This report provides data on clients served and services provided based on California's Client and Service Information (CSI) data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. It includes the number of unique clients served annually by factors such as region, county, age, gender, race/ethnicity, primary language, diagnosis, and special population. It also includes data on services provided by type of service and average annual units of service per client. The report finds variations across regions and identifies areas in the CSI data that need improvement to ensure accurate oversight and evaluation.

1. MHSOAC Statewide
Client and Service Information (CSI)
Data Quality Report
Deliverable #4 of MHSOAC Contract 12MHSOAC025
Report Developed by Mental Health Data Alliance, LLC
8/1/2014

2. This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 1

3. Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
California Mental Health Regions…………………………………………………………………………………………….............................
1. Clients Served………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1.1 Unique CSI Clients Served by County for FY11……………………………………………………….. ……………………
1.2 Unique CSI Clients Served by County for FY12…………………………………………………………………………….
1.3 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served by Mode of Service, Region, FY…………………………….…..
1.4 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Mode of Service, FY……………………….…
1.5 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served by Age Group, Region, FY………………………………………….…
1.6 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Age Group, FY……………………………………….
1.7 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Gender, Region, FY…………………………………………………..
1.8 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Gender, FY…………………………………………….
1.9 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Race/Ethnicity, FY………………………………….
1.10 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Race/Ethnicity, Region, FY…………………………….……….
1.11 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Primary Language, FY……………………..........
1.12 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Primary Language, Region, FY………………………………….
1.13 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served with Substance Abuse Indicator by Region, FY……………
1.14 Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Diagnosis Group, Region, FY……………………………………
1.15 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Special Population, FY…………..................
1.16 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served by Special Population, Region, FY………………..................
2. Services Provided………….……………….……………………………………………………………………………...............................
2.1 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for 24 Hour Services
by Service Function, FY………………………………………………………….....………………………………………..
2.2 Average Annual Days of 24 Hour Services per Client with Service Function Statewide by FY……
2.3 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Day Services
by Service Function, FY………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.4 Average Annual Service Units of Day Services per Client with Service Function Statewide
by FY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…..
2.5 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Outpatient Services
by Service Function, FY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.6 Average Annual Minutes of Outpatient Services per Client with Service Function
Statewide by FY……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. Periodic Assessments……………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3.1 Percent of Unique Clients Served Annually with Periodic Assessment(s) by Region, FY……………
3.2 Number of Total Periodic Assessments Submitted Annually by Region, FY………………………….…
3.3 Average Periodic Assessments Annually per Client with At Least One Periodic Assessment
by Region, FY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..
3.4 Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY11 by Region…………………………………………………..…
3.5 Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY12 by Region ………………………………………………….….
3.6 Periodic Records by Work Setting for FY11 by Region………………………………………………………….………
3.7 Periodic Records by Work Setting for FY12 by Region………………………………………………………….……..
3.8 Periodic Records by Conservatorship Setting for FY11 by Region…………………………………………...
3.9 Periodic Records by Conservatorship Setting for FY12 by Region……………………………………….…..
3.10 Periodic Records by Education for FY11 by Region………………………………………………………………....
3.11 Periodic Records by Education for FY12 by Region…………………………………………………………….…….
Appendix A: Diagnosis Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….…….
3
4
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
15
17
18
19
21
24
24
25
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
44
Page 2

4. Executive Summary
Purpose
The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) is responsible
for providing oversight of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and its components. The ability
to successfully use evaluation methods is dependent upon access to valid data that is reliably
reported. This report describes and assesses the current levels of data quality for the MHSA
Client and Service Information (CSI) data in the CSI repository maintained by the State of
California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The report provides summaries of CSI
data elements across counties, regions and the State for fiscal year 2010/2011 (FY11) and fiscal
year 2011/2012 (FY12). A draft of this report was open for public comment from June 1st
through Friday, June 27th.

5. Introduction
This report describes and assesses the current levels of data quality for the MHSA Client and
Service Information (CSI) data in the CSI repository maintained by the State of California
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The report provides summaries of CSI data
elements across counties, regions and the state for fiscal year 2010/2011 (FY11) and fiscal year
2011/2012 (FY12). A draft of this report was open for public comment from June 1st through
Friday, June 27th.
Background Information
The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) is responsible
for providing oversight for the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and its components. Within
this role, the MHSOAC ensures accountability. As one of its oversight approaches, the MHSOAC
has adopted a commitment to pursuing meaningful evaluation of the MHSA and greater
community mental health system.
The ability to successfully use evaluation methods to provide oversight and accountability within
the MHSA is dependent upon access to valid data that is reliably reported and made available to
the MHSOAC on a regular basis. The MHSOAC has identified areas within the current county-
level and statewide data collection and reporting systems that are problematic and in need of
improvement. The MHSOAC has begun to directly address some of these issues, although it is
not clear that the MHSOAC was intended to provide this function. Nonetheless, the MHSOAC is
committed to advocating for improvement of the current data collection and reporting systems
since the MHSOAC is dependent on the information that is made available via these systems in
order to fulfill the statutory role in evaluation of the public mental health system. Improvements
in data collection and reporting systems will increase confidence in the information obtained and
conclusions drawn regarding the state of the MHSA and California community mental health
system.
As part of its oversight and accountability role, the MHSOAC conducts statewide evaluations of
services funded under the Community Services and Supports (CSS) component of the MHSA.
Counties, providers, and stakeholders need accurate and timely data that promote quality
improvement efforts within the services that are being offered throughout the state. The
MHSOAC also requires data on CSS component services and clients in order to fulfill part of its
oversight and accountability role and to support quality improvement efforts of the mental
health system and services within that system. Unfortunately, the data collection and reporting
systems used for CSS services have not been properly maintained, which limits the quality of
data collected and reported via these systems.
MHSA data regarding client CSS services are primarily collected via the Client and Service
Information (CSI) system, which is currently owned and maintained by the DHCS. In an effort to
strengthen the data collected and reported via the CSI system, MHSOAC sponsored this effort to
provide reporting on data that has been submitted to the CSI system.

6. Introduction
Overview of the CSS Program
CSS is the largest component of the MHSA. The CSS component is focused on community
collaboration, cultural competence, client and family driven services and systems, wellness,
which includes concepts of recovery and resilience, integrated service experiences for clients
and families, as well as serving un-served and underserved populations. Housing is also a large
part of the CSS component.
According to California Administrative Code title 9, § 3200.080, “Community Services and
Supports means the component of the Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plans that refers to
service delivery systems for mental health services and supports for children and youth,
transition age youth, adults, and older adults. These services and supports are similar to those
found in Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 5800 et. seq. (Adult and Older Adult Systems of
Care) and 5850 et. seq. (Children's System of Care).”
Mental Health Plans (MHPs) receive supplemental state-based funding for mental health
services as a result of California Proposition 63 (now known as the Mental Health Services Act or
MHSA), passed in November of 2004. MHSA provides increased funding to support California’s
county mental health programs. The MHSA imposes a one percent income tax on personal
income in excess of $1 million to address a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention
and service needs and the necessary infrastructure, technology and training elements that will
effectively support this system, with the purpose of promoting recovery for individuals with
serious mental illness. MHPs develop customized plans for mental health client service in
accordance with numerous requirements, including that it must provide for significant local
stakeholder input and involvement. Some community mental health services in the CSI database
are CSS which are funded by MHSA, but MHPs are not currently required to identify MHSA
funded services in the CSI database.
Page 5

