BHSOAC
Evaluation Deliverable1A Brief4 GSD
Read the report at Behavioral Health Services Oversight & Accountability Commission ↗
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System:
Proposition 63
Brief 4 of 7:
Providing Community Services and Supports through
General System Development
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
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
I. Activities Funded under General System Development
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)
General System Development (GSD) funds should be used to help counties: ii
“improve programs, services and supports” for individuals in need and, when applicable,
their families in order to “change their (the counties’) service delivery systems and build transformational
programs and services.” (p. 8)
This funding is meant for services that benefit both individuals with mental illness and their families
such as:
peer support (e.g., through wellness centers),
education and advocacy services, (p. 8) (e.g., not only for the client but also for the client’s
family), and
mobile crisis teams (e.g., for crisis intervention and stabilization).
General System Development Funds can also be used to improve the public mental health system
by:
promoting interagency and community collaboration and services, and
developing the capacity to provide values-driven, evidence-based and promising clinical
practices (p.8).
What is emphasized here is that GSD funds must be used only for mental health services and
supports such as alternative and culturally specific treatment, rehabilitation services, and service
system coordination.
For services that have functions other than those related to mental health:
“only the proportion of costs associated with the mental health activities” can be covered by GSD funds.
1
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Funding that is necessary for community supports and respite care, for instance, is not allowed to be
paid for through GSD expenditures, and can only be provided to clients enrolled in Full Service
Partnerships.
Yet – as indicated in various notices – GSD funds can be used for certain housing expenditures as
long as these expenditures are used to improve the mental health delivery system of the county in
question. This funding may be used both for housing units acquired by GSD funds as well as units
obtained through non-MHSA funded sources. iii Examples of GSD funds leveraged for housing in
buildings owned by local government include rent subsidies and master leases. Examples of GSD
funds leveraged for housing in buildings that may be subsidized by local government include motel
vouchers.
Table 4.1 displays the number of counties who, through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports,
documented spending money on General System Development activities during the time period for
which data was provided. Note that although there are 58 counties in California, two counties
receive joint funding. There are a total of two city-run programs, bringing the total number of
counties/municipalities to 59. iv GSD expenditures by county/municipality are displayed in
Appendix A.
Table 4.1 Number of Counties/Municipalities Expending Funds for General System Development
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
Acronym Service/Component 06-07 07-08 08-09
GSD General System Development 46 80% 51 86% 54 92%
The data contained in Table 4.1 show that as of FY 2008 – 2009, the majority of
counties/municipalities were expending funds on General System Development.
Table 4.2 displays the total amount of money spent on each General System Development activity,
in each of the State’s Fiscal Years. v 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 General System Development,
received money from DMH to spend on General System Development, and
actually spent money on General System Development.
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.
2
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Table 4.2 Total GSD Amount Expended by Category and Fiscal Year
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) vi , vii
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 $23,820,827.44 40 42.9% $63,562,212.43 47 44.2% $118,239,445.70 52 47.7%
Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $30,091,592.17 50 12.1%
GSD Housing -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,514,348.99 8 0.6%
Other $8,394,840.76 40 15.1% $27,690,199.15 47 19.2% $8,481,737.06 28 3.4%
County
$32,215,668.20 42 58.0% $91,252,411.57 48 63.4% $158,327,123.90 52 63.8%
Subtotal
Contract Provider Expenditures
Personnel $7,370,617.38 23 13.3% $16,903,333.68 21 11.7% $32,565,977.60 25 13.1%
Operating -- -- -- -- -- -- $16,796,323.30 23 6.8%
GSD Housing -- -- -- -- -- -- $473,630.00 4 0.2%
Other $15,925,009.20 24 28.7% $35,754,726.77 27 24.8% $39,943,747.15 21 16.1%
Contract
Provider $23,295,626.58 29 42.0% $52,658,060.45 30 36.6% $89,779,678.06 32 36.2%
Subtotal
Total GSD $55,511,294.78 46 100.0% $143,910,472.02 51 100.0% $248,106,801.90 54 100.0%
* Percent of Total CSS - GSD Expenditures
The Revenue and Expenditure Report data analyzed for this GSD 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. General System Development
expenditures are similar to the expenditure pattern for Outreach and Engagement (see Brief 3 for
details). The spending pattern for General System Development is fundamentally different from Full
Service Partnerships (see Brief 2 for further details), which shifted to heavier reliance upon community
contractors in later fiscal years.
The data contained in Table 4.2 show a graduated rollout of General System Development
expenditures, following the first year for which expenditure data was available through the Revenue
and Expenditure Reports (FY 2006 – 2007). Breakouts in the Revenue and Expenditure Report for
Operating and GSD Housing expenditures were not included until the FY 2008 – 2009 template
was released. Hence, expenditures in these areas are not reported in earlier 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. The spreading of
housing expenditures across multiple categories is one challenge inherent in the Community
3
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Supports and Services component category in particular (see Brief 1 for a complete summary of CSS
housing expenditures).
