BHSOAC
Evaluation Deliverable1A Brief3 OE
Read the report at Behavioral Health Services Oversight & Accountability Commission ↗
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health
System: Proposition 63
Brief 3 of 7:
Providing Community Services and Supports –
Outreach and Engagement
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 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
I. Activities Funded under Community Services and Services - Outreach and
Engagement i
Community Services and Supports funds designated for outreach and engagement 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)
When elaborating, the Department of Mental Health specifies that this funding must be used solely
to reach: ii
“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 Community Services and Supports - Outreach and Engagement
should initiate, the following examples are listed (p. 8):
peer-to-peer outreach,
screening of children and youth, and
school and primary care-based outreach to children and youth who may have serious
emotional disorders.
by:
racial/ethnic community-based organizations,
mental health and primary care partnerships,
faith-based agencies,
tribal organizations and health clinics, and
organizations that help individuals who are homeless or incarcerated, and that link potential
clients to services.
Review of County/Municipal Annual Updates documenting services provided in FY 2007 – 2008
reveal that when a specific Outreach and Engagement strategy is named, the most common are
referrals and linkages to services (n=14), followed by contracting for services with allied agencies
and community-based organizations (n=10) (see Appendix B for a full breakdown). The majority of
counties/municipalities that documented expending funds on Outreach and Engagement in FY
2007 – 2008 did not report implementing a specific Outreach and Engagement strategy on the
Annual Update corresponding to services implementing in FY 2007 – 2008 (28 out of 50; 56%). iii
1
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Table 3.1 displays the number of counties who, through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports,
documented spending money on Community Services and Supports - Outreach and Engagement
during the time period for which data was provided. iv 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. v CSS – Outreach and Engagement expenditures by
county/municipality are contained in Appendix A.
Table 3.1 Number of Counties/Municipalities Expending Funds on Outreach & Engagement
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
Acronym Service/Component 06-07 07-08 08-09
O&E Outreach and Engagement 41 70% 50 85% 51 86%
The data contained in Table 3.1 show that as of FY 2008 – 2009, the majority of
counties/municipalities were expending funds on Outreach and Engagement.
Table 3.2 displays the total amount of money expended on each Outreach and Engagement activity,
in each of the State’s Fiscal Years. 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 - Outreach
and Engagement,
received money from DMH to spend on Community Services and Supports - Outreach and
Engagement, and
actually spent money on Community Services and Supports - Outreach and Engagement.
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, p. 2) are all related to monies spent.
A breakout in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for Outreach and Engagement Housing was
only included in the FY 2006 – 2007 Revenue and Expenditure Report. vii 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 viii; p. 3 in FY 2006 – 2007 ix ), allowable activities upon which to expend funds in the
“other” category include:
2
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
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.
Table 3.2 Total Amount Expended by Outreach and Engagement Category and Fiscal Year
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) x , xi , xii
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 $9,166,498.78 33 43.8% $27,858,712.99 41 48.7% $42,788,416.57 42 51.4%
Client Housing $99,246.86 4 0.5% -- -- -- -- -- --
Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $9,352,175.02 39 11.2%
Other Clients Supports $32,164.32 9 0.2% -- -- -- -- -- --
Other $2,303,758.68 30 11.0% $6,440,727.69 43 11.3% $651,036.50 18 0.8%
County Subtotal $11,601,668.64 34 55.4% $34,299,440.69 45 59.9% $52,791,628.00 44 63.5%
Contract Provider Expenditures
Personnel $3,874,846.58 14 18.5% $8,841,698.29 24 15.5% $11,598,381.00 28 13.9%
Client Housing $8,479.00 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $5,314,369.92 29 6.4%
Other Clients Supports $284,943.25 6 1.4% -- -- -- -- -- --
Other $5,155,715.48 19 24.6% $14,079,592.14 31 24.6% $13,479,673.00 17 16.2%
Contract Provider Subtotal $9,323,984.31 22 44.6% $22,921,290.43 34 40.1% $30,392,424.00 35 36.5%
Total O&E $20,925,652.9 41 100.0% $57,220,731.11 50 100.0% $83,184,052.00 51 100.0%
*Percent of Total O&E E5 xpenditures
FY 2006-2007: Other – All other operating costs of the program, including:
o professional services;
o travel and transportation;
o general office expenditures;
3
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
o office rent;
o utilities and equipment;
o telecommunications, etc.
The Revenue and Expenditure Report data analyzed for this CSS – Outreach and Engagement brief
indicate that, when viewed from a statewide perspective in terms of overall dollar expenditures, the
majority of expenditures in each fiscal year were made at the county, compared to contractors. CSS
- Outreach and Engagement expenditures are fundamentally different from CSS - Full Service
Partnership expenditures (see Brief 2 for further details), the latter of which shifted to heavier reliance
upon community contractors in later fiscal years.
