October 29, 2014 This webinar was funded by the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC). Audio portion will begin shortly

Introductions o Kate Cordell, MPH o Thomas Weitzel

List Serve MHSOAC maintains a list serve with information relevant to counties If you would like to receive announcements, go to MHSOAC home page to sign up:

CSI User Resources o Recently Created Resources:  CSI Data Quality Best Practices Report  CSI County-Level Data Quality Reports  CSI Statewide Data Quality Report  CSI Submission File Analysis Tool  Webinars ( for user name and password) o Available via Resources Link on

CSI-DCR Linked County Reports  The MHSOAC is hosting a project to provide each county with a one-time report with basic county-level and provider-level information, including, but not limited to, the following information about FSP partners served:  Special Population Clients  Number of Services by Types of Services  Lengths of Service  Diagnoses  Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, where available

CSI-DCR Linked County Reports  The report will use a data extracted from CSI and DCR from Aug, 2014  The reports will compare fiscal years 10/11 and 11/12 of county data  The focus of this webinar is to obtain input from counties and stakeholder on draft report format  Final reports will be delivered to all counties in late 2014

CSI-DCR Linked County Reports o Goals for today’s webinar: Review and demonstrate statewide example report Present volunteer county feedback Gather additional feedback and comments

CSI-DCR Linkage Hierarchical Linkage Method matched 97% of partners Matched even when no CSI number available in DCR

FSP vs. Not FSP Example For Reports with Unique Client Counts JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV … Active FSP CSI Services FSP Not FSP N/A FSP Participation FSP or Not FSP Clients are FSP when they have an active FSP partnership and received services reported in the CSI system for the month Clients are Not FSP if they received services but have no active FSP partnership Clients are not reported if they did not receive services in the month (N/A)

Sections of Report Acknowledgements Definitions and Abbreviations Section 1-1 Report Overview Section 2-1 Clients Served – Age Group Section 2-2 Clients Served – Gender Section 2-3 Clients Served – Race and Ethnicity Section 2-4 Clients Served – Primary Language Section 2-5 Clients Served – Preferred Language Section 2-6 Clients Served – Diagnosis Group Section 2-7 Clients Served – Indicators Section 3-1 Client Services Information – GAF Scores Section 3-2 Client Services Information – Special Population Services Section 4-1 Client Services – Service Types Section Appendix A – Diagnosis Grouping Codes Section Appendix B – Service Type Groupings

CSI-DCR Linked County Reports Monthly Summaries FY2010/2011 & FY2011/2012 Summary for County Table for each Provider (identified from CSI)

Section 1-1 Report Overview FSP = Partners who were actively enrolled in an FSP program and received any kind of CSI reported service  Note: FSP Partners who did not receive any kind of CSI reported service will not be counted at all for the month of service Not FSP = Clients received any kind of CSI reported service and who were not actively enrolled in an FSP program  Note: Clients who did not receive any kind of CSI reported service will not be counted at all for the month of service

Section 1-1 Report Overview 3 Main Data Sections o Clients Served (Section 2)  Section 2-1 through 2-7, counts of clients are identified as FSP or Not FSP within each month of the two fiscal years  A client is counted as served in FSP if they were served in an FSP program for at least one day during the month o Client Services Information (Section 3) & Client Services (Section 4)  Services and related services information are identified as delivered to FSP or Not FSP clients using the exact dates of FSP participation  A service is counted as FSP if the client was being served by an FSP program during the date of the service

Section 1-1 Report Overview In the Service Types report in Section 4-1, a client can be counted as both FSP and Not FSP if they were served in FSP for only part of the month such that some services were received while in FSP and some were received outside of FSP program participation Monthly total client counts in the GAF Scores, Special Population Services, and Service Types reports may differ from those in the Clients Served sections.

Section 2-1 Clients Served – Age Group Child (0-15) Transition Age Youth (16-25) Adult (25-59) Older Adult (60+) Not Available All Clients

Section 2-2 Clients Served – Gender Female Male Other Unknown / Not Reported All Clients

Section 2-3 Clients Served – Race and Ethnicity White or Caucasian Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Filipino Chinese Cambodian Hmong Japanese Korean Other Pacific Islander Samoan Asian Indian Other Asian Native Hawaiian Guamanian Mien Laotian Vietnamese Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity Other Unknown / Not Reported All Clients

Section 2-4 Clients Served – Primary Language American Sign Language (ASL) Other Sign Language Mandarin Other Chinese Dialects Arabic Mien Armenian Cambodian Cantonese English Other Non-English Polish Farsi Portuguese French Russian Hebrew Samoan Hmong Spanish Ilocano Tagalog Italian Thai Japanese Turkish Korean Lao Vietnamese Unknown / Not Reported All Clients

Section 2-5 Clients Served – Preferred Language American Sign Language (ASL) Other Sign Language Mandarin Other Chinese Dialects Arabic Mien Armenian Cambodian Cantonese English Other Non-English Polish Farsi Portuguese French Russian Hebrew Samoan Hmong Spanish Ilocano Tagalog Italian Thai Japanese Turkish Korean Lao Vietnamese Unknown / Not Reported All Clients

