,039,283.15 Supports Figure 1.1a, 1.1b, & 1.1c Proportion of Expended to Unexpended Funds (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) Expended Expended Expended 41% 60% 75% Unexpended Unexpended Unexpended 59% 40% 25% 2 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports The data in the figures illustrate, as expected, the proportion of Community Services and Supports monies unexpended to expended declines over time, as counties/municipalities access funds in order to implement services. During the earlier phases of Community Services and Supports, hold- ups at the State level in approving county mental health department plans were cited as another obstacle to timely release of funds. xiii Findings as of FY 2008 – 2009 suggest that concerns raised in the audit report have been addressed. The component allocations (from the California Department of Mental Health‘s Excel files, downloaded from their website) xiv are compared to the total amount expended and unexpended in each Fiscal Year, in Tables 1.4 (FY 06-07), 1.5 (FY 07-08) and 1.6 (FY 08-09). xv Note that Component Allocations are made available for a period of three years, xvi whereas the Expended Funds displayed in Tables 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 each represent a single fiscal year. Component allocations/approved amounts by county are contained in Appendix C. Recall that the amounts allocated and approved in each fiscal year represent the time period to which DMH assigns the monies eventually distributed to counties and municipalities. The fiscal year displayed in Tables 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 do not necessarily represent the time period within which the monies were distributed to the counties/municipalities. Table 1.4 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation/Approved Amount (FY 06-07) MHSA Expenditures* FY 06-07 Expended Unexpended Total Component Allocation/Approved Amount CSS $237,605,917 $339,859,118 $577,465,035 $320,453,101 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison In May 2007, a notice was released from DMH regarding the MHSA Housing Program allocation of $400 million. The monies are reflected under the CSS Component Allocation for FY 2007 – 2008, in combination with the usual CSS allocations (e.g., FSP, Outreach and Engagement). xvii MHSA Housing Program Allocations and Approved Amounts by county/municipality can be viewed in Appendix C. Table 1.5 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation/Approved Amount (FY 07-08) MHSA Expenditures* FY 07-08 Expended Unexpended Total Component Allocation/Approved Amount CSS $559,787,291 $378,682,677 $938,469,968 $918,430,987 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison 3 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Table 1.6 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation/Approved Amount (FY 08-09) MHSA Expenditures* FY 08-09 Expended Unexpended Total Component Allocation/Approved Amount CSS $857,639,573 $290,039,283 $1,147,678,856 $644,124,260 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison Table 1.7 depicts expenditures within each of the major service areas authorized under the umbrella of ―Community Services and Supports.‖ They include:  Full Service Partnership: complete articulation of the Full Service Partnership model is beyond the scope of this brief. The reader is referred to the Toolkit series produced by California Institute for Mental Health for a thorough description of Full Service Partnership principles for each of the core age groups. xviii In brief: A ‗Whatever It Takes‘ approach means to find the methods and means to engage an individual, determine their needs, and create collaborative services and support to meet those needs. This may include innovative approaches to services to prevent the program from unilaterally referring the client out to less intensive, step-down services (i.e., No-Fail Services). (p. 13)  General System Development: GSD Funds should be used to help counties ―improve programs, services and supports‖ for individuals in need and, when applicable, their families in order to ―change their (the counties’) service delivery systems and build transformational programs and services.‖ (p. 8). This funding is meant for services that benefit both clients and their families such as ―peer support, education and advocacy services, mobile crisis teams, funds to promote interagency and community collaboration and services, and funds to develop the capacity to provide values-driven, evidence- based and promising clinical practices.‖ What is emphasized here is that GSD Funds must be used only for mental health services and supports such as mental health treatment, rehabilitation services, and personal service coordination. For services that have functions other than those related to mental health, ―only the proportion of costs associated with the mental health activities‖ can be covered by GSD Funds. Funding that is necessary for community supports and respite care, for instance, is not allowed under GSD Funds and can only be provided to clients enrolled in Full Service Partnerships. Yet – as indicated in various notices – GSD funds can be utilized for certain housing expenditures as long as these expenditures are used to improve the mental health delivery system of the county in question. This funding may be used both for housing units acquired by GSD funds as well as units obtained through non-MHSA funded sources. xix Examples 4 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports of GSD funds leveraged for housing in buildings owned by local government include rent subsidies and master leases. Examples of GSD funds leveraged for housing in buildings that may be subsidized by local government include motel vouchers.  Outreach and Engagement: xx Funds are to be spent, according to the Department of Mental Health (2005) for ―outreach and engagement of those populations that are currently receiving little or no service‖ (p. 8). xxi In elaborating on the target population, the Department of Mental Health specified that this funding must be used solely to reach ―unserved populations‖ in an effort to reduce ―ethnic disparities.‖ ―Unserved populations‖ include individuals who have had limited or only ―crisis oriented contact and/or service from the mental health system.‖ To illustrate the type of service that the Outreach and Engagement Funding should initiate, the following examples are listed (p. 8): o peer-to-peer outreach, o screening of children and youth, and o school and primary care-based outreach to children and youth who may have serious emotional disorders by: o racial/ethnic community-based organizations, o mental health and primary care partnerships, o faith-based agencies, o tribal organizations and health clinics, and o organizations that help individuals who are homeless or incarcerated, and that link potential clients to services. Counties were also allowed to spend MHSA monies on other activities essential to support implementation of Community Services and Supports, including: a) Planning; b) Evaluation; and c) Administration. Instructions as to what is allowable under each of these areas are minimal: Counties need to enter FY 2006-07 CSS planning costs, evaluation costs and administration costs by type of expenditure on the lower half of the form. (p. 3) xxii Expenditures in each of these areas is depicted in Table 1.7. xxiii Note that the Revenue and Expenditure Report does not include Housing Assignments as an independent line item until FY 2008 – 2009. Although it is included with ―Other‖ CSS costs in the Revenue and Expenditure Report, it has been moved in Table 1.7 to be included with Services to be consistent with DMH Information Notice 07-04. Community Services and Supports expenditures by county/municipality are contained in Appendix A. 5 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports In earlier fiscal years (FY 2006 – 2007 and FY 2007 – 2008), housing is included as a subcategory under Full Service Partnerships, Outreach and Engagement, and General System Development. xxiv The breakout expenditures for housing within each of these categories is documented in Briefs 2, 3 and 4. Table 1.7 Total Amount Expended by Category and Fiscal Year (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) xxv MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 06–07 FY 07–08 FY 08–09 N of N of N of Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Counties Counties Counties Full Service $108,266,302.28 40 45.7% $255,927,628.25 52 45.7% $401,869,673.00 58 46.9% Partnerships General System $55,511,294.78 46 23.4% $145,671,164.33 51 26.0% $248,106,801.90 54 28.9% Development Outreach & $20,925,652.94 41 8.8% $57,289,217.14 50 10.2% $83,184,052.12 51 9.7% Engagement MHSA Housing -- -- -- -- -- -- $9,743,300.00 4 1.1% Program CSS Services $184,703,250.00 -- 77.7% $458,888,009.72 -- 82.0% $742,903,827.02 -- 86.6% Total Planning $5,456,643.57 18 2.3% $1,195,948.58 7 0.2% $10,335,436.91 16 1.2% Evaluation $123,366.87 2 0.05% $351,437.06 2 0.06% $1,129,269.36 6 0.1% Administration $47,322,656.14 44 19.9% $99,351,895.80 52 17.7% $103,271,039.32 54 12.0% CSS Other $52,902,666.58 -- 22.3% $100,899,281.44 -- 18.0% $114,735,745.59 -- 13.4% Total CSS Total $237,605,916.58 -- 100% $559,787,291.16 -- 100% $857,639,572.61 -- 100% * Percent of total CSS Expenditures The proportion of other Community Services and Supports activities expenditures for Planning (2%) and Administration (20%) in the initial year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007) is expected, given the requirement for an extensive community engagement and participatory planning process prior to launching services. Administration as a percentage of the total declined to 12 percent in FY 2008 – 2009. SAMHSA Block Grant guidance for administration allows up to 15 percent of the total. MHSA administration was therefore well within expected guidelines by the third year. The decline over time in spending on Administration is expected, given the shift from service start-up to service maintenance. Administration represents the largest category of spending under the Community Services and Supports ―supports‖ categories, also not unexpected given the State documentation, accounting, and reporting requirements for the Mental Health Services Act. xxvi The decline in Planning expenditures as a proportion of other activities expenditures following the initial year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Report is 6 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports therefore also in line with expectations, as counties/municipalities began to roll out Community Services and Supports. The data contained in Table 1.7 show a graduated rollout of expenditures on Community Services and Supports, following the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007). A California Department of Mental Health report (2010) documents that the staggered implementation of services and supports was intentional ―Because of the complexity of each component.‖ (p. 2) xxvii Full Service Partnerships (FSPs) are required to represent the majority of the CSS services budget – or the majority of funds expended between Outreach and Engagement, General System Development, and Full Service Partnerships. When CSS services are considered, FSP expenditures represent:  58.6 percent in FY 2006 – 2008,  55.8 percent in FY 2007 – 2008, and  54.8 percent in FY 2008 – 2009. Housing as an independent category under Community Services and Supports is documented in the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007) under both Outreach and Engagement and Full Service Partnerships. A breakout in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for General System Development housing expenditures was not included until the FY 2008 – 2009 template was released. The spreading of housing expenditures across multiple categories is one challenge inherent in the Community Supports and Services component category in particular. Although housing expenditures are reported out within the Full Service Partnership (Brief 2) Outreach and Engagement (Brief 3), and General System Development (Brief 4) brief reports, a complete total for housing expenditures under the Mental Health Services Act from FY 2006 – 2007 through FY 2008 – 2009 is of interest, given the level of investment in this supportive service. This summary is provided in Table 1.8. 7 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Table 1.8 Total Amount Expended on CSS Housing by Fiscal Year (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 06–07 FY 07–08 FY 08–09 N of N of N of Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Counties Counties Counties FSP $5,470.819.33 24 98.1% -- -- -- -- -- -- Outreach & $107,725.86 6 1.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- Engagement GSD -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,987, 978.99 11 16.9% MHSA Housing -- -- -- -- -- -- $9,743,300.00 4 83.1% Program CSS Housing $5,578,545.19 100% -- -- -- $11,731,278.99 15 100% Total *of CSS Housing Total The grand total across FY 2006 – 2007, 2007 – 2008, and 2008 – 2009 expended on Community Services and Supports housing as documented through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports was $17,309,824.18. 8 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports II. Contextual Considerations In order to determine potential contextual factors of importance, the UCLA/EMT Team looked to DMH funding guidelines for the Mental Health Services Act. Guidance for funding distribution was described in the Overview/Summary Brief (p. 23). xxviii Population is one critical factor in the MHSA funding distribution formula, and is used as a basis for categorizing counties for the purpose of analysis throughout the remainder of this brief. Figure 1.2a displays the Mental Health Services Act dollar breakout for FY 2006 – 2007. Figure 1.2a The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - Community Services & Supports Expenditures by County Population (FY 06-07) $1.00 Administration $0.90 $0.80 Evaluation $0.70 $0.60 Planning $0.50 Outreach and $0.40 Engagement $0.30 General System $0.20 Development $0.10 Full Service Partnership $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5 , 0 0 0 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 400,000 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 5 , 0 0 0 ,000 ( L o s A n geles (11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) When MHSA expenditures by category is displayed according to county size, commonalities and differences emerge:  Administration: Counties with the smallest and the largest populations spent the greatest proportion of the MHSA in FY 2006 – 2007 on administration (around 30 cents out of every CSS dollar expended). This percentage is consistent with the expectation that administration expenses are higher during the start-up period. In addition, unique challenges likely faced the smallest and the largest counties that may be related to population size.  Full Service Partnership: The proportion expended on FSP increases with county size – with one notable exception – counties whose populations are between 45,000 to 150,000. Variation in expenditures on FSP in this size range will be an interesting area to explore through follow up (e.g., FSP Cost per Person - Deliverable 1, Phase III Evaluation). Potential reasons for variance that the UCLA/EMT Team will want to explore may include: 9 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports o Years of experience implementing Full Service Partnership programs, o Prior involvement with AB 2034 (adults) and wraparound services (children and youth), and o Staff training/expertise in Full Service Partnership models.  