Evaluation Deliverable1A Brief2 FSP

California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2 of 7: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships 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 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships I. Full Service Partnership Expenditures 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) Full Service Partnerships were designed to be the “intensive services” aspect of Community Services and Supports, which is focused on specific individuals at very high risk (the other two strategies were designed to bring unserved and underserved populations in for service, and to strengthen the service system itself). A 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. ii 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) Table 2.1 displays the number of counties/municipalities who, through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, documented spending money on Full Service Partnership (FSP) during the time period for which data was provided. Note that although there are 58 counties in California, two counties jointly receive funding. There are also two city-run Departments of Mental Health, bringing the total number of counties/municipalities to 59. iii FSP expenditures by county/municipality are displayed in Appendix A. Table 2.1 Number of Counties/Municipalities Expending Funds on Full Service Partnership (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) Acronym Service/Strategy 06-07 07-08 08-09 FSP Full Service Partnership 40 68% 52 88% 58 98% During the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007), the majority of counties/municipalities were expending funds on Full Service Partnership. As of FY 2008 – 2009, all but one municipality was expending FSP funds. iv 1 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Table 2.2 displays the total amount of money spent on each activity documented on the Revenue and Expenditure Report, from the FSP Summary Worksheet, in each of the State‟s Fiscal Years. v As noted, 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 Full Service Partnership,  received money from DMH to spend on Full Service Partnership, and  actually spent money on Full Service Partnership. 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 series of briefs (Overview and Summary Brief, p. 2) are all related to monies spent. A breakout in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for FSP Housing was only included in the FY 2006 – 2007 Revenue and Expenditure Report. vi Operating expenditures were not included until the FY 2008 – 2009 template was released. Hence, expenditures in these areas are not explicitly reported in other fiscal years. In each fiscal year there is an “other” category. According to the California Department of Mental Health instructions for the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (p. 2 in FY 2008 – 2009 and FY 2007 – 2008 vii; p. 3 in FY 2006 – 2007 viii ), allowable activities upon which to expend funds in the “other” category include:  FY 2008-2009: Other – All other costs of the program, including: o professional services, o translation services, and o subcontracts, etc. as well as o all client support expenditures.  FY 2007-2008: Other – All other costs of the work plan, including: o professional services, o travel and transportation, o general office expenditures, o office rent, utilities and equipment, o telecommunications, etc. as well as o all client support expenditures, including client housing. 2 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships  FY 2006-2007: Other – All other operating costs of the program, including: o professional services, o travel and transportation, o general office expenditures, o office rent, and o utilities and equipment. Table 2.2 Total FSP Amount Expended by Category and Fiscal Year (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) ix , x 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 County Expenditures Personnel $39,597,566.56 34 36.6% $59,205,281.05 45 24.0% $99,642,265.57 55 24.8% Client Housing $395,289.99 13 0.4% -- -- -- -- -- -- Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $38,495,969.85 52 9.6% Other Clients $999,537.79 19 0.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- Supports Other $14,023,473.20 33 13.0% $26,577,537.77 46 10.8% $14,845,730.49 31 3.7% County Subtotal $55,015,867.56 35 50.8% $85,782,818.82 46 34.7% $152,983,965.91 56 38.1% Contract Provider Expenditures Personnel $14,932,342.29 20 13.8% $39,689,453.57 29 16.1% $73,658,066.82 34 18.3% Client Housing $5,075,529.34 17 4.7% -- -- -- -- -- -- Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $45,675,548.78 31 11.4% Other Clients $2,675,239.77 14 2.5% -- -- -- -- -- -- Supports Other $30,567,324.52 22 28.2% $121,422,459.18 36 49.2% $129,552,091.45 25 32.2% Contract Provider $53,250,435.92 26 49.2% $161,111,912.75 40 65.3% $248,885,707.05 39 61.9% Subtotal Total FSP $108,266,303.47 40 100% $246,894,731.57 52 100.0% $401,869,672.96 58 100% *Percent of Total CSS - FSP Expenditures The Revenue and Expenditure