7. Introduction
History of the CSI System
California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §5610 required MHPs to report data to the State
for non-duplicative client-based information including all information necessary to meet federal
Medicaid reporting requirements, as well as any other state requirements established by law.
There are 59 MHPs (56 counties + Yuba/Sutter combined counties + Berkeley City region + Tri-
City), which will be referred to as “counties” hereafter. In the CSI system, the Alameda County
and Berkeley City region MHPs’ data are combined.
Counties currently report client-based information to the CSI system, which began July 1, 1998
and replaced the Client Discharge System (CDS). The CSI system collects data pertaining to
mental health Clients and the services they receive at the county level. A basic principle of the
CSI system is that it reflects both Medi-Cal and non-Medi-Cal Clients and services provided in the
County/City/Mental Health Plan program. In county-staffed providers, all Clients and services
must be reported. In contract providers, those Clients and services provided under the contract
with the county must be reported. This data is processed and stored on a database at DHCS.
Counties send a CSI Submission File to DHCS monthly and are required to submit data no later
than 60 days after the end of the month in which the services were provided.
On July 1st, 2006, The California Department of Mental Health (DMH) introduced a modified
data format which included changes to the CSI system documentation, the client record format
(such as Race/Ethnicity, Data Infrastructure Grant Indicator (DIG)), services record format (such
as Diagnosis, Evidence-Based Practices and Service Strategies (EBP)), and the periodic record
(such as Caregiver).
The DMH Statistics and Data Analysis (SDA) provided administrative statistical information and
reports about county mental health programs using the CSI system monthly by county mental
health programs and state-level summarization from 1998 to 2012.
In 2012, as a result of the dissolution of DMH, ownership of these systems was transferred to
DHCS. DHCS now hosts and provides support for the CSI system and publishes statistical
information and reports. These reports provide statewide utilization by various demographic
variables and are available on the DHCS website.
Reporting Timeframe
All reports compare the following two recent years of CSI data for each county. The reports use
the same two years of data for all counties. The reporting timeframes coincide with California
State Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 as shown in the following table.
Fiscal Year Start Date End Date
FY11 July 1, 2010 June 30, 2011
FY12 July 1, 2011 June 30, 2012
Page 6

8. Introduction
Overview of the Statewide CSI Data Quality Report
The purpose of the Statewide Data Quality Report is to describe county, regional, and statewide
CSI data and to identify inconsistent or aberrant data points. The report provides basic
information regarding CSI data, including annual counts of total clients, special population
clients, services, service types, lengths of service, diagnoses, and completed periodic
assessments. The reports compare two recent years of CSI data statewide. The reports use the
same two years of data for all counties.
The results from the Data Quality Report are not meant for comparison between groups of
clients or between counties and regions for purposes other than data quality. The results are
meant to inform data collectors and data users about areas of strength and areas of weakness
which may exist in the dataset. Therefore, informed decisions can be made about the collection
and/or use of the data for more sophisticated and informed analyses in the future.
Reviewing data quality requires looking for patterns in the data. This includes investigation to
ensure that patterns exist where patterns are expected and patterns do not exist where patterns
are not expected. For example, if there are large differences between regions for results of the
same age group, this might (but not always) suggest a systematic difference in data collection or
data reporting between counties and regions. The purpose of this data quality report is to help
identify systematic differences in the data.
Data Description
The data for this report was obtained via a one-time export from the CSI system by DHCS. This
data was made available on August 2nd, 2013 and contains Client, Service and Periodic data up
to May 31, 2013 with 10 years of history.
CSI data files were made available for download in Comma Separated Value (CSV) format via the
ITWS website file transfer functionality. These files were separated into Client, Services and
Periodic data file types and were formatted according to the CSI Data Dictionary (July 2007
revision).
The data was analyzed for these reports using SAS® Enterprise Guide 5.1. Client, Services and
Periodic data were linked via the 9-digit County Client Number (CCN) which provides a unique
identifier for each client served by each County.
To ensure client privacy and confidentiality, the count of unique clients in the tables of this
report have been withheld for populations of 10 clients or less and replaced with “SN” to
indicate small numbers.
Page 7

9. California Mental Health Regions
01 Alameda & Berkeley 13 Imperial 25 Modoc 37 San Diego 49 Sonoma
02 Alpine 14 Inyo 26 Mono 38 San Francisco 50 Stanislaus
03 Amador 15 Kern 27 Monterey 39 San Joaquin 52 Tehama
04 Butte 16 Kings 28 Napa 40 San Luis Obispo 53 Trinity
05 Calaveras 17 Lake 29 Nevada 41 San Mateo 54 Tulare
06 Colusa 18 Lassen 30 Orange 42 Santa Barbara 55 Tuolumne
07 Contra Costa 19 Los Angeles 31 Placer 43 Santa Clara 56 Ventura
08 Del Norte 20 Madera 32 Plumas 44 Santa Cruz 57 Yolo
09 El Dorado 21 Marin 33 Riverside 45 Shasta 63 Sutter & Yuba
10 Fresno 22 Mariposa 34 Sacramento 46 Sierra 66 Tri-City
11 Glenn 23 Mendocino 35 San Benito 47 Siskiyou
12 Humboldt 24 Merced 36 San Bernadino 48 Solano
Page 8

10. 1. Clients Served
ID Partners
1= 35,250
2= 36
3= 683
4= 7,046
5= 701
6= 559
7= 18,687
8= 1,036
9= 2,366
10= 13,621
11= 799
12= 3,678
13= 4,808
14= 0
15= 17,722
16= 2,991
17= 1,065
18= 878
19= 190,056
20= 2,567
21= 2,929
22= 568
23= 2,062
24= 4,339
25= 428
26= 304
27= 5,738
28= 1,353
29= 1,820
30= 45,570
ID Partners
31= 2,454
32= 612
33= 41,721
34= 20,125
35= 1,439
36= 36,820
37= 54,001
38= 9,125
39= 13,492
40= 4,518
41= 11,103
42= 7,179
43= 6,372
44= 4,067
45= 4,795
46= 164
47= 1,485
48= 4,293
49= 4,634
50= 9,148
52= 4,649
53= 2,006
54= 1,488
55= 353
56= 8,928
57= 980
63= 11,847
66= 2,937
1.1: Unique CSI Clients Served by County for FY11
1.1 and 1.2 provide a total annual count of unique clients served under any mode of service at
any time during the Fiscal Year by each county. This report allows Counties to identify trends of
increasing or decreasing number of unique Clients served by Fiscal Year.
As seen in 1.1, In FY11, 640,395 clients were served statewide for the counties reporting to the
CSI system. Los Angeles County served roughly one third of the clients (n=190,056), and San
Diego County served the next largest number of clients (n=54,001).
Page 9