Outreach and Engagement: The proportion expended on Outreach and Engagement is relatively consistent across counties in the mid-range, and highest in the smallest counties. A greater proportion of the CSS dollar expended on Outreach and Engagement in the smallest counties is completely consistent with remote rural locations and difficult-to-reach populations;  General System Development: There is a great deal of variation in General System Development expenditures. Instructions for activities to be classified under the General System Development category are broad. xxix In brief, results of this analysis support the breadth, rather than depth, of this category. Figure 1.2b The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - Community Services & Supports Expenditures by County Population (FY 07-08) $1.00 Administration $0.90 $0.80 Evaluation $0.70 $0.60 Planning $0.50 Outreach and $0.40 Engagement $0.30 General System Development $0.20 $0.10 Full Service Partnership $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5 , 0 0 0 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 000 5 , 0 0 0,000 ( L o s A n g eles (11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) When the MHSA dollar is displayed for FY 2007 - 2008, commonalities and differences emerge:  Administration: County spending on administration as a proportion of the mental health dollar evens out in FY 2007 – 2008 across the counties (approximately 15 to 20 cents per CSS dollar). The decline in Administration spending in the largest and smallest counties is in alignment with the transition from start-up to implementation. Administration expenditures around 15 percent of the overall budget are in alignment with SAMHSA-funded grants. 10 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports  Full Service Partnership: The proportion expended on FSP is nearly equal for counties with the smallest populations, and nearly equal for the larger counties.  Outreach and Engagement: The proportion expended on Outreach and Engagement is no longer consistent across counties in the mid-range. It is still highest in the smallest counties. The least amount is expended by counties with populations between 1 and 5 million.  General System Development: The variation observed for General System Development expenditures is still present, suggesting that the variation has more to do with the category itself or implementation priorities, rather than any meaningful differences based on county size or other factors. This topic is explored further in Brief 4. 11 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Figure 1.2c The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - Community Services & Supports Expenditures by County Population (FY 08-09) $1.00 Housing Assignments $0.90 $0.80 Administration $0.70 Evaluation $0.60 Planning $0.50 $0.40 Outreach and Engagement $0.30 General System $0.20 Development $0.10 Full Service Partnership $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5 , 0 0 0 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 4 0 0 ,000 1 , 0 0 0 ,000 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 00 ( L o s A n g e les (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) When the MHSA dollar expended in FY 2008 - 2009 is displayed according to county size, commonalities and differences emerge:  Administration: County spending on administration as a proportion of the mental health dollar is no longer fairly even as it was in FY 2007 – 2008. The smallest counties still spend the most on administration. However, it should be noted that even expenditures in the smallest counties are in alignment with the typical percentage allocated on SAMHSA grants for administration. Perhaps review of the County Plans will yield useful information about the factors driving the particular needs in smaller counties. xxx Factors that the UCLA/EMT Team will explore via structured review include (but are not limited to): o Coordination needs related to remote, rural locations – Additional administrative support may be necessary to coordinate increased travel, use of county vehicles, etc. Administrative support may also be necessary to assist staff in supporting clients in accessing services due to public transportation challenges; o Staffing Ratio per square mile in county – county size compared to the number of staff present unique challenges that may require additional administrative oversight.  Full Service Partnership: The gradual progressing in proportion expended on FSP observed in FY 2006 – 2007 returned in FY 2008 – 2009, with the exception of counties whose populations were between 150,000 and 400,000. 12 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports o The addition of individual client-level FSP data will be interesting to tie to FSP expenditure data, in order to determine if increased proportions of the CSS dollar expended on FSP is tied to increased numbers of FSP clients served. Individual level data will be available for analysis for the June 30, 2012 report.  Outreach and Engagement: The proportion expended on Outreach and Engagement remains varied between counties, and Los Angeles County (the largest) expended the greatest proportion compared to mid-size and smaller counties. The least amount is expended by counties with populations between 1 and 5 million. Outreach and Engagement activities are further discussed in Brief 3. However, it should be noted that Los Angeles County employed a System Navigator approach in order to conduct outreach into the community and engage with traditionally under-served communities. This approach is presented and described briefly the Outreach and Engagement brief.  General System Development: The variation observed for General System Development expenditures is still present, suggesting that the variation has more to do with the category itself or implementation priorities, rather than any meaningful differences based on county size or other factors. This topic is explored further in Brief 4. Although the UCLA/EMT Team does not yet have access to data on individuals served under the Mental Health Services Act, monies spent can still be examined by region in the context of that region‘s population through the use of census data. This technique provides a snapshot of spending in relationship to population, in order to arrive at a dollar amount per capita spent on mental health services. This technique is used for preliminary comparison purposes only. 13 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Figure 1.4 illustrates per capita expenditures within county regions and California overall have increased annually. ―Per capita‖ means per person. xxxi Across regions and fiscal years, per capita expenditures were greatest among the smallest counties. This finding is consistent with the DMH policy of allocating a baseline amount for small counties. Figure 1.4 CSS Expenditures Per Capita Relative to State and Region Populationxxxii (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) $30.00 a $25.00 tip a C $20.00 re P s e $15.00 ru tid n $10.00 e p x E $5.00 FY 08-09 $0.00 FY 07-08 California State Superior Central FY 06-07 Counties Bay Area Counties Southern Counties Counties Los Angeles Region 14 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports The impact of county population on overall CSS expenditures is displayed in Figure 1.5. Examination of Community Services and Supports expenditures by county population revealed that more populous counties tended to spend more on average through the CSS program, in each fiscal year analyzed (see Figure 1.5). This finding suggests county CSS average total expenditures seem to be associated with population size. Figure 1.5 Average CSS Expenditures by County Population (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) $300.00 $250.00 S S C e g a re v A s e ru tid n e p x x E )s n o illiM n i( $ $ $ 2 1 1 $ 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY 08-09 $0.00 FY 07-08 < 45,000 (13 > 45,000 - > 150,000 - FY 06-07 Counties) 15 ( 0 1 ,0 1 0 0 4 0 0 , 000 > 1 , 4 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 - > 1 ,0 0 0 , 000 - Counties) (11 (12 5,000,000 > 5 ,0 00,000 Counties) Counties) (8 Counties) (Los Angeles County) County Population 15 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Unemployment xxxiii and foreclosure xxxiv rates represent indicators of the overall economic health of counties/municipalities, and are related in the scientific literature to need for public mental health services. Figure 1.6 illustrates percent changes in CSS expenditures, examined in the context of percent change in significant statewide economic factors (unemployment, foreclosures). These major economic indicators tend to be related to mental health.xxxv These trends suggest that during a period when increases in unemployment and foreclosures may have contributed to greater need for mental health services, CSS expenditures increased alongside of increasing indicators of need. This finding suggests that MHSA expenditures in Community Services and Supports kept pace with indicators perceived to drive increased need for public mental health services. Figure 1.6 Percent Change in CSS Expenditures, Unemployment Rate, and Foreclosure Rate (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) FY 06/07 -FY 08/09 540.0% 261.0% 79.6% % Change in CSS Expenditures % Change in State Unemployment Rate % Change in State Foreclosure Rate 16 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports The UCLA/EMT Team further examined how resources were allocated among CSS programs. A strong relationship was revealed between the number of Community Services and Supports programs in each county and the average amount of money spent per program. Across two Fiscal Years (i.e., 06-07 and 08-09) counties administering more CSS programs tended to spend more per program (see Figure 1.7). More populous counties also tended to support more CSS programs. Figure 1.7 Average CSS Expenditures per CSS Program xxxvi (FY 06-07 and FY 08-09) $2.00 re p s e ru tid n e m a rg o rP )s n o illiM $ $ 1 1 . . 5 0 0 0 p x E .g S S C n i( $0.50 v A $0.00 FY 08-09 1-5 6-10 11-15 FY 06-07 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 Number of CSS Programs Per County Note that there are no counties with 16 – 20 or 21 – 25 CSS programs in FY 2008 – 2009. That is why there is no light blue bar behind the dark blue bar next to 16 – 20 and 21 – 25. 17 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Summary  Implementation of Community Services and Supports across the State: As of FY 2008 – 2009, all counties and municipalities were expending funds on Community Services and Supports.  Meeting the FSP Allocation Requirement: Analysis of Revenue and Expenditure Report data submitted by counties to the California Department of Mental Health for Fiscal Years 2006 – 2007 through 2008 – 2009 show that the statewide requirement to direct the majority of Community Services and Supports monies on Full Service Partnership services was met.  Contextual Factors Related to Community Services and Supports Expenditures: Population (size of population in county/municipality) is strongly related to expenditures. Future briefs will examine the impact of other key contextual factors such as the rate of uninsured, poverty level, and ethnic makeup of the county/municipality.  Statewide Trends impacting Need for Mental Health Services: Examination of unemployment and foreclosure data over time suggest that as pressure on the public mental health system has been increasing in recent years, the rate of CSS funding is keeping pace with indicators perceived to drive increased need for public mental health services. Who is providing Community Services and Supports services is a focus of the following briefs in the series: Full Service Partnership (Brief 2), Outreach and Engagement (Brief 3), and General System Development (Brief 4).a 18 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Appendix A: CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2006 – 2007 Total Mental Category Health Full Service General System Outreach and Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Alameda $4,729,115.44 $900,398.00 $713,303.23 $699,165.77 $775,890.91 -- $1,640,357.53 Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador $177,302.00 -- -- -- -- -- $177,302.00 Berkeley City $330,370.00 $42,232.00 -- $93,334.00 $61,501.00 -- $133,303.00 Butte $806,532.00 $209,516.00 $173,790.00 $268,375.00 -- -- $154,851.00 Calaveras $281,474.00 -- $164,243.00 $41,060.00 -- -- $76,171.00 Colusa $1,432,721.00 $772,606.00 $390,791.00 $20,871.00 -- -- $248,453.00 Contra Costa $1,818,935.11 $1,084,146.86 $657,269.42 $10,996.32 $66,522.52 -- -- Del Norte $386,966.00 -- $179,695.00 $4,452.00 -- -- $202,819.00 El Dorado $1,130,753.03 $527,300.00 $309,617.03 $91,818.00 -- -- $202,018.00 Fresno $621,487.83 -- $153,306.19 -- -- -- $468,181.64 Glenn $392,566.00 -- $127,855.75 $19,334.48 $83,881.82 -- $161,493.95 Humboldt $4,255,782.44 $88,015.20 $3,363,949.46 $542,594.43 $63,314.18 $63,671.87 $134,237.30 Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Inyo $376,100.00 -- $98,687.56 $99,984.86 -- -- $177,427.59 Kern $7,956,783.43 $4,483,118.26 $2,897,139.85 $191,003.67 $55,122.00 -- $330,399.65 Kings $469,386.00 -- -- -- -- -- $469,386.00 Lake $441,214.73 $106,455.86 $157,081.47 $8,683.39 -- -- $168,994.01 Lassen $70,268.00 -- $33,528.00 $36,740.00 -- -- -- Los Angeles $68,207,652.90 $37,557,736.00 $1,346,909.00 $6,815,282.00 $2,896,459.77 -- $19,591,266.13 Madera $11,177,189.15 $564,956.36 $8,968,298.79 $8,230.00 -- -- $1,635,704.00 Marin $1,233,514.04 $834,244.04 -- $399,270.00 -- -- -- Mariposa $434,203.82 $434,203.82 -- -- -- -- -- Mendocino $804,987.00 $197,247.00 $328,799.00 $278,941.00 -- -- -- Merced $2,374,582.06 $989,939.56 $852,334.26 $327,040.24 -- -- $205,268.00 Modoc $260,942.00 -- -- $47,757.00 -- -- $213,185.00 Mono $406,996.00 $210,363.00 -- -- -- -- $196,633.00 Monterey $5,626,483.37 $2,950,561.49 $1,782,872.29 $251,259.22 -- -- $641,790.37 Napa $998,178.00 $249,018.24 $125,085.29 $624,074.47 -- -- -- Nevada $67,508.81 -- $44,135.00 -- $9,966.99 -- $13,406.82 Orange $18,607,507.50 $11,107,546.00 $3,230,295.50 $277,628.00 $24,971.00 -- $3,967,067.00 Placer $3,329,150.51 $2,252,308.70 $192,192.82 $312,019.28 -- -- $572,629.71 Plumas $137,814.00 $64,961.39 $20,639.37 $23,154.12 -- -- $29,059.12 Riverside $8,019,278.85 $2,398,473.77 $4,032,195.15 $55,235.44 -- -- $1,533,374.49 Sacramento $7,948,066.28 $5,117,260.00 $586,511.00 -- $496,099.60 -- $1,748,195.68 San Benito $856,985.00 -- $539,372.00 $16,310.00 -- -- $301,303.00 San Bernardino $5,463,399.96 $1,508,902.11 $3,178,447.26 $776,050.60 -- -- -- San Diego $18,338,081.09 $8,259,125.00 $4,122,242.00 $2,187,571.58 $19,474.00 -- $3,749,668.51 San Francisco $4,207,994.42 $1,837,337.07 $1,917,129.46 $99,719.97 -- -- $353,807.91 San Joaquin $812,417.01 $280,472.99 $247,744.14 -- $62,147.00 -- $222,052.88 San Luis Obispo $2,177,191.26 $1,100,598.16 $1,037,446.31 -- -- -- $39,146.79 San Mateo $8,660,381.35 $5,126,989.03 $2,561,796.82 $806,174.21 -- -- $165,421.29 Santa Barbara $3,609,683.00 $1,922,695.00 $402,945.00 -- $142,991.00 -- $1,141,052.00 Santa Clara $3,539,256.02 $2,175,194.25 $350,117.82 $106,790.42 $331,083.00 -- $576,070.53 Santa Cruz $8,853,142.00 $3,306,789.89 $4,806,861.27 $319,322.84 -- -- $420,168.00 Shasta $1,035,944.86 $160,808.13 $139,547.12 $19,986.51 $16,260.40 -- $699,342.70 Sierra -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Siskiyou $383,767.35 -- -- $383,767.35 -- -- -- Solano $2,192,616.30 $774,521.62 $1,030,630.16 -- $99,713.37 -- $287,751.15 Sonoma $6,218,784.19 $1,761,340.63 $712,252.27 $2,671,870.82 $196,299.71 -- $877,020.76 Stanislaus $5,690,525.72 $2,989,055.10 $1,157,844.02 $333,438.33 -- -- $1,210,188.26 Sutter-Yuba $1,502,087.27 $841,260.17 $660,827.10 -- -- -- -- 19 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2006 – 2007 Total Mental Category Health Full Service General System Outreach and Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity $243,909.30 -- $41,253.00 $64,930.00 $54,945.30 -- $82,781.00 Tulare $4,433,766.83 $1,794,946.00 $844,780.67 $1,125,756.29 -- -- $668,283.87 Tuolumne $52,298.00 -- $52,298.00 -- -- -- -- Ventura $2,525,891.49 $1,055,763.59 $571,242.92 $274,600.33 -- -- $624,284.64 Yolo $1,495,982.87 $227,896.00 $205,993.00 $191,060.00 -- $59,695.00 $811,338.87 20 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2007 - 2008 Category Total Mental Health Full Service General System Outreach and Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Alameda $14,933,109.00 $7,313,244.00 $1,810,352.62 $953,284.38 -- -- $4,856,228.00 Alpine $228,314.00 -- -- -- $75,342.00 -- $152,972.00 Amador $431,555.00 -- $72,139.00 $100,422.00 -- -- $258,994.00 Berkeley City $1,654,031.00 $1,101,275.00 $173,199.00 $187,244.00 -- -- $192,313.00 Butte $3,490,727.00 $252,475.00 $968,212.00 $1,814,702.00 -- -- $455,338.00 Calaveras $804,286.00 -- $582,246.00 $145,562.00 -- -- $76,478.00 Colusa $1,811,815.00 $564,793.00 $903,410.00 $146,521.00 -- -- $197,091.00 Contra Costa $9,752,612.00 $9,752,612.00 -- -- -- -- -- Del Norte $742,051.50 $125,814.00 -- $516,843.50 -- -- $99,394.00 El Dorado $2,144,724.69 $870,218.77 $444,423.28 $196,384.07 -- -- $633,698.57 Fresno $7,889,411.39 $3,977,232.24 $1,801,757.33 $359,148.67 -- -- $1,751,273.15 Glenn $1,339,952.00 $180,049.00 $992,703.00 $40,843.00 -- -- $126,357.00 Humboldt $6,149,930.00 $1,048,794.00 $3,925,656.00 $896,016.00 $77,126.00 $38,901.00 $163,437.00 Imperial $1,513,497.97 $809,805.27 $602,519.70 $101,173.00 -- -- -- Inyo $513,726.00 $10,655.00 $40,378.00 $355,559.00 -- -- $107,134.00 Kern $13,387,353.46 $8,328,827.31 $3,990,416.47 $242,939.68 -- -- $825,170.00 Kings $1,214,995.00 $366,680.00 $62,983.00 $150,995.00 -- -- $634,337.00 Lake $1,316,778.65 $388,351.99 $528,561.01 $136,775.81 -- -- $263,089.83 Lassen $843,780.00 -- $140,726.00 $274,809.00 $7,652.00 -- $420,593.00 Los Angeles $195,666,274.48 $88,264,882.08 $52,366,677.34 $24,627,752.35 $918,176.04 -- $29,488,786.67 Madera $2,757,173.00 $1,224,277.00 $1,140,956.00 $62,065.00 -- -- $329,875.00 Marin $4,655,096.72 $2,759,328.89 -- $549,798.83 -- -- $1,345,969.00 Mariposa $810,163.64 $810,163.64 -- -- -- -- -- Mendocino $1,982,762.00 $1,207,240.00 $488,250.00 $287,272.00 -- -- -- Merced $3,783,779.24 $2,056,125.30 $859,675.25 $325,288.93 -- -- $542,689.75 Modoc $377,244.00 -- $179,003.00 $50,506.00 -- -- $147,735.00 Mono $398,619.44 $398,619.44 -- -- -- -- -- Monterey $10,565,409.61 $6,376,320.19 $1,894,466.14 $337,628.51 -- -- $1,956,994.77 Napa $2,602,457.07 $868,900.46 $241,480.89 $705,730.58 -- -- $786,345.14 Nevada $1,252,870.20 $717,397.62 $425.00 $304,062.71 -- -- $230,984.87 Orange $33,071,203.05 $17,188,266.47 $6,434,713.17 $1,788,986.49 -- -- $7,659,236.92 Placer $5,467,044.22 $3,804,391.33 $424,837.45 $463,629.75 -- -- $774,185.68 Plumas $386,777.00 $195,658.00 $70,541.00 $84,721.00 -- -- $3,5857.00 Riverside $27,676,117.09 $11,772,177.04 $11,220,718.98 $300,129.08 $721.23 -- $4,382,370.76 Sacramento $11,452,309.57 $6,843,168.57 $1,863,922.00 -- -- $312,536.06 $2,432,682.94 San Benito $1,272,041.00 $243,879.00 $811,386.00 $5,564.00 -- -- $211,212.00 San Bernardino $28,276,054.19 $9,652,308.72 $8,138,872.20 $1,565,983.45 -- -- $8,918,889.82 San Diego $40,124,134.42 $15,752,210.41 $10,149,571.63 $3,920,389.93 -- -- $10,301,962.45 San Francisco $8,542,411.82 $3,957,059.12 $2,212,759.70 -- -- -- $2,372,593.00 San Joaquin $7,539,361.75 $2,974,379.35 $2,879,576.88 -- -- -- $1,685,405.52 San Luis Obispo $4,591,336.11 $2,088,052.34 $1,785,749.70 $12,249.91 -- -- $705,284.16 San Mateo $10,140,010.00 $5,254,069.00 $3,079,798.00 $1,639,567.00 -- -- $166,576.00 Santa Barbara $7,297,491.34 $3,344,289.96 $1,957,030.33 $502,400.73 -- -- $1,493,770.32 Santa Clara $16,276,921.00 $9,391,400.08 $5,592,565.47 $288,067.45 -- -- $1,004,888.00 Santa Cruz $6,040,705.00 $2,778,395.46 $2,079,145.19 $179,935.35 -- -- $1,003,229.00 Shasta $2,232,981.45 $671,249.96 $164,228.66 $711,061.46 $10,275.25 -- $676,166.12 Sierra $171,494.67 $48,072.99 $8,842.94 $8,841.84 -- -- $105,736.90 Siskiyou $964,942.00 $314.00 -- $711,369.00 -- -- $253,259.00 Solano $6,165,983.92 $2,052,136.79 $3,401,305.70 -- $106,656.06 -- $605,885.37 Sonoma $12,783,535.72 $2,839,847.07 $2,987,551.62 $6,385,576.74 -- -- $570,560.29 Stanislaus $10,520,050.23 $4,745,658.09 $2,303,803.75 $1,727,127.39 -- -- $1,743,461.00 Sutter-Yuba $3,608,393.22 $1,889,881.00 $355,829.00 $767,452.00 -- -- $595,231.22 Tehama $777,432.42 -- $237,694.54 $180,327.54 -- -- $359,410.34 Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity $655,535.00 $134,822.00 $289,705.00 $11,477.00 -- -- $219,531.00 21 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2007 - 2008 Category Total Mental Health Full Service General System Outreach and Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Tulare $5,088,002.44 $2,098,697.74 $1,081,417.03 $578,316.67 -- -- $1,329,571.00 Tuolumne $1,178,101.00 $407,185.00 $425,118.00 $345,798.00 -- -- -- Ventura $8,089,824.06 $3,457,446.45 $1,053,767.00 $588,612.61 -- -- $2,989,998.00 Yolo $4,382,598.42 $2,568,531.11 $450,097.35 $652,305.73 -- -- $711,664.23 22 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Total Mental Category Health Full Service General System Outreach and Housing Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Assignments Alameda $20,066,153.49 $8,468,078.18 $2,603,011.46 $2,725,935.85 $1,501,416.00 -- $4,767,712.00 -- Alpine $135,606.00 -- $35,464.00 $55,192.00 $40,750.00 -- $4,200.00 -- Amador $2,786,895.00 $48,294.13 $1,875,774.87 $592,516.00 -- -- $270,310.00 -- Berkeley City $1,593,421.00 $1,067,521.00 $194,168.00 $101,768.00 -- -- $229,964.00 -- Butte $5,387,221.45 $431,610.00 $1,766,465.00 $2,646,797.00 -- -- $542,349.45 -- Calaveras $1,411,799.00 $573,479.00 $393,428.20 $129,057.80 -- -- $315,834.00 -- Colusa $3,613,149.15 $821,155.82 $1,922,791.92 $135,341.14 -- -- $733,860.27 -- Contra Costa $16,982,248.00 $9,926,424.00 $6,728,688.60 -- -- -- $327,135.40 -- Del Norte $1,529,364.57 $248,380.58 $1,059,813.94 $37,862.35 -- -- $183,307.70 -- El Dorado $3,353,923.87 $2,077,570.21 $289,667.72 $329,841.77 $39,823.26 -- $617,020.91 -- Fresno $16,894,916.78 $7,418,536.13 $4,577,528.85 $922,768.82 $3,976,082.98 -- -- -- Glenn $1,903,658.00 $419,064.00 $1,231,369.00 $46,678.00 -- -- $206,547.00 -- Humboldt $8,037,682.00 $3,239,211.00 $4,688,537.00 $109,934.00 -- -- -- -- Imperial $4,937,099.00 $1,032,168.00 $785,361.00 $163,242.00 $63,355.00 -- $232,973.00 $2,660,000.00 Inyo $2,811,368.97 $368,793.08 $1,762,645.86 $228,055.03 -- -- $451,875.00 -- Kern $21,148,020.39 $7,184,307.13 $9,243,036.65 $1,651,137.22 -- -- $3,069,539.39 -- Kings $2,219,854.00 $280,294.00 $1,360,469.00 $247,296.00 -- -- $331,795.00 -- Lake $1,891,497.83 $800,972.62 $693,801.72 $68,864.63 -- -- $327,858.86 -- Lassen $1,771,391.24 $259,091.42 $314,172.50 $568,714.86 $34,852.53 -- $594,559.93 -- Los Angeles $265,165,720.98 $146,678,496.20 $57,285,263.49 $41,339,889.89 $3,336,181.40 -- $16,525,890.00 -- Madera $11,077,130.00 $1,793,952.00 $9,124,927.00 -- -- -- $15,8251.00 -- Marin $3,842,257.45 $2,783,486.87 -- $783,519.87 -- -- $275,250.71 -- Mariposa $1,110,795.02 $1,110,795.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- Mendocino $1,746,962.37 $1,249,586.99 $445,852.66 $51,522.72 -- -- -- -- Merced $8,056,482.90 $3,973,867.08 $2,426,427.88 $702,631.95 -- -- $953,555.99 -- Modoc $1,508,086.00 $51,259.00 $1,001,151.00 $252,608.00 -- -- $203,068.00 -- Mono $734,179.72 $541,512.72 -- -- $9,187.00 $9,187.00 $174,293.00 -- Monterey $11,551,219.08 $5,943,616.86 $2,306,478.21 $620,974.89 -- -- $2,680,149.12 -- Napa $4,694,031.76 $1,446,333.36 $270,824.25 $551,666.14 -- -- $597,308.01 $1,827,900.00 Nevada $6,886,909.88 $4,054,319.23 $789,497.88 $299,484.76 -- -- $356,608.02 $1,387,000.00 Orange $43,637,518.14 $22,904,522.92 $11,027,073.37 $1,936,839.21 $2,149.74 $90,254.22 $7,676,678.68 -- Placer $6,000,754.00 $3,845,248.00 $775,650.00 $486,282.00 -- -- $893,574.00 -- Plumas $1,047,563.00 $947,559.00 -- -- -- -- $100,004.00 -- Riverside $63,357,766.00 $23,070,906.00 $31,878,532.00 $127,484.00 $204,327.00 $279,062.00 $7,797,455.00 -- Sacramento $15,501,499.72 $7,946,839.98 $4,154,118.00 -- -- $412,558.14 $2,987,983.60 -- San Benito $1,500,447.00 $482,616.96 $571,058.82 $282,951.11 -- -- $163,820.11 -- San Bernardino $50,607,886.32 $24,698,365.91 $12,870,052.02 $2,371,607.39 -- -- $10,667,861.00 -- San Diego $60,522,610.84 $22,359,236.57 $17,369,786.81 $4,005,730.55 -- -- $16,787,856.91 -- San Francisco $11,295,551.06 $6,640,678.06 $3,010,583.00 $77,673.00 $105,832.00 $169,394.00 $1,291,391.00 -- San Joaquin $14,159,694.26 $7,403,498.85 $4,117,675.26 -- -- -- $2,638,520.15 -- San Luis Obispo $5,847,503.01 $3,087,213.00 $2,157,165.00 $170,055.00 -- -- $433,070.01 -- San Mateo $12,997,659.00 $6,459,363.00 $4,087,362.00 $1,949,208.00 -- -- $501,726.00 -- Santa Barbara $9,578,460.00 $5,051,440.00 $2,205,982.00 $664,989.00 -- -- $1,656,049.00 -- Santa Clara $38,018,756.00 $20,535,477.20 $13,682,327.90 $2,374,431.90 $639,878.00 -- $786,641.00 -- Santa Cruz $7,079,309.70 $3,072,181.00 $2,611,287.70 $250,871.00 -- -- $1,144,970.00 -- Shasta $4,011,834.00 $1,833,077.00 $236,842.00 $1,319,591.00 $100,946.00 -- $521,378.00 -- Sierra $629,693.71 $281,095.71 $124,408.00 $128,748.00 -- -- $95,442.00 -- Siskiyou $1,035,318.32 $130,809.00 -- $546,299.21 -- -- $358,210.11 -- Solano $12,400,959.00 $2,665,630.00 $5,178,005.00 -- $28,204.00 -- $660,720.00 $3,868,400.00 Sonoma $1,208,8716.25 $2,544,053.04 $3,140,819.66 $5,910,869.65 -- -- $492,973.90 -- Stanislaus $13,566,727.00 $5,440,809.00 $4,751,142.00 $1,283,021.00 -- -- $2,091,755.00 -- Sutter-Yuba $5,664,717.09 $3,825,962.05 $236,969.20 $927,162.84 -- -- $674,623.00 -- Tehama $2,080,835.49 $505,811.33 $941,689.60 $601,268.87 -- -- $32,065.69 -- Tri-Cities $698,271.00 $228,620.00 $198,937.00 $18,671.00 $252,043.00 -- -- -- Trinity $878,147.00 $432,736.00 $110,255.00 $232,949.00 -- -- $102,207.00 -- 23 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports CSS Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Total Mental Category Health Full Service General System Outreach and Housing Planning Evaluation Administration County Expenditures Partnerships Development Engagement Assignments Tulare $7,410,839.05 $1,241,128.99 $2,451,695.60 $191,046.22 -- -- $3,526,968.24 -- Tuolumne $2,320,856.62 $848,369.18 $711,168.00 $281,954.00 -- -- $479,365.44 -- Ventura $11,961,106.07 $4,998,067.87 $3,348,687.97 $917,663.00 $409.00 $168,814.00 $2,527,464.23 -- Yolo $6,889,529.07 $4,096,181.72 $980,911.37 $763,385.47 -- -- $1,049,050.51 -- 24 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Appendix B: Revenue and Expenditure Reports Process of Transferring Individual County Excel Files into Master Cross-Site File The MHSA (FY: 06/07, 07/08, 08/09) Database is an aggregated database containing fiscal data from a total of 59 California counties/municipalities spanning three fiscal year periods, covering 25 program data sets, sourced from 589 distinct file locations, containing a total of 4,498 unique variables, encompassing a grand total of 287,265 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2006-2007 contained 1,325 distinct variables provided by 57 counties/municipalities across 6 programs located within 57 separate files containing a total of 72,525 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 contained 1,265 distinct variables provided by 59 counties/municipalities across 7 programs located within 60 separate files containing a total of 75,900 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2008-2009 contained 2,264 distinct variables provided by 59 counties/municipalities across 11 programs located within 472 separate files containing a total of 135,840 distinct data points. The MHSA Database was constructed through a process of template creation, formula crafting, running transfer protocols and performing validity checks. Templates were formed via construction of a list of all variables across each program over all three fiscal years. Formula were generated to transfer the values of individual cells to the database template and were compiled to transfer all the relevant data points within a given workbook and, subsequently, entire source-file. Formulas were crafted for each of the unique variables contained within each program or workbook. Master formulae were crafted for each workbook within a file or fiscal year. The master formulae performed the relocation of each relevant data point, across all programs, within a given file or fiscal year. Transfer protocols were generated to perform manual and semi-automated opening and closing of files, updating formula and transferring the relevant data values of each fiscal year to the database. Validity checks were performed throughout each stage of the process with full checks on each new formula, random spot checks, specific value checks and redundant report checks. 25 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Challenges/Limitations Complications in the construction of the database template arose from the systemic variance within a specific program across multiple fiscal years. Each program contains differing sets of reported variables across each fiscal year. Such complexity required the database construction and formulae formats to account for the disparate data formats. This was accomplished through the merger of otherwise identical variables names that were renamed and through the adjustment of cell-specific spacing references in all formulae. Further complicating the construction of the database was the systemic variance between the three fiscal years in file sets and data locations. While fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are rather similar the 2008-2009 fiscal year is provided in an entirely different file set format. Additionally, each fiscal year contains noteworthy variance in data locations from the other fiscal years. This complexity required the substantial retooling of the formula sets and numerous additional, unique formula sets to be constructed. However, the most severe complications came as a result of modifications performed by reporting counties to the file names, workbook names and, most significantly, workbook formats. Variances which caused transfer protocols to report incorrect and invalid data points, if not miss the source- data entirely. These issues necessitated the manual reformatting of all files and workbooks locations found to be employing deviant standards and the subsequent manual operation of all associated transfer protocols. In addition, the FY 2006-2007 and FY 2007-2008 formula cells were not locked. Therefore, counties could modify the formulas and mistakes were made. The UCLA/EMT team therefore had to create summary variables, rather than rely upon the formulas as included in the Revenue and Expenditure Reports. In FY 2008-2009 the formula cells were locked, but each component was in a completely separate Excel workbook. In previous fiscal years, everything was in one Excel file. The challenge with separate Excel files is that errors were uncovered in the file linking process. For example, summary worksheets were to pull from specific worksheets in order to arrive at the correct totals. Some counties pulled from the wrong worksheets and the totals on the summary worksheets did not align with the component totals. For categories and components with errors, the UCLA/EMT team had to create summary variables, rather than rely upon the formulas as included in the Revenue and Expenditure Reports. 