For the purpose of the General System Development brief, housing expenditures were explicitly
requested as a stand-alone line item in the FY 2008 – 2009 Revenue and Expenditure Report. viii A
total of 11 counties expended GSD Housing monies in FY 2008 – 2009, for a total dollar amount of
$1,987,978.99.
Please refer to Appendix A in the Series Overview/Summary Brief for a table displaying component
and major service category (e.g., GSD) expenditures for every county/municipality. ix
4
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
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). x 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 4.1a displays the Mental Health Services Act
dollar breakout for FY 2006 – 2007.
Figure 4.1a The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - General System Development Expenditures by County Population
(FY 06-07)
$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 0 0,000 5 , 0 0 0 ,000 ( L o s A ngeles
(11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
a
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 largest county, expenditures
to county contractors as a proportion of the GSD dollar tends to increase 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 4.1a therefore provide the context behind the
statewide data displayed in Table 4.2.
o The only exception in FY 2006 – 2007 is Los Angeles County. In addition, given the
amount of money expended in Los Angeles County, it appears that the proportion
spent at the county level compared to on contractor skewed the results statewide,
giving Table 4.2 the appearance that the majority is spent on county, rather than on
contractors. Examining the data along population and other factors yields important
5
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
differences between counties that otherwise are masked when examination remains
at the statewide perspective.
o Unique challenges likely face the largest county that may be related to population
size, and should be explored through a systematic review of the CSS plan. A
potential area of exploration for all counties includes:
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.
Figure 4.1b displays the MHSA/GSD dollar for FY 2007-2008, broken out into contract provider
and county.
Figure 4.1b The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - General System Development Expenditures by County Population
(FY 07-08)
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70 Contract Provider
Expenditures
$0.60
$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 0 0 ,000 1 , 0 00,000 5 , 0 0 0,000 ( L o s Angeles
(11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
a
Findings for FY 2007 – 2008 are consistent with FY 2006 – 2007. In addition, Los Angeles County
shifted from all GSD expenditures at the county level to a proportion on contract providers.
A review of Annual Updates xi submitted by counties/municipalities reflecting activities
implemented in FY 2007 – 2008 showed 73 percent of counties/municipalities implementing GSD
documented a specific GSD model, practice, or activity. xii Please refer to the appendices for a
listing of the services being implemented by counties/municipalities, as documented in the Annual
Update.
6
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Instructions for activities to be classified under the General System Development category are
broad, which has led to a variety of activities documented in this category (when counties and
municipalities document the service being implemented). For example, there is overlap with
Outreach and Engagement, which makes it challenging to distinguish the difference between the
two expenditure categories:
Outreach and Engagement: 13 counties reported in the Annual Update (corresponding to
FY 2007-2008) providing Outreach and Engagement under GSD, and eight counties
reported providing Engagement under GSD. Note that CSS does allow blending of funds
between Outreach and Engagement, General System Development, and Full Service
Partnership.
Funding the same or similar services across categories begs the question of why separate categories
are necessary, and what advantages are inherent in the current distinctions under Community
Services and Supports in particular.
The variation in General System Development activities suggests the need for additional information
to be obtained from the counties through a review of the CSS Plan (assuming these details were
asked for in the Plan Guidance):
How is participation in a General System Development activity tracked in the
county/municipality?
What specific age groups are the foci of General System Development activities?
How do GSD activities work to support Outreach and Engagement? The Full Service
Partnerships?
How are the Outreach and Engagement activities for which funds were expended under
GSD different from Outreach and Engagement in general? Is there any difference?
How are staff trained to implement “General System Development” activities?
Other services/activities listed by counties and municipalities in their Annual Updates as General
System Development are displayed below in Table 4.3, aligned next to the relevant example from
DMH guidance cited on p. 1.
7
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Table 4.3 General System Development Strategies/Activities Implemented by Counties/Municipalities
(FY 07-08)
N of Counties/
Strategy/Activity DMH Guidance Citation
Municipalities
Peer Counseling 14 p. 8, end note ii
Recovery Centers 13 Ibid
Outreach & Engagement 13* CSS allows blended funding
Engagement 8* CSS allows blended funding
Wellness Centers 8 p. 8, end note ii
Housing 7* End note ii
Education 6 p. 8, end note ii
Safety Plans 4* Ibid
Wraparound 4* Ibid
*County only (no municipality documented implementing this strategy)
Note that although Housing was not tracked as an independent category on the FY 2007 – 2008
Revenue and Expenditure Report, it was reported out as a stand-alone activity by seven counties on
the Annual Report reflecting that time period. Unfortunately, there is no way to track it back to
GSD expenditures through the FY 2007 – 2008 Revenue and Expenditure Report because there was
no stand-alone GSD Housing category in place until the FY 2008 – 2009 Revenue and Expenditure
Report.
Figure 4.1c displays the Mental Health Services Act Dollar – General System Development broken
out for county and contractor in FY 2008 – 2009. The pattern of increasing county size
accompanying shifting a greater proportion (albeit not the majority of expenditures) of expenditures
to contractors is strongest in FY 2008 – 2009.