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 MHSA Housing Program expenditures were
explicitly requested as a stand-alone line item in the FY 2008 – 2009 Revenue and Expenditure
Report.xiii 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 Outreach and Engagement brief, housing expenditures were explicitly
requested as a stand-alone line item in the FY 2006 – 2007 Revenue and Expenditure Report. xiv A
total of six counties expended Outreach and Engagement Housing monies in FY 2006 – 2007, for a
total dollar amount of $107,725.86.
The data contained in Table 3.2 show a graduated rollout of expenditures for CSS - Outreach and
Engagement under the Mental Health Services Act, following the first year for which expenditure
data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006– 2007).xv
Please refer to Appendix A in the series Overview/Summary Brief for a table displaying component
and major service category (e.g., O&E) expenditures for every county/municipality.xvi
4
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
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). xvii 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 3.1a displays the Mental Health Services Act
dollar breakout for FY 2006 – 2007.
Figure 3.1a The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Outreach and Engagement Expenditures by County Population
(FY 06-07)
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70 Contract Provider
Expenditures
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40 County
$0.30 Expenditures
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
< 45,000 > 45,000 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000
(13 Counties) 150,000 400,000 1,000,000 5 , 000,000 ( L o s Angeles
(11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
a
When the Mental Health dollar is displayed according to county size, commonalities and differences
emerge:
Proportion Expended on County Contractors: Setting aside the largest county, expenditures
to county contractors as a proportion of the CSS - O&E 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. The
county population data displayed in Figure 3.1b therefore provide the context behind the
statewide data displayed in Table 3.2.
o The only exception is Los Angeles County. However, given the amount of money
expended in Los Angeles County, it appears that the proportion spent at the county
level compared to on contractors skewed the results statewide, giving Table 3.2 the
appearance that the majority is spent on county, rather than on contractors.
Examining the data along population and other factors yields important differences
5
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
between counties that otherwise are masked when examination remains at the
statewide perspective.
o System Navigators for Transition-Age Youth: Los Angeles County employed this
model, using county staff, in order to engage youth.xviii
TAY Navigation Team: primary role is to assist youth with Serious and
Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI)xix/Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED)xx
to navigate through the various human services systems to achieve effective
linkages to needed mental health, housing, and other essential services.
Team Members: master’s level clinician and a housing specialist. Teams are
assigned to Service Areas within Los Angeles; additional TAY navigators are
assigned to Los Angeles County Probation camps where they serve the
primary purpose of providing effective linkage to continuing Mental Health
Services and community supports for discharging SED/SPMI TAY.
Full Service Partnership: team participates in FSP referral screening and
disposition processes, conduct MHSA outreach presentations in
collaboration with other MHSA staff to promote knowledge about MHSA
and increase utilization of the FSP program services. Teams have established
helping relationships with a number of community-based drop-in centers,
where brief screenings are conducted to assess mental health and housing
needs, and linkages and referrals to appropriate services and supports are
provided.
6
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Figure 3.1b The Mental Health Services Act Dollar –Outreach and Engagement Expenditures by County Population
(FY 07-08)
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60 Contract Provider
Expenitures
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30 County
Expenditures
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
< 45,000 > 4 5 , 0 00 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000
(13 Counties) 150,000 400,000 1 ,000,000 5 , 000,000 (Los Angeles
(11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
-
When the CSS - O&E mental health dollar is examined by county population for FY 2007 – 2008,
the results are nearly the same – expenditures on contractors as a proportion of the CSS - O&E
mental health dollar were greater among more populous counties. Again, this pattern is to be
expected, as county staff augment their teams with contractor staff and resources. Larger counties
presumably have a larger pool of potential contractors to choose from. Contractor availability can
be confirmed through a county survey of MHSA Coordinators.
Figure 3.1c The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Outreach and Engagement Expenditures by County Population
(FY 08-09)
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70 Contract Provider
Expenditures
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
County 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 o s Angeles
(11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
a
7
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Figure 3.2 depicts the number of Outreach and Engagement through Community Services and
Supports programs on which funds were expended in each fiscal year, broken out by the activity
contributing to its funding. Each county/municipality was allowed to expend funds on Outreach
and Engagement in any combination of the following:
Expending funds solely from the Outreach and Engagement line item.
Expending funds in a blended manner – hence, the program identified under Outreach and
Engagement is also claimed as an expenditure under Community Services and Supports
through one or more of the following:
o Full Service Partnership, and/or
o General System Development.
A single program can therefore show expenditures solely out of its county’s line item for Outreach
and Engagement, or it can have blended expenditures through all of the categories listed under
Community Services and Supports. Blended expenditures raises a number of questions which are
posed later on in this brief.
Figure 3.2 shows the expenditure pattern among counties and municipalities in terms of funding
individual programs solely with CSS – O&E funds or through a blended expenditure mechanism.
Figure 3.2 Outreach and Engagement- Number of Programs Funded
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
200
Full Service Partnership, General
180 System Development, and
Outreach and Engagement
160 Expenditures
d
e
d
n 140
u General System Development and
F
s m 120
O
Ex
u
p
tr
e
e
n
a
d
c
i
h
tu
a
r
n
e
d
s
Engagement
a
r
g 100
o
r
P
fo 80 Full Service Partnership and
r e Outreach and Engagement
b m 60 Expenditures
u
N
40
20 Outreach and Engagement
Expenditures
0
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
aa
8
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
A few key findings can be gleaned from this chart:
The number of O&Es 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?