26 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Appendix C: Component Allocations and Approved Amountsxxxvii – Community Services and Supports Component Allocations and Approved Amounts for CSS FY 2006-2007 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Alameda FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,145,798 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,145,798 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,145,798 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,145,798 Alameda *Component Allocations $ 1 1,145,798 Alameda Approved Amounts $ 1 1,145,798 Alpine FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 54,927 Approved Amounts $ 2 54,927 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 54,927 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 54,927 Alpine *Component Allocations $ 2 54,927 Alpine Approved Amounts $ 2 54,927 Amador FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 31,570 Approved Amounts $ 5 31,570 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 31,570 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 31,570 Amador *Component Allocations $ 5 31,570 Amador Approved Amounts $ 5 31,570 Berkeley City FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 96,084 Approved Amounts $ 8 96,084 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 8 96,084 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 8 96,084 Berkeley City *Component Allocations $ 8 96,084 Berkeley City Approved Amounts $ 8 96,084 Butte FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,999,624 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,999,624 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,999,624 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,999,624 Butte *Component Allocations $ 1 ,999,624 Butte Approved Amounts $ 1 ,999,624 Calaveras FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 09,442 Approved Amounts $ 6 09,442 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 6 09,442 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 6 09,442 Calaveras *Component Allocations $ 6 09,442 Calaveras Approved Amounts $ 6 09,442 Colusa FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 30,973 Approved Amounts $ 4 30,973 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 30,973 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 30,973 Colusa *Component Allocations $ 4 30,973 Colusa Approved Amounts $ 4 30,973 Contra Costa FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,192,809 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,192,809 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,192,809 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,192,809 Contra Costa *Component Allocations $ 7 ,192,809 Contra Costa Approved Amounts $ 7 ,192,809 27 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Del Norte FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 75,514 Approved Amounts $ 4 75,514 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 75,514 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 75,514 Del Norte *Component Allocations $ 4 75,514 Del Norte Approved Amounts $ 4 75,514 El Dorado FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,437,533 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,437,533 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,437,533 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,437,533 El Dorado *Component Allocations $ 1 ,437,533 El Dorado Approved Amounts $ 1 ,437,533 Fresno FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 ,042,129 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,042,129 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 8 ,042,129 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,042,129 Fresno *Component Allocations $ 8 ,042,129 Fresno Approved Amounts $ 8 ,042,129 Glenn FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 86,119 Approved Amounts $ 4 86,119 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 86,119 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 86,119 Glenn *Component Allocations $ 4 86,119 Glenn Approved Amounts $ 4 86,119 Humboldt FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,294,231 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,294,231 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,294,231 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,294,231 Humboldt *Component Allocations $ 1 ,294,231 Humboldt Approved Amounts $ 1 ,294,231 Imperial FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,716,012 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,716,012 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,716,012 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,716,012 Imperial *Component Allocations $ 1 ,716,012 Imperial Approved Amounts $ 1 ,716,012 Inyo FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 73,705 Approved Amounts $ 3 73,705 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 73,705 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 73,705 Inyo *Component Allocations $ 3 73,705 Inyo Approved Amounts $ 3 73,705 Kern FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,048,579 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,048,579 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,048,579 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,048,579 Kern *Component Allocations $ 7 ,048,579 Kern Approved Amounts $ 7 ,048,579 Kings FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,511,485 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,511,485 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,511,485 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,511,485 Kings *Component Allocations $ 1 ,511,485 Kings Approved Amounts $ 1 ,511,485 28 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Lake FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 60,035 Approved Amounts $ 7 60,035 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 60,035 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 60,035 Lake *Component Allocations $ 7 60,035 Lake Approved Amounts $ 7 60,035 Lassen FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 79,453 Approved Amounts $ 4 79,453 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 79,453 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 79,453 Lassen *Component Allocations $ 4 79,453 Lassen Approved Amounts $ 4 79,453 Los Angeles FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 9 0,691,911 Approved Amounts $ 9 0,691,911 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 9 0,691,911 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 9 0,691,911 Los Angeles *Component Allocations $ 9 0,691,911 Los Angeles Approved Amounts $ 9 0,691,911 Madera FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,514,515 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,514,515 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,514,515 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,514,515 Madera *Component Allocations $ 1 ,514,515 Madera Approved Amounts $ 1 ,514,515 Marin FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,727,527 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,727,527 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,727,527 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,727,527 Marin *Component Allocations $ 1 ,727,527 Marin Approved Amounts $ 1 ,727,527 Mariposa FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 80,977 Approved Amounts $ 3 80,977 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 80,977 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 80,977 Mariposa *Component Allocations $ 3 80,977 Mariposa Approved Amounts $ 3 80,977 Mendocino FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 9 26,687 Approved Amounts $ 9 26,687 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 9 26,687 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 9 26,687 Mendocino *Component Allocations $ 9 26,687 Mendocino Approved Amounts $ 9 26,687 Merced FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,534,123 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,534,123 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,534,123 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,534,123 Merced *Component Allocations $ 2 ,534,123 Merced Approved Amounts $ 2 ,534,123 Modoc FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 21,891 Approved Amounts $ 3 21,891 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 21,891 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 21,891 Modoc *Component Allocations $ 3 21,891 Modoc Approved Amounts $ 3 21,891 29 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Mono FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 56,737 Approved Amounts $ 3 56,737 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 56,737 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 56,737 Mono *Component Allocations $ 3 56,737 Mono Approved Amounts $ 3 56,737 Monterey FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,885,218 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,885,218 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,885,218 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,885,218 Monterey *Component Allocations $ 3 ,885,218 Monterey Approved Amounts $ 3 ,885,218 Napa FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,136,972 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,136,972 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,136,972 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,136,972 Napa *Component Allocations $ 1 ,136,972 Napa Approved Amounts $ 1 ,136,972 Nevada FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,012,437 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,012,437 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,012,437 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,012,437 Nevada *Component Allocations $ 1 ,012,437 Nevada Approved Amounts $ 1 ,012,437 Orange FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 5,757,558 Approved Amounts $ 2 5,757,558 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 5,757,558 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 5,757,558 Orange *Component Allocations $ 2 5,757,558 Orange Approved Amounts $ 2 5,757,558 Placer FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,284,145 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,284,145 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,284,145 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,284,145 Placer *Component Allocations $ 2 ,284,145 Placer Approved Amounts $ 2 ,284,145 Plumas FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 92,188 Approved Amounts $ 3 92,188 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 92,188 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 92,188 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 3 92,188 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 3 92,188 Riverside FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 6,878,027 Approved Amounts $ 1 6,878,027 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 6,878,027 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 6,878,027 Riverside *Component Allocations $ 1 6,878,027 Riverside Approved Amounts $ 1 6,878,027 Sacramento FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 0,021,351 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,021,351 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 0,021,351 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,021,351 Sacramento *Component Allocations $ 1 0,021,351 Sacramento Approved Amounts $ 1 0,021,351 30 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts San Benito FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 37,007 Approved Amounts $ 7 37,007 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 37,007 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 37,007 San Benito *Component Allocations $ 7 37,007 San Benito Approved Amounts $ 7 37,007 San Bernardino FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 7,340,108 Approved Amounts $ 1 7,340,108 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 7,340,108 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 7,340,108 San Bernardino *Component Allocations $ 1 7,340,108 San Bernardino Approved Amounts $ 1 7,340,108 San Diego FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 5,671,808 Approved Amounts $ 2 5,671,808 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 5,671,808 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 5,671,808 San Diego *Component Allocations $ 2 5,671,808 San Diego Approved Amounts $ 2 5,671,808 San Francisco FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 ,386,299 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,386,299 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,386,299 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,386,299 San Francisco *Component Allocations $ 5 ,386,299 San Francisco Approved Amounts $ 5 ,386,299 San Joaquin FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 ,645,671 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,645,671 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,645,671 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,645,671 San Joaquin *Component Allocations $ 5 ,645,671 San Joaquin Approved Amounts $ 5 ,645,671 San Luis Obispo FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,317,778 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,317,778 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,317,778 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,317,778 San Luis Obispo *Component Allocations $ 2 ,317,778 San Luis Obispo Approved Amounts $ 2 ,317,778 San Mateo FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 ,022,392 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,022,392 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,022,392 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,022,392 San Mateo *Component Allocations $ 5 ,022,392 San Mateo Approved Amounts $ 5 ,022,392 Santa Barbara FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,853,402 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,853,402 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,853,402 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,853,402 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 3 ,853,402 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 3 ,853,402 Santa Clara FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 3,521,652 Approved Amounts $ 1 3,521,652 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 3,521,652 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 3,521,652 Santa Clara *Component Allocations $ 1 3,521,652 Santa Clara Approved Amounts $ 1 3,521,652 31 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Santa Cruz FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,393,226 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,393,226 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,393,226 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,393,226 Santa Cruz *Component Allocations $ 2 ,393,226 Santa Cruz Approved Amounts $ 2 ,393,226 Shasta FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,712,376 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,712,376 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,712,376 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,712,376 Shasta *Component Allocations $ 1 ,712,376 Shasta Approved Amounts $ 1 ,712,376 Sierra FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 71,896 Approved Amounts $ 2 71,896 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 71,896 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 71,896 Sierra *Component Allocations $ 2 71,896 Sierra Approved Amounts $ 2 71,896 Siskiyou FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 88,535 Approved Amounts $ 5 88,535 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 88,535 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 88,535 Siskiyou *Component Allocations $ 5 88,535 Siskiyou Approved Amounts $ 5 88,535 Solano FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,258,606 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,258,606 