Evaluation Deliverable1A Brief5 WET

Cali fornia’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5 of 7: Workforce Education and Training 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 5: Workforce Education and Training I. Activities Funded under Workforce Education and Training The Proposed Guidelines for the Workforce Education and Training (WET) component of the Three Year Program and Expenditure Plan discuss the role of the state and counties/municipalities: i, ii  The MHSA mandates that the State Department of Mental Health (DMH) implement a Five-Year Education and Training Development Plan (state plan). These guidelines further state that the goal of this Five-Year Plan is “to develop and maintain a competent and diverse workforce capable of effectively meeting the mental health needs of the public.” (p. 4)  Each County’s workforce education and training programs and activities (local plans) will then be part of the Five-Year Plan when it is developed. These county/municipal-specific WET components must be ―consistent with the vision, values, mission, goals, objectives and performance indicators included in the Five-Year Plan‖ (p. 4). So, both local and state plans are modeled after the same concepts but these concepts originate with the state plan and then must be adopted by local plans. These fundamental values are: o Wellness, recovery, and resilience (p. 4) o Cultural competence (p. 4-5) o Client/family driven mental health system (p. 5) o Integrated service experience (p. 5) o Community collaboration (p. 5) In discussing local/county plans, the guidelines state the following: ―These fundamental concepts combine to ensure that counties work with their communities to create culturally competent, client/family driven mental health services and supports which are wellness focused, support recovery and resilience, and which offer integrated service experiences for clients and families. Each of the components submitted by the counties need to incorporate and reflect all of these concepts‖ (p. 5). The development of local WET programs must coordinate and complement the state-administered workforce development and training programs in order to:  “Ensure that all workforce strategies mandated by the Act are collectively addressed  Increase fair and equitable access and benefit to the state-administered workforce education and training programs by employers and current and prospective employees throughout the state, where appropriate  Increase cost-effectiveness of administration  Establish programs that model the stated values in the Five-Year Plan, and can assist in the development of new programs across the state.” (p.6) 1 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training In the spirit of collaboration and coordination, the Five Year plan must also list both state and county/municipal programs (p. 6). State-administered WET funds represent approximately half of all WET funds.iii However, DMH-administered WET programs and related expenditures are not the focus of Brief 5 because Revenue and Expenditure Reports document expenditures at the county and municipal level. Workforce Education and Training (WET) funding is expected to be used in order to alleviate:  “the shortage of qualified individuals to provide services to address severe mental illnesses (WIC Section 5820).” Counties/municipalities are asked to review their workforce and the workforce of contractors in their community, assess where the shortages exist, and document the challenges in order to apply for WET funds as a remedy.iv WET funding supports a variety of activities, described below and on pages 3-4. Workforce Staffing Support Workforce Staffing Support provides: v  ―funds to plan for, administer, support or evaluate the workforce programs and trainings in the remaining four funding categories.‖ (p. 21) The remaining four funding categories noted in DMH guidance documents include:  Training and Technical Assistance  Mental Health Career Pathways Program  Residency and Internship Program  Financial Incentive Program Funds in the Workforce Staffing Support category can be used to pay for individuals or agencies through an hourly rate, staff salary, or by contract, and the staff time put into this category can be used to further state-administered programs that affect the county (p. 21). Training and Technical Assistance Training and Technical Assistance refers to: vi ―events and activities in which individuals and/or organizations are paid with MHSA funds to assist all individuals who provide or support the Public Mental Health System in better delivering services consistent with the fundamental principles intended by the Act.‖ (p. 25) In order for training and technical assistance to qualify for MHSA funding, it must promote: 2 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training  recovery, wellness and resilience;  client and family member support;  client and family member partnership with county and community based organization staff through education and technical assistance;  cultural competence; and  ―increase competency‖ in content knowledge and management, coordinator and consultation skills ―to implement quality Prevention and Early Intervention Component programs and activities.‖ (pp. 25-27) Mental Health Career Pathway Programs Mental Health Career Pathway Programs are defined as: vii  ―educational, training and counseling programs that are designed to recruit and prepare individuals for entry into a career in the Public Mental Health System.‖ (p. 31) The goal of these programs is to expose individuals to careers and service delivery currently available in the Public Mental Health System as well as to familiarize them with the Mental Health Services Act's:  ―vision of wellness, recovery and resilience, client and family member driven services, cultural competence, community collaboration, and integrated service experiences.‖ (p. 31) These programs should both address the inequality present in the mental health workforce for certain ―underrepresented‖ groups and prepare individuals in the community, particularly clients and their family members, for employment in the Public Mental Health System (p. 31). Residency and Internship Programs Residency and Internship Programs are meant to: viii  “address workforce shortages by supplementing existing programs in order to increase the number of licensed professionals within a program who will practice in the Public Mental Health System.” (pp. 35-36) Specifically, these programs aim to increase the number of licensed professionals who have the following specific training and education:  specialization in child and geriatric psychiatry, and  prescription privileges and/or ability to administer psychotropic medications (p. 36) Or have the following desirable personal background:  are recruited from underrepresented racial/ethnic and cultural groups, (p. 36) 3 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training and/or are willing to work in the following settings:  increase mental health awareness and expertise by working with primary care health care workers,  work on multidisciplinary teams providing services according to the fundamental concepts of the Act, and  work in underserved/unserved communities and rural areas (p. 36). Financial Incentive Programs Financial Incentive Programs include stipends, scholarships, and loan assumption programs that are given out as incentives in order to: ix  ―recruit and retain both prospective and current public mental health employees who can address workforce shortages of critical skills and under-representation of racial/ethnic, cultural or linguistic groups in the workforce.‖ (p. 39) These programs are also used to encourage employment and career advancement opportunities for individuals who are either themselves clients or family members of clients who have had experience with the Public Mental Health System (p. 39). Table 5.1 displays the number of counties who, through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, documented spending money on Workforce Education and Training during the time period for which data was provided through the Revenue and Expenditure Reports. Note that although there are 58 counties in California, two counties jointly receive funding. There are a total of two city-run programs, bringing the total number of counties/municipalities to 59.x WET expenditures by county/municipality are displayed in Appendix A. Table 5.1 Number of Counties/Municipalities Expending Funds on Workforce Education and Training (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) Acronym Service/Component 06-07 07-08 08-09 WET Workforce Education and Training 4 7% 38 65% 47 80% A timeline of key events related to WET expenditures is provided below in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Key WET Fiscal Events Key WET Event Date Fiscal Year Citation Planning Estimates Released April 2007 2006 - 2007 xi 4 Counties Expend WET Funds -- 2006 - 2007 -- Plan Guidance Released July 2007 2007 - 2008 xii Allocations Released July 2007 2007 - 2008 xiii The majority of counties were expending funds in FY 2007 – 2008 on Workforce Education and Training. Aligning the timing of efforts to bolster county and contractor staff in order to better meet the needs of individuals with severe mental illness with the schedule to roll out Community 4 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Services and Supports was certainly in the interest of all parties involved. Staff who match the ethnic, cultural and linguistic background of those in need, reaching out to engage members of their community in services matched to the clinical as well as individual’s needs represents a virtuous circle. Table 5.3 displays the total amount of money spent on Workforce Education and Training, in each of the State’s Fiscal Years. It also shows the amount of money that was available to be spent, but was not spent.xiv 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.xv Expended funds represent monies that counties and municipalities:  received approval from DMH to spend on approved Mental Health Services Act components: xvi  received money from DMH to spend on approved Mental Health Services Act components, and  actually spent money on approved Mental Health Services Act components. Unexpended funds represent monies that counties and municipalities:  received approval from DMH to spend on Mental Health Services Act components:  received money from DMH to spend on Mental Health Services Act components,  were unable to actually spend on Mental Health Services Act components for various reasons (but it is available to be spent), and  monies that have been carried over from previous fiscal years from Mental Health Services Act components (that are not subject to reversion). Unexpended funds does not include ―undistributed‖ funds – monies at DMH that have not yet been sent to counties/municipalities. Undistributed funds are not included in the analysis because they are not included in the Revenue and Expenditure Report. The Revenue and Expenditure Report was chosen as the primary data source because it provides an accounting of expended funds – monies spent. The key questions for the Cost series of briefs (Summary and Overview Brief, p. 2) are all related to monies spent. Analysis of undistributed funds was not deemed essential to answering these questions at this point in time. With regard to funds subject to reversion, which fall under the unexpended funds category, the California Welfare and Institutions Code, under section 5892(h), states: xvii 5 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training ―Other than funds placed in a reserve in accordance with an approved plan, any funds allocated to a county which have not been spent for their authorized purpose within three years shall revert to the state to be deposited into the fund and available for other counties in future years, provided however, that funds for capital facilities, technological needs, or education and training may be retained for up to 10 years before reverting to the fund.