Report data analyzed for this FSP brief indicate a shift in the percentage of funds expended. In the earlier fiscal years, the majority of expenditures are at the county level. Counties and municipalities engage with contractors for MHSA services through a request for proposal mechanism, which takes time to develop during the implementation process. In the later fiscal years, the majority of expenditures are at the contract provider level. This shift is entirely appropriate, given the expectation that community-based agencies are in a good position to reach those with the highest needs in the communities in which they reside. As counties moved 3 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships from start-up to implementation, a shift in the proportion of funds to contractors is in line with the expectation that services be provided in the community. The balance between county and contractor expenditures also appears appropriate, as county and contractor resources are deployed to meet the needs in each community. The flexibility afforded under the MHSA allows for counties to contract out for services to augment that which county and municipal departments of mental health offer (e.g., serve previously under-served area of the community, meet specific language need). 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. General System Development housing expenditures and CalHFA housing expenditures were explicitly requested as a stand-alone line item in the FY 2008 – 2009 Revenue and Expenditure Report. The spreading of housing expenditures across multiple categories is one challenge inherent in the Community Supports and Services component category in particular (see Brief 1 for a complete summary of CSS housing expenditures). For the purpose of the Full Service Partnership, housing expenditures were explicitly requested as a stand-alone line item in the FY 2006 – 2007 Revenue and Expenditure Report. xi A total of 26 xii counties expended FSP Housing monies in FY 2006 – 2007, for a total dollar amount of $5,470,819.33. The data contained in Table 2.2 show a graduated rollout of Full Service Partnership expenditures under the Mental Health Services Act, following the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Report (FY 2006-2007). The Series Overview/Summary Brief documented that the statewide requirement that Full Service Partnership (FSP) expenditures represent the majority of the Community Services and Supports budget was met in every fiscal year. Small counties were instructed to fulfill this requirement by no later than fiscal year FY 2008-2009. xiii Please refer to Appendix A in the series Overview/Summary Brief for a table displaying component and major service category (e.g., FSP) expenditures for every county/municipality. xiv 4 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships 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).xv 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 2.1a displays the Mental Health Services Act dollar breakout for FY 2006 – 2007. Figure 2.1a The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - Full Service Partnership Expenditures by County Population (FY 06-07) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 Contract Provider $0.60 Expenditures $0.50 County $0.40 Expenditures $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5,000 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 4 00,000 1,000,000 5 ,0 00,000 ( L os Angeles (11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) When the Mental Health Services Act dollar is displayed according to county size, commonalities and differences emerge:  Proportion Expended on County Contractors: Setting aside the smallest and the largest counties, expenditures to county contractors as a proportion of the FSP dollar increases as population increases. Intuitively, this finding makes sense because meeting the needs of a large population requires the combined forces of county and contractor staff and resources. o Differences in FSP expenditures as a proportion of overall CSS spending were noted in Brief 1, and the differences, as observed here, were for the smallest and the largest counties. Unique challenges likely face the smallest and the largest counties that may be related to population size, and should be explored through a review of county CSS plans. Potential areas of exploration for all counties include: 5 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships  Breadth of Contractors available in the County: Small counties may not have a large pool of potential contractors available to contract with, in order to augment their county staff. Also, small counties did not need to fulfill FSP requirements until FY 2008-2009.  Depth of County Staffing/Breadth of County Offices: The Los Angeles Region has multiple regional offices across the county, which may have contributed to less reliance on contractor staff during the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports.  