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,258,606 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,258,606 Solano *Component Allocations $ 3 ,258,606 Solano Approved Amounts $ 3 ,258,606 Sonoma FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,741,594 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,741,594 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,741,594 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,741,594 Sonoma *Component Allocations $ 3 ,741,594 Sonoma Approved Amounts $ 3 ,741,594 Stanislaus FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,293,970 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,293,970 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,293,970 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,293,970 Stanislaus *Component Allocations $ 4 ,293,970 Stanislaus Approved Amounts $ 4 ,293,970 Sutter-Yuba FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,761,564 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,761,564 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,761,564 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,761,564 Sutter-Yuba *Component Allocations $ 1 ,761,564 Sutter-Yuba Approved Amounts $ 1 ,761,564 Tehama FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 16,402 Approved Amounts $ 7 16,402 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 16,402 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 16,402 Tehama *Component Allocations $ 7 16,402 Tehama Approved Amounts $ 7 16,402 32 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Tri City FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,907,890 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,907,890 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,907,890 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,907,890 Tri City *Component Allocations $ 1 ,907,890 Tri City Approved Amounts $ 1 ,907,890 Trinity FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 55,222 Approved Amounts $ 3 55,222 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 55,222 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 55,222 Trinity *Component Allocations $ 3 55,222 Trinity Approved Amounts $ 3 55,222 Tulare FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,105,199 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,105,199 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,105,199 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,105,199 Tulare *Component Allocations $ 4 ,105,199 Tulare Approved Amounts $ 4 ,105,199 Tuolumne FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 93,980 Approved Amounts $ 6 93,980 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 6 93,980 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 6 93,980 Tuolumne *Component Allocations $ 6 93,980 Tuolumne Approved Amounts $ 6 93,980 Ventura FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 ,810,115 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,810,115 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,810,115 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,810,115 Ventura *Component Allocations $ 6 ,810,115 Ventura Approved Amounts $ 6 ,810,115 Yolo FY 06/07 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,838,123 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,838,123 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,838,123 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,838,123 Yolo *Component Allocations $ 1 ,838,123 Yolo Approved Amounts $ 1 ,838,123 Total *Component Allocations $ 3 20,453,101 Total Approved Amounts $ 3 20,453,101 33 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Component Allocations and Approved Amounts for CSS FY 2007-2008 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Alameda FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 8,448,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 8,448,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 4,619,200 Approved Amounts $ 1 4,619,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 3,067,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 3,067,500 Alameda *Component Allocations $ 3 3,067,500 Alameda Approved Amounts $ 3 3,067,500 Alpine FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 58,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 58,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 58,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 58,300 Alpine *Component Allocations $ 3 58,300 Alpine Approved Amounts $ 3 58,300 Amador FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 54,100 Approved Amounts $ 8 54,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 5 01,800 Approved Amounts $ 5 01,800 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,355,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,355,900 Amador *Component Allocations $ 1 ,355,900 Amador Approved Amounts $ 1 ,355,900 Berkeley City FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,207,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,207,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 ,258,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,258,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,466,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,466,100 Berkeley City *Component Allocations $ 3 ,466,100 Berkeley City Approved Amounts $ 3 ,466,100 Butte FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,645,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,645,700 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,173,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,173,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,818,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,818,700 Butte *Component Allocations $ 5 ,818,700 Butte Approved Amounts $ 5 ,818,700 34 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Calaveras FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 9 75,300 Approved Amounts $ 9 75,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 6 39,500 Approved Amounts $ 6 39,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,614,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,614,800 Calaveras *Component Allocations $ 1 ,614,800 Calaveras Approved Amounts $ 1 ,614,800 Colusa FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 94,000 Approved Amounts $ 6 94,000 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 3 12,200 Approved Amounts $ 3 12,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,006,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,006,200 Colusa *Component Allocations $ 1 ,006,200 Colusa Approved Amounts $ 1 ,006,200 Contra Costa FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,858,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,858,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 9 ,130,800 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,130,800 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 0,989,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 0,989,700 Contra Costa *Component Allocations $ 2 0,989,700 Contra Costa Approved Amounts $ 2 0,989,700 Del Norte FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 70,700 Approved Amounts $ 7 70,700 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 16,700 Approved Amounts $ 4 16,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,187,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,187,400 Del Norte *Component Allocations $ 1 ,187,400 Del Norte Approved Amounts $ 1 ,187,400 El Dorado FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,903,700 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,903,700 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,276,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,276,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,180,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,180,200 El Dorado *Component Allocations $ 5 ,180,200 El Dorado Approved Amounts $ 5 ,180,200 35 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Fresno FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 3,113,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 3,113,600 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 9 ,248,900 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,248,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 2,362,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 2,362,500 Fresno *Component Allocations $ 2 2,362,500 Fresno Approved Amounts $ 2 2,362,500 Glenn FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 79,800 Approved Amounts $ 7 79,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 09,400 Approved Amounts $ 4 09,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,189,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,189,200 Glenn *Component Allocations $ 1 ,189,200 Glenn Approved Amounts $ 1 ,189,200 Humboldt FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,450,100 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,450,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 ,955,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,955,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,405,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,405,400 Humboldt *Component Allocations $ 4 ,405,400 Humboldt Approved Amounts $ 4 ,405,400 Imperial FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,815,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,815,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,660,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,660,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,475,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,475,500 Imperial *Component Allocations $ 5 ,475,500 Imperial Approved Amounts $ 5 ,475,500 Inyo FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 30,600 Approved Amounts $ 7 30,600 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 30,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 30,600 Inyo *Component Allocations $ 7 30,600 Inyo Approved Amounts $ 7 30,600 36 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Kern FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,107,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,107,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 7 ,932,200 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,932,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 9,040,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 9,040,100 Kern *Component Allocations $ 1 9,040,100 Kern Approved Amounts $ 1 9,040,100 Kings FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,470,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,470,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,204,100 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,204,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,674,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,674,600 Kings *Component Allocations $ 4 ,674,600 Kings Approved Amounts $ 4 ,674,600 Lake FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,219,800 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,219,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 9 42,600 Approved Amounts $ 9 42,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,162,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,162,400 Lake *Component Allocations $ 2 ,162,400 Lake Approved Amounts $ 2 ,162,400 Lassen FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 73,900 Approved Amounts $ 7 73,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 13,600 Approved Amounts $ 4 13,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,187,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,187,500 Lassen *Component Allocations $ 1 ,187,500 Lassen Approved Amounts $ 1 ,187,500 Los Angeles FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 44,649,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 44,649,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 15,571,200 Approved Amounts $ 1 15,571,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 60,220,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 60,220,300 Los Angeles *Component Allocations $ 2 60,220,300 Los Angeles Approved Amounts $ 2 60,220,300 Madera FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,855,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,855,000 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,318,200 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,318,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,173,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,173,200 Madera *Component Allocations $ 5 ,173,200 Madera Approved Amounts $ 5 ,173,200 37 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Marin FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,038,900 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,038,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,151,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,151,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,189,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,189,900 Marin *Component Allocations $ 6 ,189,900 Marin Approved Amounts $ 6 ,189,900 Mariposa FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 48,200 Approved Amounts $ 7 48,200 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 48,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 48,200 Mariposa *Component Allocations $ 7 48,200 Mariposa Approved Amounts $ 7 48,200 Mendocino FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,844,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,844,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 ,292,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,292,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,137,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,137,200 Mendocino *Component Allocations $ 3 ,137,200 Mendocino Approved Amounts $ 3 ,137,200 Merced FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,076,800 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,076,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,615,400 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,615,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,692,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,692,200 Merced *Component Allocations $ 6 ,692,200 Merced Approved Amounts $ 6 ,692,200 Modoc FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 56,400 Approved Amounts $ 5 56,400 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 56,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 56,400 Modoc *Component Allocations $ 5 56,400 Modoc Approved Amounts $ 5 56,400 38 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Mono FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 69,800 Approved Amounts $ 6 69,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 69,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 69,800 Mono *Component Allocations $ 6 69,800 Mono Approved Amounts $ 6 69,800 Monterey FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 ,900,400 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,900,400 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 ,615,100 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,615,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 0,515,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,515,500 Monterey *Component Allocations $ 1 0,515,500 Monterey Approved Amounts $ 1 0,515,500 Napa FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,012,300 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,012,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 ,827,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,827,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,840,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,840,200 Napa *Component Allocations $ 3 ,840,200 Napa Approved Amounts $ 3 ,840,200 Nevada FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,980,287 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,980,287 