‖ [underline added for emphasis] Therefore, funds allocated by DMH to be spent on services or services support, but remain unspent for ten years revert back to the State after that time period has elapsed. Table 5.3 Monies Expended and Unexpended by Fiscal Year (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) xviii MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Expended Unexpended Expended Unexpended Expended Unexpended WET Total $171,535.75 -$70,741.63 $4,968,480.08 $7,677,400.91 $17,215,714.35 $70,486,289.74 There is a negative balance in the unexpended funds column for FY 2006 – 2007 because of DMH guidance to show expenditures in the year incurred, and revenue in the year received (refer back to Table 5.2 and the timeline of key WET fiscal events). xix The Revenue and Expenditure Report for FY 2006 – 2007 was structured in such a way that all WET Planning Expenditures were subtracted out on the Unexpended Funds worksheet, and counted as a negative balance.xx The component allocations (from the California Department of Mental Health’s Excel files, downloaded from their website)xxi are compared to the total amount expended and unexpended in each Fiscal Year, in Tables 5.4 (FY 06-07), 5.5 (FY 07-08) and 5.6 (FY 08-09).xxii WET component allocations by county/municipality are displayed in Appendix C. Table 5.4 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation (FY 06-07) MHSA Expenditures* FY 06-07 Component Expended Unexpended Total Allocations WET $171,536 -$70,741 $100,794 $106,070,717 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison 6 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Table 5.5 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation (FY 07-08) MHSA Expenditures* FY 07-08 Component Expended Unexpended Total Allocations WET $4,968,480 $7,677,401 $12,645,881 $110,000,300 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison Table 5.6 Monies Expended and Unexpended Relative to Component Allocation (FY 08-09) xxiii MHSA Expenditures* FY 08-09 Component Expended Unexpended Total Allocations WET $17,215,714 $70,486,290 $87,702,004 $184,294 *Expenditures have been rounded for comparison WET funds were distributed for the entire funding period requested by counties and municipalities, rather than on a yearly basis. Therefore, it is consistent that the component allocations are much larger than the expenditures, because counties and municipalities received the money over a short period of time, but are able to expend the funds over ten years. The allocation process is important to keep in mind when reviewing the next series of figures. Figures 5.1a and 5.1b illustrate the proportion of unexpended to expended funds for Workforce Education and Training. The data in the figures show that the imbalance between unexpended and expended increased over time. Rollover monies were included, which contributes to the percent unexpended increasing in each subsequent fiscal year.xxiv The major factor that contributed to the increase in unexpended funds is that counties were given a lump sum for multi-year WET projects. In brief, all of the WET monies were given to counties and municipalities up front, rather than being funded on an annual basis. Figure 5.1a - b Proportion of Expended to Unexpended Funds (FY 07-08 and FY 08-09) Expended Expended 39% 20% Unexpended Unexpended 80% 61% 7 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Tables 5.7a - c depicts expenditures within each of the major service areas authorized under the umbrella of ―Workforce Education and Training.‖ They include:  Administration (only reported out during FY 2008 – 2009)  Planning (all fiscal years): xxv ―Planning‖ is the process of collaborating with key stakeholders in the community and engaging in start-up activities (e.g., developing RFPs)  Work Plans (only reported out during FY 2007 – 2008 and 2008 – 2009): ―Work Plan‖ is actual implementation of WET activities. Table 5.7a applies to all WET activities and displays expenditures specifically related to Workforce Education and Training. Administration as an activity uniquely supportive of Workforce Education and Training was only included on the FY 2008 – 2009 Revenue and Expenditure Report template provided to counties and municipalities. Hence, Administration expenditures are only shown for FY 2008 – 2009. Table 5.7a Total Amount Expended - Administration (FY 08-09)xxvi MHSA Expenditures* FY 08–09 Amount N of Counties Percent* Personnel $667,165.34 16 58.5% Operating Costs $168,843.81 15 14.8% City/County Allocated Administration $304,949.53 8 26.7% Total WET Administration $1,140,958.67 20 100.0% *Percent of total Admnistration Only 20 of the 40 counties implementing WET in FY 2008 – 2009 expended funds on Administration. Differing needs for Administration support when implementing WET will be examined through a systematic review of county WET Plans and Annual Updates. 8 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Table 5.7b displays expenditures specifically on WET Planning and 5.7c on WET Work Plans. Table 5.7b Total Amount Expended - Planning (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 06–07 FY 07–08 FY 08–09 N of N of N of Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Counties Counties Counties Workforce Staffing $134,803.96 2 78.6% $2,332,460.07 29 77.3% $985,776.68 14 36.3% Support Training & Technical $36,731.79 3 21.4% $352,925.30 12 11.7% $1,490,418.24 14 54.8% Assistance Mental Health Career -- 0 0.0% $88,946.00 2 2.9% $55,350.27 5 2.0% Pathways Program Residency & Internship -- 0 0.0% $237,082.00 3 7.9% $26,188.57 2 1.0% Programs Financial Incentive -- 0 0.0% $6,274.00 2 0.2% $160,009.41 5 5.9% Programs Total WET Planning* $171,535.75 4 100.0% $3,017,687.37 34 100.0% $2,717,743.17 21 100.0% Total WET -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,140,958.67 20 -- Administration GRAND TOTAL -- -- -- -- -- -- $3,858,701.84 21 -- *Percent of Total WET Planning Expenditures Table 5.7c Total Amount Expended – Work Plans (FY 07-08 to FY 08-09) xxvii xxviii MHSA Expenditures MHSA Expenditures FY 07–08 FY 08–09 N of N of Amount Percent* Amount Percent* Counties Counties Workforce Staffing Support $309,766.05 4 15.9% $2,673,909.27 24 20.0% Training and Technical Assistance $1,453,326.32 5 74.5% $3,948,371.40 20 29.6% Mental Health Career Pathways $152,976.25 2 7.8% $2,512,350.89 11 18.8% Program Residency and Internship Programs $30,583.10 1 1.6% $1,939,847.05 11 14.5% Financial Incentive Programs $4,141.00 1 0.2% $2,282,533.89 9 17.1% Total WET Work Plans $1,950,792.72 6 100.0% $13,357,012.51 29 100.0% *Percent of Total Work Plan Expenditures 9 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training 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). xxix 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 5.2a displays the Mental Health Services Act dollar breakout for FY 2006 – 2007. Figure 5.2a The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (FY 06-07) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 Training and $0.70 Technical Assistance $0.60 $0.50 Workforce Staffing $0.40 Support $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 , 000,000 ( L o s Angeles (11 Counties) (11 Counties) (12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) a Recall that WET Work Plan (i.e., services implementation) expenditures did not occur until the following fiscal year. Therefore, Figure 5.2a displays the breakout of WET Planning expenditures for only four small to medium-sized counties. The very smallest and the largest counties did not expend WET Planning funds in the earliest year for which WET expenditures were documented on the Revenue and Expenditure Reports (FY 06-07). When WET expenditures are examined using the mental health dollar breakout method, counties with population sizes of 45,000 – 150,000 and 401,000 to 1 million expended the majority of funds in the Training and Technical Assistance category, whereas counties with population sizes from 150,001 to 400,000 expended the majority of funds on Workforce Staffing Support. Displaying expenditures broken out by county population provides a level of context not possible when viewing expenditures in the ―big picture‖ format shown in Table 5.7. When viewed from the 10 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training statewide perspective in Table 5.7, the majority of expenditures in FY 2006 – 2007 were for Workforce Staffing Support. When viewed in the context of county population, it becomes clear that this level of expenditure occurred among counties with populations between 150,001 and 400,000, whereas counties larger and smaller found it more appropriate to expend funds on Training and Technical Assistance. Figure 5.2b The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Planning and Work Plan/[Service Implementation]) (FY 07-08) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 Work Plan Expenditures $0.50 $0.40 Planning 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 Figure 5.2b displays the breakout between WET Planning and WET Work Plan (service implementation) expenditures. The largest proportion of WET funds was expended on WET Planning activities, which is appropriate given that FY 2007 - 2008 was the second year of expenditure tracking using the Revenue and Expenditure Reports.xxx 11 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Figure 5.2c The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Planning Components) (FY 07-08) $1.00 $0.90 Planning -FIP $0.80 $0.70 Planning -RIP $0.60 $0.50 Planning -MHCPP $0.40 $0.30 Planning -TTA $0.20 $0.10 Planning -WSS $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 , 0 00,000 5 , 0 0 0,000 ( L o s Angeles (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) a Key Acronym Program FIP Financial Incentive Program RIP Residency and Internship Program MHCPP Mental Health Career Pathways Program TTA Training and Technical Assistance WSS Workforce Staffing Support Figure 5.2d The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Work Plan/[Service Implementation] Components) (FY 07-08) $1.00 $0.90 Work Plan -FIP $0.80 $0.70 Work Plan -RIP $0.60 $0.50 Work Plan - MHCPP $0.40 $0.30 Work Plan -TTA $0.20 $0.10 Work Plan -WSS $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 0 0,000 5 , 0 0 0 ,000 ( L o s A ngeles (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) a 12 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Figure 5.2c breaks out WET Planning expenditures into the activities upon which stakeholders focused their planning efforts. Figure 5.3d breaks out WET Work Plan expenditures into the actual implementation activities upon which funds were expended during FY 2007 – 2008. The figures illustrate that counties and municipalities in all size categories were able to expend WET Planning funds (Figure 5.2d). During FY 2007 – 2008, the greatest proportion of WET Planning funds were expended on Workforce Staffing Support. This expenditure pattern held true regardless of population size. The smallest counties were not able to expend WET Work Plan (service implementation) funds in FY 2007 – 2008. Expenditures were as varied as county population size, and the category where funds were expended appeared to have little to do with county population. Instead, the category where funds were expended is assumed to be related to stakeholder priorities. For example:  Counties with populations 45,000 – 100,000 in size expended the greatest proportion of the WET dollar on Workforce Staffing Support.  