Previous Experience/Level of Staff Expertise: including,  Years of experience implementing Full Service Partnership programs,  Prior involvement with AB 2034 (adults) and wraparound services for children and youth,  Staff training/expertise in Full Service Partnership models, and  Staff comfort level in implementing Full Service Partnership models. 6 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Figure 2.1b The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Full Service Partnership Expenditures by County Population (FY 07-08) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 Contract Provider $0.60 Expenditures $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 County Expenditures $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5 ,000 - > 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 ngeles (11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) Breakouts for FY 2007 – 2008 and 2008 – 2009 show a fairly steady pattern. The larger the county the greater proportion of the FSP dollar is expended on contract providers. As noted previously, this breakout appears appropriate given the anticipated needs within each county and the diversity of the contractor pool in order to meet community needs. Figure 2.1c The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Full Service Partnership Expenditures by County Population (FY 08-09) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 Contract $0.70 Provider $0.60 Expenditures $0.50 County $0.40 Expenditures $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 < 45,000 > 4 5 , 0 00 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 4 0 0 ,000 1 , 0 00,000 5 ,0 00,000 ( L o s Angeles (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) 7 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Figure 2.2 depicts the number of Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnership programs on which funds were expended in each fiscal year, broken out by activity. Each county/municipality was allowed to expend funds on Full Service Partnership programs in any combination of the following:  Expending funds solely from the Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnership line item.  Expending funds in a blended manner – hence, the program identified under Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnership is also claimed as an expenditure under Community Services and Supports through one or more of the following: o Outreach and Engagement, and/or o General System Development. A single program can therefore show expenditures solely out of its county‟s line item for Full Service Partnership, or it can have blended support through all of the categories listed under Community Services and Supports. Blended funding raises a number of questions which are posed later on in this brief. Figure 2.2 shows the expenditure pattern among counties and municipalities in terms of funding individual programs solely with CSS – FSP funds or through a blended expenditure mechanism. Figure 2.2 Full Service Partnerships - Number of Programs Funded (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) 250 Full Service Partnership, General System Development, 200 and Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Full Service Partnership and Outreach and Engagement 150 Expenditures Full Service Partnership and 100 General Service Development Expenditures 50 Full Service Partnership Expenditures 0 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 a 8 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships A few key findings can be gleaned from this chart:  The number of FSPs supported by blended expenditures increases with each fiscal year: Although this method is completely consistent with the spirit and intent of the MHSA, it does make the following questions difficult to answer through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports: o What proportion of the program is dedicated to Outreach and Engagement? If it is part of the FSP program, how can specific activities be tied to Outreach and Engagement? o How is FSP programming distinguished from General System Development activities? If it is part of the FSP program, how can specific activities be tied to General System Development? The need for additional clarification from the counties is pointed out by this example, in order to provide context for these findings. Although it is possible that these subtleties are addressed in the Community Services and Supports Plans submitted by the counties and in the subsequent Annual Updates, preliminary review has revealed that discretion is left to each county as to the extent to which the blended funding issue in particular is articulated. Key questions to be explored through structured review of the CSS Plans and Annual Updates include:  How are blended expenditure FSP programs different from FSP programs? There is a distinct line item for Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships in the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, but how might these programs be qualitatively different from programs in which funding is blended? For example: o Are service recipients for the Full Service Partnership clearly from those in which Outreach is to be conducted to, or is everyone viewed as part of the same population? o Does blended funding impact numbers served in any way?  