Figure 4.1c The Mental Health Services Act Dollar - General System Development Expenditures by County Population
(FY 08-09)
$1.00
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70
Contract Provider
$0.60 Expenditures
$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 ( Los Angeles
(11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County)
8
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Figure 4.2 depicts the number of Community Services and Supports through General System
Development on which funds were expended in each fiscal year, broken out by activity. Each
county/municipality was allowed to expend funds on General System Development in any
combination of the following:
Expending funds solely from the Community Services and Supports through General
System Development line item.
Expending funds in a blended manner – hence, the program identified under General
System Development is also claimed as an expenditure under Community Services and
Supports through one or more of the following:
o Full Service Partnership
o Outreach and Engagement.
A single program can therefore be claimed as an expended line item solely out of its county’s line
item for Community Services and Supports through General System Development, or it can have
blended support through all of the categories listed under Community Services and Supports.
Tracking programs with blended expenditures raises a number of questions which are posed
throughout this brief.
Figure 4.2 shows the expenditure pattern among counties and municipalities in terms of expending
funds on individual programs solely with CSS – GSD funds or through a blended expenditure
mechanism.
Figure 4.2 General System Development - Number of Programs Funded
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
300
Full Service Partnership,
General System Development,
250 and Outreach and Engagement
Expenditures
d
e
d
n u 200 General System Development
F
s
and Outreach and Engagement
m Expenditures
a
rg
150
o
rP
fo Full Service Partnership and
re
b 100
G
Ex
e
p
n
e
e
n
ra
d
l
i t
S
u
y
r
s
e
t
s
em Development
m
u
N
50 General System Development
Expenditures
0
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09
9
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
A few key findings can be gleaned from this chart:
The number of GSD activities 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 General System Development? For
those counties/municipalities funding Outreach and Engagement under GSD, how can
specific activities documented on the Annual Update be tied to Outreach and
Engagement?
The need for additional data collection (perhaps through the Annual Updates and CSS Plans, provided that
this level of detail was requested from DMH) is again pointed out by this example, in order to provide
context for these findings. Key questions include:
How are blended expenditure GSD programs different from GSD programs that do not
blend funding? Are there any meaningful differences? There is a distinct line item for
Community Services and Supports through General System Development in the Revenue
and Expenditure Reports, but how might these programs be qualitatively different from
programs in which funding is blended? For example:
o Is staff able to clearly articulate the purpose of the Community Services and Supports
General System Development aspect of the blended program, as distinct and unique
from the Full Service Partnership and Outreach and Engagement?
Does adding General System Development funds to FSP programming change FSP
programming in any fundamental way from FSP programming without this augmentation?
Does adding Outreach and Engagement expenditures to General System Development
programming similarly change programming in any fundamental way?
How are blended GSD expenditure programs different from programs in which
expenditures are not blended? For example, counties/municipalities which expend funds
solely on GSD, separately on outreach and engagement activities, and separately on FSP?
How do expenditure patterns vary in blended compared to separated settings? What factors
move counties and municipalities toward blending?
10
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
The impact of county population on overall General System Development expenditures per capita is
displayed in Figure 4.3. “Per capita” means per person. xiii
Figure 4.3 General System Development Expenditures Per Capita Relative to State and Region Populationxiv
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
$8.00
$7.00
a
tip
a $6.00
C
re $5.00
P
s e $4.00
ru
tid $3.00
n
e p $2.00
x
E $1.00
FY08-09
$0.00
FY07-08
California
State Superior Central FY06-07
Counties Bay Area
Counties Southern
Counties
Counties Los Angeles
Region
The result of per capita analysis suggest that DMH policy to provide a baseline of funding to the
smallest counties has been effective. The Superior and Central Counties are shown in each year as
expending a baseline amount either on par with the Statewide per-person expenditure amount, or
exceeding it.
11
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Examination of General System Development expenditures by overall county population (without
including per capita) revealed that more populous counties tended to spend more on average
through the GSD program, in each fiscal year analyzed (see Figure 4.4). This finding suggests county
GSD average total expenditures seem to be associated with population size.
Figure 4.4 Average General System Development Expenditures by County Population
(FY 06-07 to FY 08-09)
$60.00
s
e
ru
tid $50.00
n e)s
p x n o $40.00
E
D
illiM
S G n $30.00
e
i(
g
a re $20.00
v
A
$10.00
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).
12
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
III. Summary
Three in four counties expending funds under “General System Development” documented a
specific strategy being implemented under the General System Development category in
their Annual Update. Strategies documented are in alignment with DMH guidance for
General System Development as a mechanism to “improve programs, services and supports.” xv
Cross-category expenditures within Community Services and Supports has led to some
overlap between Outreach and Engagement. Examination of the need for General System
Development as a unique category should be considered.
DMH guidance to provide a baseline of funding for the smallest counties is supported by
analysis of expenditures per capita.
Population size is related to General System Development funds expenditures, with
expenditures increasing as county population increases.
