Today, the California Department of Public Health produced an online webinar explaining how its long-awaited participation in Prop One’s Behavioral Health Transformation would occur. Two thousand two hundred people attended the two and a half hour webinar, listening to how California proposes to use $30 million over two years to impact population-based prevention. Soliciting applications by November 6th from 501© (3) organizations which propose to support health promotion, universal prevention, and selective prevention directed to a population or subgroup, Applicants must explain how their proposed approach meets the RFA requirements, reflects or responds to the community, supports an eligible population-based prevention pathway, and connects to measurable outcomes. Thirty to forty grants of between $400,000 to $1,000,000 over the period from Feb 1, 2027 to April 30, 2029 are expected to be allocated.”
One attendee asked: “If my proposal includes activities for both individuals age 25 and under and adults age 60+, could you fund only the younger age group’s activities, or would including the 60+ activities make the entire proposal ineligible or less competitive?”
Answer: “The requirement that at least 51% of applicable prevention funds serve people 25 years of age or younger applies across the overall CDBHI portfolio. It is not an eligibility requirement, minimum budget percentage, or scoring preference for each individual application unless otherwise stated in the RFA. Applicants should accurately describe the populations that will benefit from their proposed activities and the portion of the project expected to serve children and youth.”
Noting that the funding required applicants to utilize “Community-Defined Evidence Practices”, an attendee asked “For the Community-Defined Evidence requirement, what evidence is sufficient for an existing community-based practice that has not previously been formally identified or evaluated as a CDEP? In particular, what documentation of lived experience, participant feedback, community use, and practice adaptation would reviewers consider persuasive?”
Answer: “The CDEP practice list is non-exhaustive, and a practice is not ineligible solely because it is not listed. Applicants proposing an unlisted practice must demonstrate that it satisfies the applicable CDEP and population-based prevention requirements. The RFA states that effectiveness may be demonstrated through real-world experience, sustained community use, cultural knowledge, community consensus, practice-based evidence, local evaluation, and community-defined measures of success. Applicants may also reference the Final CDEP Resource Guide for additional information on CDEPs.”
Continuing to press the funders, the attendee continued “How should applicants demonstrate community-defined evidence for an emerging practice that builds on years of lived experience, trusted relationships, and community-led activities but has not yet been formally evaluated?”
Answer: “Applicants may propose an eligible community-defined evidence practice or evidence-based practice that satisfies the requirements described in the RFA. Applicants may also reference the Final CDEP Resource Guide for additional guidance. Inclusion of a model in a resource guide or illustrative list should not be interpreted as automatic approval of a proposed project. Applicants must explain how the proposed approach meets the RFA requirements, reflects or responds to the community, supports an eligible population-based prevention pathway, and connects to measurable outcomes.”
On evaluating outcomes, an attendee asked “Will there any specific metrics that will be used to measure/quantify outreach/engagement and recruitment activities?”
Answer: “Awardees will participate in the statewide CDBHI evaluation and collaborate with CIBHS, CDPH, and designated evaluation partners. Statewide evaluation requirements will be developed in consultation with funded organizations. Awardees will provide input on evaluation methods and community-defined measures of success, collect required demographic, geographic, reach, output, outcome, and fiscal data, and use approved or locally appropriate measures where authorized. Additional statewide evaluation guidance may be issued.”
On developing a budget, an attendee asked: “When submitting our proposal, how do we structure the budget request in support of the project, in a way that reflects other possible funding avenues for the project?”
Answer: “Allowability depends on whether a cost is reasonable, necessary, allocable to the proposed project, adequately documented, consistent with the approved scope and budget, and otherwise permitted by the RFA. CIBHS cannot pre-approve a fact-specific cost through the question-and-answer process. Applicants should clearly identify and justify proposed costs in the required budget and budget narrative. Final costs remain subject to application review, budget negotiation, CDPH approval, and the executed subaward agreement.”