Does adding Outreach and Engagement funds to FSP programming change FSP programming in any fundamental way from FSP programming without this augmentation? Does adding General System Development funds to FSP programming similarly change programming in any fundamental way? 9 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships o How are blended FSP expenditure programs different from programs in which expenditures are not blended? For example, counties/municipalities which expend funds solely on FSP, separately on outreach and engagement activities, and separately on General System Development? How do expenditure patterns vary in blended compared to separated settings? What factors move counties and municipalities toward blending? The impact of county population on overall FSP expenditures per capita is displayed in Figure 2.3. “Per capita” means per person. xvi Figure 2.3 Full Service Partnership Expenditures Per Capita Relative to County Population (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) $30.00 s e r u tid $25.00 n) ea p x tip $20.00 Ea P S C r $15.00 Fe e p ( g a $10.00 r e v A $5.00 FY 08-09 $0.00 FY 07-08 < 45,000 (13 Counties) > 45,000 (11 > 150,000 - FY 06-07 Counties) 400,000 (11 > 400,000 - Counties) 1,0 C 0 o 0 u ,0 n 0 ti 0 e s ( ) 12 > 5 , 1 0 , 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 (8 - > 5,000,000 Counties) (Los Angeles County) County Population Displaying expenditure data in this manner clearly shows the impact of DMH policy of weighting to provide a baseline level of monies for the smallest counties. This policy resulted in higher per- capita expenditure in the smallest counties. 10 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Examination of Full Service Partnership expenditures by county population (overall, not by person) revealed that more populous counties tended to spend more on average through the FSP program (in each fiscal year analyzed – see Figure 2.4). This finding suggests county FSP average total expenditures seem to be associated with population size. Figure 2.4 Average Full Service Partnership Expenditures by County Population (FY 06-07 to 08-09) $160.00 $140.00 n i( $120.00 s e $100.00 r u tid $80.00 n) e p s n $60.00 xo E P illiM $40.00 S F $20.00 e g FY 08-09 a $0.00 r e FY 07-08 v A < 45,000 (13 > 45,000 - > 150,000 - FY 06-07 Counties) C 1 o 5 u ( 0 1 n ,0 1 ti 0 e 0 s ) C 4 o 0 u ( 0 1 n ,0 1 ti 0 e 0 s ) > 1 , 4 0 0 0 ( 0 1 0 , 2 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 - > -5 1 , , 0 0 0 ( 0 8 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 5, ( 0 L 0 o 0 s , 000 Counties) Angeles Counties) County) County Population The relationship between population and expenditures demonstrates that examining allocation factors for potential impact on expenditures is a suitable course of action, and the team will explore other distribution factors in future briefs (e.g., federal poverty level, rates of insurance). 11 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships III. Summary Highlights include:  As of FY 2008 – 2009, all counties and one municipality were expending funds on Full Service Partnerships.  The DMH policy to weight funding to provide a baseline level for the smallest counties resulted in higher per-capita expenditure in the smallest counties.  In the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007), counties and municipalities expended more funds on county staff. The proportion of expenditures shifted to contractors in later implementation years. o The proportion expended on county contractors was associated with county population – the greater the population, the greater the proportion expended on contractors. The reliance on contractors is within the scope of MHSA in order for counties to reach under-served and un-served populations. 12 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Appendix A: Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2006-2007 Category Total Full County Contract Contract Contract Provider Contract Contract Service County County Client Other Provider Provider Client Other Clients County Other Provider County Total Provider Partnership Personnel Housing Clients Personnel Housing Supports Other Total County Supports Alameda $900,398.00 -- $428,772.00 -- -- -- $7,612.00 -- $464,014.00 -- $900,398.00 Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Berkeley City $42,232.00 $42,232.