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 ,387,000 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,387,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,367,287 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,367,287 Nevada *Component Allocations $ 3 ,367,287 Nevada Approved Amounts $ 3 ,367,287 Orange FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 7,641,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 7,641,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 3 3,158,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 3,158,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 0,799,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 0,799,600 Orange *Component Allocations $ 7 0,799,600 Orange Approved Amounts $ 7 0,799,600 39 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Placer FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,096,000 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,096,000 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,383,900 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,383,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,479,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,479,900 Placer *Component Allocations $ 6 ,479,900 Placer Approved Amounts $ 6 ,479,900 Plumas FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 86,900 Approved Amounts $ 8 86,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 8 86,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 8 86,900 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 8 86,900 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 8 86,900 Riverside FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 4,913,600 Approved Amounts $ 2 4,913,600 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 9,077,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 9,077,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 3,990,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 3,990,700 Riverside *Component Allocations $ 4 3,990,700 Riverside Approved Amounts $ 4 3,990,700 Sacramento FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 8,932,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 8,932,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 2,340,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 2,340,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 1,272,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 1,272,200 Sacramento *Component Allocations $ 3 1,272,200 Sacramento Approved Amounts $ 3 1,272,200 San Benito FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,177,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,177,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 8 78,600 Approved Amounts $ 8 78,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,056,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,056,100 San Benito *Component Allocations $ 2 ,056,100 San Benito Approved Amounts $ 2 ,056,100 40 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts San Bernardino FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 5,129,400 Approved Amounts $ 2 5,129,400 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 0,178,200 Approved Amounts $ 2 0,178,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 5,307,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 5,307,600 San Bernardino *Component Allocations $ 4 5,307,600 San Bernardino Approved Amounts $ 4 5,307,600 San Diego FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 9,867,400 Approved Amounts $ 3 9,867,400 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 3 3,083,900 Approved Amounts $ 3 3,083,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 2,951,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 2,951,300 San Diego *Component Allocations $ 7 2,951,300 San Diego Approved Amounts $ 7 2,951,300 San Francisco FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,995,700 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,995,700 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 9 ,877,600 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,877,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 7,873,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 7,873,300 San Francisco *Component Allocations $ 1 7,873,300 San Francisco Approved Amounts $ 1 7,873,300 San Joaquin FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 ,868,400 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,868,400 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 6 ,339,500 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,339,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 5,207,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 5,207,900 San Joaquin *Component Allocations $ 1 5,207,900 San Joaquin Approved Amounts $ 1 5,207,900 San Luis Obispo FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,323,300 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,323,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,583,400 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,583,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,906,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,906,700 San Luis Obispo *Component Allocations $ 6 ,906,700 San Luis Obispo Approved Amounts $ 6 ,906,700 41 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts San Mateo FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 ,321,100 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,321,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 6 ,762,000 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,762,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 5,083,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 5,083,100 San Mateo *Component Allocations $ 1 5,083,100 San Mateo Approved Amounts $ 1 5,083,100 Santa Barbara FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 ,950,000 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,950,000 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 ,577,900 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,577,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,527,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,527,900 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 1 1,527,900 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 1 1,527,900 Santa Clara FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 0,241,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 0,241,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 1 9,249,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 9,249,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 9,490,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 9,490,800 Santa Clara *Component Allocations $ 3 9,490,800 Santa Clara Approved Amounts $ 3 9,490,800 Santa Cruz FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,961,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,961,700 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,914,600 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,914,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,876,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,876,300 Santa Cruz *Component Allocations $ 6 ,876,300 Santa Cruz Approved Amounts $ 6 ,876,300 Shasta FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,312,200 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,312,200 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,686,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,686,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,998,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,998,200 Shasta *Component Allocations $ 5 ,998,200 Shasta Approved Amounts $ 5 ,998,200 42 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Sierra FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 05,200 Approved Amounts $ 4 05,200 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 05,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 05,200 Sierra *Component Allocations $ 4 05,200 Sierra Approved Amounts $ 4 05,200 Siskiyou FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 9 39,900 Approved Amounts $ 9 39,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 5 93,600 Approved Amounts $ 5 93,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,533,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,533,500 Siskiyou *Component Allocations $ 1 ,533,500 Siskiyou Approved Amounts $ 1 ,533,500 Solano FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 ,514,200 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,514,200 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 3 ,868,400 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,868,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 9 ,382,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,382,600 Solano *Component Allocations $ 9 ,382,600 Solano Approved Amounts $ 9 ,382,600 Sonoma FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 ,596,500 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,596,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 ,555,500 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,555,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,152,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,152,000 Sonoma *Component Allocations $ 1 1,152,000 Sonoma Approved Amounts $ 1 1,152,000 Stanislaus FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 9 ,527,100 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,527,100 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 ,807,900 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,807,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 4,335,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 4,335,000 Stanislaus *Component Allocations $ 1 4,335,000 Stanislaus Approved Amounts $ 1 4,335,000 43 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Sutter-Yuba FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,830,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,830,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,365,900 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,365,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,196,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,196,400 Sutter-Yuba *Component Allocations $ 5 ,196,400 Sutter-Yuba Approved Amounts $ 5 ,196,400 Tehama FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,792,200 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,792,200 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 8 60,500 Approved Amounts $ 8 60,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,652,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,652,700 Tehama *Component Allocations $ 2 ,652,700 Tehama Approved Amounts $ 2 ,652,700 Tri City FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,586,800 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,586,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 2 ,389,400 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,389,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,976,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,976,200 Tri City *Component Allocations $ 5 ,976,200 Tri City Approved Amounts $ 5 ,976,200 Trinity FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 48,900 Approved Amounts $ 6 48,900 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ - Approved Amounts $ - FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 48,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 48,900 Trinity *Component Allocations $ 6 48,900 Trinity Approved Amounts $ 6 48,900 Tulare FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 ,561,800 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,561,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 4 ,494,400 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,494,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,056,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,056,200 Tulare *Component Allocations $ 1 1,056,200 Tulare Approved Amounts $ 1 1,056,200 44 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Tuolumne FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,161,800 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,161,800 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 7 97,700 Approved Amounts $ 7 97,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,959,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,959,500 Tuolumne *Component Allocations $ 1 ,959,500 Tuolumne Approved Amounts $ 1 ,959,500 Ventura FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 0,609,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,609,300 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 8 ,206,400 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,206,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 8,815,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 8,815,700 Ventura *Component Allocations $ 1 8,815,700 Ventura Approved Amounts $ 1 8,815,700 Yolo FY 07/08 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,211,500 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,211,500 CSS MHSA Housing Program *Component Allocations $ 3 ,014,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,014,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,225,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,225,800 Yolo *Component Allocations $ 6 ,225,800 Yolo Approved Amounts $ 6 ,225,800 Total *Component Allocations $ 9 18,430,987 Total Approved Amounts $ 9 18,430,987 45 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Component Allocations and Approved Amounts for CSS FY 2008-2009 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Alameda FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 2,863,600 Approved Amounts $ 2 2,863,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 2,863,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 2,863,600 Alameda *Component Allocations $ 2 2,863,600 Alameda Approved Amounts $ 2 2,863,600 Alpine FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 22,600 Approved Amounts $ 6 22,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 6 22,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 6 22,600 Alpine *Component Allocations $ 6 22,600 Alpine Approved Amounts $ 6 22,600 Amador FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,298,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,298,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,298,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,298,300 Amador *Component Allocations $ 1 ,298,300 Amador Approved Amounts $ 1 ,298,300 Berkeley City FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,893,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,893,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,893,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,893,500 Berkeley City *Component Allocations $ 1 ,893,500 Berkeley City Approved Amounts $ 1 ,893,500 Butte FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,984,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,984,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,984,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,984,300 Butte *Component Allocations $ 3 ,984,300 Butte Approved Amounts $ 3 ,984,300 Calaveras FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,404,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,404,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,404,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,404,300 Calaveras *Component Allocations $ 1 ,404,300 Calaveras Approved Amounts $ 1 ,404,300 Colusa FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,159,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,159,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,159,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,159,500 Colusa *Component Allocations $ 1 ,159,500 Colusa Approved Amounts $ 1 ,159,500 Contra Costa FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 4,657,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 