The need for additional data collection from the counties is again pointed out by this
example, in order to provide context for these findings. The County Plans will be
systematically reviewed in order to see if the answers lie therein, but it is up to individual
counties whether the blended funding issues was explicitly address. Key areas for the
systematic review will include:
o How are blended expenditure O&E programs different from O&E programs? Are
there any meaningful differences? There is a distinct line item for Community
Services and Supports through Outreach and Engagement in the Revenue and
Expenditure Reports, but how might these programs be qualitatively different from
programs in which funding is blended? For example:
Is the target population for Outreach clearly distinguished from the current
service recipient population?
Is the target population for Engagement clearly distinguished from the
current service recipient population?
o Does blending Outreach and Engagement expenditures with FSP expenditures
change FSP programming in any fundamental way from FSP programming without
this augmentation? Does adding Outreach and Engagement expenditures to General
System Development expenditures similarly change Outreach and Engagement
programming in any fundamental way?
o How are blended O&E expenditure programs different from programs in which
expenditures are not blended? For example, counties/municipalities which expend
funds solely on O&E, separately on Outreach and Engagement activities, and
9
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
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 O&E expenditures per capita is displayed in Figure 3.3.
“Per capita” means per person.xxi
Figure 3.3 Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Per Capita Relative to State and Region Populationxxii
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
FY 08-09
$0.00
FY 07-08
California
Superior
State Central FY 06-07
Counties Bay Area
Counties Southern
Counties
Counties Los Angeles
Region
Displaying expenditure data in this manner clearly shows the impact of DMH policy when weighting
funding to provide a baseline level for the smallest counties. This policy resulted in higher per-
capita expenditure in the smallest counties.
10
atipaC
reP
serutidnepxE
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Examination of Outreach and Engagement expenditures by county population (without including
per capita) revealed that more populous counties tended to spend more on average through the
O&E program, in each fiscal year analyzed (see Figure 3.4). This finding suggests county O&E
average total expenditures seem to be associated with population size.
Figure 3.4 Average Outreach and Engagement Expenditures by County Population
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
s
e $45.00
r
u
tid $40.00
n e p ) s n $35.00
xo
E
E
illiM
$30.00
&
O n $25.00
e g
i(
$20.00
a
r
e $15.00
v
A
$10.00
$5.00
FY 08-09
$0.00
FY 07-08
< 45,000
(13 Counties) > 45,000 - > 150,000 - FY 06-07
150,000 > 400,000 -
(11 Counties) 400,000 1,000,000 >1,000,000 -
(11 Counties) 5,000,000 > 5,000,000
(12 Counties)
(8 Counties) (Los Angeles
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 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 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
III. Summary
As of FY 2008 – 2009, the majority of counties/municipalities were expending funds on
Outreach and Engagement.
The DMH policy to weight funding to provide a baseline level for the smallest counties
resulted in higher per-capita expenditures in the smallest counties.
Los Angeles County expends the majority of Outreach and Engagement funds on county
personnel for their Transition Age Youth System Navigator program. Because of Los
Angeles County size, the amount of funds expended on Outreach and Engagement at the
county level skewed the statewide percentage, such that the majority of statewide Outreach
and Engagement expenditures occur at the county level.
However, when expenditures are examined according to county population, county
population is directly related to a shift of expenditures from county to contractors,
increasing with the size of the county population.