11. ID Partners
31= 2,289
32= 578
33= 16,893
34= 21,150
35= 1,560
36= 38,990
37= 55,779
38= 12,608
39= 13,768
40= 4,182
41= 11,166
42= 6,817
43= 5,472
44= 4,056
45= 4,515
46= 135
47= 1,071
48= 3,462
49= 4,449
50= 6,870
52= 4,694
53= 2,135
54= 1,435
55= 331
56= 9,322
57= 998
63= 13,055
66= 2,653
1. Clients Served
1.2: Unique CSI Clients Served by County for FY12
As seen in 1.2, 663,803 clients were served statewide for the counties reporting to the CSI system
in FY12. This represents a 3.7% increase in clients served in comparison to FY11. Los Angeles
County served over one third of the clients (n=231,830), and San Diego County served the next
largest number of clients (n=55,779).
ID Partners
1= 34,800
2= 39
3= 740
4= 7,161
5= 1,065
6= 610
7= 19,368
8= 974
9= 2,470
10= 15,407
11= 688
12= 3,770
13= 5,073
14= 0
15= 18,696
16= 2,902
17= 1,187
18= 843
19= 231,830
20= 2,584
21= 0
22= 616
23= 1,790
24= 4,406
25= 465
26= 248
27= 5,538
28= 1,473
29= 1,900
30= 46,727
Page 10

12. An annual count of total Clients
served any time during the
reporting timeframe (FY11 and
FY12), by region and Mode of
Service is shown in 1.3. All
regions provided Outpatient
services to the greatest number
of unique clients in comparison
to other modes of service. Most
regions provided more Day
Services than 24 Hour Services
(except for the Central Counties
region.)
An annual count of total Clients
statewide served any time
during the reporting timeframe
(FY11 and FY12) by Mode of
Service is shown in 1.4.
One client may receive services
under multiple Modes of
Service. As a result, the number
of Clients who received services
for all Modes of Service may be
greater than the total population
served by region if added
together.
1.3: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served by Mode of Service, Region, FY
1. Clients Served
1.4: Number of Unique Annual Clients
Served Statewide by Mode of Service, FY
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
All Clients 104,990 90,889 190,056 225,674 28,786 103,952 92,221 231,830 207,647 28,153
Outpatient Services 94,673 89,452 184,138 213,970 27,998 94,126 90,979 224,357 200,636 27,219
Day Services 20,709 2,292 16,154 24,948 2,173 19,645 3,063 20,771 16,550 2,208
24 Hour Services 7,418 5,052 3,120 17,452 1,504 7,539 4,733 3,569 14,862 1,725
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
FY11 FY12
All Clients 640,395 663,803
Outpatient Services 610,231 637,317
Day Services 66,276 62,237
24 Hour Services 34,546 32,428
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Page 11

13. An annual count of total Clients
served any time during the
reporting timeframe (FY11 and
FY12) by Region and Age Group is
shown in 1.5.
An annual count of total Clients
statewide served any time during
the reporting timeframe (FY11 and
FY12) by Age Group is shown in 1.6.
The age categories include Child (0-
15 Years), Transition Age Youth
(TAY, 16-25 Years), Adult (26-59
Years), and Older Adult (60+ Years).
All counties served more Adults
than any other Age Group, serving
304,975 Adults annually statewide
in FY12. The second highest age
group served for all counties was
Child, serving 205,769 Children
statewide in FY12.
“SN” indicates small numbers
withheld to ensure client privacy
where 10 or less clients are
reported.
1.5: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served by Age Group, Region, FY
1. Clients Served
1.6: Number of Unique Annual Clients
Served Statewide by Age Group, FY
FY11 FY12
Adult 291,997 304,975
Child 179,593 205,769
TAY 125,887 112,661
Older Adult 42,163 38,510
Not Available 755 1,888
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Adult 51,337 39,611 80,531 106,943 13,575 50,796 40,911 104,445 95,650 13,173
Child 25,262 28,469 61,633 56,363 7,866 28,438 31,536 76,351 61,065 8,379
TAY 19,170 17,349 36,279 47,726 5,363 16,357 14,806 38,789 37,939 4,770
Older Adult 9,199 5,404 11,591 13,995 1,974 8,288 4,891 11,917 11,610 1,804
Not Available 22 56 22 647 73 77 328 1,383 27
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
SN
Page 12

14. As seen in 1.7, regions of California
served differing proportions of
clients by gender. The largest
proportions of clients served in Los
Angeles, Southern and Bay Area
regions were male, while the
largest proportions for Central and
Superior regions were female. A
similar distribution of clients served
by gender existed for FY11 as
compared to FY12.
As seen in 1.8, the largest
proportion of clients served
statewide in FY11 and FY12 were
male.
1.7: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Gender, Region, FY
1. Clients Served
1.8: Percent of Unique Annual Clients
Served Statewide by Gender, FY
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Male 51.0% 49.4% 52.4% 53.2% 48.0% 51.4% 49.7% 54.9% 53.3% 47.6%
Female 48.7% 50.4% 47.6% 46.7% 51.9% 48.4% 50.1% 45.0% 46.5% 52.2%
Unknown / Not Reported 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
FY11 FY12
Male 51.8% 52.8%
Female 48.0% 47.0%
Unknown / Not Known 0.1% 0.1%
Other 0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Page 13

15. 1. Clients Served
1.9.2: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Race/Ethnicity, FY
(“Other”, “Unknown / Not Reported”)
FY11 FY12
Other 23.8% 20.9%
Unknown / Not Reported 26.5% 34.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
FY11 FY12
White or Caucasian 33.5% 30.5%
Hispanic or Latino (Ethnicity) 26.9% 23.9%
Black or African American 11.2% 10.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.5% 1.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
1.9.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide by Race/Ethnicity, FY
(Top 4)
Page 14

16. 1. Clients Served
1.10.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Race/Ethnicity, Region, FY
(Top 4)
1.10.2: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Race/Ethnicity, Region, FY
(Remaining)
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
White or Caucasian 36.2% 47.4% 5.2% 45.1% 76.8% 34.4% 46.7% 3.2% 45.6% 75.5%
Hispanic or Latino (Ethnicity) 24.0% 31.4% 18.4% 35.5% 11.7% 24.7% 32.3% 9.9% 36.9% 12.2%
Black or African American 22.5% 13.2% 5.6% 11.0% 3.1% 22.8% 13.6% 3.3% 10.9% 3.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1.7% 2.6% 0.1% 1.3% 7.3% 2.0% 2.5% 0.1% 1.4% 7.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Filipino 2.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.9% 0.3%
Hmong 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
Other Asian 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3%
Chinese 1.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 2.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Cambodian 0.6% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Laotian 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5%
Viatnamese 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5%
Korean 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%
Asian Indian 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Japanese 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Other Pacific Islander 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Samoan 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Guamanian 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Native Hawaiian 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%
Mien 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Page 15

