Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mhsa Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press behavioral-health staff on MHSA data, org chart and program-level spending
Summary
During review of the MHSA FY24–25 outcomes and the behavioral health directors report commissioners asked why counts fell for some service categories, sought an organizational chart showing staffing and asked for program-level spending details; staff said data changes reflect CalAIM tracking changes and promised follow-up.
Commissioners at the El Dorado County meeting raised questions about metric changes in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) FY24–25 outcomes report and sought more transparent program-level fiscal reporting.
A commissioner highlighted what appeared to be a steep decline in requests for the county's "full service partnership" program. Behavioral-health staff responded that the discrepancy reflects a change in state tracking rules after CalAIM reforms: "Prior to CalAIM reform, we would open a new request for service... Post CalAIM, we now use a screening tool, which doesn't result in the same type of request for service," a staff member said, adding that the actual number of children treated did not change but the data-tracking method did.
Commissioners also noted an apparent mismatch within the packet between counts of local placements (nine on one page) and psychiatric health facility admissions (17 on another). Staff acknowledged the inconsistency and said they would consult the quality management team to investigate and report back. "I'll make note of that, and I'll talk with our quality management team to see what's with the discrepancy," the staff member said.
Several commissioners requested an organizational chart that shows behavioral health staffing allocations and vacancies. Staff said an updated org chart exists and can be provided in a readable PDF format; they warned that the state reporting template (DHCS) requires broader category-level reporting for the MHSA integrated plan. "The template doesn't have a page that you can click all the numbers into," a staff member said, and later explained DHCS wanted a "broad, more bird's-eye view" rather than the old program-by-program table. Staff said the commission should receive contract-level reports and an abridged program grid after contract negotiations conclude.
Commissioners also asked about recruitment and retention expenditures; one commissioner cited a packet line suggesting a large allocation contrasted with a small amount spent. Staff said they would review and follow up with exact figures. No formal decisions were made; staff committed to providing clarified org charts, contract reports and verified spending numbers in future updates.