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $42,232.00 -- Butte $209,516.00 $118,682.00 -- $7,985.00 -- -- -- $82,849.00 -- $209,516.00 -- Calaveras -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Colusa $772,606.00 $601,922.48 -- -- -- $910.00 -- $169,773.52 -- $772,606.00 -- Contra Costa $1,084,146.86 $318,005.29 -- $208,636.09 -- -- $516,603.82 $40,901.65 -- $567,543.04 $516,603.82 Del Norte -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- El Dorado $527,300.00 $279,041.00 $131,610.00 $5,827.00 $50,709.00 $4,628.00 $269.00 $54,860.00 $356.00 $344,356.00 $182,944.00 Fresno -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Glenn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Humboldt $88,015.20 $76,310.50 -- -- -- -- -- $11,704.70 -- $88,015.20 -- Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Inyo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kern $4,483,118.26 $3,235,179.35 -- -- $40,705.45 $26,217.09 $234,676.96 $766,083.39 $180,256.02 $4,027,479.83 $455,638.43 Kings -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Lake $106,455.86 $78,447.33 -- $1,410.00 -- $12,431.43 -- $14,167.10 -- $106,455.86 -- Lassen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Los Angeles $37,557,736.00 $21,504,306.00 -- -- $1,011,418.00 $785,507.00 $1,004,082.00 $2,552,213.00 $10,700,210.00 $24,842,026.00 $12,715,710.00 Madera $564,956.36 $463,096.00 -- $15,009.00 -- $4,309.36 -- $82,542.00 -- $564,956.36 -- Marin $834,244.04 $284,945.59 $216,236.36 -- $107,713.00 $226.16 $79,628.78 $36,416.62 $109,077.53 $321,588.37 $512,655.67 Mariposa $434,203.82 $391,731.72 -- -- -- $658.78 -- $41,813.32 -- $434,203.82 -- Mendocino $197,247.00 $169,280.00 -- -- -- -- -- $27,967.00 -- $197,247.00 -- Merced $989,939.56 $288,752.68 $213,672.00 -- -- -- -- $304,005.88 $183,509.00 $592,758.56 $397,181.00 Modoc -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mono $210,363.00 $81,162.00 -- $73,341.00 -- -- -- $55,860.00 -- $210,363.00 -- Monterey $2,950,561.49 $774,705.26 $939,678.82 -- -- -- $2,167.68 $451,934.98 $782,074.75 $1,226,640.24 $1,723,921.25 Napa $249,018.24 $203,693.61 -- -- -- $14,536.79 -- $30,787.84 -- $249,018.24 -- Nevada -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Orange $11,107,546.00 -- $5,109,499.00 -- $1,170,603.00 -- $709,178.00 -- $4,118,266.00 -- $11,107,546.00 13 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2006 – 2007 Category Total Full County Contract Contract Contract Provider Contract Contract Service County County Client Other Provider Provider Client Other Clients County Other Provider County Total Provider Partnership Personnel Housing Clients Personnel Housing Supports Other Total County Supports Placer $2,252,308.70 $1,239,587.16 $357,373.06 $10,557.37 $56,528.30 -- -- $455,752.60 $132,510.20 $1,705,897.13 $546,411.57 Plumas $64,961.39 $33,755.15 -- -- -- $16,589.06 -- $14,617.18 -- $64,961.39 -- Riverside $2,398,473.77 $1,695,970.41 -- $322.55 -- $4,948.66 -- $691,450.24 $5,781.92 $2,392,691.85 $5,781.92 Sacramento $5,117,260.00 -- $263,536.00 -- $17,212.00 -- $7,374.00 $4,000,000.00 $829,138.00 $4,000,000.00 $1,117,260.00 San Benito -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- San Bernardino $1,508,902.11 $1,469,400.44 $10,247.67 $24,239.07 -- $5,014.93 -- -- -- $1,498,654.44 $10,247.67 San Diego $8,259,125.00 -- $3,140,014.68 -- $1,443,994.00 -- -- -- $3,675,116.32 -- $8,259,125.00 San Francisco $1,837,337.07 $263,927.70 $882,339.22 -- $170,476.84 -- -- $20,318.88 $500,274.44 $284,246.58 $1,553,090.49 San Joaquin $280,472.99 $77,150.00 -- -- -- -- -- $203,322.99 -- $280,472.99 -- San Luis Obispo $1,100,598.16 $249,050.12 $140,327.26 -- $22,088.66 $932.36 -- $229,167.19 $459,032.57 $479,149.67 $621,448.49 San Mateo $5,126,989.03 -- -- -- $752,976.62 -- -- -- $4,374,012.41 -- $5,126,989.03 Santa Barbara $1,922,695.00 $472,809.00 -- -- -- -- -- $1,449,886.00 -- $1,922,695.00 -- Santa Clara $2,175,194.25 $120,678.15 $949,004.72 -- $67,719.82 -- $36,475.18 $465,875.10 $535,441.28 $586,553.25 $1,588,641.00 Santa Cruz $3,306,789.89 $863,315.30 -- -- -- -- -- $348,011.18 $2,095,463.41 $1,211,326.49 $2,095,463.41 Shasta $160,808.13 $18,040.78 $31,266.56 $4,418.02 $3,740.00 $2,207.02 $4,707.94 $84,590.54 $11,837.27 $109,256.36 $51,551.77 Sierra -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Siskiyou -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Solano $774,521.62 $669,308.83 -- $809.00 -- $617.34 -- $103,786.45 -- $774,521.62 -- Sonoma $1,761,340.63 $844,539.33 $307,005.65 -- $19,643.22 $24,552.08 $1,343.62 $279,237.61 $285,019.12 $1,148,329.02 $613,011.61 Stanislaus $2,989,055.10 $1,822,723.03 $424,542.81 $41,711.44 $94,802.28 $85,711.39 -- $519,564.15 -- $2,469,710.01 $519,345.09 Sutter-Yuba $841,260.17 $521,937.86 $28,992.77 $1,024.45 -- $7,892.34 -- $281,412.75 -- $812,267.40 $28,992.77 Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tulare $1,794,946.00 -- $865,309.62 -- $41,205.15 -- $67,488.79 -- $820,942.44 -- $1,794,946.00 Tuolumne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ventura $1,055,764.78 $143,088.48 $479,318.09 -- -- -- -- $133,066.37 $300,291.84 $276,154.85 $779,609.94 Yolo $227,896.00 $180,792.00 $13,596.00 -- $3,994.00 $1,648.00 $3,632.00 $19,534.00 $4,700.00 $201,974.00 $25,922.00 14 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2007 – 2008 Category Total Full Service County Contract Provider Contract Contract Partnership Personnel Personnel County Other Provider County Total Provider County Other Total Alameda $7,313,244.00 -- $2,691,735.00 $37,475.00 $4,584,034.00 $37,475.00 $7,275,769.00 Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Berkeley