17. 1. Clients Served
1.10.3: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served by Race/Ethnicity, Region, FY
(“Other”, “Unknown / Not Reported”)
Up to 6 Race/Ethnicity codes can be reported for each client. These include five Race Code fields
which allow clients to be identified as belonging to up to five separate Race categories and an
Ethnicity code which indicates if the client is of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. These fields have been
aggregated to report the total percent of Clients that were identified as belonging to each
Race/Ethnicity group in any of the Race or Ethnicity fields. Since Clients are able to report multiple
races, the number of clients served for all Races/Ethnicity categories may be greater than the total
clients served if added together.
In the CSI system, “Unknown / Not Reported” can be reported in combination with other
Race/Ethnicity codes. For example, a client could be reported as “Mien” and “Unknown / Not
Reported” simultaneously. For the purposes of this report, only clients without a Race or Ethnicity
other than “Unknown / Not Reported” are identified as “Unknown / Not Reported”.
For ease of review, the data has been split into three sections. 1.10.1 displays the top 4 most
common races by percentage. 1.10.2 displays the data for the remaining Race/Ethnicity types of
lower frequency. 1.10.3 displays only the percent of clients identified as “Other” or “Unknown / Not
Reported”.
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Other 23.3% 28.3% 19.0% 28.3% 7.3% 23.7% 29.4% 10.2% 29.5% 7.3%
Unknown / Not Reported 9.8% 7.4% 69.1% 8.4% 8.7% 10.4% 7.0% 82.6% 7.0% 9.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Page 16

18. FY11 FY12
Unknown / Not Reported 46.2% 58.9%
English 44.2% 33.9%
Spanish 6.5% 4.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
1. Clients Served
1.11.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide
by Primary Language, FY (Top 3)
1.11.2: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide
by Primary Language, FY (Remaining)
FY11 FY12
Other Non-English 0.5% 0.5%
Vietnamese 0.5% 0.5%
Cambodian 0.4% 0.3%
Armenian 0.2% 0.2%
Cantonese 0.2% 0.2%
Farsi 0.2% 0.1%
Hmong 0.2% 0.2%
Tagalog 0.2% 0.1%
American Sign Language (ASL) 0.1% 0.0%
Arabic 0.1% 0.0%
Korean 0.1% 0.1%
Lao 0.1% 0.1%
Mandarin 0.1% 0.0%
Mien 0.1% 0.1%
Other Chinese Dialects 0.1% 0.1%
Russian 0.1% 0.1%
French 0.0% 0.0%
Hebrew 0.0% 0.0%
Ilocano 0.0% 0.0%
Italian 0.0% 0.0%
Japanese 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sign Language 0.0% 0.0%
Polish 0.0% 0.0%
Portugese 0.0% 0.0%
Samoan 0.0% 0.0%
Thai 0.0% 0.0%
Turkish 0.0% 0.0%
Page 17

19. 1. Clients Served
1.12.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Primary Language, Region, FY (Top 3)
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Unknown / Not Reported 43.8% 46.2% 39.4% 53.1% 45.6% 49.7% 52.2% 67.1% 58.3% 51.8%
English 47.3% 46.5% 44.0% 41.1% 51.5% 42.1% 41.4% 23.7% 36.4% 45.7%
Spanish 4.1% 3.4% 13.3% 3.9% 1.0% 3.6% 2.9% 6.9% 3.5% 0.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1.12.2: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Primary Language, Region, FY (Remaining)
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Other Non-English 0.9% 0.8% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3%
Vietnamese 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0%
Cambodian 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0%
Armenian 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Cantonese 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Farsi 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0%
Hmong 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
Tagalog 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
American Sign Language (ASL) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arabic 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Korean 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Lao 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Mandarin 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Mien 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Other Chinese Dialects 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Russian 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
French 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hebrew 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ilocano 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Italian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Japanese 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Sign Language 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Polish 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Portugese 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Samoan 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Thai 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Turkish 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Page 18

20. 1.13.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served with Substance Abuse Indicator
by Region, FY
1. Clients Served
1.13.2: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served with Substance Abuse Indicator
by Region, FY
All Service records for each
Client were analyzed to
determine if any Service records
during the reporting period
indicated a substance abuse or
dependence issue. Clients who
had at least one Service record
containing an answer of ‘Yes’ in
the Substance Abuse Indicator
field were identified as having a
substance abuse or dependence
issue reported during the Fiscal
Year. For reporting purposes, any
Clients missing Substance Abuse
Indicators are identified as not
having reported a substance
abuse or dependence issue.
FY11 FY12
Statewide 17.2% 17.5%
Bay Area Counties 20.8% 21.4%
Central Counties 20.8% 21.7%
Los Angeles Region 2.2% 6.2%
Southern Counties 25.6% 25.3%
Superior Counties 26.0% 25.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Statewide
FY11 110,116
FY12 116,386
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
FY11 FY12
Bay Area Counties 21,791 22,199
Central Counties 18,882 19,980
Los Angeles Region 4,264 14,464
Southern Counties 57,687 52,489
Superior Counties 7,492 7,254
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Page 19

21. This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 20

22. 1. Clients Served
1.14.1: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Diagnosis Group, Region, FY (Top Group)
As seen in 1.14.1 through 1.14.3, the annual percent of total unique clients served by each Region
by Diagnosis Group and Fiscal Year is presented. Each Service record contains 4 fields representing
diagnosis (Axis I Diagnosis, Axis I Additional Diagnosis, Axis II Diagnosis, Axis II Additional
Diagnosis). All Service records for each Client were analyzed to determine if any Service records
during the reporting period indicated a diagnosis code included in one of the identified Diagnosis
Groups. The algorithm used to classify Diagnosis is included in Appendix A. The most common
diagnosis group reported was Depressive Diagnosis with all regions reporting 25%-35% of clients
served being diagnosed with a diagnosis in this group.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Depressive Diagnosis 31.9% 31.6% 31.9% 34.1% 30.7% 28.4% 31.4% 32.3% 33.0% 31.2% 30.8% 28.6%
Bipolar Diagnosis 20.2% 17.2% 19.5% 19.4% 22.0% 24.4% 19.9% 17.3% 20.2% 19.1% 21.4% 24.6%
Substance Diagnosis 18.3% 17.7% 13.8% 17.1% 22.2% 12.6% 18.9% 17.9% 14.7% 19.2% 21.9% 13.1%
Schizophrenia Diagnosis 13.6% 16.2% 14.1% 10.6% 14.9% 12.2% 13.0% 15.7% 14.2% 9.5% 15.3% 12.2%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Page 21

23. 1. Clients Served
1.14.2: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Diagnosis Group, Region, FY (Middle Group)
1.14.3: Percent of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Diagnosis Group, Region, FY (Lower Group)
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Adjustment Diagnosis 11.0% 13.6% 11.8% 8.7% 10.9% 13.6% 10.7% 13.9% 11.1% 8.6% 10.7% 13.7%
Anxiety Diagnosis 10.6% 11.3% 12.9% 8.9% 10.2% 15.6% 11.2% 13.0% 13.8% 9.0% 10.9% 16.7%
Disruptive Diagnosis 10.2% 6.1% 11.2% 13.2% 9.5% 7.5% 9.8% 5.7% 11.1% 11.4% 9.9% 7.6%
ADHD Diagnosis 9.3% 6.9% 11.9% 8.7% 9.9% 9.1% 8.8% 7.0% 11.5% 7.2% 10.2% 8.9%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los
Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
Childhood Diagnosis 8.9% 8.7% 11.6% 9.4% 7.6% 8.1% 8.7% 8.4% 11.5% 8.2% 8.2% 8.1%
Psychosis Diagnosis 8.1% 9.0% 6.8% 9.4% 7.5% 5.3% 8.4% 9.2% 7.0% 9.5% 7.6% 5.3%
PTSD Diagnosis 7.7% 9.8% 11.1% 6.2% 5.7% 15.1% 7.9% 10.7% 11.8% 5.7% 6.2% 15.4%
Personality Diagnosis 4.2% 4.8% 7.6% 0.9% 4.8% 7.6% 3.9% 4.5% 7.9% 0.7% 4.8% 7.5%
Cognitive Diagnosis 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
Page 22

