Author: Gregory Fearon

Gen H Sonoma County State of Housing Presentation at Redwood Credit

Short Summary

A deep dive into Sonoma County’s housing crisis and the community-led policy solutions being proposed to address it.

Long Summary

You listened to a presentation by Generation Housing on the state of the housing crisis in Sonoma County. The discussion highlighted a shortage of over 50,000 homes, which impacts everyone from young families to seniors, leading to school closures and workforce challenges. The event launched the ‘Housing for Healthy Communities’ initiative, focusing on state laws to encourage building more ‘missing middle’ housing and creating starter homes. The central theme was that a broad, community-wide advocacy effort is essential for creating meaningful change.

2025 State of Housing Report

The report focuses on telling a housing story using data to address successes, myths, and the intersectional nature of housing. There is a significant housing shortage at all income levels, particularly for affordable housing. The crisis is defined by the impact of this shortage on education, health, the economy, and the climate. The housing shortage is the result of 75 years of policy, requiring a multi-faceted approach (“silver buckshot”) rather than a single solution.

Housing & Community Impact

A panel of experts shared how the housing crisis affects various sectors of the community. Youth & Families: Sonoma County is losing homegrown talent as young people, including recent graduates and community leaders, are forced to leave due to high living costs. Education System: Teachers and school staff cannot afford to live in the community, leading to high turnover and negatively impacting student success. This has contributed to declining enrollment and school closures.

Workforce & Young Adults: The lack of affordable rental options is a “missing rung on the ladder” to homeownership, causing young adults to delay forming independent households or leave the area.

Seniors & Caregivers: Seniors on fixed incomes, even homeowners, face extreme cost burdens from rising insurance and utility costs. The caregivers they depend on are also priced out of the region, threatening seniors’ ability to age in place with dignity. Immigrant Community: Immigrants and foreign-born residents face immense barriers to housing stability, with homeownership often taking over 25 years to achieve. Housing policy needs to center the humanity of these community members.

Permanent Supportive Housing: This model is the most effective way to end homelessness but is very expensive to operate. Housing Choice Vouchers, which cap a resident’s rent at 30% of their income, are essential for the financial viability of these projects.

Benefits of Affordable Housing: A Napa County study revealed that the greatest benefits of affordable housing were social and economic stability, stress reduction, and the ability for residents to engage in long-term financial planning, such as saving for a home down payment.

Calculating Sonoma County’s Housing Need

The established goal is to build approximately 58,000 new homes by 2030. This number was validated through three independent methods that all produced similar results: Household Formation Deficit: A historical deficit of 38,000 households that should have formed, plus a

future need for 20,000 more. Property Value Method: The number of homes needed to bring the disproportionately high cost of land back to a normal market rate. Vacancy Rate Method: The number of homes needed to achieve a healthy 5% vacancy rate, as Sonoma County currently has one of the lowest per-capita availability rates in the state.

Independent analysis confirms the region has the capacity to build roughly 52,000 new homes within existing urban growth boundaries.

“Housing for Healthy Communities” Initiative

This is a new policy initiative focused on creating “missing middle” housing by encouraging jurisdictions to opt into two state laws.

SB-10: Allows for the creation of up to 10 housing units on a single parcel in transit-oriented or infill areas.

AB-1033: Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be sold separately as condominiums, creating new starter-home opportunities without new construction. The goal is to build gentle density and create more diverse housing options, similar to older, walkable neighborhoods, by reversing decades of exclusionary zoning.

Fiscal Benefits of Infill Housing

Denser, infill housing provides a significant financial benefit to cities facing budget deficits. It maximizes property tax revenue per acre. An apartment building can generate $17M-$35M in taxable value per acre, compared to $9M-$11M for single-family homes. It minimizes long-term liabilities for cities. Delivering and maintaining infrastructure like roads, water, and sewer is significantly cheaper on a per household basis in denser areas.

Behavioral Health Board Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee Proposed

The Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board Executive Committee accepted a recommendation that it place the establishment of an Annual Report/Integrated Plan Subcommittee on the agenda for its November 18th monthly meeting. The Board’s bylaws require it deliver an annual report on programs in the Department of Health Services, and the passage of Proposition One defines its role in advising the Department and the Board of Supervisors on the FY26-29 Integrated Plan.

More on the Few

This morning, at the meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, a discussion was held which illuminated the near future of communication between state and local government. After years of managed anguish over the growing impact of unfunded mandates required of local government by the State Legislature, our Board seems to have reached a boiling point. In particular, the expansion of authority given local government concerning who can be deemed “gravely disabled”. Gravely disabled now means a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care.