12
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Appendix A:
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2006 - 2007
Funding Source
Contract Contract Provider Contract Contract
Total Outreach and County County Other County Contract Provider County County
Provider Other Client Provider Provider Total
Engagement Housing Client Supports Personnel Personnel Other Total
County Housing Supports Other
Alameda $699,165.77 -- -- -- -- -- $448,223.31 -- $250,942.46 -- $699,165.77
Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Berkeley City $93,334.00 -- -- -- -- $63,584.00 -- -- $29,750.00 $63,584.00 $29,750.00
Butte $268,375.00 -- $6,482.00 -- -- $61,595.00 $14,925.00 $4,272.00 $181,101.00 $65,867.00 $202,508.00
Calaveras $41,060.00 -- -- -- -- $33,235.00 -- $7,825.00 -- $41,060.00 --
Colusa $20,871.00 -- -- -- -- $16,279.38 -- $4,591.62 -- $20,871.00 --
Contra Costa $10,996.32 -- -- -- $10,996.32 -- -- -- -- -- $10,996.32
Del Norte $4,452.00 -- -- -- -- $3,116.40 -- $1,335.60 -- $4,452.00 --
El Dorado $91,818.00 $146.00 -- $190.00 $38.00 $25,211.00 $55,104.00 $4,051.00 $7,078.00 $29,598.00 $62,220.00
Fresno -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Glenn $19,334.48 -- -- -- -- $9,860.58 -- $9,473.90 -- $19,334.48 --
Humboldt $542,594.43 $54,015.00 -- $4,872.15 -- $332,820.29 -- $150,886.99 -- $542,594.43 --
Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inyo $99,984.86 -- -- -- -- $79,987.88 -- $19,996.97 -- $99,984.86 --
Kern $191,003.67 -- -- $5,163.93 -- $158,961.65 -- $26,878.09 -- $191,003.67 --
Kings -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lake $8,683.39 -- -- $4,226.39 -- $4,457.00 -- -- -- $8,683.39 --
Lassen $36,740.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $36,740.00 -- $36,740.00
Los Angeles $6,815,282.00 -- -- $3,703.00 -- $4,325,543.00 -- $714,106.00 $1,771,930.00 $5,043,352.00 $1,771,930.00
Madera $8,230.00 -- -- -- -- $7,267.00 -- $963.00 -- $8,230.00 --
Marin $399,270.00 -- -- -- -- $12,489.00 $202,849.00 -- $183,932.00 $12,489.00 $386,781.00
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $278,941.00 -- -- -- $182,211.00 $64,751.00 -- $11,684.00 $20,295.00 $76,435.00 $202,506.00
Merced $327,040.24 -- -- -- -- $226,741.18 -- $100,299.06 -- $327,040.24 -
Modoc $47,757.00 -- -- -- -- $36,295.32 -- $11,461.68 -- $47,757.00 --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $251,259.22 -- -- -- -- $201,122.07 -- $50,137.15 -- $251,259.22 --
Napa $624,074.47 $10,505.19 -- $3,918.59 -- $219,539.06 -- $390,111.64 -- $624,074.47 --
Nevada -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Orange $277,628.00 -- -- -- -- $114,303.00 $104,312.00 $8,004.00 $51,009.00 $122,307.00 $155,321.00
Placer $312,019.28 -- -- -- -- $252,954.28 -- $59,064.99 -- $312,019.28 --
Plumas $23,154.12 -- -- -- -- -- -- $4,042.99 $19,111.13 $4,042.99 $19,111.13
13
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2006 - 2007
Funding Source
Contract Contract Provider Contract Contract
Total Outreach and County County Other County Contract Provider County County
Provider Other Client Provider Provider Total
Engagement Housing Client Supports Personnel Personnel Other Total
County Housing Supports Other
Riverside $55,235.44 -- -- -- -- $36,667.44 -- $18,568.00 -- $55,235.44 --
Sacramento -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Benito $16,310.00 -- -- -- -- $11,743.20 -- $4,566.80 -- $16,310.00 --
San Bernardino $776,050.60 $34,580.67 -- $7,159.85 -- $662,721.04 $71,589.03 -- -- $704,461.57 $71,589.03
San Diego $2,187,571.58 -- -- -- -- -- $1,339,169.00 -- $848,402.58 -- $2,187,571.58
San Francisco $99,719.97 -- -- -- -- -- $99,719.97 -- -- -- $99,719.97
San Joaquin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Luis Obispo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Mateo $806,174.21 -- -- -- -- $449,668.40 -- $122,489.17 $234,016.64 $572,157.57 $234,016.64
Santa Barbara -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Santa Clara $106,790.42 -- -- -- -- $18,081.22 -- $88,709.19 -- $106,790.42 --
Santa Cruz $319,322.84 -- -- -- -- $37,031.04 -- $11,248.25 $271,043.55 $48,279.29 $271,043.55
Shasta $19,986.51 -- -- -- -- $7,027.68 -- $12,958.83 -- $19,986.51 --
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Siskiyou $383,767.35 -- -- -- $838.05 $172,642.00 $89,164.94 $65,998.99 $55,123.37 $238,640.99 $145,126.36
Solano -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sonoma $2,671,870.82 -- -- $1,699.41 -- $1,210,134.80 $715,614.60 $333,084.48 $411,337.53 $1,544,918.69 $1,126,952.13
Stanislaus $333,438.33 -- -- -- -- $109,626.84 $88,666.36 $40,982.30 $94,162.83 $150,609.14 $182,829.20
Sutter-Yuba -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Trinity $64,930.00 -- -- -- -- $51,944.00 -- $12,986.00 -- $64,930.00 --
Tulare $1,125,756.29 -- -- -- $85,788.88 -- $549,153.27 -- $490,814.14 -- $1,125,756.29