24. This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 23

25. 1. Clients Served
1.16: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served
by Special Population, Region, FY
Each Service record identifies whether the services provided to the client were provided as the
result of the client belonging to a Special Population receiving Individualized Education Plan
required (IEP) services, Welfare-to-work (WTW) plan services, Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)
services, or Governor’s Homeless Initiative (GHI) services.
Service records for all Clients were analyzed and any clients who received any Special Population
services in any service mode were identified by Special Population Group.
As shown in 1.15, the total number of clients reported as receiving Special Population services at
any time during the fiscal year was fairly low. IEP and WTW services were the most common.
FY11 FY12
IEP 16,953 10,032
WTW 9,685 7,866
AOT
GHI
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1.15: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide
by Special Population, FY
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 FY12
IEP 4,853 2,707 3,578 5,160 655 3,922 1,847 3,681 582
WTW 1,473 2,435 5,205 572 1,201 2,208 3,932 525
AOT
GHI
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
SN
Page 24

26. 2. Services Provided
2.1.1: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for 24 Hour Services
by Service Function, FY (Top 5)
As shown in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, the total count of unique clients served annually statewide for FY11
and FY12 who received 24 Hour Services are displayed by Service Function. Since a single client
may receive multiple Modes of Service, the total number of clients for all Modes of Service may
be greater than the number of unique clients served if added together.
The most common Mode of Service for 24 Hour Services received by clients was Hospital
Inpatient (n=18,472 in FY11 and n=16,615 in FY12). The second most common Mode of Service
was Psychiatric Health Facility (n=6,904 in FY11 and n=6,218 in FY12). The least common Mode of
Service was Independent Living (n=75 in FY11 and n=0 in FY12).
2.1.2: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for 24 Hour Services
by Service Function, FY (Remaining)
Hospital Inpatient
Psychiatric Health
Facility (PHF)
Adult Crisis Residential
Hospital
Administrative Days
SNF/IMD Services
FY11 18,472 6,904 5,601 2,826 2,422
FY12 16,615 6,218 5,691 2,055 1,868
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Adult Residential
Mental Health
Rehab Center
Residential, Other
Semi-Supervised
Living
Jail Inpatient Independent Living
FY11 1,760 1,534 1,128 395 282 75
FY12 1,933 1,403 1,106 350 819
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
SN
Page 25

27. As shown in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the average length of annual service per client by Service Function is
displayed for the reporting timeframe. This represents the ratio of total service units to the total
number of unique Clients who received 24 Hour Services for each Service Function and is
measured in days of service per client per year.
2.2.1: Average Annual Days of 24 Hour Services per Client with Service Function
Statewide by FY (Top 6)
2. Services Provided
2.2.2: Average Annual Days of 24 Hour Services per Client with Service Function
Statewide by FY (Remaining)
Residential, Other SNF/IMD Services
Semi-Supervised
Living
Mental Health
Rehab Center
Adult Residential Independent Living
FY11 175.7 150.0 132.5 109.0 93.4 151.4
FY12 168.2 155.6 153.3 107.0 93.8 0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
Jail Inpatient Adult Crisis Residential
Hospital Administrative
Days
Psychiatric Health
Facility (PHF)
Hospital Inpatient
FY11 31.5 16.7 9.4 9.2 8.4
FY12 25.7 16.7 10.2 9.2 8.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Page 26

28. 2.3.1 Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Day Services
by Service Function, FY (Top 4)
As shown in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, the total count of unique clients served annually statewide for FY11
and FY12 who received Day Hour Services are displayed by Service Function. Since a single client
may receive multiple Modes of Service, the total number of clients for all Modes of Service may
be greater than the number of unique clients served if added together.
The most common Mode of Service for Day Services received by clients was Crisis Stabilization –
Emergency Room (n=34,310 in FY11 and n=29,224 in FY12). The second most common Mode of
Service was Crisis Stabilization – Urgent Care (n=26,986 in FY11 and n=28,565 in FY12). The least
common Mode of Service was Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Augmentation (n=83 in FY11 and n=23
in FY12).
2. Services Provided
2.3.2: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Day Services
by Service Function, FY (Remaining)
Crisis Stabilization -
Emergency Room
Crisis Stabilization - Urgent
Care
Day Rehabilitation - Full Day Day Treatment - Full Day
FY11 34,310 26,986 2,811 2,677
FY12 29,224 28,565 2,897 2,517
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Socialization Vocational Services
Day Rehabilitation -
Half Day
Day Treatment - Half
Day
SNF Augmentation
FY11 1,391 636 491 229 83
FY12 1,201 534 545 224 23
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Page 27

29. 2.4.1: Average Annual Service Units of Day Services per Client with Service
Function Statewide by FY (Top 4)
As shown in 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, the average length of annual service per client by Service Function is
displayed for the reporting timeframe. This represents the ratio of total service units to the total
number of unique Clients who received Day Services for that service function. Service units
reported vary by Service Function (shown in parenthesis for each Service Function type.)
2. Services Provided
2.4.2: Average Annual Service Units of Day Services per Client with Service
Function Statewide by FY (Remaining)
Day Treatment (Half Days)
Day Treatment Intensive (Full
Days)
Day Rehabilitation (Full Days) Socialization (4-Hours)
FY11 104.3 98.4 76.5 60
FY12 102.7 92.5 70.3 60.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Day Rehabilitation - Half Day
(Half Days)
Crisis Stabilization - Emergency
Room (Hours)
Vocational Services (4-Hours)
Crisis Stabilization - Urgent
Care (Hours)
FY11 46.9 17.4 18.6 10.5
FY12 46.8 19 15.3 10.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Page 28

30. 2. Services Provided
Mental Health Services
(MHS)
Medication Support Linkerage/Brokerage Collateral Crisis Intervention (CI)
FY11 480,774 308,272 281,574 173,599 122,932
FY12 515,709 314,863 275,675 172,252 120,712
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2.5.1: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Outpatient
Services by Service Function, FY (Top 4)
2.5.2: Number of Unique Annual Clients Served Statewide for Outpatient
Services by Service Function, FY (Remaining)
Therapeutic Behavioral
Services (TBS)
Professional Inpatient
Visit - MS
Professional Inpatient
Visit - MHS
Professional Inpatient
Visit - CI
Professional Inpatient
Visit - Collateral
FY11 6,000 6,036 1,775 33 22
FY12 6,622 6,144 1,148 11
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
As shown in 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, the total count of unique clients served annually statewide for FY11
and FY12 who received Outpatient Services are displayed by Service Function. Since a single client
may receive multiple Modes of Service, the total number of clients for all Modes of Service may be
greater than the number of unique clients served if added together.
SN
Page 29