13
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Appendix A:
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2006 - 2007
Category
Total General
Contract Contract
System County County Contract
Provider County Other Provider
Development Personnel Total Provider Total
County Personnel Other
Alameda $713,303.23 -- $478,008.71 -- $235,294.53 -- $713,303.23
Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Berkeley City -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Butte $173,790.00 $123,779.00 -- $50,011.00 -- $173,790.00 --
Calaveras $164,243.00 $132,939.00 -- $31,304.00 -- $164,243.00 --
Colusa $390,791.00 $271,569.48 $33,247.50 $76,596.52 $9,377.50 $348,166.00 $42,625.00
Contra Costa $657,269.42 $343,935.79 $1,921.61 $44,236.81 $267,175.21 $388,172.60 $269,096.82
Del Norte $179,695.00 $125,786.50 -- $53,908.50 -- $179,695.00 --
El Dorado $309,617.03 $246,403.03 $34,745.00 $24,964.00 $3,505.00 $271,367.03 $38,250.00
Fresno $153,306.19 $89,960.39 -- $63,345.80 -- $153,306.19 --
Glenn $127,855.75 $65,206.43 -- $62,649.32 -- $127,855.75 --
Humboldt $3,363,949.46 $1,745,538.10 -- $1,618,411.36 -- $3,363,949.46 --
Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Inyo $98,687.56 $78,950.05 -- $19,737.51 -- $98,687.56 --
Kern $2,897,139.85 $1,458,688.00 -- $536,110.62 $902,341.23 $1,994,798.62 $902,341.23
Kings -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lake $157,081.47 $37,533.95 -- $111,679.52 $7,868.00 $149,213.47 $7,868.00
Lassen $33,528.00 -- -- $33,528.00 -- $33,528.00 --
Los Angeles $1,346,909.00 $1,334,655.00 -- $12,254.00 -- $1,346,909.00 --
Madera $8,968,298.79 $4,753,328.00 -- $1,748,486.64 $2,466,484.15 $6,501,814.64 $2,466,484.15
Marin -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $328,799.00 $88,083.00 -- $32,951.00 $207,765.00 $121,034.00 $207,765.00
Merced $852,334.26 $604,642.34 $64,051.00 $162,277.92 $21,363.00 $766,920.26 $85,414.00
Modoc -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $1,782,872.29 $411,012.21 $599,681.73 $129,359.60 $642,818.75 $540,371.81 $1,242,500.48
Napa $125,085.29 $105,303.29 -- $19,782.00 -- $125,085.29 --
Nevada $44,135.00 $27,389.48 $4,428.39 $12,317.13 -- $39,706.61 $4,428.39
Orange $3,230,295.50 $1,670,504.50 $936,985.00 $110,659.00 $512,147.00 $1,781,163.50 $1,449,132.00
Placer $192,192.82 $71,983.80 -- $120,209.02 -- $192,192.82 --
Plumas $20,639.37 $18,345.11 -- $2,294.27 -- $20,639.37 --
Riverside $4,032,195.15 $2,099,960.89 -- $1,090,114.45 $842,119.81 $3,190,075.35 $842,119.81
Sacramento $586,511.00 -- $61,019.00 -- $525,492.00 -- $586,511.00
San Benito $539,372.00 $388,347.84 -- $151,024.16 -- $539,372.00 --
San Bernardino $3,178,447.26 $3,047,433.63 $131,013.62 -- -- $3,047,433.63 $131,013.62
San Diego $4,122,242.00 -- $1,932,132.00 -- $2,190,110.00 -- $4,122,242.00
San Francisco $1,917,129.46 $176,127.46 $971,701.47 -- $769,300.53 $176,127.46 $1,741,002.00
San Joaquin $247,744.14 $184,791.00 -- $62,953.14 -- $247,744.14 --
San Luis Obispo $1,037,446.31 $194,916.83 $354,730.92 $252,683.66 $235,114.90 $447,600.49 $589,845.82
San Mateo $2,561,796.82 $1,660,821.67 $72,667.10 $463,625.74 $364,682.31 $2,124,447.41 $437,349.41
Santa Barbara $402,945.00 -- -- $402,945.00 -- $402,945.00 --
Santa Clara $350,117.82 $215,794.94 -- $134,322.88 -- $350,117.82 --
Santa Cruz $4,806,861.27 $415,814.65 -- $97,711.57 $4,293,335.04 $513,526.22 $4,293,335.04
Shasta $139,547.12 $72,056.26 $32,850.00 $34,640.86 -- $106,697.12 $32,850.00
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Siskiyou -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Solano $1,030,630.16 $257,026.38 $302,879.02 $53,736.63 $416,988.13 $310,763.01 $719,867.15
Sonoma $712,252.27 $88,407.79 $236,569.57 $111,795.01 $275,479.90 $200,202.80 $512,049.47
Stanislaus $1,157,844.02 $378,455.16 $336,465.51 $244,691.53 $198,231.83 $623,146.69 $534,697.34
Sutter-Yuba $660,827.10 $364,108.83 $140,018.33 $156,699.94 -- $520,808.77 $140,018.33
14
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2006 – 2007
Category
Total General
Contract Contract
System County County Contract
Provider County Other Provider
Development Personnel Total Provider Total
County Personnel Other
Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Trinity $41,253.00 $33,002.40 -- $8,250.60 -- $41,253.00 --