City $1,101,275.00 $697,107.00 -- $217,534.00 $186,634.00 $914,641.00 $186,634.00 Butte $252,475.00 $110,051.00 $40,381.00 $59,198.00 $42,845.00 $169,249.00 $83,226.00 Calaveras -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Colusa $564,793.00 $429,166.44 -- $135,626.56 -- $564,793.00 -- Contra Costa $9,752,612.00 $1,942,286.00 -- $425,104.00 $7,385,222.00 $2,367,390.00 $7,385,222.00 Del Norte $125,814.00 $53,566.00 -- $72,248.00 -- $125,814.00 -- El Dorado $870,218.77 $306,490.46 $207,559.50 $245,128.66 $111,040.15 $551,619.12 $318,599.65 Fresno $3,977,232.24 $924,961.09 $537,390.99 $1,052,571.08 $1,462,309.08 $1,977,532.17 $1,999,700.07 Glenn $180,049.00 $113,430.87 -- $66,618.13 -- $180,049.00 -- Humboldt $1,048,794.00 $864,402.00 $144,894.00 $39,498.00 -- $903,900.00 $144,894.00 Imperial $809,805.27 $417,314.77 -- $392,490.50 -- $809,805.27 -- Inyo $10,655.00 $6,606.10 -- $4,048.90 -- $10,655.00 -- Kern $8,328,827.31 $6,009,472.16 $679,543.30 $825,827.09 $813,984.77 $6,835,299.25 $1,493,528.06 Kings $366,680.00 $85,022.00 $32,779.00 $237,362.00 $11,517.00 $322,384.00 $44,296.00 Lake $388,351.99 $237,500.84 -- $100,046.03 $50,805.13 $337,546.86 $50,805.13 Lassen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Los Angeles $88,264,882.08 $13,021,118.00 -- $7,716,656.83 $67,527,107.25 $20,737,774.83 $67,527,107.25 Madera $1,224,277.00 $95,8559.00 -- $265,718.00 -- $1,224,277.00 -- Marin $2,759,328.89 $1,171,676.39 $996,537.17 $262,344.08 $328,771.25 $1,434,020.47 $1,325,308.42 Mariposa $810,163.64 $426,190.66 -- $383,972.98 -- $810,163.64 -- Mendocino $1,207,240.00 $566,480.00 $328,476.00 $41,988.00 $270,296.00 $608,468.00 $598,772.00 Merced $2,056,125.30 $970,449.26 $381,229.34 $318,659.13 $385,787.57 $1,289,108.39 $767,016.91 Modoc -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mono $398,619.44 $273,015.00 -- $125,604.44 -- $398,619.44 -- Monterey $6,376,320.19 $2,029,304.22 $2,083,513.81 $890,216.99 $1,373,285.17 $2,919,521.21 $3,456,798.98 Napa $868,900.46 $552,317.04 $100,253.00 $84,257.19 $132,073.23 $636,574.23 $232,326.23 Nevada $717,397.62 -- $372,777.74 -- $344,619.88 -- $717,397.62 Orange $17,188,266.47 -- $11,055,392.44 -- $6,132,874.02 -- $17,188,266.47 Placer $3,804,391.33 $2,489,276.62 $421,118.18 $759,323.78 $134,672.75 $3,248,600.40 $555,790.93 Plumas $195,658.00 $179,024.00 -- $16,634.00 -- $195,658.00 -- Riverside $11,772,177.04 $5,408,440.09 -- $3,357,458.34 $3,006,278.61 $8,765,898.43 $3,006,278.61 Sacramento $6,843,168.57 -- $3,375,612.57 -- $3,467,556.00 -- $6,843,168.57 San Benito $243,879.00 $170,715.30 -- $73,163.70 -- $243,879.00 -- San Bernardino $9,652,308.72 $3,095,186.00 $1,593,139.00 $2,825,212.58 $2,138,771.14 $5,920,398.58 $3,731,910.14 San Diego $15,752,210.41 $432,157.24 $6,390,980.85 $18,596.00 $8,910,476.32 $450,753.24 $15,301,457.17 San Francisco $3,957,059.12 $798,778.25 $1,761,056.78 $406,915.42 $990,308.67 $1,205,693.67 $2,751,365.45 San Joaquin $2,974,379.35 $1,291,769.54 -- $1,316,841.28 $365,768.53 $2,608,610.82 $365,768.53 San Luis Obispo $2,088,052.34 $727,843.25 $587,625.28 $436,374.75 $336,209.06 $1,164,218.00 $923,834.34 San Mateo $4,607,420.00 -- -- -- $4,607,420.00 -- $4,607,420.00 Santa Barbara $3,344,289.96 $927,905.28 $1,822,227.79 $212,146.89 $382,010.00 $1,140,052.17 $2,204,237.79 Santa Clara $1,005,152.40 $791,919.25 -- $213,233.15 -- $1,005,152.40 -- Santa Cruz $2,778,395.46 $1,341,008.42 -- $310,768.27 $1,126,618.77 $1,651,776.69 $1,126,618.77 Shasta $671,249.96 $424,657.08 -- $227,800.88 $18,792.00 $652,457.96 $18,792.00 Sierra $48,072.99 $17,305.26 -- $30,767.73 -- $48,072.99 -- Siskiyou $314.00 -- $314.00 -- -- -- $314.00 Solano $2,052,136.79 $1,270,884.78 -- $244,747.34 $536,504.67 $1,515,632.12 $536,504.67 Sonoma $2,839,847.07 $1,519,379.68 $425,830.00 $614,795.39 $279,842.00 $2,134,175.07 $705,672.00 Stanislaus $4,745,658.09 $2,265,917.23 $785,270.80 $623,962.01 $1,070,508.05 $2,889,879.24 $1,855,778.85 Sutter-Yuba $1,889,881.00 $1,574,165.00 $124,303.00 $191,413.00 -- $1,765,578.00 $124,303.00 Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 15 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2007 - 2008 Category Total Full Service County Contract Provider Contract Contract Partnership Personnel Personnel County Other Provider County Total Provider County Other Total Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity $134,822.00 $78,196.76 -- $56,625.24 -- $134,822.00 -- Tulare $2,098,697.74 -- $1,237,031.46 -- $861,666.28 -- $2,098,697.74 Tuolumne $407,185.00 $94,832.00 $174,691.00 $32,381.00 $105,281.00 $127,213.00 $279,972.00 Ventura $3,457,446.45 $1,500,565.48 $823,114.58 $484,936.47 $648,829.92 $1,985,501.95 $1,471,944.50 Yolo $2,568,531.11 $638,868.25 $514,676.00 $123,246.96 $1,291,739.90 $762,115.21 $1,806,415.90 16 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2008 – 2009 Category Total Full Service Contract County Contract Provider County Contract Provider Contract Provider Partnership County Other County Total Provider Personnel Personnel Operating Operating Other County Total Alameda $8,468,078.18 -- $3,766,395.18 $26,651.00 $1,857,866.00 -- $2,817,166.00 $26,651.00 $8,441,427.18 Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador $48,294.13 $34,771.77 -- $13,522.36 -- -- -- $48,294.13 -- Berkeley City $1,067,521.00 $598,457.00 $66,974.00 $205,114.00 $196,976.00 -- -- $803,571.00 $263,950.00 Butte $431,610.00 $231,945.00 $85,559.00 $35,646.00 $55,996.00 $22,464.00 -- $290,055.00 $141,555.00 Calaveras $573,479.00 $201,838.00 $293,971.00 $66,385.00 -- $11,285.00 -- $279,508.00 $293,971.00 Colusa $821,155.82 $615,866.62 -- $205,289.21 -- -- -- $821,155.82 -- Contra Costa $9,926,424.00 $3,708,866.00 $3,499,213.80 $356,574.00 $1,727,066.40 $59,015.00 $575,688.80 $4,124,455.00 $5,801,969.00 Del Norte $248,380.58 $176,248.77 -- $43,703.64 -- $28,428.17 -- $248,380.58 -- El Dorado $2,077,570.21 $678,101.14 $328,545.37 $874,937.51 -- $195,986.19 -- $1,749,024.84 $328,545.37 Fresno $7,418,536.13 $1,698,418.69 $1,747,781.84 $1,658,865.22 $2,313,470.38 -- -- $3,357,283.91 $4,061,252.22 Glenn $419,064.00 $284,963.52 -- $134,100.48 -- -- -- $419,064.00 -- Humboldt $3,239,211.00 $2,029,891.00 -- $424,999.00 -- -- $784,321.00 $2,454,890.00 $784,321.00 Imperial $1,032,168.00 $666,019.00 -- $361,452.00 -- $4,697.00 -- $1,032,168.00 -- Inyo $368,793.08 $306,098.25 -- $62,694.82 -- -- -- $368,793.08 -- Kern $7,184,307.13 $5,052,997.50 $556,153.19 $842,700.62 $331,968.35 $44,942.72 $355,544.75 $5,940,640.84 $1,243,666.29 Kings $280,294.00 $46,256.00 $55,043.00 $86,778.00 $32,165.00 $60,052.00 -- $193,086.00 $87,208.00 Lake $800,972.62 $406,756.50 -- $205,853.41 -- $188,362.72 -- $800,972.62 -- Lassen $259,091.42 $81,341.63 -- $163,414.75 -- $14,335.04 -- $259,091.42 -- Los Angeles $146,678,496.20 $24,314,525.19 -- $12,781,976.71 -- $4,387,695.00 $105,194,299.30 $41,484,196.90 $105,194,299.30 Madera $1,793,952.00 $1,519,097.00 -- $274,855.00 -- -- -- $1,793,952.00 -- Marin $2,783,486.87 $1,471,819.65 $1,005,240.39 $16,168.60 $224,166.48 -- $66,091.75 $1,487,988.25 $1,295,498.62 Mariposa $1,110,795.02 $530,441.00 -- $580,354.02 -- -- -- $1,110,795.02 -- Mendocino $1,249,586.99 $140,995.87 $1,028,647.00 $60,684.98 -- $19,259.14 -- $220,939.99 $1,028,647.00 Merced $3,973,867.08 $1,143,501.45 $474,600.63 $247,876.00 $747,928.00 $1,359,961.00 -- $2,751,338.45 $1,222,528.63 Modoc $51,259.00 $31,269.16 -- $19,989.84 - -- -- $51,259.00 -- Mono $541,512.72 $330,307.00 $32,586.17 $110,501.55 $60,000.00 $8,118.00 -- $448,926.55 $92,586.17 Monterey $5,943,616.86 $2,614,869.49 $1,532,155.59 $789,422.95 $973,668.83 -- $33,500.00 $3,404,292.44 $2,539,324.42 Napa $1,446,333.36 $913,738.69 $229,928.00 $131,657.94 $171,008.73 -- -- $1,045,396.63 $400,936.73 Nevada $4,054,319.23 $65,729.06 $2,419,534.44 $34,666.26 $1,079,437.13 -- $454,952.35 $100,395.32 $3,953,923.92 Orange $22,904,522.92 $248,877.06 $13,397,901.27 $253,893.20 $7,791,566.52 $129,715.20 $1,082,569.66 $632,485.47 $22,272,037.45 Placer $3,845,248.00 $2,059,289.00 $568,261.00 $816,858.00 $377,923.00 $1,811.00 $21,106.00 $2,877,958.00 $967,290.00 Plumas $947,559.00 $777,401.00 -- $170,158.00 -- -- - $947,559.00 -- Riverside $23,070,906.00 $9,818,837.00 -- $3,473,221.00 -- $4,282,725.00 $5,496,123.00 $17,574,783.00 $5,496,123.00 Sacramento $7,946,839.98 $1,014,007.99 $2,561,371.00 $655,210.00 $2,334,007.99 $301,836.00 $1,080,407.00 $1,971,053.99 $5,975,785.99 17 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships Full Service Partnership Total Expenditures by County and Municipality: FY 2008 – 2009 Category Total Full Service Contract County Contract Provider County Contract Provider Contract Provider Partnership County Other County Total Provider Personnel Personnel Operating Operating Other County Total San Benito $482,616.96 $208,706.75 -- $273,910.21 -- -- -- $482,616.96 -- San Bernardino $24,698,365.91 $4,977,132.39 $7,982,580.75 $5,338,165.52 $6,005,541.25 $394,946.00 -- $10,710,243.91 $13,988,122.00 San Diego $22,359,236.57 $499,304.80 $10,128,855.90 $71,372.97 $7,696,229.76 -- $3,963,473.14 $570,677.77 $21,788,558.80 San Francisco $6,640,678.06 $3,072,373.08 $2,163,235.81 -- $1,068,275.93 $10,071.92 $326,721.32 $3,082,445.00 $3,558,233.06 San Joaquin $7,403,498.85 $2,918,803.97 -- $592,632.54 -- $1,869,628.91 $2,022,433.43 $5,381,065.42 $2,022,433.43 San Luis Obispo $3,087,213.00 $1,446,219.00 $758,920.00 $341,583.00 $506,583.00 $8,478.00 $25,430.00 $1,796,280.00 $1,290,933.00 San Mateo $6,459,363.00 -- $3,768,519.00 -- $734,917.00 -- $1,955,927.00 -- $6,459,363.00 Santa Barbara $5,051,440.00 $2,566,031.00 $1,424,789.00 $281,088.00 $779,532.00 -- -- $2,847,119.00 $2,204,321.00 Santa Clara $20,535,477.20 $4,505,367.74 $8,741,848.86 $1,661,990.13 $5,626,270.47 -- -- $6,167,357.87 $14,368,119.33 Santa Cruz $3,072,181.00 $1,719,419.00 -- -- -- $31,582.00 $1,321,180.00 $1,751,001.00 $1,321,180.00 Shasta $1,833,077.00 $1,077,040.00 $288,607.00 $250,890.00 $61,151.00 $88,187.00 $67,202.00 $1,416,117.00 $416,960.00 Sierra $281,095.71 $118,575.71 -- $162,520.00 -- -- -- $281,095.71 -- Siskiyou $130,809.00 $25,002.81 $67,762.49 -- $29,340.63 $5,328.55 $3,374.52 $30,331.36 $100,477.64 