Tuolumne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Ventura $274,600.33 -- -- -- -- -- $82,583.08 -- $192,017.25 -- $274,600.33
Yolo $191,060.00 -- $1,997.00 $1,231.00 $5,071.00 $149,098.00 $13,773.00 $12,981.00 $6,909.00 $163,310.00 $27,750.00
14
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2007 - 2008
Funding Source
Total Outreach and Contract Provider Contract Provider Contract Provider
County Personnel County Other County Total
County Engagement Personnel Other Total
Alameda $953,284.38 $131,582.60 $591,772.20 $17,270.72 $212,658.86 $148,853.32 $804,431.06
Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Amador $100,422.00 $81,341.82 -- $19,080.18 -- $100,422.00 --
Berkeley City $187,244.00 $61,844.00 -- -- $125,400.00 $61,844.00 $125,400.00
Butte $1,814,702.00 $742,266.00 $316,661.00 $405,014.00 $350,761.00 $1,147,280.00 $667,422.00
Calaveras $145,562.00 $119,093.00 -- $26,469.00 -- $145,562.00 --
Colusa $146,521.00 $58,773.84 $52,582.12 $18,560.16 $16,604.88 $77,334.00 $69,187.00
Contra Costa -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Del Norte $516,843.50 $349,191.00 -- $167,652.50 -- $516,843.50 --
El Dorado $196,384.07 $54,089.14 -- $142,294.93 -- $196,384.07 --
Fresno $359,148.67 -- $142,658.43 -- $216,490.24 -- $359,148.67
Glenn $40,843.00 $25,731.09 -- $15,111.91 -- $40,843.00 --
Humboldt $896,016.00 $535,836.00 -- $360,180.00 -- $896,016.00 --
Imperial $101,173.00 $3,529.00 -- $97,644.00 -- $101,173.00 --
Inyo $355,559.00 $220,446.96 -- $135,112.04 -- $355,559.00 --
Kern $242,939.68 $188,759.09 -- $44,701.75 $9,478.84 $233,460.84 $9,478.84
Kings $150,995.00 -- $125,814.00 -- $25,181.00 -- $150,995.00
Lake $136,775.81 $97,539.36 -- $29,248.41 $9,988.05 $126,787.76 $9,988.05
Lassen $274,809.00 $57,656.00 -- $31,182.00 $185,971.00 $88,838.00 $185,971.00
Los Angeles $24,627,752.35 $16,464,500.60 -- $2,499,054.00 $5,664,197.75 $18,963,554.60 $5,664,197.75
Madera $62,065.00 $60,264.00 -- $1,801.00 -- $62,065.00 --
Marin $549,798.83 $54,466.00 $473,361.64 -- $21,971.19 $54,466.00 $495,332.83
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $287,272.00 -- $161,141.00 $11,473.00 $114,658.00 $11,473.00 $275,799.00
Merced $325,288.93 $280,222.12 -- $45,066.81 -- $325,288.93 --
Modoc $50,506.00 $38,445.17 -- $12,060.83 -- $50,506.00 --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $337,628.51 $241,611.38 $9,202.00 $86,815.13 -- $328,426.51 $9,202.00
Napa $705,730.58 $327,456.31 $49,643.00 $132,168.41 $196,462.86 $459,624.72 $246,105.86
Nevada $304,062.71 $99,001.35 $69,357.50 $59,378.37 $76,325.50 $158,379.71 $145,683.00
Orange $1,788,986.49 $1,000,980.88 $519,602.90 $92,860.13 $175,542.58 $1,093,841.01 $695,145.48
Placer $463,629.75 $327,492.97 $37,232.15 $89,596.34 $9,308.29 $417,089.31 $46,540.44
Plumas $84,721.00 $22,987.00 -- $37,437.00 $24,297.00 $60,424.00 $24,297.00
Riverside $300,129.08 $177,058.00 -- $123,071.08 -- $300,129.08 --
Sacramento -- -- -- -- -- -- --
15
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2007 - 2008
Funding Source
Total Outreach and Contract Provider Contract Provider Contract Provider
County Personnel County Other County Total
County Engagement Personnel Other Total
San Benito $5,564.00 $3,894.80 -- $1,669.20 -- $5,564.00 --
San Bernardino $1,565,983.45 $430,736.00 $300,007.00 $329,922.22 $505,318.23 $760,658.22 $805,325.23
San Diego $3,920,389.93 -- $2,006,091.46 -- $1,914,298.47 -- $3,920,389.93
San Francisco -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Joaquin -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Luis Obispo $12,249.91 -- $5,492.26 $564.00 $6,193.65 $564.00 $11,685.91
San Mateo $1,639,567.00 $1,091,389.00 -- $304,310.00 $243,868.00 $1,395,699.00 $243,868.00
Santa Barbara $502,400.73 $218,399.78 $169,565.29 $19,961.81 $94,473.85 $238,361.59 $264,039.14
Santa Clara $219,581.42 $130,449.50 -- $89,131.92 -- $219,581.42 --
Santa Cruz $179,935.35 $54,155.88 -- $6,906.02 $118,873.44 $61,061.90 $118,873.44
Shasta $711,061.46 $216,954.30 -- $4,803.37 $489,303.79 $221,757.67 $489,303.79
Sierra $8,841.84 -- -- $8,841.84 -- $8,841.84 --
Siskiyou $711,369.00 -- $374,904.00 -- $336,465.00 -- $711,369.00
Solano -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sonoma $6,385,576.74 $2,715,808.62 $1,938,929.92 $793,248.55 $937,589.65 $3,509,057.17 $2,876,519.57
Stanislaus $1,727,127.39 $204,875.00 $491,622.00 $15,382.00 $1,015,248.39 $220,257.00 $1,506,870.39
Sutter-Yuba $767,452.00 $495,433.00 $211,465.00 $60,554.00 -- $555,987.00 $211,465.00
Tehama $180,327.54 $163,743.00 -- $16,584.54 -- $180,327.54 --
Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Trinity $11,477.00 $6,656.66 -- $4,820.34 -- $11,477.00 --
Tulare $578,316.67 -- $364,631.73 -- $213,684.94 -- $578,316.67
Tuolumne $345,798.00 $56,899.00 $232,479.00 $37,005.00 $19,415.00 $93,904.00 $251,894.00
Ventura $588,612.61 -- $90,115.69 $8,617.75 $489,879.17 $8,617.75 $579,994.86