Tulare $844,780.67 -- $407,729.12 -- $437,051.55 -- $844,780.67
Tuolumne $52,298.00 $21,100.00 $29,575.00 $1,623.00 -- $22,723.00 $29,575.00
Ventura $571,242.92 $267,437.25 $186,674.77 $37,508.06 $79,622.85 $304,945.30 $266,297.62
Yolo $205,993.00 $149,688.00 $21,523.00 $13,441.00 $21,341.00 $163,129.00 $42,864.00
15
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2007 - 2008
Category
Total General
Contract Contract
System County Contract
Provider County Other Provider County Total
Development Personnel Provider Total
County Personnel Other
Alameda $1,810,352.62 $559,309.40 $845,511.73 $61,564.28 $343,967.21 $620,873.68 $1,189,478.94
Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Amador $72,139.00 $58,432.39 -- $13,706.61 -- $72,139.00 --
Berkeley City $173,199.00 $160,692.00 -- $12,507.00 -- $173,199.00 --
Butte $968,212.00 $746,062.00 $14,761.00 $198,720.00 $8,669.00 $944,782.00 $23,430.00
Calaveras $582,246.00 $476,371.00 -- $105,875.00 -- $582,246.00 --
Colusa $903,410.00 $686,591.60 -- $216,818.40 -- $903,410.00 --
Contra Costa -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Del Norte -- -- -- -- -- -- --
El Dorado $444,423.28 $289,610.36 -- $154,812.92 -- $444,423.28 --
Fresno $1,801,757.33 $1,100,040.62 -- $701,716.71 -- $1,801,757.33 --
Glenn $992,703.00 $625,402.89 -- $367,300.11 -- $992,703.00 --
Humboldt $3,925,656.00 $1,967,297.00 -- $1,958,359.00 -- $3,925,656.00 --
Imperial $602,519.70 $351,406.76 -- $251,112.94 -- $602,519.70 --
Inyo $40,378.00 $25,034.36 -- $15,343.64 -- $40,378.00 --
Kern $3,990,416.47 $2,583,249.75 $151,969.26 $455,490.71 $799,706.75 $3,038,740.46 $951,676.01
Kings $62,983.00 $1,837.00 $34,572.00 $15,321.00 $11,253.00 $17,158.00 $45,825.00
Lake $528,561.01 $259,209.44 -- $179,987.37 $89,364.20 $439,196.81 $89,364.20
Lassen $140,726.00 $27,795.00 -- $30,499.00 $82,432.00 $58,294.00 $82,432.00
Los Angeles $52,366,677.34 $25,417,631.20 -- $10,802,425.24 $16,146,620.90 $36,220,056.44 $16,146,620.90
Madera $1,140,956.00 $618,644.00 -- $167,316.00 $354,996.00 $785,960.00 $354,996.00
Marin -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $488,250.00 $258,871.00 $126,167.00 $103,212.00 -- $362,083.00 $126,167.00
Merced $859,675.25 $567,462.19 $127,325.00 $135,498.64 $29,389.42 $702,960.83 $156,714.42
Modoc $179,003.00 $136,257.08 -- $42,745.92 -- $179,003.00 --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $1,894,466.14 $803,236.74 $436,560.20 $302,726.92 $351,942.28 $1,105,963.66 $788,502.48
Napa $241,480.89 $225,947.47 -- $15,533.42 -- $241,480.89 --
Nevada $425.00 $425.00 -- -- -- $425.00 --
Orange $6,434,713.17 $2,787,872.20 $2,470,033.23 $370,808.39 $805,999.34 $3,158,680.59 $3,276,032.58
Placer $424,837.45 $123,062.68 $104,837.65 $170,727.20 $26,209.92 $293,789.88 $131,047.57
Plumas $70,541.00 $36,153.00 -- $34,388.00 $70,541.00 --
Riverside $11,220,718.98 $6,754,515.85 -- $3,209,245.25 $1,256,957.88 $9,963,761.10 $1,256,957.88
Sacramento $1,863,922.00 -- $427,332.00 -- $1,436,590.00 -- $1,863,922.00
San Benito $811,386.00 $567,970.20 -- $243,415.80 -- $811,386.00 --
San Bernardino $8,138,872.20 $2,549,346.00 $1,798,315.00 $1,128,737.79 $2,662,473.41 $3,678,083.79 $4,460,788.41
San Diego $10,149,571.63 -- $5,255,244.17 -- $4,894,327.46 -- $10,149,571.63
San Francisco $2,212,759.70 $502,968.63 $1,226,078.47 $2,500.00 $481,212.60 $505,468.63 $1,707,291.07
San Joaquin $2,879,576.88 $1,147,280.10 -- $1,732,296.78 -- $2,879,576.88
San Luis Obispo $1,785,749.70 $521,217.08 $654,873.96 $267,272.25 $342,386.41 $788,489.33 $997,260.37
San Mateo $3,079,798.00 $2,085,388.00 -- $558,957.00 $435,453.00 $2,644,345.00 $435,453.00
Santa Barbara $1,957,030.33 $949,169.83 $585,967.37 $291,650.75 $130,242.38 $1,240,820.58 $716,209.75
Santa Clara $3,831,873.17 $2,200,804.25 -- $1,631,068.92 $3,831,873.17
Santa Cruz $2,079,145.19 $581,953.70 -- $27,623.71 $1,469,567.79 $609,577.41 $1,469,567.79
Shasta $164,228.66 $59,534.66 -- $104,694.00 -- $164,228.66 --
Sierra $8,842.94 -- -- $8,842.94 -- $8,842.94 --
Siskiyou -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Solano $3,401,305.70 $1,184,726.10 -- $191,286.43 $2,025,293.17 $1,376,012.53 $2,025,293.17
Sonoma $2,987,551.62 $1,638,691.76 $584,841.62 $510,937.28 $253,080.96 $2,149,629.04 $837,922.58