Solano $2,665,630.00 $1,201,141.00 $616,027.00 $285,890.00 $408,201.00 $44,644.00 $109,727.00 $1,531,675.00 $1,133,955.00 Sonoma $2,544,053.04 $1,436,993.13 $418,782.04 $477,743.51 $210,534.36 -- -- $1,914,736.64 $629,316.40 Stanislaus $5,440,809.00 $2,499,243.00 $1,121,804.00 $279,951.00 $759,820.00 $246,328.00 $533,663.00 $3,025,522.00 $2,415,287.00 Sutter-Yuba $3,825,962.05 $3,149,830.20 -- $434,092.60 -- $242,039.25 -- $3,825,962.05 -- Tehama $505,811.33 $161,326.60 -- $344,484.73 -- -- -- $505,811.33 -- Tri-Cities $228,620.00 $3,234.00 -- - -- $225,386.00 -- $228,620.00 -- Trinity $432,736.00 $238,004.80 -- $194,731.20 -- -- -- $432,736.00 -- Tulare $1,241,128.99 -- $760,853.44 -- $335,257.35 -- $145,018.20 -- $1,241,128.99 Tuolumne $848,369.18 $490,133.35 -- $179,265.00 -- $178,970.83 -- $848,369.18 -- Ventura $4,998,067.87 $1,902,137.96 $946,361.00 $719,807.71 $805,233.20 -- $624,528.00 $2,621,945.67 $2,376,122.20 Yolo $4,096,181.72 $1,612,703.28 $819,258.66 $419,676.68 $373,447.02 $379,451.85 $491,644.23 $2,411,831.81 $1,684,349.91 18 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships 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. 19 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships 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. 20 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships End Notes i California Department of Mental Health (2010, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report, Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011. Sacramento, CA. ii California Institute for Mental Health (2010). Full Service Partnership Implementation Tool Kits. Sacramento: Author. 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 Tri-City was approved for FSP as of 6/1/09, and presumably began expending funds in FY 09-10. The UCLA/EMT Team will be able to confirm with receipt of the 09-10 Revenue and Expenditure Reports, currently being submitted to the California Department of Mental Health. v 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. The team made a methodological decision in order to clearly focus on components. Planning monies were proportionately assigned out to each component based on the percentage of expenditures that each component represented in the county for each SFY. vi Breakouts in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for Client Housing under Community Services and Supports through Outreach and Engagement only appears in the launch year (FY 2006 – 2007). Likewise, Housing under Full Service Partnerships only appears as a unique category in the launch year. However, housing is picked up as an independent category under General System Development in FY 2008 – 2009. vii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices09/09-22.pdf viii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-26.pdf ix 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. The “percent of total FSP” represents the percent of total FSP expenditures. The “N of counties” represents the number of counties and municipalities expending funds in each category. Cells that are blacked out represent categories or activities which were not included in that particular Fiscal Year‟s Revenue and Expenditure Report. For example, “Client Housing” only appears in FY 2006 – 2007 under FSP, and doesn‟t appear thereafter. Housing appears under General System Development (another Community Services and Supports component) in later fiscal years, however. Due to interest in Housing expenditures, housing is tracked in each component under which it appears as an independent category with expenditures (see the CSS brief). x Breakouts in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for Client Housing under Full Service Partnerships only appears in the launch year (FY 2006 – 2007). The table on the following page displays the counties and municipalities expending FSP Housing monies in FY 2006 – 2007, as documented on the Revenue and Expenditure Reports. 21 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 2: Providing Community Services and Supports through Full Service Partnerships County FSP Housing Expenditures Butte Contra Costa El Dorado Lake Madera Mono Placer Riverside San Bernardino Shasta Solano Stanislaus Sutter-Yuba Contractor FSP Housing Expenditures El Dorado Kern Los Angeles Marin Orange Placer Sacramento San Diego San Francisco San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Clara Shasta Sonoma Stanislaus Tulare Yolo Likewise, Housing under Outreach and Engagement only appears as a unique category in the launch year. However, Housing is picked up as an independent category under General System Development in FY 2008 – 2009. xi http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-26.pdf xii Four counties expended FSP Housing monies at both the contractor and county level. xiii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices06/06-15.pdf (page 2) xiv 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. xv http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf xvi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita 22