31. 2. Services Provided
Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) Mental Health Services (MHS)
FY11 5,874.9 1,065.2
FY12 5,315.1 1,065.4
0.0
1,000.0
2,000.0
3,000.0
4,000.0
5,000.0
6,000.0
7,000.0
Collateral
Linkerage/Broke
rage
Professional
Inpatient Visit -
MS
Medication
Support
Crisis
Intervention (CI)
Professional
Inpatient Visit -
MHS
Professional
Inpatient Visit -
Collateral
Professional
Inpatient Visit -
CI
FY11 426.6 408.9 309.2 265.5 213.9 203.8 100.5 58.2
FY12 436.6 389.7 340.2 265.7 218.4 253.5 92.9 32.7
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
2.6.1: Average Annual Minutes of Outpatient Services per Client with Service
Function Statewide by FY (Top 2)
2.6.2: Average Annual Minutes of Outpatient Services per Client with Service
Function Statewide by FY (Remaining)
As shown in 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, the average length of annual service per client by Service Function is
displayed for the reporting timeframe. This represents the ratio of total service units to the total
number of unique Clients who received Outpatient Services. Service units are measured in
minutes.
Page 30

32. 3.1: Percent of Unique Clients Served Annually with Periodic Assessment(s)
by Region, FY
3.1 provides the percent of unique Clients served annually who received at least one Periodic
Assessment during the Fiscal Year by Region. 3.2 provides annual counts of assessments submitted
by region. In some cases, Periodic Assessments were submitted for Clients who did not receive
services during the reporting timeframe; those Periodic Assessments are excluded from these
reports.
3.2: Number of Total Periodic Assessments Submitted Annually by Region, FY
3. Periodic Assessments
Statewide Bay Area Counties Central Counties Los Angeles Region Southern Counties Superior Counties
FY11 47.6% 60.4% 77.3% 0.2% 64.5% 87.4%
FY12 50.6% 63.7% 84.7% 0.1% 79.7% 92.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Statewide
FY11 719,045
FY12 764,305
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
FY11 168,555 259,173 743 246,815 43,759
FY12 184,184 224,216 321 307,875 47,709
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Page 31

33. 3.3: Average Periodic Assessments Annually per Client with At Least One Periodic
Assessment by Region, FY
3. Periodic Assessments
The Average Periodic Assessments is the ratio of the total number of assessments submitted during
the Fiscal Year to the total number of unique clients served during the fiscal year with at least one
Periodic Assessment.
Statewide Bay Area Counties Central Counties Los Angeles Region Southern Counties Superior Counties
FY11 2.4 2.7 3.7 2.4 1.7 1.7
FY12 2.3 2.8 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Page 32

34. 3.4.1: Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY11 by Region (Top 3)
3. Periodic Assessments
3.4.1 and 3.4.2 provide the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by
Residential Setting for FY11. For example, 53.2% of Periodic Assessments submitted statewide in
FY11 reported the clients’ Residential Setting as in a House or Apartment. These percentages
describe the Residential Setting reported for Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as
reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique client counts or percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
House or apartment and requiring some
support with daily living activities (applies
to adults only)
4.7% 3.1% 2.9% 43.2% 7.5% 4.6%
Unknown / Not Reported 20.4% 24.8% 20.0% 9.3% 19.3% 13.1%
House or apartment (includes trailers,
hotels, dorms, barracks, etc.)
53.2% 50.7% 59.5% 11.6% 46.2% 66.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Page 33

35. 3.4.2: Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY11 (Remaining)
3. Periodic Assessments
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
State Hospital 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.1% 0.0%
Community Treatment Facility 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Mental Health Rehabilitation Center (24
hour)
0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Skilled Nursing Facility/Intermediate Care
Facility/Institute of Mental Disease (IMD)
0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3%
Residential Treatment Center (includes
Levels 13-14 for children)
0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 10.8% 0.4% 0.2%
Inpatient Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatric
Health Facility (PHF), or Veterans Affairs (VA)
Hospital
0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Supported housing (applies to adults only) 0.6% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
Adult Residential Facility, Social
Rehabilitation Facility, Crisis Residential,
Transitional Residential, Drug Facility, Alcohol
Facility
1.3% 1.7% 0.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.9%
Group Home (includes Levels 1-12 for
children)
1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.9%
Other 1.6% 1.9% 0.6% 1.2% 2.3% 1.6%
Board and Care 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.2%
Foster family home 2.7% 2.0% 2.8% 8.9% 2.9% 3.8%
House or apartment and requiring daily
support and supervision (applies to adults
only)
3.2% 2.6% 2.8% 0.0% 4.4% 1.4%
Justice related (Juvenile Hall, CYA home,
correctional facility, jail, etc.)
3.6% 2.9% 2.0% 4.7% 6.3% 0.5%
Homeless, no identifiable residence 3.9% 3.5% 3.2% 6.9% 4.7% 4.7%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Page 34

36. 3.5.1: Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY12 by Region (Top 3)
3.5.1 and 3.5.2 provide the percentage of Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by
Residential Setting for FY12. These percentages describe the Residential Setting reported for
Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique
client counts or percentages by client.
3. Periodic Assessments
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
House or apartment and requiring some
support with daily living activities (applies to
adults only)
4.4% 3.3% 3.7% 46.1% 6.3% 4.2%
Unknown / Not Reported 21.5% 23.1% 19.4% 9.0% 21.4% 16.3%
House or apartment (includes trailers,
hotels, dorms, barracks, etc.)
51.0% 52.1% 60.6% 10.9% 44.4% 63.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Page 35

37. 3.5.2: Periodic Records by Residential Setting for FY12 (Remaining)
3. Periodic Assessments
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
State Hospital 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0%
Community Treatment Facility 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Mental Health Rehabilitation Center (24
hour)
0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Skilled Nursing Facility/Intermediate Care
Facility/Institute of Mental Disease (IMD)
0.7% 0.3% 0.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.3%
Residential Treatment Center (includes
Levels 13-14 for children)
0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 13.4% 0.2% 0.2%
Inpatient Psychiatric Hospital, Psychiatric
Health Facility (PHF), or Veterans Affairs (VA)
Hospital
0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1%
Supported housing (applies to adults only) 0.6% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
Adult Residential Facility, Social
Rehabilitation Facility, Crisis Residential,
Transitional Residential, Drug Facility,
Alcohol Facility
1.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.9%
Group Home (includes Levels 1-12 for
children)
1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.8%
Other 1.7% 1.9% 0.7% 0.3% 2.3% 1.8%
Board and Care 2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 0.0% 1.7% 1.1%
Foster family home 2.4% 1.9% 2.7% 6.9% 2.4% 3.7%
House or apartment and requiring daily
support and supervision (applies to adults
only)
2.7% 2.2% 2.8% 0.0% 3.7% 1.2%
Justice related (Juvenile Hall, CYA home,
correctional facility, jail, etc.)
4.9% 2.9% 1.6% 4.0% 8.3% 0.5%
Homeless, no identifiable residence 3.9% 4.4% 3.2% 6.9% 5.0% 4.5%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Page 36