Stanislaus $2,303,803.75 $1,004,128.00 $640,353.00 $221,916.00 $437,406.75 $1,226,044.00 $1,077,759.75
Sutter-Yuba $355,829.00 $312,602.00 $36,923.00 $6,304.00 -- $318,906.00 $36,923.00
Tehama $237,694.54 $159,704.00 -- $77,990.54 -- $237,694.54 --
Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- --
16
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2007 - 2008
Category
Total General
Contract Contract
System County Contract
Provider County Other Provider County Total
Development Personnel Provider Total
County Personnel Other
Trinity $289,705.00 $168,028.48 -- $121,676.52 -- $289,705.00 --
Tulare $1,081,417.03 -- $655,825.71 -- $425,591.32 -- $1,081,417.03
Tuolumne $425,118.00 $37,934.00 -- $387,184.00 -- $425,118.00 --
Ventura $1,053,767.00 $62,589.00 $654,832.50 $55,703.00 $280,642.50 $118,292.00 $935,475.00
Yolo $450,097.35 $179,756.65 $71,009.81 $26,379.77 $172,951.12 $206,136.42 $243,960.93
17
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2008 - 2009
Category
Total General Contract Contract County Other Contract Contract County Total Contract
County County
System Provider Provider GSD Provider Other County Other Provider Provider
Personnel Operating
County Development Personnel Operating Housing GSD Housing Other Total
Alameda $2,603,011.46 $889,504.00 $1,018,898.95 $176,863.07 $302,920.99 -- -- -- $214,823.98 $1,066,367.53 $1,536,643.93
Alpine $35,464.00 $4,766.00 $21,421.00 $5,002.00 $4,275.00 -- -- -- -- $9,768.00 $25,696.00
Amador $1,875,774.87 $1,350,558.00 -- $525,216.96 -- -- -- -- -- $1,875,774.87 --
Berkeley City $194,168.00 $185,484.00 -- $8,684.00 -- -- -- -- -- $194,168.00 --
Butte $1,766,465.00 $1,078,462.00 $109,480.00 $154,548.00 $151,186.00 -- -- $272,789.00 -- $1,505,799.00 $260,666.00
Calaveras $393,428.20 $322,217.00 -- $62,115.20 -- $5,440.00 -- $3,656.00 -- $393,428.20 --
Colusa $1,922,791.92 $1,442,093.00 -- $480,698.48 -- -- -- -- -- $1,922,791.92 --
Contra Costa $6,728,688.60 $1,295,775.00 $2,376,304.40 $142,868.40 $1,176,148.95 $1,082,956.00 $246,600.00 $15,986.00 $392,049.65 $2,537,585.60 $4,191,103.00
Del Norte $1,059,813.94 $698,679.00 -- $184,526.46 -- $47,102.35 -- $129,506.13 -- $1,059,813.94 --
El Dorado $289,667.72 $114,435.00 -- $146,257.53 -- -- -- $28,975.00 -- $289,667.72 --
Fresno $4,577,528.85 $2,561,173.00 $280,395.38 $1,365,553.63 $370,406.68 -- -- -- -- $3,926,726.79 $650,802.06
Glenn $1,231,369.00 $837,331.00 -- $394,038.08 -- -- -- -- -- $1,231,369.00 --
Humboldt $4,688,537.00 $2,490,602.00 -- $2,146,322.94 -- $51,612.06 -- -- -- $4,688,537.00 --
Imperial $785,361.00 $612,762.00 -- $169,320.00 -- -- $3,279.00 -- $785,361.00 --
Inyo $1,762,645.86 $1,462,996.00 -- $299,649.80 -- -- -- -- -- $1,762,645.86 --
Kern $9,243,036.65 $6,267,076.00 $246,184.21 $985,727.95 -- $506.00 $40,211.56 $1,703,330.97 $7,293,015.47 $1,950,021.18
Kings $1,360,469.00 $127,881.00 $545,590.00 $338,439.00 $145,797.00 $166,447.00 -- $36,315.00 -- $669,082.00 $691,387.00
Lake $693,801.72 $356,933.00 -- $223,037.38 -- -- -- $113,831.09 -- $693,801.72 --
Lassen $314,172.50 $183,063.00 -- $115,338.60 -- -- -- $3,404.75 $12,366.14 $301,806.36 $12,366.14
Los Angeles $57,285,263.49 $25,329,497.00 -- $5,007,747.08 -- -- -- $1,976,733.00 $24,971,286.00 $32,313,977.49 $24,971,286.00
Madera $9,124,927.00 $5,473,199.00 -- $3,651,728.00 -- -- -- -- -- $9,124,927.00 --
Marin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mendocino $445,852.66 $310,711.00 $99,432.32 $35,708.92 -- -- -- -- -- $346,420.34 $99,432.32
Merced $2,426,427.88 $764,309.00 $230,667.52 $102,248.00 $35,372.00 -- -- $1,279,857.00 $13,974.00 $2,146,414.36 $280,013.52
Modoc $1,001,151.00 $610,702.00 -- $390,449.28 -- -- -- -- -- $1,001,151.00 --
Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Monterey $2,306,478.21 $1,014,725.00 $594,567.86 $306,343.24 $377,841.64 -- -- -- $13,000.00 $1,321,068.71 $985,409.50
Napa $270,824.25 $253,635.00 -- $17,189.42 -- -- -- -- -- $270,824.25 --
Nevada $789,497.88 $444,272.00 $19,100.00 $326,125.26 -- -- -- $0.25 -- $770,397.88 $19,100.00
Orange $11,027,073.37 $5,391,431.00 $3,412,224.65 $1,012,810.15 $1,031,021.96 $77,633.06 -- $89,525.43 $12,426.72 $6,571,400.04 $4,455,673.33