Yolo $652,305.73 $247,153.78 $107,367.00 $38,101.43 $259,683.52 $285,255.21 $367,050.52
16
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2008 - 2009
Funding Source
Contract
Total Outreach and County Contract Provider County Contract Provider Contract Provider
Provider County Other County Total
Engagement Personnel Personnel Operating Other Total
County Operating
Alameda $2,725,935.85 $266,104.42 $1,197,754.59 $195,605.05 $630,313.99 -- $436,157.79 $461,709.47 $2,264,226.38
Alpine $55,192.00 -- $21,650.00 -- $27,260.00 -- $6,282.00 -- $55,192.00
Amador $592,516.00 $353,440.08 $73,171.44 $137,448.92 $28,455.56 -- -- $490,889.00 $101,627.00
Berkeley City $101,768.00 -- -- -- $101,768.00 -- -- -- $101,768.00
Butte $2,646,797.00 $1,354,212.00 $590,327.00 $218,288.00 $374,658.00 $109,312.00 -- $1,681,812.00 $964,985.00
Calaveras $129,057.80 $113,529.00 -- $15,528.80 -- -- -- $129,057.80 --
Colusa $135,341.14 $96,195.60 $5,310.01 $32,065.53 $1,770.00 -- -- $128,261.13 $7,080.01
Contra Costa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Del Norte $37,862.35 $18,269.35 -- $19,593.00 -- -- -- $37,862.35 --
El Dorado $329,841.77 $44,267.01 -- $53,604.78 $220,179.96 $11,790.02 -- $109,661.81 $220,179.96
Fresno $922,768.82 $269,422.61 $288,073.68 $110,067.37 $255,205.16 -- -- $379,489.98 $543,278.84
Glenn $46,678.00 $31,741.04 -- $14,936.96 -- -- -- $46,678.00 --
Humboldt $109,934.00 $71,940.00 -- $37,994.00 -- -- -- $109,934.00 --
Imperial $163,242.00 $94,276.00 -- $46,966.00 $22,000.00 -- -- $141,242.00 $22,000.00
Inyo $228,055.03 $189,285.68 -- $38,769.36 -- -- -- $228,055.03 --
Kern $1,651,137.22 $1,359,576.04 $763.98 $200,123.42 $64,517.51 $13,579.13 $12,577.14 $1,573,278.59 $77,858.63
Kings $247,296.00 -- $143,089.00 $1,598.00 $102,609.00 -- -- $1,598.00 $245,698.00
Lake $68,864.63 $47,393.97 -- $21,419.80 -- $50.87 -- $68,864.63 --
Lassen $568,714.86 $82,805.14 -- $168,743.86 -- -- $317,165.86 $251,549.00 $317,165.86
Los Angeles $41,339,889.89 $26,493,776.43 -- $4,772,847.26 -- $82,767.00 $9,990,499.20 $31,349,390.69 $9,990,499.20
Madera -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Marin $783,519.87 $309,072.11 $433,168.95 $32,785.74 -- $8,493.07 -- $350,350.92 $433,168.95
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $51,522.72 -- $49,010.74 -- -- $2,512.27 -- $2,512.27 $49,010.65
Merced $702,631.95 $548,708.95 -- $153,923.00 -- -- -- $702,631.95 --
Modoc $252,608.00 $154,090.88 -- $98,517.12 -- -- -- $252,608.00 --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $620,974.89 $273,195.32 $160,075.96 $82,476.58 $101,727.03 -- $3,500.00 $355,671.90 $265,302.99
Napa $551,666.14 $215,466.28 $117,986.00 $97,067.97 $121,145.89 -- -- $312,534.25 $239,131.89
Nevada $299,484.76 -- $212,720.98 -- $86,763.78 -- -- -- $299,484.76
Orange $1,936,839.21 $1,052,740.05 $415,619.39 $118,621.09 $202,118.68 $13,926.92 $133,813.09 $1,185,288.06 $751,551.16
Placer $486,282.00 $296,779.00 $60,045.00 $109,039.00 $20,419.00 -- -- $405,818.00 $80,464.00
Plumas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Riverside $127,484.00 $51,487.00 -- $74,716.00 -- $1,281.00 -- $127,484.00 --
Sacramento -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Benito $282,951.11 $217,872.36 -- $65,078.76 -- -- -- $282,951.11 --
17
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Expenditures Total by County/Municipality:
FY 2008 – 2009
Funding Source
Contract
Total Outreach and County Contract Provider County Contract Provider Contract Provider
Provider County Other County Total
Engagement Personnel Personnel Operating Other Total
County Operating
San Bernardino $2,371,607.39 $1,043,336.55 $469,688.15 $460,864.84 $397,717.85 -- -- $1,504,201.39 --
San Diego $4,005,730.55 -- $2,882,988.18 -- $863,610.37 -- $259,132.00 -- $4,005,730.55
San Francisco $77,673.00 -- $58,382.00 -- $11,326.00 -- $7,965.00 -- $77,673.00
San Joaquin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
San Luis Obispo $170,055.00 $68,366.00 $61,765.00 $30,255.00 $7,598.00 $135.00 $1,936.00 $98,756.00 $71,299.00
San Mateo $1,949,208.00 $1,125,473.00 $9,031.00 $257,100.00 $19,692.00 $118,836.00 $419,076.00 $1,501,409.00 $447,799.00
Santa Barbara $664,989.00 $298,255.00 $247,300.00 $33,894.00 $85,540.00 -- -- $332,149.00 $332,840.00
Santa Clara $2,374,431.90 $759,373.93 $823,130.05 $278,038.61 $513,889.31 -- -- $1,037,412.54 $1,337,019.36
Santa Cruz $250,871.00 $72,042.00 -- -- -- $709.00 $178,120.00 $72,751.00 $178,120.00
Shasta $1,319,591.00 $714,488.00 $288,607.00 $168,305.00 $61,151.00 $19,838.00 $67,202.00 $902,631.00 $416,960.00
Sierra $128,748.00 $57,196.00 -- $71,552.00 -- -- -- $128,748.00 --
Siskiyou $546,299.21 $70,699.17 $329,871.78 -- $145,393.26 $335.00 -- $71,034.17 $475,265.04
Solano -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sonoma $5,910,869.65 $2,750,688.76 $2,025,083.60 $494,543.98 $640,553.31 -- -- $3,245,232.74 $2,665,636.91