Counties with populations >150,000 – 400,000 in size expended the greatest proportion of the WET dollar on the Financial Incentive Program.  Counties with populations >400,000 – 1 million in size expended the greatest proportion of the WET dollar on the Mental Health Career Pathways Program.  Counties with populations >1 million – 5 million in size expended all of WET dollar on Residency and Internship Programs.  The largest county (Los Angeles) expended the greatest proportion of the WET dollar on Training and Technical Assistance. 13 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Figures 5.2f displays the breakout between WET Planning and WET Work Plan (service implementation) expenditures. As expected for the third year of expenditure tracking using the Revenue and Expenditure Report, the largest proportion of WET expenditures in FY 2008 – 2009 were for WET Work Plans. This pattern suggests that WET service implementation was well underway in most counties in FY 2008 – 2009. Figure 5.2f The Mental Health Services Act Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Planning and Work Plan Expenditures) (FY 08-09) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 Work Plan $0.60 Expenditures $0.50 Planning $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 A ngeles (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) a 14 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Figure 5.2g The Mental Health Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Planning Components) (FY 08-09) $1.00 $0.90 Planning -FIP $0.80 $0.70 Planning -RIP $0.60 $0.50 Planning - $0.40 MHCPP $0.30 Planning -TTA $0.20 $0.10 Planning -WSS $0.00 < 45,000 > 45,000 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 150,000 4 00,000 1 ,000,000 5 , 0 00,000 ( L o s Angeles Counties) (11 (11 (12 (8 Counties) County) Counties) Counties) Counties) a Key Acronym Program FIP Financial Incentive Program RIP Residency and Internship Program MHCPP Mental Health Career Pathways Program TTA Training and Technical Assistance WSS Workforce Staffing Support Figure 5.2h The Mental Health Dollar – Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (Work Plan Components) (FY 08-09) $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 Work Plan -FIP $0.70 Work Plan -RIP $0.60 $0.50 Work Plan - MHCPP $0.40 Work Plan -TTA $0.30 $0.20 Work Plan -WSS $0.10 $0.00 < 45,000 > 45,000 - > 150,000 - > 400,000 - >1,000,000 - > 5,000,000 (13 Counties) 150,000 4 00,000 1 , 000,000 5 , 0 0 0,000 ( L o s Angeles (11 Counties)(11 Counties)(12 Counties) (8 Counties) County) a 15 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Comparison of Figures 5.2c (Planning for FY 07-08) and 5.2h (Work Plan/service implementation for FY 08-09) reveals potential usefulness of each of the five required categories for planning purposes. Expended funds within each of the Planning categories in FY 2007 – 2008 was compared to expended funds within each of the Implementation categories in FY 2008 - 2009:  Financial Incentive Program (FIP): Although expenditures occurred across counties for this service, it was negligible as a Planning Expenditure.  Mental Health Career Pathways Program (MHCPP): Likewise, expenditures were low under Planning, but robust under implementation.  Residency and Internship Program (RIP): Although there was a larger amount expended for RIP, the amount was still small compared to other categories. However, RIP funds were expended more heavily on the implementation side the following fiscal year.  Training and Technical Assistance (TTA): A robust amount of monies were expended for planning and implementation.  Workforce Staffing and Support (WSS): Similar to Training and Technical Assistance, there was a good match between planning funds expended and implementation funds in the following fiscal year. These results suggest that the utility of FIP, MHCPP, and RIP as unique categories under WET Planning may be limited. 16 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Figure 5.3 illustrates that per capita expenditures within county regions and California overall have increased annually. ―Per capita‖ means per person. xxxi Across regions and fiscal years, per capita expenditures were greatest among the smallest counties and largest counties. This finding is consistent with the DMH policy of allocating a baseline amount for small counties. Figure 5.3 Workforce Education and Training Expenditures Per Capita Relative to State and Region Populationxxxii (FY 07-08 to FY 08-09) $0.80 a $0.70 tip a $0.60 C r e $0.50 P s e $0.40 r u tid $0.30 n e $0.20 p x E $0.10 $0.00 FY 08-09 California State Superior Central FY 07-08 Counties Bay Area Counties Southern Counties Counties Los Angeles Region 17 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training The impact of county population on overall WET expenditures is displayed in Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4 Average Workforce Education and Training Expenditures by County Population (FY 07-08 to FY 08-09) xxxiii $8.00 ) s n $7.00 o T illiM $6.00 E W n $5.00 e g a r e v A i( s e r u t id $ $ 4 3 . . 0 0 0 0 n e p $2.00 x E $1.00 $0.00 FY 08-09 < 45,000 (13 Counties) > 45,000 - > 150,000 - FY 07-08 150,000 > 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 Examination of Workforce Education and Training expenditures by county population revealed that more populous counties tended to spend more on average, in each fiscal year analyzed (see Figure 5.4). This finding suggests county WET average total expenditures seem to be associated with population size. 18 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Unemployment xxxiv and foreclosure xxxv rates represent indicators of the overall economic health of counties/municipalities, and are related in the scientific literature to need for public mental health services. Figure 5.5 illustrates the percent change in WET expenditures, examined in the context of percent change in significant statewide economic factors (unemployment, foreclosures). These major economic indicators tend to be related to mental health.xxxvi Figure 5.5 % Change in Workforce Education and Training Expenditures, Unemployment Rate, and Foreclosure Rate (FY 06-07 to FY 08-09) FY 06/07 -FY 08/09 9,936.2% 540.0% 79.6% % Change in WET Expenditures % Change in State Unemployment Rate % Change in State Foreclosure Rate These trends suggest that during a period when increases in unemployment and foreclosures may have contributed to greater need for mental health services, WET expenditures increased relative to overall mental health expenditures. In plain language, as unemployment and foreclosures are increasing, the percent of WET dollars being expended are also increasing in order to better prepare the workforce to serve underserved and unserved communities. 19 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training The UCLA/EMT team further examined the number of WET programs. Information about expenditures on unduplicated programs was only available for FY 2008 – 2009. The structure of the Revenue and Expenditure Report allows counties and municipalities to record expenditures under any one of the five activities (Workforce Staffing Support, etc.) in a single ―program‖ worksheet, making it challenging to identify multiple activities within a single ―program.‖ Figure 5.6 Workforce Education and Training – Number of Programs for which Funds were Expended (FY 08-09) xxxvii 25 20 s e itn u 15 o C fo r 10 e b m u N 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of Programs Counties and municipalities tended to focus their efforts on a single program rather than spreading their resources across multiple programs. 20 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training III. Summary  During the first year for which Workforce Education and Training expenditure data was available through the Revenue and Expenditure Report (FY 2006 – 2007), the majority of WET Planning funds were expended on Workforce Staffing Support. During later fiscal years, the proportion of funds expended shifted to Training and Technical Assistance. This shift is consistent with expected implementation needs of staff and contractors.  The majority of counties were expending funds by FY 2007 – 2008 on Workforce Education and Training. o Counties and municipalities in all size categories were able to expend WET Planning funds. o During FY 2007 – 2008, the greatest proportion of WET Planning funds were expended on Workforce Staffing Support. This expenditure pattern held true regardless of population size.  As expected for the third year of expenditure tracking using the Revenue and Expenditure Report, the largest proportion of WET expenditures in FY 2008 – 2009 were for WET Work Plans. This pattern suggests that WET service implementation was well underway in most counties in FY 2008 – 2009.  Comparison of the categories under which Planning funds were expended in FY 2007 – 2008 and WET Plan funds were expended in FY 2008 - 2009 suggest that the utility of FIP, MHCPP, and RIP as unique categories under WET Planning may be limited.  WET average Total expenditures seem to be associated with population size (the larger the population in a county/municipality, the greater the proportion of funds expended on WET). o Nonetheless, examination of expenditures compared to per capita population reveals that the smallest counties are receiving the baseline WET expended proportions, in keeping with the goal of DMH to support smaller counties.  