Section 2-6 Clients Served – Diagnosis Group Depressive Disorder Bipolar Disorder Substance Abuse Disorder Schizophrenia Adjustment Disorder Anxiety Disorder Disruptive Disorder Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Childhood Disorders Psychotic Disorders Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Personality Disorder Cognitive Disorder

Section 2-7 Clients Served – Indicators Substance Abuse Trauma All Clients

Section 3-1 Client Services Information - GAF Scores Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Score o Client with Service & GAF Scores o Total Clients with Services o % with GAF o Lowest in Month o Highest in Month o Mean Monthly

Section 3-2 Client Services Info - Special Population Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) services – Reflects client information for clients who were identified as receiving Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Services Individualized Education Plan required (IEP) services – Reflects client information for clients who were identified as receiving Individualized Education Plan required (IEP) services Governor’s Homeless Initiative (GHI) services – Reflects client information for clients who were identified as receiving Governor’s Homeless Initiative (GHI) services Welfare-to-work (WTW) plan specified services – Reflects client information for clients who were identified as receiving Welfare- to-work (WTW) plan specified services

Section 4-1 Client Services - Service Types All Service Types Community Mental Health Medication Support Services Linkage/Brokerage Collateral Day Treatment Half Day Treatment Full Residential Crisis Intervention Crisis Stabilization

Appendices Section Appendix A - Diagnosis Grouping Codes Section Appendix B - Service Type Groupings

Feedback from Volunteer Counties Solano, Placer & Yuba-Sutter counties provided feedback the report Feedback Sections: o Highlights o Report Layout o Report Sections/Subsections o Section Introductions o Report Clarity o County/Organization Use o Additional Feedback

Feedback: Highlights o “The report provides a wealth of information in an organized fashion” o “Data could be useful in addressing issues raised in an audit related to service provided to different categories of consumer. Such as whether a group over or under represented in FSPs” o “We liked the sections and subsections breakdowns and the FSP comparison to Not FSP percentages” o “All of the information was useful. The Age, Gender, Primary Language, Preferred Language, Race/Ethnicity are valuable cultural competence information” o “Appendixes were useful” o “Accurate and timely information is always important to manage services and ensure best use of resources. For example, having the service data by provider is helpful in programming decisions”

Feedback: Report Layout Provide annual summaries of unduplicated client counts by County and Provider for all sections Include graphs of annual summaries Would like to be able to view “All Provider” data separately from all Provider data

Feedback: Report Sections/Subsections “The ‘All Providers’ reports offer the most useful information… Would like to be able to hide the individual provider sheets unless I am looking for data about a specific provider” “All of the sections have different uses and are useful and informative, but did not tell the ultimate story of the individuals served. The report was clear, but how the data derived from the data provided was not. We had to make some assumptions that may have been stated in the subsection, but not fully understood until we pulled the data to validate” “The GAF scores for Highest in Month, Average Monthly and Lowest in Month were almost always the same numbers for a specific month”

Feedback: Section Introductions “The section introductions were well done. You did good job explaining the Race/Ethnicity categories and duplicated counts” “The descriptions/introduction before each section were clear and helpful. In my review, I did have to refer back to the introduction, at times, to refresh my understanding of the data” “Each section introduction was clear and gave the needed information for the section following. The date of birth calculated by the mid-fiscal year was assumed to be that if a client ages as of January 1 that the data in the proceeding 6 months is based on the age they are 6 months later”

Feedback: Report Clarity “More clarification is needed for what is considered Not FSP. Is this data from the CSI data reported? We had many discussions on who was determined to be FSP vs Not FSP”

Feedback: County Use “Diagnosis and services data can help the county identify patterns that raise questions about whether FSP eligibility requirements are being followed.” “Would like the data to tell a story. It would be beneficial to have data that tells more about where the partner comes from (incarceration days - up/down, homelessness - up/down, hospitalization - up/down), have they increased employment days, co-occurrence, days within the program, and if the partner went in and out of the program. It would be preferable to have a graph or pictorial that shows how the data has changed and shows a high-level for each breakdown” “The monthly data will be useful in ensuring that data is being reported correctly and that staff are collecting the appropriate demographic data elements. Changing the report to include a recap of unduplicated annual totals (and by unduplicated quarterly totals) would be easier to share with stakeholders and easier to compare over time”

Additional Feedback “A tool similar to the EPLD to that would support queries by service, date and provider would enhance the utility of the data” “It would be interesting to see the Race and the Ethnicity data compared to Diagnosis Group, Age Group, Gender, and Service Indicators” “Program management would like a report that gives a high level/less detailed report. It was felt that there was too much detail within the report that was reviewed and it was overwhelming in its enormity. It was felt that the report ‘did not tell the story’ of the program”

Next Steps Incorporate today’s feedback into draft reports Incorporate volunteer county feedback Provide all counties with final reports by December 15

Related Upcoming Projects 1. Adding a link between the Enhanced Partner-Level Data (EPLD) Templates Tool and the CSI Submission File Analysis Tool 2. Adding monthly reports to the CSI Submission File Analysis Tool for FSP, Non-FSP or All Clients such that timely county and provider-level reports can be run locally

Questions? MHDATA: DHCS: Thank you!!