4,657,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 4,657,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 4,657,600 Contra Costa *Component Allocations $ 1 4,657,600 Contra Costa Approved Amounts $ 1 4,657,600 46 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Del Norte FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,224,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,224,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,224,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,224,500 Del Norte *Component Allocations $ 1 ,224,500 Del Norte Approved Amounts $ 1 ,224,500 El Dorado FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,853,700 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,853,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,853,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,853,700 El Dorado *Component Allocations $ 2 ,853,700 El Dorado Approved Amounts $ 2 ,853,700 Fresno FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 5,958,200 Approved Amounts $ 1 5,958,200 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 5,958,200 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 5,958,200 Fresno *Component Allocations $ 1 5,958,200 Fresno Approved Amounts $ 1 5,958,200 Glenn FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,234,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,234,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,234,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,234,500 Glenn *Component Allocations $ 1 ,234,500 Glenn Approved Amounts $ 1 ,234,500 Humboldt FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,553,400 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,553,400 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,553,400 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,553,400 Humboldt *Component Allocations $ 2 ,553,400 Humboldt Approved Amounts $ 2 ,553,400 Imperial FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,408,200 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,408,200 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,408,200 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,408,200 Imperial *Component Allocations $ 3 ,408,200 Imperial Approved Amounts $ 3 ,408,200 Inyo FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 83,600 Approved Amounts $ 7 83,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 83,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 83,600 Inyo *Component Allocations $ 7 83,600 Inyo Approved Amounts $ 7 83,600 Kern FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 3,868,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 3,868,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 3,868,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 3,868,500 Kern *Component Allocations $ 1 3,868,500 Kern Approved Amounts $ 1 3,868,500 Kings FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,936,100 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,936,100 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,936,100 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,936,100 Kings *Component Allocations $ 2 ,936,100 Kings Approved Amounts $ 2 ,936,100 47 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Lake FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,615,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,615,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,615,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,615,300 Lake *Component Allocations $ 1 ,615,300 Lake Approved Amounts $ 1 ,615,300 Lassen FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,228,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,228,100 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,228,100 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,228,100 Lassen *Component Allocations $ 1 ,228,100 Lassen Approved Amounts $ 1 ,228,100 Los Angeles FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 80,588,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 80,588,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 80,588,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 80,588,300 Los Angeles *Component Allocations $ 1 80,588,300 Los Angeles Approved Amounts $ 1 80,588,300 Madera FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,020,000 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,020,000 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,020,000 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,020,000 Madera *Component Allocations $ 3 ,020,000 Madera Approved Amounts $ 3 ,020,000 Marin FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,711,600 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,711,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,711,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,711,600 Marin *Component Allocations $ 3 ,711,600 Marin Approved Amounts $ 3 ,711,600 Mariposa FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 92,600 Approved Amounts $ 7 92,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 92,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 92,600 Mariposa *Component Allocations $ 7 92,600 Mariposa Approved Amounts $ 7 92,600 Mendocino FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,851,400 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,851,400 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,851,400 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,851,400 Mendocino *Component Allocations $ 1 ,851,400 Mendocino Approved Amounts $ 1 ,851,400 Merced FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,971,600 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,971,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,971,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,971,600 Merced *Component Allocations $ 4 ,971,600 Merced Approved Amounts $ 4 ,971,600 Modoc FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 12,000 Approved Amounts $ 7 12,000 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 12,000 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 12,000 Modoc *Component Allocations $ 7 12,000 Modoc Approved Amounts $ 7 12,000 48 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Mono FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 59,900 Approved Amounts $ 7 59,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 59,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 59,900 Mono *Component Allocations $ 7 59,900 Mono Approved Amounts $ 7 59,900 Monterey FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,765,900 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,765,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,765,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,765,900 Monterey *Component Allocations $ 7 ,765,900 Monterey Approved Amounts $ 7 ,765,900 Napa FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,343,900 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,343,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,343,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,343,900 Napa *Component Allocations $ 2 ,343,900 Napa Approved Amounts $ 2 ,343,900 Nevada FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 ,058,300 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,058,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,058,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,058,300 Nevada *Component Allocations $ 2 ,058,300 Nevada Approved Amounts $ 2 ,058,300 Orange FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 2,212,700 Approved Amounts $ 5 2,212,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 5 2,212,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 5 2,212,700 Orange *Component Allocations $ 5 2,212,700 Orange Approved Amounts $ 5 2,212,700 Placer FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,593,100 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,593,100 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,593,100 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,593,100 Placer *Component Allocations $ 4 ,593,100 Placer Approved Amounts $ 4 ,593,100 Plumas FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,039,000 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,039,000 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,039,000 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,039,000 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 1 ,039,000 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 1 ,039,000 Riverside FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 3,610,600 Approved Amounts $ 3 3,610,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 3,610,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 3,610,600 Riverside *Component Allocations $ 3 3,610,600 Riverside Approved Amounts $ 3 3,610,600 Sacramento FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 9,822,329 Approved Amounts $ 1 9,822,329 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 9,822,329 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 9,822,329 Sacramento *Component Allocations $ 1 9,822,329 Sacramento Approved Amounts $ 1 9,822,329 49 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts San Benito FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,000 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,000 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,000 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,000 San Benito *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,000 San Benito Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,000 San Bernardino FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 4,194,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 4,194,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 4,194,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 4,194,700 San Bernardino *Component Allocations $ 3 4,194,700 San Bernardino Approved Amounts $ 3 4,194,700 San Diego FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 5 2,232,700 Approved Amounts $ 5 2,232,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 5 2,232,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 5 2,232,700 San Diego *Component Allocations $ 5 2,232,700 San Diego Approved Amounts $ 5 2,232,700 San Francisco FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,570,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,570,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,570,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,570,900 San Francisco *Component Allocations $ 1 1,570,900 San Francisco Approved Amounts $ 1 1,570,900 San Joaquin FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,097,800 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,097,800 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,097,800 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,097,800 San Joaquin *Component Allocations $ 1 1,097,800 San Joaquin Approved Amounts $ 1 1,097,800 San Luis Obispo FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,167,425 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,167,425 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,167,425 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,167,425 San Luis Obispo *Component Allocations $ 4 ,167,425 San Luis Obispo Approved Amounts $ 4 ,167,425 San Mateo FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 0,472,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,472,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 0,472,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 0,472,300 San Mateo *Component Allocations $ 1 0,472,300 San Mateo Approved Amounts $ 1 0,472,300 Santa Barbara FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,582,206 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,582,206 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,582,206 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,582,206 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 7 ,582,206 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 7 ,582,206 50 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Santa Clara FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 2 8,814,300 Approved Amounts $ 2 8,814,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 2 8,814,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 2 8,814,300 Santa Clara *Component Allocations $ 2 8,814,300 Santa Clara Approved Amounts $ 2 8,814,300 Santa Cruz FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 4 ,902,500 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,902,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,902,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,902,500 Santa Cruz *Component Allocations $ 4 ,902,500 Santa Cruz Approved Amounts $ 4 ,902,500 Shasta FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,362,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,362,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,362,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,362,700 Shasta *Component Allocations $ 3 ,362,700 Shasta Approved Amounts $ 3 ,362,700 Sierra FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 44,800 Approved Amounts $ 6 44,800 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 6 44,800 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 6 44,800 Sierra *Component Allocations $ 6 44,800 Sierra Approved Amounts $ 6 44,800 Siskiyou FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,374,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,374,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,374,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,374,300 Siskiyou *Component Allocations $ 1 ,374,300 Siskiyou Approved Amounts $ 1 ,374,300 Solano FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 6 ,642,100 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,642,100 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 6 ,642,100 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 6 ,642,100 Solano *Component Allocations $ 6 ,642,100 Solano Approved Amounts $ 6 ,642,100 Sonoma FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,518,500 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,518,500 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,518,500 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,518,500 Sonoma *Component Allocations $ 7 ,518,500 Sonoma Approved Amounts $ 7 ,518,500 Stanislaus FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 8 ,502,900 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,502,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 8 ,502,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,502,900 Stanislaus *Component Allocations $ 8 ,502,900 Stanislaus Approved Amounts $ 8 ,502,900 Sutter-Yuba FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,568,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,568,300 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,568,300 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,568,300 Sutter-Yuba *Component Allocations $ 3 ,568,300 Sutter-Yuba Approved Amounts $ 3 ,568,300 51 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Tehama FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,555,100 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,555,100 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,555,100 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,555,100 Tehama *Component Allocations $ 1 ,555,100 Tehama Approved Amounts $ 1 ,555,100 Tri City FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,721,400 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,721,400 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,721,400 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,721,400 Tri City *Component Allocations $ 3 ,721,400 Tri City Approved Amounts $ 3 ,721,400 Trinity FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 55,600 Approved Amounts $ 7 55,600 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 