Proposition 63 Mental Health Services Act

7 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 9 findings

F01

San Diego County’s proportion of MHSA funding is commensurate with its proportion of the population of the State.

F02

The State allocation of $27.9 million (FY 2010) Prevention & Early Intervention was double counted in Capital Facilities &Technological Needs and in Prevention & Early Intervention, which inflated the Capital Facilities & Technological Needs allocation amounts in the State MHSA agreement and internal tracking report.

F03

The State approved $1.5 million (FY 2010) for Innovation was double recorded under Prevention & Early Intervention and Innovation in the State MHSA agreement and the County internal tracking report. Also, State documentation understated the Prevention & Early Intervention service approval amount by $2.2 million.

F04

As of March 2010, the County has no funding at risk of reversion to the State.

F05

About $65.2 million, or 17% of the funds allocated to San Diego County are not approved.

F06

MHS has submitted no proposals for approval of Capital Facilities (CF). A balance of $34.4 million, or 92%, of the CFTN allocation is not approved, according to MHS, due to current economic conditions and liability risk of property ownership.

F07

About $24 million of the funds allocated to San Diego County for MHSA housing development but administered by the State are not approved.

F08

About $9.1 million of the MHSA funds allocated to San Diego County for MHSA housing development but administered by the State has been approved; $18.9 million is in the pre-development pipeline; and $5 million of other possible projects are under consideration.

F09

Implementation of proposed MHSA projects is often delayed due to the lengthy public outreach process, lack of effective coordination, and labor intensive processes requiring extensive administrative tasks.

Recommendations 4

10-47
Page 5

Proceed now, during the economic downturn, with CFTN
10-48
Page 5

Enhance the Mental Health Services Act web site to improve
10-50
Page 6

Advocate with the State Department of Mental Health to
10-51
Page 6

Audit the Mental Health Services Act at least once in every

Commendations 1

CM1

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury commends:  County Mental Health Services for the fact that currently the County has no funding at risk of reversion to the State.  The new Behavioral Health Court for the creative manner of using the Innovation component of Proposition 63 funding to deal with mentally ill people accused of committing crimes or have been adjudicated and are awaiting sentencing. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding _____________________________________________________________________ 6 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 20, 2010) (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date Chief Administrative Officer, 10-47 through 10-51 8/18/10 County of San Diego _____________________________________________________________________ 7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 20, 2010)

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

Sheriff's Department

July 23, 2010 • 4 pages • 3 responses • Score: 0 (+0, 3, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

3 responses to findings and recommendations

F01

There is a negative impact on the quality of life for persons and animals living in areas of eye gnat infestation.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Agree. Finding #02: The State allocation of $27.9 million (FY 2010) Prevention & Early Intervention was double counted in Capital Facilities & Technological Needs and in Prevention & Early Intervention, which inflated the Capital Facilities & Technological needs allocation amounts in the State MHSA agreement and internal tracking report. Response: Agree. The double counting has been corrected, and is reflected in MHSA Agreement Modification # B8 executed April 18, 2010. The internal tracking report was revised to match Modification # B8. Finding #03: The State approved $1.5 million (FY 2010) f...

F02

Efforts by the County of San Diego to address eye gnat infestation have not reduced the number of complaints or the severity of the eye gnat infestation as described by residents in the affected areas.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Agree. The double counting has been corrected, and is reflected in MHSA Agreement Modification # B8 executed April 18, 2010. The internal tracking report was revised to match Modification # B8. Finding #03: The State approved $1.5 million (FY 2010) for Innovation was double recorded under Prevention & Early Intervention and Innovation in the State MHSA agreement and the County internal tracking report. Also, State documentation understated the Prevention & Early Intervention service approval amount by $2.2 million. Response: Agree. The State acknowledged their error, and on March 4, 2010, sent...

F03

The County of San Diego has the ability and authority, through existing County regulatory codes, to increase the focus and effectiveness of efforts to control the eye gnat problem.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Agree. The State acknowledged their error, and on March 4, 2010, sent the County an e-mail advising Behavioral Health Services (BHS) staff that the error was corrected, and that BHS would receive a new agreement modification. However, the MHSA Agreement Modification # B8 executed on April 18, 2010, still showed the State's erroneous double entry of $1,454,050. BHS is waiting for a subsequent agreement modification from the State, and has corrected its internal tracking report removing the amount from Prevention and Early Intervention. <b>Finding #04:</b> As of March 2010, the County has no fun...