38. 3.6: Periodic Records by Work Setting for FY11 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.6 provides the percentage of Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by Work Setting
for FY11. These percentages describe the Work Setting reported for Periodic Assessments
submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique client counts or
percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Not in the paid work force - Volunteer
Worker
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Employed in noncompetitive job market
(sheltered workshop, protected
environment) - Full time, 35 hours or more
per week
0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
Employed in noncompetitive job market
(sheltered workshop, protected
environment) - Part time, less than 35 hours
per week
0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
Not in the paid work force - Retired 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 1.6%
Not in the paid work force - Homemaker 1.1% 0.4% 1.3% 0.1% 1.4% 1.4%
Employed in competitive job market - Full
time, 35 hours or more per week
1.3% 0.8% 0.9% 0.5% 1.9% 2.8%
Employed in competitive job market - Part
time, less than 35 hours per week
1.9% 1.6% 1.4% 0.3% 2.3% 3.3%
Not in the paid work force - Resident /
inmate of institution
3.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 8.3% 0.2%
Not in the paid work force - Actively looking
for work
5.3% 2.8% 5.2% 0.0% 6.8% 6.6%
Unknown / Not Reported 23.9% 51.2% 14.8% 7.9% 17.2% 11.6%
Not in the paid work force - Other 29.3% 21.5% 33.3% 54.2% 28.7% 38.0%
Not in the paid work force - Student 32.7% 19.5% 41.6% 36.9% 31.9% 34.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 37

39. 3.7: Periodic Records by Work Setting for FY12 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.7 provides the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by Work
Setting for FY12. These percentages describe the Work Setting reported for Periodic Assessments
submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique client counts or
percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Not in the paid work force - Volunteer
Worker
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Employed in noncompetitive job market
(sheltered workshop, protected
environment) - Full time, 35 hours or more
per week
0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%
Employed in noncompetitive job market
(sheltered workshop, protected
environment) - Part time, less than 35
hours per week
0.5% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4%
Not in the paid work force - Retired 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 1.4%
Not in the paid work force - Homemaker 1.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 1.4%
Employed in competitive job market - Full
time, 35 hours or more per week
1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 1.2% 1.7% 2.5%
Employed in competitive job market - Part
time, less than 35 hours per week
1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 0.6% 2.1% 3.2%
Not in the paid work force - Resident /
inmate of institution
4.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 9.6% 0.1%
Not in the paid work force - Actively looking
for work
5.6% 3.4% 6.1% 0.0% 6.3% 6.6%
Unknown / Not Reported 26.0% 48.9% 15.1% 7.8% 22.3% 12.5%
Not in the paid work force - Other 28.7% 22.3% 34.2% 49.8% 27.2% 37.6%
Not in the paid work force - Student 29.7% 19.7% 39.2% 39.6% 28.0% 33.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 38

40. 3.8: Periodic Records by Conservatorship Setting for FY11 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.8 provides the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by
Conservatorship Setting for FY11. These percentages describe the Conservatorship Setting reported
for Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique
client counts or percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
PC 2974 (Penal Code, Section 2974) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Probate (Probate Code, Division 4, Section
1400)
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%
Murphy (W&I Code, Section 5008) 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Juvenile Court, Ward - Status Offender (W&I
Code, Section 601)
0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Temporary Conservatorship (W&I Code,
Section 5353)
0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
Representative Payee Without
Conservatorship (W&I Code, Section 5686)
0.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5%
Lanterman-Petris-Short (W&I Code, Section
5358)
1.3% 1.2% 0.8% 7.7% 2.0% 1.0%
Juvenile Court, Ward - Juvenile Offender
(W&I Code, Section 602)
1.8% 3.0% 1.3% 6.3% 1.6% 0.6%
Juvenile Court, Dependent of the Court (W&I
Code, Section 300)
4.1% 2.4% 4.9% 3.5% 4.5% 3.7%
Unknown / Not Reported 34.9% 54.2% 39.2% 28.7% 17.6% 33.7%
Not Applicable 56.8% 37.9% 52.7% 53.8% 73.4% 60.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 39

41. 3.9: Periodic Records by Conservatorship Setting for FY12 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.9 provides the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by
Conservatorship Setting for FY12. These percentages describe the Conservatorship Setting reported
for Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique
client counts or percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
PC 2974 (Penal Code, Section 2974) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Probate (Probate Code, Division 4, Section
1400)
0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3%
Murphy (W&I Code, Section 5008) 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Juvenile Court, Ward - Status Offender (W&I
Code, Section 601)
0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Temporary Conservatorship (W&I Code,
Section 5353)
0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9%
Representative Payee Without
Conservatorship (W&I Code, Section 5686)
0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6%
Lanterman-Petris-Short (W&I Code, Section
5358)
1.1% 1.2% 0.8% 3.1% 1.3% 0.8%
Juvenile Court, Ward - Juvenile Offender
(W&I Code, Section 602)
1.6% 3.0% 1.3% 8.1% 1.2% 0.7%
Juvenile Court, Dependent of the Court (W&I
Code, Section 300)
3.5% 2.1% 4.3% 4.0% 3.6% 4.0%
Unknown / Not Reported 37.5% 55.8% 37.4% 32.7% 28.4% 26.6%
Not Applicable 55.3% 36.9% 55.2% 51.1% 64.7% 66.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 40

42. 3.10: Periodic Records by Education for FY11 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.10 provides the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by the clients’
highest achieved educational level reported for FY11. For example, this table shows that 12.9% of
Periodic Assessments submitted Statewide in FY11 reported clients’ highest achieved educational
level was 12th Grade or comparable General Educational Development (GED) level education. These
percentages describe the Education level reported for Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as
reported in Section 3.2, and do not describe unique client counts or percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Other - Includes vocational education and
training
0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8%
2nd Grade 1.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8% 2.2% 1.9%
1st Grade 1.4% 1.2% 0.6% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1%
5th Grade 1.5% 1.4% 0.5% 2.2% 2.4% 1.9%
4th Grade 1.5% 1.4% 0.6% 3.1% 2.4% 2.0%
3rd Grade 1.5% 1.3% 0.6% 0.0% 2.3% 2.4%
6th Grade 1.9% 2.0% 0.7% 5.1% 3.1% 2.6%
7th Grade 2.0% 2.0% 0.8% 4.2% 3.2% 2.5%
8th Grade 2.8% 2.8% 1.0% 6.3% 4.4% 3.9%
9th Grade 3.6% 3.7% 1.1% 8.7% 5.9% 4.3%
10th Grade 4.4% 4.4% 1.5% 6.9% 7.2% 6.2%
None, Kindergarten 5.0% 6.6% 3.7% 0.5% 5.6% 3.3%
11th Grade 5.1% 4.5% 1.6% 9.8% 8.6% 7.9%
Higher Education beyond High School 8.3% 10.2% 1.8% 9.4% 12.6% 14.3%
12th Grade or GED 12.9% 12.2% 4.1% 26.1% 21.0% 21.2%
Unknown / Not Reported 46.6% 44.9% 80.4% 14.4% 16.6% 22.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 41