On the question of sustaining the projects, an attendee asked: “For programs that will remain primarily philanthropically supported after the grant period, what level of sustainability planning does CDPH expect? Is a diversified fundraising strategy considered sufficient, or are applicants expected to identify committed post-grant funding sources at the time of application?”
Answer: “Please reference the RFA §C.12 Sustainability Statement (RFA p. 20) Applicants are required to provide a sustainability statement describing how the benefits of the proposed project can continue beyond the award period. The statement may address community capacity, partnerships, prevention practices, staff or community knowledge, data and evaluation tools, organizational systems, infrastructure, future funding, and integration of effective activities into ongoing programs.”
On who can be served: “For programs that will remain primarily philanthropically supported after the grant period, what level of sustainability planning does CDPH expect? Is a diversified fundraising strategy considered sufficient, or are applicants expected to identify committed post-grant funding sources at the time of application?”
Answer: “Please reference the RFA §C.12 Sustainability Statement (RFA p. 20) Applicants are required to provide a sustainability statement describing how the benefits of the proposed project can continue beyond the award period. The statement may address community capacity, partnerships, prevention practices, staff or community knowledge, data and evaluation tools, organizational systems, infrastructure, future funding, and integration of effective activities into ongoing programs.
On whether immigrants can be served: “Can we apply specifically to serve immigrant and refugee communities as our priority population under this funding opportunity?”
Answer: “Applicants must clearly identify the proposed population, describe the relevant strengths, needs, risks, disparities, and barriers, and explain how the community informed the proposed approach. CIBHS cannot determine through an individual question whether a proposed population or project will qualify or be selected.”
For more information regarding all webinar materials and upcoming engagements, please go to CDPH’s BHSA Partner and Community Engagement webpage: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPP/Pages/Engagement.aspx. https://www.cibhs.org/projects/cdbhi/#RFA-Application-Materials. Today’s recording and materials will be shared afterwards and posted to the CDPH Partner and Community Engagement webpage: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPP/Pages/Engagement.aspx.
Here is the announcement of the RFP on the California Department of Public Health’s website: https://www.cibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/01.-CDBHI_RFA_14Sep26.pdf
Subsidizes operating budgets of ~11 other states lacking state income taxes
Political appointees could reject proposals deemed inconsistent with vague “national interest” or agency priorities without explanation or appeals process
Considers organization memberships, affiliations, and activities unrelated to grant proposals
Discretionary funds could be withheld indefinitely if not advancing White House policy priorities
Agencies could terminate/suspend grants without cause or notice, and alter terms/conditions mid-delivery without hearings
Bars funding for “unlawful DEI” or immigration work despite legality upheld in court
Vague attestations required under penalty of civil/criminal law and perjury
Approaching 300 executive orders and over 400 active investigations targeting nonprofits via White House, DOJ, FBI, and congressional committees
OMB Director Russell Vought testing Impoundment Control Act limits via executive fund halts and pocket rescissions
Litigation win rate exceeds 80%; over 600 legal actions filed against unlawful administration measures
Nearly 500,000 public comments submitted against OMB rules
Bipartisan congressional action inserted a stay in the continuing resolution (CR) delaying implementation through December 11, 2026
AB 1318 (enacted October 2025): California will not recognize unilateral federal revocation of 501(c)(3) status
Permissive advance pay legislation authorizing up to 25% grant funds upfront to nonprofits
AB 1039 to mandate 25% advance pay vetoed/opposed by Governor Newsom over grant control concerns; targeting reintroduction under future Governor Becerra
Proposal to establish an Office of Nonprofit Empowerment modeled on GO-Biz stalled
Sign national opposition letter circulated by National Council of Nonprofits (~2,000 organizations signed to date)
Contact congressional representatives urging permanent blocks on OMB rule during the post-election lame-duck session
Continue applying for federal grants and documenting discriminatory or arbitrary agency actions for court records