The rate of expenditures for Workforce Education and Training kept pace with unemployment and the foreclosure rate. 21 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Appendix A: Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2006 - 2007 Funding Source Total Workforce Training and Residency and Financial Workforce Staffing Mental Health Career Education and Technical Internship Incentive Support Pathways Program County Training Assistance Programs Programs Alameda -- -- -- -- -- -- Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- Berkeley City -- -- -- -- -- -- Butte -- -- -- -- -- -- Calaveras $1,650.00 -- $1,650.00 -- -- -- Colusa -- -- -- -- -- -- Contra Costa -- -- -- -- -- -- Del Norte -- -- -- -- -- -- El Dorado -- -- -- -- -- -- Fresno -- -- -- -- -- -- Glenn -- -- -- -- -- -- Humboldt -- -- -- -- -- -- Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- Inyo -- -- -- -- -- -- Kern -- -- -- -- -- -- Kings -- -- -- -- -- -- Lake -- -- -- -- -- -- Lassen -- -- -- -- -- -- Los Angeles -- -- -- -- -- -- Madera -- -- -- -- -- -- Marin -- -- -- -- -- -- Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- Mendocino -- -- -- -- -- -- Merced $161,624.59 $129,442.80 $32,181.79 Modoc -- -- -- -- -- -- Mono -- -- -- -- -- -- Monterey $2,900.00 -- $2,900.00 -- -- -- Napa -- -- -- -- -- -- Nevada -- -- -- -- -- -- Orange -- -- -- -- -- -- Placer -- -- -- -- -- -- Plumas -- -- -- -- -- -- Riverside -- -- -- -- -- -- Sacramento -- -- -- -- -- -- San Benito -- -- -- -- -- -- San Bernardino -- -- -- -- -- -- San Diego -- -- -- -- -- -- San Francisco -- -- -- -- -- -- San Joaquin -- -- -- -- -- -- San Luis Obispo $5,361.16 $5,361.16 -- -- -- -- San Mateo -- -- -- -- -- -- Santa Barbara -- -- -- -- -- -- Santa Clara -- -- -- -- -- -- Santa Cruz -- -- -- -- -- -- Shasta -- -- -- -- -- -- Sierra -- -- -- -- -- -- 22 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2006 - 2007 Funding Source Total Workforce Training and Residency and Financial Workforce Staffing Mental Health Career Education and Technical Internship Incentive Support Pathways Program County Training Assistance Programs Programs Siskiyou -- -- -- -- -- -- Solano -- -- -- -- -- -- Sonoma -- -- -- -- -- -- Stanislaus -- -- -- -- -- -- Sutter-Yuba -- -- -- -- -- -- Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity -- -- -- -- -- -- Tulare -- -- -- -- -- -- Tuolumne -- -- -- -- -- -- Ventura -- -- -- -- -- -- Yolo -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2007 - 2008 Funding Source Planning Work Plans Planning Work Plans Work Planning Work Plans Planning Work Plans Mental Mental Planning Residency Residency Plans Total Total Workforce Workforce Training and Training and Health Health Financial Total and and Financial Programs Workforce Staffing Staffing Technical Technical Career Career Incentive Planning Internship Internship Incentive Plans Education and Support Support Assistance Assistance Pathways Pathways Programs Programs Programs Programs County Training Program Program Alameda -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Berkeley City -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Butte $16,829.00 $3,366.00 -- $3,366.00 -- $3,366.00 -- $3,366.00 -- $3,365.00 -- $16,829.00 -- Calaveras $29,812.00 $26,052.00 -- $3,760.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $29,812.00 -- Colusa $3,300.00 $3,300.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $3,300.00 -- Contra Costa $69,050.00 -- -- $69,050.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $69,050.00 -- Del Norte -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- El Dorado $11,750.00 $11,750.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $11,750.00 -- Fresno $72,577.12 $14,823.97 -- $57,753.15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $72,577.12 -- Glenn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Humboldt $4,950.00 -- -- $4,950.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $4,950.00 -- Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Inyo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Kings $25,265.00 $25,265.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $25,265.00 -- Lake -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Lassen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Los Angeles $1,635,416.40 -- $193,245.40 -- $1,442,171.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,635,416.40 Madera -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Marin $13,400.00 -- -- $13,400.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $13,400.00 -- Mariposa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mendocino -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Merced $74,366.32 $66,128.43 -- $1,124.89 $2,972.00 -- -- -- -- -- $4,141.00 $67,253.32 $7,113.00 Modoc $28,557.00 $25,648.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $2,909.00 -- $28,557.00 -- Mono $77,806.00 $77,806.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $77,806.00 -- Monterey $262,237.14 -- $106,613.86 -- $6,247.03 -- $149,376.25 -- -- -- -- -- $262,237.14 Napa $15,030.00 $15,030.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $15,030.00 -- Nevada $3,578.61 $3,578.61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $3,578.61 -- Orange $457,851.82 $427,268.72 -- -- -- -- -- -- $30,583.10 -- -- $427,268.72 $30,583.10 Placer $85,472.36 $85,472.36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $85,472.36 -- 24 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2007 - 2008 Funding Source Planning Work Plans Total Planning Work Plans Work Planning Work Plans Planning Work Plans Mental Mental Planning Workforce Residency Residency Plans Total Workforce Workforce Training and Training and Health Health Financial Total Education and and Financial Programs Staffing Staffing Technical Technical Career Career Incentive Planning and Training Internship Internship Incentive Plans Support Support Assistance Assistance Pathways Pathways Programs Programs Programs Programs County Program Program Plumas $27,015.00 $27,015.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $27,015.00 -- Riverside $360,052.48 $360,052.48 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $360,052.48 -- Sacramento -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- San Benito -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- San Bernardino $623,946.00 $279,201.00 -- $86,199.00 -- $85,580.00 -- $172,966.00 -- -- -- $623,946.00 -- San Diego $261,760.00 $236,760.00 -- $25,000.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $261,760.00 -- San Francisco -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- San Joaquin $59,981.25 -- -- $59,981.25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $59,981.25 -- San Luis $3,507.00 $3,507.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $3,507.00 -- Obispo San Mateo $179,119.00 $118,369.00 -- -- -- -- -- $60,750.00 -- -- -- $179,119.00 -- Santa Barbara $109,456.19 $109,456.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $109,456.19 -- Santa Clara $48,231.00 $48,231.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $48,231.00 -- Santa Cruz $24,340.00 -- -- $24,340.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $24,340.00 -- Shasta $1,798.08 -- $521.79 $1,276.29 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,798.08 Sierra $9,969.33 $5,968.32 -- $4,001.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $9,969.33 -- Siskiyou $2,704.00 $2,704.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $2,704.00 -- Solano $1,426.45 $1,426.45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,426.45 -- Sonoma $111,596.28 $111,596.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $111,596.28 -- Stanislaus $114,967.49 $114,967.49 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $114,967.49 -- Sutter-Yuba -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity $33,800.00 $33,800.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $33,800.00 -- Tulare -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tuolumne $13,645.00 -- $9,385.00 -- $660.00 -- $3,600.00 -- -- -- -- -- $13,645.00 Ventura $43,475.00 $43,475.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $43,475.00 -- Yolo $50,441.76 $50,441.76 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $50,441.76 -- 25 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Funding Source Planning Program Program Planning Program Program Plans Planning Program Planning Mental Plans Planning Plans Training Plans Mental Health Residency Plans Total Total Workforce Health Residency Financial Total Workforce and Training and Career and Financial Programs Workforce Staffing Career and Incentive Planning Staffing Technical Technical Pathways Internship Incentive Plans Education Support Pathways Internship Programs Support Assistance Assistance Program Programs Programs County and Training Program Programs Alameda -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Alpine -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Amador $32,232.00 -- -- -- $32,232.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $32,232.00 Berkeley City -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Butte $11,292.85 $2,258.57 -- $2,258.57 -- $2,258.57 -- $2,258.57 -- $2,258.57 -- $11,292.85 -- Calaveras -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Colusa $42,331.71 -- $2,760.00 -- $28,095.00 -- $11,476.71 -- -- -- -- -- $42,331.71 Contra Costa $185,187.80 $7,728.20 $23,184.60 $11,485.60 $45,942.40 -- -- $23,930.00 $71,790.00 $225.40 $901.60 $43,369.20 $141,818.60 Del Norte -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- El Dorado $61,036.75 -- $32,039.13 $11,366.97 -- -- $17,630.65 -- -- -- -- $11,366.97 $49,669.78 Fresno $285,600.22 $99,509.00 -- $186,091.22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $285,600.22 -- Glenn $783.00 -- -- -- $783.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $783.00 Humboldt -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Imperial -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Inyo $1,550.00 -- -- -- $1,550.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $1,550.00 Kern $283,627.00 -- -- -- $121,429.00 -- $84.00 -- $162,114.00 -- -- -- $283,627.00 Kings $65,412.00 $3,005.00 $1,435.00 -- $3,654.00 -- -- -- $36,815.00 -- $20,503.00 $3,005.00 $62,407.00 Lake $3,963.33 -- -- $3,963.33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $3,963.33 -- Lassen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Los Angeles $7,352,608.00 -- $25,869.00 -- $2,949,804.00 -- $2,256,726.00 -- -- -- $2,120,209.00 -- $7,352,608.00 Madera $55,800.00 $52,798.00 -- $3,002.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $55,800.00 -- Marin $55,751.51 -- $14,858.91 -- $40,892.60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $55,751.51 Mariposa $38.00 -- -- $38.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $38.00 -- Mendocino -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Merced $160,958.00 -- $88,070.00 -- $72,888.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $160,958.00 Modoc $31,314.00 -- $2,826.00 -- $26,079.00 -- $2,409.00 -- -- -- -- -- $31,314.00 Mono $67,410.00 -- $43,000.00 -- $4,410.00 -- -- -- -- -- $20,000.00 -- $67,410.00 Monterey $469,865.44 -- $199,982.91 -- $111,980.71 -- $122,975.53 -- -- -- $34,926.29 -- $469,865.44 Napa $24,806.00 -- -- $24,806.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $24,806.00 -- Nevada -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Orange $1,585,754.63 -- $1,008,492.88 -- $58,620.69 -- -- -- $518,641.05 -- -- -- $1,585,754.63 Placer $242,243.00 $225,247.00 $16,996.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $225,247.00 $16,996.00 26 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Funding Source Planning Program Total Program Planning Program Program Plans Planning Program Planning Mental Plans Planning Workforce Plans Training Plans Mental Health Residency Plans Total Workforce Health Residency Financial Total Education Workforce and Training and Career and Financial Programs Staffing Career and Incentive Planning and Training Staffing Technical Technical Pathways Internship Incentive Plans Support Pathways Internship Programs Support Assistance Assistance Program Programs Programs County Program Programs Plumas $112,255.00 -- $45,634.00 -- $38,337.00 $6,785.00 -- -- $19,178.00 -- $2,321.00 $6,785.00 $105,470.00 Riverside $876,434.00 $253,198.00 $264,209.00 -- $302,219.00 -- $11,798.00 -- $8,336.00 -- $36,674.00 $253,198.00 $623,236.00 Sacramento $37,470.77 -- $37,470.77 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $37,470.77 San Benito -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- San Bernardino $1,509,333.00 $52,340.00 $396,507.00 -- $59,641.00 -- $10,668.00 -- $990,177.00 -- -- $52,340.00 $1,456,993.00 San Diego $940,223.45 -- -- $940,223.45 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $940,223.45 -- San Francisco $11,554.00 -- $11,554.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $11,554.00 San Joaquin $146,386.00 $54,308.00 -- $22,889.00 -- $22,572.00 -- -- -- $46,617.00 -- $146,386.00 -- San Luis Obispo $40,145.72 $31,793.90 -- $4,951.82 -- -- -- -- -- $3,400.00 -- $40,145.72 -- San Mateo $73,781.