Stanislaus $1,283,021.00 -- $477,530.00 -- $143,241.00 -- $662,250.00 -- $1,283,021.00
Sutter-Yuba $927,162.84 $559,409.34 -- $267,235.99 -- $100,517.51 -- $927,162.84 --
Tehama $601,268.87 $440,686.63 -- $160,582.24 -- -- -- $601,268.87 --
Tri-Cities $18,671.00 $9,670.00 -- $1,366.00 -- $7,635.00 -- $18,671.00 --
Trinity $232,949.00 $128,121.95 -- $104,827.05 -- -- -- $232,949.00 --
Tulare $191,046.22 -- $118,791.67 -- $56,051.83 -- $16,202.72 -- $191,046.22
Tuolumne $281,954.00 $228,492.00 -- -- -- $53,462.00 -- $281,954.00 --
Ventura $917,663.00 $2,412.00 -- -- -- -- $915,251.00 $2,412.00 $915,251.00
Yolo $763,385.47 $454,059.93 $37,446.04 $105,784.94 $7,694.43 $105,856.74 $52,543.39 $665,701.61 $97,683.86
18
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Appendix B: Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008
(documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 O&E Specific Services
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/ Employment
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination Training/Opp
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction ortunities
Alameda
Alpine X
Amador
Berkeley City X X X X X
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial X X X
Inyo X
Kern X
Kings X
Lake X
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin X X X X X
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced X X
Modoc
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
19
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 (documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 O&E Specific Services
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/ Employment
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination Training/Opp
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction ortunities
Mono
Monterey
Napa X X X X X
Nevada
Orange X
Placer
Plumas X
Riverside X X
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego X X X
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo X X X X
Santa Barbara X X
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus X X X X
Sutter-Yuba X X
Tehama X X X X
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
20
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 (documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 O&E Specific Services
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/ Employment
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination Training/Opp
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction ortunities
Tri City
Trinity
Tulare X X
Tuolumne X X X X X X
Ventura X
Yolo
Totals 1 3 3 6 14 10 3 1 7 7 2
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
21
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 (documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 General Services (of which O&E is a component)
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction
Alameda
Alpine X X X X X X
Amador X
Berkeley City
Butte X X X X X X
Calaveras
Colusa X X X X X
Contra Costa
Del Norte X X X X
El Dorado X X
Fresno
Glenn X X X X
Humboldt X X
Imperial
Inyo X X X X X
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen X X X X
Los Angeles X
Madera
Marin
Mariposa X
Mendocino X X X X X X
Merced
Modoc X X X
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
22
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 (documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 General Services (of which O&E is a component)
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction
Mono
Monterey X X X
Napa
Nevada X X X X X
Orange
Placer X X
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito X X X X
San Bernardino X X X X X X
San Diego
San Francisco X X X
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo X
San Mateo X
Santa Barbara X
Santa Clara X X X X X X
Santa Cruz X X X X
Shasta X X X
Sierra X X
Siskiyou X
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter-Yuba
Tehama X X X X X X
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
23
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 (documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 General Services (of which O&E is a component)
Services with
Therapy Allied
(individual Peer Agencies/ Stigma/
and/or Counseling/ Referrals/ Community Mobile Drop In Crisis Discrimination
County Wraparound Housing group) Support Linkages Organizations Services Center Intervention Reduction
Tri City
Trinity X X
Tulare X X X X X X
Tuolumne
Ventura X
Yolo
Totals 8 14 6 17 11 13 3 9 15 11
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is not currently available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
24
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008
(documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 Populations
Non-English
Underserved/ Speakers/Other Target
County Unserved Homeless Groups (e.g. LGBTQ) Children Youth/TAY Older Adults
Alameda
Alpine X X X X X
Amador X X X X X