Placer $775,650.00 $250,716.00 $174,093.00 $272,135.00 $78,706.00 -- -- -- -- $522,851.00 $252,799.00
Plumas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Riverside $31,878,532.00 $22,071,574.00 -- $5,037,927.00 -- - -- $2,079,141.00 $2,689,890.00 $29,188,642.00 $2,689,890.00
Sacramento $4,154,118.00 -- $1,416,426.00 $1,073,815.00 -- $143,015.00 -- $1,520,862.00 -- $4,154,118.00
San Benito $571,058.82 $439,715.00 -- $131,343.53 -- -- -- -- -- $571,058.82 --
San Bernardino $12,870,052.02 $8,010,819.00 $2,108,304.56 $1,304,785.84 $1,446,142.43 -- -- -- -- $9,315,605.02 $3,554,447.00
18
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
General System Development Total Expenditures by County and Municipality:
FY 2008 - 2009
Category
Total General Contract Contract County Other Contract Contract County Total Contract
County County
System Provider Provider GSD Provider Other County Other Provider Provider
Personnel Operating
County Development Personnel Operating Housing GSD Housing Other Total
San Diego $17,369,786.81 $16,240.00 $8,649,861.25 $379,527.27 $4,979,671.13 -- -- $387,232.43 $2,957,255.00 $782,999.43 $16,586,787.38
San Francisco $3,010,583.00 $635,054.00 $1,674,759.52 -- $523,856.96 -- -- -- $176,912.52 $635,054.00 $2,375,529.00
San Joaquin $4,117,675.26 $1,604,785.00 -- $175,063.03 -- -- -- $509,361.22 $1,828,466.22 $2,289,209.04 $1,828,466.22
San Luis Obispo $2,157,165.00 $956,093.00 $761,603.00 $248,111.00 $174,161.00 -- -- $190.00 $17,007.00 $1,204,394.00 $952,771.00
San Mateo $4,087,362.00 $2,740,171.00 -- $550,895.00 -- $30,773.00 -- $465,505.00 $300,018.00 $3,787,344.00 $300,018.00
Santa Barbara $2,205,982.00 $1,340,418.00 $495,103.00 $134,360.00 $236,101.00 -- -- -- -- $1,474,778.00 $731,204.00
Santa Clara $13,682,327.90 $7,850,833.00 $2,871,970.06 $1,041,585.26 $1,917,939.24 -- -- -- -- $8,892,418.59 $4,789,909.31
Santa Cruz $2,611,287.70 $899,772.00 -- -- -- -- -- $2,784.35 $1,708,731.00 $902,556.70 $1,708,731.00
Shasta $236,842.00 $187,428.00 -- $43,079.00 -- -- -- $6,335.00 -- $236,842.00 --
Sierra $124,408.00 $57,197.00 -- $67,211.00 -- -- -- -- -- $124,408.00 --
Siskiyou -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Solano $5,178,005.00 $1,433,967.00 $2,336,697.00 $190,059.00 $1,073,131.00 -- -- $344.00 $143,807.00 $1,624,370.00 $3,553,635.00
Sonoma $3,140,819.66 $1,605,028.00 $674,181.50 $587,683.64 $273,926.86 -- -- -- -- $2,192,711.30 $948,108.36
Stanislaus $4,751,142.00 $2,794,186.00 $901,297.00 $273,555.00 $408,424.00 -- $83,509.00 $32,803.00 $257,368.00 $3,100,544.00 $1,650,598.00
Sutter-Yuba $236,969.20 $126,273.00 -- $35,912.99 -- $52,385.52 -- $22,397.36 $236,969.20 --
Tehama $941,689.60 $652,802.00 -- $288,887.81 -- -- -- -- -- $941,689.60 --
Tri-Cities $198,937.00 $9,023.00 -- $9,954.00 -- -- -- $179,960.00 -- $198,937.00 --
Trinity $110,255.00 $60,640.00 -- $49,614.75 -- -- -- -- -- $110,255.00 --
Tulare $2,451,695.60 -- $1,532,870.85 -- $704,430.81 -- -- -- $214,393.94 -- $2,451,695.60
Tuolumne $711,168.00 $467,607.00 -- $100,081.00 -- -- -- $143,480.00 -- $711,168.00 --
Ventura $3,348,687.97 $1,501,153.00 -- $239,101.32 $311,206.00 -- -- $506,684.00 $790,544.00 $2,246,937.97 $1,101,750.00
Yolo $980,911.37 $653,677.00 $14,544.54 $156,162.90 -$158.35 -- -- $151,450.49 $5,235.01 $961,290.17 $19,621.20
19
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Appendix B: Summary of General System Development Services provided by Counties/Municipalities in FY 2007-2008
Yellow = Strategy was documented in the CSS component, but was not reported as being specific to General System Development
Services Specific Populations
Safety Plans
Education
(services that Peer
Recovery Crisis (of peers,
Wraparound Wellness encourage Counseling/ Unserved/or Transition
Center/ Intervention/ Outreach Engagement Housing family, Families Older Adults
Program Center clients to stay Support Underserved Age Youth
Programs Support and/or
in Services
community)
County community)
Alameda
Alpine 1
Amador
Berkeley City 1 1 1 1
Butte 1 1 1 1
Calaveras
Colusa 1
Contra Costa 1 1 1
Del Norte
El Dorado 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fresno
Glenn 1 1 1
Humboldt 1 1 1 1
Imperial 1
Inyo 1 1
Kern 1 1 1 1 1
Kings 1 1
Lake
Lassen 1 1
Los Angeles 1 1 1 1 1 1
Madera 1 1
Marin
Mariposa 1 1
Mendocino 1 1
Merced 1 1 1 1