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $73,781.00 -- -- -- $73,781.00 Santa Barbara $13,641.00 -- -- $10,581.00 -- $3,060.00 -- -- -- -- -- $13,641.00 -- Santa Clara $413,494.00 $28,944.58 -- $256,366.28 -- $20,674.70 -- -- -- $107,508.44 -- $413,494.00 -- Santa Cruz $239,132.00 -- $153,385.00 -- $350.00 -- $30,377.00 -- $55,020.00 -- -- -- $239,132.00 Shasta -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sierra $48,107.00 $12,395.00 $5,897.00 $12,395.00 $15,266.00 -- $480.00 -- $1,674.00 -- -- $24,790.00 $23,317.00 Siskiyou $2,704.00 -- $2,704.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $2,704.00 Solano $16,236.00 -- $16,236.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $16,236.00 Sonoma $139,749.00 $139,749.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $139,749.00 -- Stanislaus $331,904.00 -- $210,659.00 -- $34,198.00 -- $47,726.00 -- $2,321.00 -- $37,000.00 -- $331,904.00 Sutter-Yuba -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tehama -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Trinity $32,041.00 -- $22,042.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $9,999.00 -- $32,041.00 Tulare -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tuolumne $48,097.07 -- $48,097.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $48,097.07 Ventura -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Yolo $22,502.43 $22,502.43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $22,502.43 -- 27 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Total Workforce Funding Source Education and Training City/County Allocated Personnel Operating Costs County (Administration) Administration Alameda $230,177.06 $155,801.06 $74,376.00 -- Alpine -- -- -- -- Amador -- -- -- -- Berkeley City -- -- -- -- Butte -- -- -- -- Calaveras -- -- -- -- Colusa -- -- -- -- Contra Costa $31,658.20 $23,930.00 $7,728.20 -- Del Norte -- -- -- -- El Dorado $15,379.52 $10,564.93 $3,229.17 $1,585.42 Fresno -- -- -- -- Glenn $13,373.68 $3,933.68 $9,440.00 -- Humboldt $297.00 -- $297.00 -- Imperial -- -- -- -- Inyo -- -- -- -- Kern -- -- -- -- Kings -- -- -- -- Lake -- -- -- -- Lassen -- -- -- -- Los Angeles -- -- -- -- Madera -- -- -- -- Marin -- -- -- -- Mariposa -- -- -- -- Mendocino -- -- -- -- Merced $23,429.00 $16,096.00 $2,440.00 $4,893.00 Modoc $4,697.00 $2,865.17 $1,831.83 -- Mono -- -- -- -- Monterey $238,839.00 $238,839.00 -- -- Napa -- -- -- -- Nevada -- -- -- -- Orange $185,629.89 $31,455.47 $2,481.66 $151,692.76 Placer $47,405.15 $17,966.55 $20,668.65 $8,769.95 Plumas $10,457.00 $6,813.00 $13.00 $3,631.00 Riverside $78,946.00 -- -- $78,946.00 Sacramento -- -- -- -- San Benito -- -- -- -- San Bernardino -- -- -- -- San Diego -- -- -- -- San Francisco -- -- -- -- San Joaquin -- -- -- -- San Luis Obispo -- -- -- -- San Mateo -- -- -- -- Santa Barbara -- -- -- -- Santa Clara $54,688.00 -- -- $54,688.00 Santa Cruz -- -- -- -- Shasta $20,250.00 $17,230.00 $3,020.00 -- Sierra $885.00 $885.00 -- -- Siskiyou -- -- -- -- Solano $1,678.00 -- $1,678.00 -- Sonoma -- -- -- -- Stanislaus $22,363.00 $22,363.00 -- -- Sutter-Yuba -- -- -- -- Tehama -- -- -- -- Tri-Cities -- -- -- -- 28 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Workforce Education and Training Total Expenditures by County/Municipality: FY 2008 - 2009 Total Workforce Funding Source Education and Training City/County Allocated Personnel Operating Costs County (Administration) Administration Trinity -- -- -- -- Tulare $23,571.61 $17,208.76 $5,619.46 $743.39 Tuolumne $7,214.56 $3,823.72 $3,390.84 -- Ventura $130,020.00 $97,390.00 $32,630.00 -- Yolo -- -- -- -- 29 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Appendix B: Revenue and Expenditure Reports Process of Transferring Individual County Excel Files into Master Cross-Site File The MHSA (FY: 06/07, 07/08, 08/09) Database is an aggregated database containing fiscal data from a total of 59 California counties/municipalities spanning three fiscal year periods, covering 25 program data sets, sourced from 589 distinct file locations, containing a total of 4,498 unique variables, encompassing a grand total of 287,265 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2006-2007 contained 1,325 distinct variables provided by 57 counties/municipalities across 6 programs located within 57 separate files containing a total of 72,525 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 contained 1,265 distinct variables provided by 59 counties/municipalities across 7 programs located within 60 separate files containing a total of 75,900 distinct data points. Fiscal Year 2008-2009 contained 2,264 distinct variables provided by 59 counties/municipalities across 11 programs located within 472 separate files containing a total of 135,840 distinct data points. The MHSA Database was constructed through a process of template creation, formula crafting, running transfer protocols and performing validity checks. Templates were formed via construction of a list of all variables across each program over all three fiscal years. Formula were generated to transfer the values of individual cells to the database template and were compiled to transfer all the relevant data points within a given workbook and, subsequently, entire source-file. Formulas were crafted for each of the unique variables contained within each program or workbook. Master formulae were crafted for each workbook within a file or fiscal year. The master formulae performed the relocation of each relevant data point, across all programs, within a given file or fiscal year. Transfer protocols were generated to perform manual and semi-automated opening and closing of files, updating formula and transferring the relevant data values of each fiscal year to the database. Validity checks were performed throughout each stage of the process with full checks on each new formula, random spot checks, specific value checks and redundant report checks. 30 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training 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. 31 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Appendix C: Component Allocations for WET Component Allocations and Approved Amounts WET FY 2006-2007 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Alameda FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 ,645,000 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,645,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,645,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,645,000 Alameda *Component Allocations $ 3 ,645,000 Alameda Approved Amounts $ 3 ,645,000 Alpine FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Alpine *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Alpine Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Amador FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Amador *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Amador Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Berkeley City FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 13,800 Approved Amounts $ 3 13,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 13,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 13,800 Berkeley City *Component Allocations $ 3 13,800 Berkeley City Approved Amounts $ 3 13,800 Butte FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 41,800 Approved Amounts $ 5 41,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 41,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 41,800 Butte *Component Allocations $ 5 41,800 Butte Approved Amounts $ 5 41,800 Calaveras FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Calaveras *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Calaveras Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Colusa FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Colusa *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Colusa Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Contra Costa FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,276,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,276,500 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,276,500 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,276,500 Contra Costa *Component Allocations $ 2 ,276,500 Contra Costa Approved Amounts $ 2 ,276,500 32 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Del Norte FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Del Norte *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Del Norte Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 El Dorado FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 65,300 Approved Amounts $ 3 65,300 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 65,300 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 65,300 El Dorado *Component Allocations $ 3 65,300 El Dorado Approved Amounts $ 3 65,300 Fresno FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,306,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,306,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,306,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,306,000 Fresno *Component Allocations $ 2 ,306,000 Fresno Approved Amounts $ 2 ,306,000 Glenn FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Glenn *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Glenn Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Humboldt FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 13,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 13,700 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 13,700 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 13,700 Humboldt *Component Allocations $ 3 13,700 Humboldt Approved Amounts $ 3 13,700 Imperial FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 26,800 Approved Amounts $ 4 26,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 26,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 26,800 Imperial *Component Allocations $ 4 26,800 Imperial Approved Amounts $ 4 26,800 Inyo FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Inyo *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Inyo Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Kern FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,977,700 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,977,700 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,977,700 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,977,700 Kern *Component Allocations $ 1 ,977,700 Kern Approved Amounts $ 1 ,977,700 Kings FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 53,600 Approved Amounts $ 3 53,600 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 53,600 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 53,600 Kings *Component Allocations $ 3 53,600 Kings Approved Amounts $ 3 53,600 33 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Lake FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lake *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Lake Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lassen FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lassen *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Lassen Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Los Angeles FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 4,667,140 Approved Amounts $ 3 4,667,140 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 4,667,140 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 4,667,140 Los Angeles *Component Allocations $ 3 4,667,140 Los Angeles Approved Amounts $ 3 4,667,140 Madera FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 71,900 Approved Amounts $ 3 71,900 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 71,900 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 71,900 Madera *Component Allocations $ 3 71,900 Madera Approved Amounts $ 3 71,900 Marin FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 36,300 Approved Amounts $ 5 36,300 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 36,300 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 36,300 Marin *Component Allocations $ 5 36,300 Marin Approved Amounts $ 5 36,300 Mariposa FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mariposa *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mariposa Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mendocino FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mendocino *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mendocino Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Merced FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 6 52,000 Approved Amounts $ 6 52,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 6 52,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 6 52,000 Merced *Component Allocations $ 6 52,000 Merced Approved Amounts $ 6 52,000 Modoc FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Modoc *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Modoc Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 34 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Mono FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mono *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mono Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Monterey FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,150,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,150,600 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,150,600 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,150,600 Monterey *Component Allocations $ 1 ,150,600 Monterey Approved Amounts $ 1 ,150,600 Napa FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 93,300 Approved Amounts $ 2 93,300 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 93,300 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 93,300 Napa *Component Allocations $ 2 93,300 Napa Approved Amounts $ 2 93,300 Nevada FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Nevada *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Nevada Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Orange FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 8 ,267,200 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,267,200 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 8 ,267,200 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,267,200 Orange *Component Allocations $ 8 ,267,200 Orange Approved Amounts $ 8 ,267,200 Placer FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 94,400 Approved Amounts $ 5 94,400 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 94,400 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 94,400 Placer *Component Allocations $ 5 94,400 Placer Approved Amounts $ 5 94,400 Plumas FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Riverside FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 ,756,400 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,756,400 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,756,400 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,756,400 Riverside *Component Allocations $ 4 ,756,400 Riverside Approved Amounts $ 4 ,756,400 Sacramento FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 ,076,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,076,700 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,076,700 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,076,700 Sacramento *Component Allocations $ 3 ,076,700 Sacramento Approved Amounts $ 3 ,076,700 35 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts San Benito FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 San Benito *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 San Benito Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 San Bernardino FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 ,030,900 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,030,900 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,030,900 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,030,900 San Bernardino *Component Allocations $ 5 ,030,900 San Bernardino Approved Amounts $ 5 ,030,900 San Diego FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 8 ,248,700 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,248,700 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 8 ,248,700 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,248,700 San Diego *Component Allocations $ 8 ,248,700 San Diego Approved Amounts $ 8 ,248,700 San Francisco FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,923,400 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,923,400 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,923,400 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,923,400 San Francisco *Component Allocations $ 1 ,923,400 San Francisco Approved Amounts $ 1 ,923,400 San Joaquin FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,600 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,600 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,600 San Joaquin *Component Allocations $ 1 ,580,600 San Joaquin Approved Amounts $ 1 ,580,600 San Luis Obispo FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 6 44,100 Approved Amounts $ 6 44,100 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 6 44,100 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 6 44,100 San Luis Obispo *Component Allocations $ 6 44,100 San Luis Obispo Approved Amounts $ 6 44,100 San Mateo FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,685,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,685,900 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,685,900 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,685,900 San Mateo *Component Allocations $ 1 ,685,900 San Mateo Approved Amounts $ 1 ,685,900 Santa Barbara FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,141,400 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,141,400 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,141,400 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,141,400 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 1 ,141,400 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 1 ,141,400 36 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Santa Clara FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 ,799,400 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,799,400 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 ,799,400 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 ,799,400 Santa Clara *Component Allocations $ 4 ,799,400 Santa Clara Approved Amounts $ 4 ,799,400 Santa Cruz FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 7 26,600 Approved Amounts $ 7 26,600 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 7 26,600 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 7 26,600 Santa Cruz *Component Allocations $ 7 26,600 Santa Cruz Approved Amounts $ 7 26,600 Shasta FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 31,000 Approved Amounts $ 4 31,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 31,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 31,000 Shasta *Component Allocations $ 4 31,000 Shasta Approved Amounts $ 4 31,000 Sierra FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Sierra *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Sierra Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Solano FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,216,877 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,216,877 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,216,877 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,216,877 Solano *Component Allocations $ 1 ,216,877 Solano Approved Amounts $ 1 ,216,877 Sonoma FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,135,800 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,135,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,135,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,135,800 Sonoma *Component Allocations $ 1 ,135,800 Sonoma Approved Amounts $ 1 ,135,800 Stanislaus FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,198,800 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,198,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,198,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,198,800 Stanislaus *Component Allocations $ 1 ,198,800 Stanislaus Approved Amounts $ 1 ,198,800 Sutter-Yuba FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 Sutter-Yuba *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 Sutter-Yuba Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 37 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Tehama FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tehama *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Tehama Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tri City FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 95,800 Approved Amounts $ 5 95,800 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 5 95,800 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 5 95,800 Tri City *Component Allocations $ 5 95,800 Tri City Approved Amounts $ 5 95,800 Trinity FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Trinity *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Trinity Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tulare FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,120,600 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,120,600 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,120,600 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,120,600 Tulare *Component Allocations $ 1 ,120,600 Tulare Approved Amounts $ 1 ,120,600 Tuolumne FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tuolumne *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Tuolumne Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Ventura FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,046,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,046,000 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,046,000 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,046,000 Ventura *Component Allocations $ 2 ,046,000 Ventura Approved Amounts $ 2 ,046,000 Yolo FY 06/07 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 83,700 Approved Amounts $ 4 83,700 FY 06/07 *Component Allocations $ 4 83,700 FY 06/07 Approved Amounts $ 4 83,700 Yolo *Component Allocations $ 4 83,700 Yolo Approved Amounts $ 4 83,700 Total *Component Allocations $ 1 06,070,717 Total Approved Amounts $ 1 06,070,717 38 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Component Allocations and Approved Amounts WET FY 2007-2008 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Alameda FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 ,911,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,911,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,911,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,911,700 Alameda *Component Allocations $ 3 ,911,700 Alameda Approved Amounts $ 3 ,911,700 Alpine FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Alpine *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Alpine Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Amador FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Amador *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Amador Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Berkeley City FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 43,100 Approved Amounts $ 3 43,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 43,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 43,100 Berkeley City *Component Allocations $ 3 43,100 Berkeley City Approved Amounts $ 3 43,100 Butte FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 87,100 Approved Amounts $ 5 87,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 87,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 87,100 Butte *Component Allocations $ 5 87,100 Butte Approved Amounts $ 5 87,100 Calaveras FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Calaveras *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Calaveras Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Colusa FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Colusa *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Colusa Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Contra Costa FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,461,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,461,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,461,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,461,500 Contra Costa *Component Allocations $ 2 ,461,500 Contra Costa Approved Amounts $ 2 ,461,500 39 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Del Norte FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Del Norte *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Del Norte Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 El Dorado FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 89,700 Approved Amounts $ 3 89,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 89,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 89,700 El Dorado *Component Allocations $ 3 89,700 El Dorado Approved Amounts $ 3 89,700 Fresno FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,679,800 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,679,800 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,679,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,679,800 Fresno *Component Allocations $ 2 ,679,800 Fresno Approved Amounts $ 2 ,679,800 Glenn FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Glenn *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Glenn Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Humboldt FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 37,200 Approved Amounts $ 3 37,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 37,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 37,200 Humboldt *Component Allocations $ 3 37,200 Humboldt Approved Amounts $ 3 37,200 Imperial FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 03,000 Approved Amounts $ 5 03,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 03,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 03,000 Imperial *Component Allocations $ 5 03,000 Imperial Approved Amounts $ 5 03,000 Inyo FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Inyo *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Inyo Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Kern FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,297,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,297,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,297,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,297,000 Kern *Component Allocations $ 2 ,297,000 Kern Approved Amounts $ 2 ,297,000 Kings FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 02,400 Approved Amounts $ 4 02,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 02,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 02,400 Kings *Component Allocations $ 4 02,400 Kings Approved Amounts $ 4 02,400 40 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Lake FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lake *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Lake Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lassen FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Lassen *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Lassen Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Los Angeles FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 1,370,800 Approved Amounts $ 3 1,370,800 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 1,370,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 1,370,800 Los Angeles *Component Allocations $ 3 1,370,800 Los Angeles Approved Amounts $ 3 1,370,800 Madera FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 35,700 Approved Amounts $ 4 35,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 35,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 35,700 Madera *Component Allocations $ 4 35,700 Madera Approved Amounts $ 4 35,700 Marin FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 96,900 Approved Amounts $ 5 96,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 96,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 96,900 Marin *Component Allocations $ 5 96,900 Marin Approved Amounts $ 5 96,900 Mariposa FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mariposa *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mariposa Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mendocino FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mendocino *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mendocino Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Merced FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 7 60,000 Approved Amounts $ 7 60,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 60,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 60,000 Merced *Component Allocations $ 7 60,000 Merced Approved Amounts $ 7 60,000 Modoc FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Modoc *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Modoc Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 41 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Mono FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Mono *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Mono Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Monterey FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,225,200 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,225,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,225,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,225,200 Monterey *Component Allocations $ 1 ,225,200 Monterey Approved Amounts $ 1 ,225,200 Napa FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 24,900 Approved Amounts $ 3 24,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 24,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 24,900 Napa *Component Allocations $ 3 24,900 Napa Approved Amounts $ 3 24,900 Nevada FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 32,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 32,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 32,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 32,000 Nevada *Component Allocations $ 2 32,000 Nevada Approved Amounts $ 2 32,000 Orange FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 8 ,948,100 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,948,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 8 ,948,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 8 ,948,100 Orange *Component Allocations $ 8 ,948,100 Orange Approved Amounts $ 8 ,948,100 Placer FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 7 35,700 Approved Amounts $ 7 35,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 35,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 35,700 Placer *Component Allocations $ 7 35,700 Placer Approved Amounts $ 7 35,700 Plumas FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Riverside FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 ,941,900 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,941,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,941,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,941,900 Riverside *Component Allocations $ 5 ,941,900 Riverside Approved Amounts $ 5 ,941,900 42 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Sacramento FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 3 ,574,100 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,574,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 3 ,574,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 3 ,574,100 Sacramento *Component Allocations $ 3 ,574,100 Sacramento Approved Amounts $ 3 ,574,100 San Benito FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 San Benito *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 San Benito Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 San Bernardino FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 ,780,200 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,780,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,780,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,780,200 San Bernardino *Component Allocations $ 5 ,780,200 San Bernardino Approved Amounts $ 5 ,780,200 San Diego FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 9 ,062,100 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,062,100 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 9 ,062,100 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 9 ,062,100 San Diego *Component Allocations $ 9 ,062,100 San Diego Approved Amounts $ 9 ,062,100 San Francisco FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,026,600 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,026,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,026,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,026,600 San Francisco *Component Allocations $ 2 ,026,600 San Francisco Approved Amounts $ 2 ,026,600 San Joaquin FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,796,700 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,796,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,796,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,796,700 San Joaquin *Component Allocations $ 1 ,796,700 San Joaquin Approved Amounts $ 1 ,796,700 San Luis Obispo FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 6 92,400 Approved Amounts $ 6 92,400 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 6 92,400 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 6 92,400 San Luis Obispo *Component Allocations $ 6 92,400 San Luis Obispo Approved Amounts $ 6 92,400 San Mateo FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,751,700 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,751,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,751,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,751,700 San Mateo *Component Allocations $ 1 ,751,700 San Mateo Approved Amounts $ 1 ,751,700 Santa Barbara FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,213,700 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,213,700 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,213,700 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,213,700 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 1 ,213,700 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 1 ,213,700 43 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Santa Clara FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 ,171,300 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,171,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 ,171,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 ,171,300 Santa Clara *Component Allocations $ 5 ,171,300 Santa Clara Approved Amounts $ 5 ,171,300 Santa Cruz FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 