Berkeley City X X X X
Butte X X X X
Calaveras X X
Colusa X X X X X X
Contra Costa
Del Norte X X X X
El Dorado X X X X X X
Fresno
Glenn X X X X X
Humboldt X X
Imperial X X X X X
Inyo X X X X X
Kern X
Kings X X
Lake X X
Lassen X X X X X
Los Angeles X X X X
Madera
Marin X X X X X
Mariposa X
Mendocino X X X X X X
Merced X X X X X
Modoc X X X X
Mono X X
Monterey X X X X
Napa X X X
Nevada X X X X
Orange X X X X
Placer X X X X X
Plumas X X X
Riverside X X X X
Sacramento
San Benito X X X X X
San Bernardino X X X X
San Diego X X X X X X
San Francisco X X X X X X
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo X X X
San Mateo X X X X X
Santa Barbara X X
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is currently not available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
25
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and Engagement Strategies Documented by Counties/Municipalities implemented in FY 2007 – 2008
(documented in the FY 09-10 Annual Update)
O&E FY 09-10 Populations
Non-English
Underserved/ Speakers/Other Target
County Unserved Homeless Groups (e.g. LGBTQ) Children Youth/TAY Older Adults
Santa Clara X X X X X X
Santa Cruz X X X X
Shasta X X X X
Sierra X X X X
Siskiyou X X X X
Solano X X X X X
Sonoma
Stanislaus X X X X X X
Sutter-Yuba X X X X X X
Tehama X X X X
Tri City
Trinity X X X X
Tulare X X X X X
Tuolumne X X X X X
Ventura X X X X
Yolo
Totals 33 22 38 37 43 36
Not Submitted - County did not submit data to DMH
FY 09-10 update not available - Data is currently not available for download on DMH website
No CSS program that mentions outreach and/or engagement
26
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
Appendix C: 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.
27
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
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.
Finally, challenges exist when cross-referencing between Revenue and Expenditure Reports and
Annual Updates documenting services implemented in the same fiscal year. For example, services
are reported as being implemented, and yet no expenditures are documented in that same fiscal year.
28
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
End Notes
i The 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”)
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf
ii Ibid
iii Documentation of service implementation in the Annual Updates run two years in arrears. Therefore, the most recent
Annual Update available at the time of this report writing (FY 2009 – 2010) documented services implemented in FY
2007 – 2008.
iv 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.
v 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.
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. The UCLA/EMT
Team made a methodological decision in order to highlight component expenditures. Planning monies were
proportionately assigned out to each component based on the percentage of expenditures that each activity represented
in the county for each Fiscal Year.
vii 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.
viii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices09/09-22.pdf
ix http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-26.pdf
x 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.
xi 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.
xii FY 07-08 For Santa Clara under Contract Provider subtotal ($68,486) is not broken down into either Personnel nor
Other, but included in subtotal under Contract Provider.
xiii The following table displays the six counties expending O&E Housing Funds per the FY 06-07 Revenue and
Expenditure Report –
County O&E Housing Expenditures
El Dorado
Humboldt
Napa
San Bernardino
Contractor O&E Housing Expenditures
Butte
Yolo
San Mateo
Sutter-Yuba
xiv http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-26.pdf
xv Some counties including, Los Angeles, started in FY 2005-2006.
29
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63
Brief 3: Providing Community Services and Supports – Outreach and Engagement
xvi 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.
xvii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf
xviii The website below is one long URL, but the type cannot be made small enough to fit onto one line and still be
readable.
http://dmh.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/dmh/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3hXAwMDd3-3YCN3YzdHA09XF-
MQvwATwwBvc_2CbEdFANdHYFQ!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/dmh+content/dmh+site/home/our+services/transi
tioned+age+youth/transitioned+aged+youth+detail/tay+system+navigators
xix http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/455449
xx http://www.cesa6.k12.wi.us/products_services/individyouthservices/seddefinition.cfm
xxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
xxii Population Estimates, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.
30