55,600 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 55,600 Trinity *Component Allocations $ 7 55,600 Trinity Approved Amounts $ 7 55,600 Tulare FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 7 ,577,700 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,577,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 7 ,577,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 7 ,577,700 Tulare *Component Allocations $ 7 ,577,700 Tulare Approved Amounts $ 7 ,577,700 Tuolumne FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 ,520,700 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,520,700 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,520,700 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,520,700 Tuolumne *Component Allocations $ 1 ,520,700 Tuolumne Approved Amounts $ 1 ,520,700 Ventura FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 1 1,671,400 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,671,400 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 1 1,671,400 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 1 1,671,400 Ventura *Component Allocations $ 1 1,671,400 Ventura Approved Amounts $ 1 1,671,400 Yolo FY 08/09 CSS *Component Allocations $ 3 ,692,900 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,692,900 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,692,900 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,692,900 Yolo *Component Allocations $ 3 ,692,900 Yolo Approved Amounts $ 3 ,692,900 Total *Component Allocations $ 6 44,124,260 Total Approved Amounts $ 6 44,124,260 52 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports End Notes i California Department of Mental Health (2010, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report, Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011. Sacramento, CA. ii The contract calls for analysis of expenditures on MHSA from FY 2004 – 2005 through FY 2008 – 2009. However, no county-level expenditures are documented in the Revenue and Expenditure Reports on MHSA until FY 2006 – 2007. iii The number of counties in Fiscal Year 2008 – 2009 is 59 (there are 58 counties in California) because two counties receive joint funding, and two cities receive funding under the Mental Health Services Act. iv http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf v http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf vi Calculation of unspent monies did not include monies that are required to be set aside. This includes prudent reserve and monies that automatically revert due to expiration. In addition, MHSA provided monies to counties for planning purposes in State Fiscal Years 2006 – 2007 and 2007 – 2008 that were not tied to any component. EMT made a methodological decision in order to focus on component expenditures. Planning monies were proportionately assigned out to each component based on the percentage of expenditures that each component represented in the county for each FY for the purpose of this report. vii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices07/07-26_Enclosure1.pdf Table 1.3 unexpended funds include cumulative rollover monies from previous fiscal years. Examination of Table 1.3 may lead one to suspect that ―prudent reserve‖ monies are included in the unexpended funds figures. However, prudent reserve monies are not included in unexpended funds reported out by counties during FY 2006 – 2007, 2007 – 2008, and 2008 – 2009, nor are they included in Figures 1.1a through c, nor are they included anywhere in analyses completed and reported in these briefs. The Revenue and Expenditure Reports automatically deduct contributions to the Prudent Reserve from unexpended funds totals, and these totals were cross-checked to ensure that contributions to Prudent Reserves were properly subtracted and not included in analyses. viii Monies not expended within three years are subject to reversion. For FY 2006 – 2007, the Community Planning Process monies not yet expended fall into this category. Funds allocated by DMH to be spent on services or services support, but remain unspent for three years revert back to the State after that time period has elapsed. In FY 2007 – 2008 and FY 2008 – 2009, counties were required to set aside 50 percent of all funds equal to the amount most recently approved for Community Services and Supports for ―prudent reserve.‖ Specific guidance provided was as follows: “The prudent reserve should be funded at 50 percent of the most recent annual approved CSS funding level.” Instructions to counties for FY 2007 – 2008 and FY 2008 – 2009 specifically requested allocation to ―prudent reserve‖ using the criteria outlined above (matching funds allocated for most recently approved CSS budget. However, prudent reserve monies and funds subject to reversion were required to be subtracted out of the total when calculating unexpended funds – counties, for the Revenue and Expenditure Reports. ix http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/docs/Mental_Health_Services_Act_Full_Text.pdf Under Section 10 of the Mental Health Services Act, it is mandated that each county must establish and maintain a Prudent Reserve in order ―to ensure the county program will continue to be able to serve children, adults and seniors that it is currently serving‖ (p. 9). Every county is to have a prudent reserve ―in order to mitigate the impact of decreases in MHSA revenues from year to year‖ (p. 4). ix This would help ensure that each year has the proper funding, even when MHSA revenues are low. In discussing further details, DMH Notice 05-06 also states that each county‘s target prudent reserve should make up 50 percent of its estimated CSS funding (p. 4). The financial support for Prudent Reserve initially came from uncommitted county FY 2005-06 CSS planning estimates, set-aside funding, and other MHSA revenues (p. 5). It was explicitly stated that each county‘s prudent reserve can only be used when MHSA revenues are lower than they were in the previous year (pp. 5-6). If a funding downfall did occur, then in the first year of this decline no more than 67 percent of the total prudent reserve could be used in order to ease the potential impacts on programs in the event of a long-term decrease in revenue (p. 6). x http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters07/07-25.pdf Guidance from DMH was modified somewhat through Notice 07-25 (released December 12, 2007): WIC Section 5847(a)(7) requires each county to establish and maintain a prudent reserve for CSS to ensure that, in years in which revenues for the MHS Fund are below recent averages, the county will be able to continue to serve the same number of children, adults and seniors that it had been serving in the previous fiscal year. DMH, in consultation with the Mental Health Services Oversight and 53 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) and the CMHDA, has determined that a level of 50 percent of the most recent annual approved CSS funding level should be set aside as the required prudent reserve amount. Each county should maintain the 50 percent prudent reserve at the local level and fully fund the prudent reserve by July 1, 2010, unless the county would have to reduce MHSA services below those funded in FY 2007-08 (including services funded with the FY 2007-08 CSS augmentation and CSS administration) in order to reach the 50 percent prudent reserve. Each county is required to submit a Plan update in order to dedicate specific funding to the prudent reserve. A county that cannot attain the 50 percent prudent reserve requirement by July 1, 2010, because services would have to be reduced should dedicate future increases in CSS Planning Estimates to the local prudent reserve until the 50 percent level is met prior to increasing service levels beyond those funded in FY 2007-08 through expanded existing programs or new programs. (p. 4) Although guidance to counties regarding the amount to be set aside for prudent reserve has changed since FY 2008 – 2009, these are the guidelines that were in place for the period of reporting that is the focus of this report. We cannot vouch for what individual counties and municipalities may have interpreted as appropriate to include in the unexpended funds cells of the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, particularly the cell documenting carry-over from previous fiscal years. Although guidance for this particular cell of the Revenue and Expenditure Report requests that counties and municipalities are to insert the amount of unexpended funds from previous fiscal years, it is possible that some counties were not clear about how to define ―unexpended funds from previous fiscal years.‖ No further guidance is provided in the Revenue and Expenditure Report, and therefore some counties and municipalities may have taken a broad interpretation of the meaning. Perhaps monies designated for spending but not spent were merged with prudent reserve, and one total entered and carried over. xi California Department of Mental Health (2008, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report, Fiscal Year 2007 – 2008. Sacramento, CA. Indeed, guidance provided for FY 2007 – 2008 and reported by the Department of Mental Health suggests that counties and municipalities may be mixing prudent reserve and unexpended funds when documenting the total amount of unexpended funds for the Revenue and Expenditure Report: DMH clarified that MHSA funds should be expended and accounted for on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis (i.e., the first dollar distributed to the County is the first dollar spent on services irrespective of the fiscal year). Each County will identify unspent funds and the use of such unspent funds through the annual Plan update process. Unexpended funds will be considered available to fund services in subsequent years and a County may dedicate unspent funds to the local prudent reserve. Each County will also be allowed to retain unspent funds as an operating reserve to allow for unexpected expenditures and/or lower than anticipated off-setting revenues (p. 22). xii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices09/09-16.pdf ―DMH has determined that Counties may use both CSS and PEI funds made available prior to FY 2008/09 to fund their Prudent Reserve‖ (p. 3). However, the hypothesis that counties and municipalities included prudent reserve funds with unexpended funds totals carried over from previous years on the Revenue and Expenditure Report can only be verified by following up with each county and asking a specific series of questions about their documentation and tracking procedures for prudent reserve funds. xiii Office of State Audits and Evaluations (2008). State of California Department of Mental Health Performance Audit. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Finance. xiv http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/MHSA_Fiscal_References.asp. To access the Excel file, click on ―Component Allocations and Approved Amounts‖ under ―County Level Information‖ under ―Other Fiscal Information and Reports.‖ xv Expended, Unexpended and the Total presented in Tables 4 through 6 are rounded to nearest dollar since it is unclear what the cents values are for the Component Allocation amounts. xvi Per Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 5892. xvii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters07/07-06.pdf xviii California Institute for Mental Health (2010). Full Service Partnership Implementation Tool Kits. Sacramento: Author. xix http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices08/08-12.pdf http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices08/08-31.pdf xx The California Department of Mental Health defines Outreach and Engagement in its Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan Requirements (filed under ―2005 DMH Letters‖ in ―Letters and Notices‖). 54 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 1: Community Services and Supports http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf xxi Ibid. xxii 07-26. http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-26.pdf xxiii For the purpose of table formatting and the need to fit the table on one portrait-sized page, ―Counties‖ connotes Counties and Municipalities. However, the title is too lengthy, and ―Counties‖ is used as an abbreviation for both implementing entities. The UCLA/EMT Team fully recognizes that there are cities implementing MHSA programs alongside counties. xxiv 08-31. http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices08/08-31.pdf xxv When looking at totals reported for CSS and its services (FSP, GSD, and O&E) it is important to note an inconsistency in reporting expenditures, as a result of deviation from worksheet instructions. This inconsistency occurred for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, FY 07-08. Neither are errors that we can correct without going to the counties and a) getting missing data and/or b) asking the counties to classify in the correct categories. We cannot interpret for the counties what was intended. xxvi California Department of Finance (2008). Final Report-California Department of Mental Health, Mental Health Services Act: Performance Audit. Author: Sacramento, CA. ―DMH's application of the CSS component guidelines is strict and inflexible. The guidelines include repetitive and redundant information requests and create a labor intensive process requiring extensive administrative tasks at both DMH and the counties.‖ (p. 1) xxvii California Department of Mental Health (2010, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report, Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011. Sacramento, CA. xxviii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf xxix Please refer to the General System Development brief report (Brief 4) in this cost series. xxx This is an area EMT will further explore through review of original plans. xxxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita xxxii Population Estimates, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. xxxiii California Unemployment Rate (Average – Not Seasonally Adjusted) http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=164 The California Employment Development Department (CA EDD) defines ―Unemployment Rate‖ as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force then multiplied by 100 (http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1006). For sake of consistency in data presentation, EMT calculated unemployment rates using the same method as CA EDD. xxxiv The foreclosure rate is defined as the number of foreclosed properties as a percent of households. HousingLink (2007). Fixing the foreclosure system: The trouble with foreclosure data. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/news_events/events/community/100407/foreclosuredata_obrien.pdf California Number of Foreclosures (Annual) were obtained from Realty Trac, and then foreclosure rates calculated using the methodology described above. xxxv Johnson, R. (2010). Metrics and measures in tackling the social determinants of health—The example of mental health and housing. Journal of Public Mental Health, 9(3), 36-44. Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264-282. xxxvi Counties were not required to report CSS expenditures at the program level in FY 07-08. xxxvii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/MHSA_Fiscal_References.asp. To access the Excel file, click on ―Component Allocations and Approved Amounts‖ under ―County Level Information‖ under ―Other Fiscal Information and Reports.‖ Recall that the amounts allocated and approved in each fiscal year represent the time period to which DMH assigns the monies eventually distributed to counties and municipalities. The fiscal year displayed in the Appendix does not necessarily represent the time period within which the monies were distributed to the counties/municipalities. 55