Modoc
Mono
Monterey 1 1
20
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
Summary of General System Development Services provided by Counties/Municipalities in FY 2007-2008
Yellow = Strategy was documented in the CSS component, but was not reported as being specific to General System Development
Services Specific Populations
Safety Plans
Education
(services that Peer
Recovery Crisis (of peers,
Wraparound Wellness encourage Counseling Unserved/or Transition Older
Center/ Intervention/ Outreach Engagement Housing family, Families
Program Center clients to / Support Underserved Age Youth Adults
Programs Support and/or
stay in Services
community)
County community)
Orange 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Placer 1 1 1 1 1 1
Plumas
Riverside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sacramento 1 1
San Benito 1 1 1
San Bernardino 1 1 1 1
San Diego 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
San Francisco 1 1
San Joaquin 1 1 1 1 1
San Luis Obispo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
San Mateo 1 1
Santa Barbara 1 1 1
Santa Clara 1 1 1 1
Santa Cruz 1 1 1 1 1
Shasta 1 1 1
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano 1 1
Sonoma
Stanislaus 1 1 1
Sutter-Yuba
Tehama
Tri City
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne 1 1
Ventura 1 1
Yolo
Total (SD specific) 4 5 12 19 10 6 5 2 14 7 13 4 5 5
Total (not SD specific) 0 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 0 0 4 0 5 8
Total (overall) 4 7 13 21 13 8 6 4 14 7 17 4 10 13
21
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
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.
22
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
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.
The FY 2008 – 2009 cell linking CSS total to the summary page was not locked, and the CSS totals were
incorrect for three of the four counties that opted to manually insert CalHFA Housing Allocations. As a
result, the CSS grand total had to be calculated using programming language for all counties (for the
purpose accurate expenditures to be included in this report).
23
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through
California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System
General System Development
Brief 4: Providing Community Services and Supports through General System Development
End Notes
i California Department of Mental Health (2010, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report, Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011.
Sacramento, CA.
ii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf
iii Ibid
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices08/08-12.pdf
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices08/08-31.pdf
iv 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.
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 UCLA/EMT Team made a
methodological decision in order to more clearly 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.
vi For FY 06-07, GSD expenditures are broken down further into new and existing programs.
vii 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.
viii 08-31 details expectations for tracking GSD Housing. The following table displays the 11 counties expending GSD Housing
Funds per the FY 08-09 Revenue and Expenditure Report –
County GSD Housing Expenditures
Contra Costa
Kern
Sacramento
Stanislaus
Contractor GSD Housing Expenditures
Calaveras
Contra Costa
Del Norte
Humboldt
Kings
Orange
San Mateo
Sutter-Yuba
http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices08/08-31.pdf
ix 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.
x http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf
xi The Annual Updates for FY 2009 – 2010 were reviewed and all services and activities funded under GSD were recorded. The
matrix documenting the results is attached in Appendix B.
xii 16 counties/municipalities (more than one in four) did not document in the Annual Update a specific GSD model or best
practice being implemented (27%).
xiii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
xiv Population Estimates, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.
xv http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/letters05/05-05CSS.pdf
24