7 58,000 Approved Amounts $ 7 58,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 7 58,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 7 58,000 Santa Cruz *Component Allocations $ 7 58,000 Santa Cruz Approved Amounts $ 7 58,000 Shasta FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 72,600 Approved Amounts $ 4 72,600 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 72,600 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 72,600 Shasta *Component Allocations $ 4 72,600 Shasta Approved Amounts $ 4 72,600 Sierra FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Sierra *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Sierra Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Siskiyou Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Solano FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,076,500 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,076,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,076,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,076,500 Solano *Component Allocations $ 1 ,076,500 Solano Approved Amounts $ 1 ,076,500 Sonoma FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,180,000 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,180,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,180,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,180,000 Sonoma *Component Allocations $ 1 ,180,000 Sonoma Approved Amounts $ 1 ,180,000 Stanislaus FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,369,300 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,369,300 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,369,300 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,369,300 Stanislaus *Component Allocations $ 1 ,369,300 Stanislaus Approved Amounts $ 1 ,369,300 44 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts Sutter-Yuba FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 Sutter-Yuba *Component Allocations $ 4 50,000 Sutter-Yuba Approved Amounts $ 4 50,000 Tehama FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tehama *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Tehama Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tri City FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 48,200 Approved Amounts $ 5 48,200 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 48,200 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 48,200 Tri City *Component Allocations $ 5 48,200 Tri City Approved Amounts $ 5 48,200 Trinity FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Trinity *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Trinity Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tulare FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 1 ,293,900 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,293,900 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 1 ,293,900 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 1 ,293,900 Tulare *Component Allocations $ 1 ,293,900 Tulare Approved Amounts $ 1 ,293,900 Tuolumne FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Tuolumne *Component Allocations $ 2 25,000 Tuolumne Approved Amounts $ 2 25,000 Ventura FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 2 ,240,500 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,240,500 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 2 ,240,500 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 2 ,240,500 Ventura *Component Allocations $ 2 ,240,500 Ventura Approved Amounts $ 2 ,240,500 Yolo FY 07/08 WET *Component Allocations $ 5 58,800 Approved Amounts $ 5 58,800 FY 07/08 *Component Allocations $ 5 58,800 FY 07/08 Approved Amounts $ 5 58,800 Yolo *Component Allocations $ 5 58,800 Yolo Approved Amounts $ 5 58,800 Total *Component Allocations $ 1 10,000,300 Total Approved Amounts $ 1 10,000,300 45 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Component Allocations and Approved Amounts WET FY 2008-2009 *Component Allocations shown are Published Component Allocations less discretionary transfers and reversion amounts County FY Component Data Total Plumas FY 08/09 Workforce, Education and Training *Component Allocations $ 69,000 Approved Amounts $ 69,000 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 69,000 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 69,000 Plumas *Component Allocations $ 69,000 Plumas Approved Amounts $ 69,000 Santa Barbara FY 08/09 Workforce, Education and Training *Component Allocations $ 115,294 Approved Amounts $ 115,294 FY 08/09 *Component Allocations $ 115,294 FY 08/09 Approved Amounts $ 115,294 Santa Barbara *Component Allocations $ 115,294 Santa Barbara Approved Amounts $ 115,294 Total *Component Allocations $ 184,294 Total Approved Amounts $ 184,294 46 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training Endnotes i http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices07/07-14_Enclosure1A.pdf ii The WET homepage (http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/Workforce_Education_and_Training/default.asp). contains important information stating that $210 million from the MHSA was designated for local WET plans. Yet to access this money, ―each County is required to perform a local workforce needs assessment and local stakeholder process.‖ DMH guidance stresses that it is crucial for this assessment to take place at the local level in order to determine local needs and priorities; this information should then be used by counties to form their WET plans. iii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/Workforce_Education_and_Training/docs/MHSAWorkforceEducationandTrainingOverview.pdf iv California Department of Mental Health (2011, January). Mental Health Services Act Expenditure Report: Fiscal Year 2010- 2011. Author: Sacramento, CA. v http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices07/07-14_Enclosure1A.pdf vi Ibid. vii Ibid. viii Ibid. ix Ibid. x 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. xi http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-06_Enclosure2A.pdf xii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices07/07-14_Enclosure1A.pdf xiii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-14_Enclosure2.pdf xiv 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 more clearly. Community Planning costs in FY 2006 – 2007 and 2007 – 2008 being allocated out to each component proportional to that component’s percentage of total expenditures. xv Other state level expenditures exist but were not used for analysis conducted in this brief. The focus is on county-level expenditures. xvi p. 3, http://www.dmh.ca.gov/DMHDocs/docs/notices08/08-28.pdf. xvii http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5890-5898 xviii DMH included funding under the MHSA for broad community planning (not tied to any specific component such as Prevention and Early Intervention) in FY 2006 – 2007 and FY 2007 – 2008. Planning as a stand-alone line item was discontinued in FY 2008 – 2009. The UCLA/EMT Team made a methodological decision in order to highlight component expenditures more clearly. Community Planning costs in FY 2006 – 2007 and 2007 – 2008 being allocated out to each component proportional to that component’s percentage of total expenditures. xix http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/docs/countyplanguidelines4.pdf xx Calaveras, Merced, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo all showed a negative balance on FY 2006-2007. xxi http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/MHSA_Fiscal_References.asp. To access the Excel file, click on ―Component Allocations and Approved Amounts‖ under ―County Level Information‖ under ―Other Fiscal Information and Reports.‖ xxii Expended, Unexpended and the Total presented in Tables 4 through 6 are rounded to nearest dollar since it is unclear what the cents values are for the Component Allocation amounts. DMH does not provide the cents values in the Component Allocations and Approved Amounts Excel file on the DMH website. xxiii Counties received a portion of the approximately $210 million in WET funding by FY 2007 – 2008. In FY 2006 – 2007, $100 million was allocated (DMH Notice 07-14). In FY 2007 – 2008, $110 million was allocated (DMH Notice 08-13). Recall that WET is distributed in lump sums rather than annually. Therefore, counties expended funds in FY 08-09 even if they didn’t have an allocation in FY 2008 - 2009. Counties had access to the funds made available through FY 2006-2007 and FY 2007-2008 allocations. http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-14.pdf http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices08/08_13.pdf xxiv Examination of Figures 5.2a and 5.2b may lead one to suspect that ―prudent reserve‖ monies are included in the unexpended funds figures. However, prudent reserve monies are not applicable to Workforce, Education, and Training funds. 47 California’s Investment in the Public Mental Health System: Proposition 63 Brief 5: Workforce Education and Training xxv DMH Information Notice 07-06 describes the planning and early implementation activities allowable under the Community Program Planning funding line item for WET. Early implementation refers to activities critical to start-up (e.g., developing RFPs) that are not actual services. Community Program Planning is described in the regulations, Section 3300. http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/notices07/07-06_InfoNotice.pdf xxvi FY 06-07 and FY 07-08 do not report expenditures for WET Administration. xxviiFY 06-07 does not report expenditures for WET work plans xxviii FY 08-09 expenditures are reported as ―Program Plans‖ xxix http://www.dmh.ca.gov/dmhdocs/docs/letters05/05-02.pdf xxx The only exception is Los Angeles County. It is unclear why no Planning funds were expended the prior fiscal year, and no planning funds expended in FY 2007 – 2008. EMT will follow up through review of the WET Work Plan and Annual Update. xxxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita xxxii Population Estimates, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division xxxiii FY 2006 – 2007 is not included because expenditures were entirely for Planning and funds were expended by only a small number of counties. Addition of the fiscal year does not add any meaningful information. xxxiv California Unemployment Rate (Average – Not Seasonally Adjusted) http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=164 The California Employment Development Department (CA EDD) defines ―Unemployment Rate‖ as the number of unemployed divided by the labor force then multiplied by 100. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1006 For sake of consistency in data presentation, EMT calculated unemployment rates using the same method as CA EDD. xxxv The foreclosure rate is defined as the number of foreclosed properties as a percent of households. HousingLink (2007). Fixing the foreclosure system: The trouble with foreclosure data. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/news_events/events/community/100407/foreclosuredata_obrien.pdf California Number of Foreclosures (Annual) were obtained from Realty Trac, and then foreclosure rates calculated using the methodology described above. xxxvi Johnson, R. (2010). Metrics and measures in tackling the social determinants of health—The example of mental health and housing. Journal of Public Mental Health, 9(3), 36-44. Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264-282. xxxvii http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/Community_Services_and_Supports/docs/05Mar30/SummaryFinancingMarch30.pdf 48