43. 3.11: Periodic Records by Education for FY12 by Region
3. Periodic Assessments
3.11 provides the percentage of all Periodic Assessment records submitted annually by the clients’
highest achieved educational level reported for FY12. These percentages describe the Education level
reported for Periodic Assessments submitted annually, as reported in Section 3.2, and do not
describe unique client counts or percentages by client.
Statewide
Bay Area
Counties
Central
Counties
Los Angeles
Region
Southern
Counties
Superior
Counties
Other - Includes vocational education and
training
0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.9%
2nd Grade 1.4% 1.2% 0.7% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
1st Grade 1.5% 1.2% 0.8% 3.4% 1.9% 2.4%
5th Grade 1.5% 1.5% 0.7% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%
4th Grade 1.5% 1.4% 0.7% 0.3% 2.0% 2.2%
3rd Grade 1.5% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6% 2.1% 2.2%
6th Grade 2.0% 2.1% 0.8% 3.4% 2.8% 2.5%
7th Grade 2.0% 2.2% 0.9% 6.2% 2.7% 2.5%
8th Grade 2.8% 2.9% 1.2% 3.7% 3.8% 3.6%
9th Grade 3.8% 3.8% 1.5% 13.4% 5.4% 4.4%
10th Grade 4.6% 4.4% 1.8% 7.8% 6.6% 6.4%
None, Kindergarten 4.5% 6.4% 3.5% 0.9% 4.3% 3.5%
11th Grade 5.6% 4.6% 2.1% 11.2% 8.3% 7.8%
Higher Education beyond High School 9.7% 12.3% 2.5% 12.8% 12.6% 15.1%
12th Grade or GED 14.4% 12.9% 5.6% 19.0% 20.4% 22.0%
Unknown / Not Reported 42.7% 41.5% 75.7% 12.1% 22.9% 20.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 42

44. This page is intentionally left blank.
Page 43

45. Appendix A: Diagnosis Groups
Page 44

46. Appendix A
Appendix A: Diagnosis Groups
Each Service record contains 4 fields representing diagnosis (Axis I Diagnosis, Axis I Additional
Diagnosis, Axis II Diagnosis, Axis II Additional Diagnosis). All Service records for each Client were
analyzed to determine if any Service records during the reporting period indicated a diagnosis
code included in one of the following Diagnosis Groups.
Schizophrenia Diagnosis Group
295
2950
29500
29501
29502
29503
29504
29505
2951
29510
29511
29512
29513
29514
29515
2952
29520
29521
29522
29523
29524
29525
2953
29530
29531
29532
29533
29534
29535
2954
29540
29541
29542
29543
29544
29545
2955
29550
29551
29552
29553
29554
29555
2956
29560
29561
29562
29563
29564
29565
2957
29570
29571
29572
29573
29574
29575
2958
29580
29581
29582
29583
29584
29585
2959
29590
29591
29592
29593
29594
29595
Psychosis Diagnosis Group
293
2938
29381
29382
29389
2939
294
297
2970
2971
2972
2973
2978
2979
298
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2988
2989
2989
Page 45

47. Appendix A
Bipolar Diagnosis Group
29383
296
2960
29600
29601
29602
29603
29604
29605
29606
2961
29610
29611
29612
29613
29614
29615
29616
2964
29640
29641
29642
29643
29644
29645
29646
2965
29650
29651
29652
29653
29654
29655
29656
2966
29660
29661
29662
29663
29664
29665
29666
2967
29670
2968
29680
29681
29682
29689
2969
29690
29699
Depressive Diagnosis Group
2962
29620
29621
29622
29623
29624
29625
29626
2963
29630
29631
29632
29633
29634
29635
29636
3004
311
Anxiety Diagnosis Group
29384
300
3000
30000
30001
30002
30009
3001
30010
3002
30020
30021
30022
30023
30029
3003
3005
3008
3130
30030
Page 46

48. Appendix A
Substance Abuse Diagnosis Group
291
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2918
29181
29189
2919
292
2920
2921
29211
29212
2922
2928
29281
29282
29283
29284
29289
29285
2929
303
3030
30300
30301
30302
30303
3039
30390
30391
30392
30393
304
3040
30400
30401
30402
30403
3041
30410
30411
30412
30413
3042
30420
30421
30422
30423
3043
30430
30431
30432
30433
3044
30440
30441
30442
30443
3045
30450
30451
30452
30453
3046
30460
30461
30462
30463
30470
30471
30472
30473
3048
30480
30481
30482
30483
3049
30490
30491
30492
30493
305
3050
30500
30501
30502
30503
3051
30510
30511
30512
30513
3052
30520
30521
30522
30523
3053
30530
30531
30532
30533
3054
30540
30541
30542
30543
3055
30550
30551
30552
30553
3056
30560
30561
30562
30563
3057
30570
30571
30572
30573
3058
30580
30581
30582
30583
3059
30590
30591
30592
30593
29150
29200
Page 47

49. Appendix A
Cognitive Diagnosis Group
290
2900
2901
29010
29011
29012
29013
2902
29020
29021
2903
2904
29040
29041
29042
29043
2908
2909
2930
2931
2940
2941
29410
29411
2948
2949
Personality Diagnosis Group
301
3010
3011
30110
30111
30112
30113
3012
30120
30121
30122
3013
3014
3015
30150
30151
30159
3016
3017
3018
30181
30182
30183
30184
30189
3019
Adjustment Diagnosis Group
308
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3089
309
3090
3091
3092
30921
30922
30923
30924
30928
30929
3093
3094
3098
30982
30983
30989
3099
30900
30930
30940
Disruptive Diagnosis Group
312
3120
31200
31201
31202
31203
31210
31211
31212
31213
31220
31221
31222
31223
3124
3128
31281
31282
31289
3129
3138
31381
31290
Page 48

50. Appendix A
Childhood Diagnosis Group
299
2990
29900
29901
29910
29911
2998
29980
29981
2999
29990
29991
3070
3072
30720
30721
30722
30723
3073
30752
30753
30759
3076
3077
3079
3131
3132
31321
31322
31323
3133
31389
3139
315
3155
3158
3159
317
318
3180
3181
3182
319
7876
9955
99550
99551
99552
99553
99554
99555
99559
V612
V6120
V6121
V618
V623
V7102
3150
31500
31501
31502
31509
3151
3152
3153
31531
31532
31539
3154
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Diagnosis Group
30981
Page 49

51. Appendix A
Other Diagnosis Group
6258
78009
78052
78054
78059
7809
9952
99581
99583
V1581
V611
V6110
V6112
V619
V622
V624
V6281
30011
30012
30013
30014
30015
30016
30019
3006
3007
30081
30082
30089
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
30250
30251
30252
30253
3026
3027
30270
30271
30272
30273
30274
30275
30276
30279
3028
30281
30282
30283
30284
30285
30289
3029
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
30650
30651
30652
30653
30659
3066
3067
3068
3069
307
3071
3074
30740
30741
30742
30743
30744
30745
30746
30747
30748
30749
3075
30750
30751
30754
3078
30780
30781
30789
3100
3101
3102
3108
3109
3122
3123
31230
31231
31232
31233
31234
31235
31239
31382
31383
316
3321
3331
3337
33382
33390
33392
33399
347
60784
60889
6250
V6282
V6283
V6289
V652
V7101
34700
32701
32702
32731
V62
V620
V6284
9953
99520
30040
30090
30830
30990
31100
31490
31534
3470
78003
78093
V610
V6109
V6111
V6129
V621
V625
V626
V629
29100
29182
296.90
30070
30290
306
30700
313
31590
32730
32735
32742
32751
3278
3339
6254
78050
78053
78057
99522
99523
99529
9954
99580
99582
99584
V6122
V613
V6229
30100
30140
30170
30190
31700
31800
31810
31820
31900
Page 50