The bill expands the definition of “basic needs” to include not just food, shelter, and clothing, but also access to necessary medical care and personal safety. 

Counties have until January 1, 2026, to implement Senate Bill 43 (SB 43). Six counties are currently implementing SB 43; however, limited data is publicly available. Preliminary data from a similar size county reflects a 25% increase in conservatorships from January 2024 – August 2025. Sonoma County has 200 people on conservatorship; a 25% increase would see the conservatee population grow to 250.

Over the last five years, the county’s Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatee caseload has ranged from 186-207 clients. To address the existing deficits and anticipated increases, the Human Services Department will require two Full Time Equivalent allocations. Similarly, the Department of Health Services will require two Full Time Equivalent allocations.

To prepare for SB 43, the county has taken several actions. A series of informational meetings are planned through 2025 with community, public, and private stakeholders, an SB 43 training will be held in November 2025, and a limited number of substance use disorder beds have been identified for conservatees meeting certain withdrawal management criteria. In Spring 2025, the county secured a $67.8 million Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program award from the California Department of Health Care Services. Long-term, this will allow the county to add more treatment beds for substance use disorder and conservatee clients. No additional funding has been provided to counties to implement SB 43.

Data

As of September 2025, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus County are implementing SB 43. Approximately 52 counties opted to begin implementation on January 1, 2026. Data on the impact of SB 43 will be available in 2026 as counties comply with data reporting requirements. In the interim, limited data is publicly available. Initial estimates indicate the number of conservatees in San Luis Obispo County increased 25% and 29% in San Francisco County. Similar increases in Sonoma County would see the number of conservatees increase from 200 to 250 – 258. Over the last five years, the county’s LPS conservatees caseload has ranged from 186-207 clients as illustrated on page 10 of Attachment 3 – Presentation.

Placement and Treatment Considerations

In FY 2024/2025, the Department of Health Services (DHS) spent approximately $11.7 million placing 197 conserved individuals. Placement is determined by the individual’s least restrictive placement order and includes locked settings such as Institutions for Mental Disease, skilled nursing facilities, and mental health rehabilitation centers.  It also includes unlocked settings like residential care facilities or other transitional or supportive housing settings.  DHS contracts with a number of providers both locally and regionally in an effort to ensure individuals are not being held unnecessarily in locked settings such as psychiatric hospitals, emergency departments, or Sonoma County Jail. 

DHS places strong emphasis on utilizing local placements so individuals have the ability to be near their primary support networks. Costs for each facility varies by its type and level of care needs the individual presents with upon admission. The average cost for placing an LPS conservatee is $60K annually. Alternatively, the annual cost to place a murphy conservatee is approximately $150K to $300K depending on type of placement and acuity level of the individual being placed.

Sonoma County currently has 65% of clients placed out of county to receive mental health treatment. Many facilities are over 100 miles away from Sonoma County. This can create obstacles with arranging for in-person court appearances, for county staff to complete periodic visits, and for families to see their loved ones. Being placed out of county can also create challenges when the client no longer meets criteria for LPS conservatorship and needs to be reintegrated back into the Sonoma County Mental Health services system. In the short term, the county has identified up to ten (10) SUD withdrawal management beds that are available for conservatees meeting certain criteria. This temporary option is intended to provide some relief while longer-term measures are being developed (e.g. Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program construction).

In anticipation of future placement needs for individuals conserved under the enhanced grave disability SB 43 criteria, it is estimated that DHS will need an additional $1.4 – $2.9 million in new placement costs.  Costs are subject to type of facility, length of stay, and treatment needs of the conserved individual.

Staffing

The LPS conservatee population has grown by 7% over the last five (5) years without a corresponding staffing increase. To address the existing 2025 deficits, the Human Services Department (HSD) will require two Full Time Equivalent allocations (FTE) and DHS will require two FTEs. To address the 2026 deficits as a result of SB 43 implementation, DHS will require two FTEs. A total of six FTEs (2025 needs and 2026 SB 43 implementation needs) are needed to provide services to conservatees for both HSD and DHS.

“Funding expected to be utilized will come from Measure O, and a scattering of other DHS program cuts.” explained Nolan Sullivan, DHS Director, in response to Board questioning.

The Board of Supervisors responded by asking its staff to explore legal and advocacy initiatives with all state counties to increase state compensation for the impacts of SB43.

Sonoma DHS Homeless Revamping Workshop, Oct 23rd

Short Summary

You participated in a feedback session on the county’s new vision for homeless services.

Long Summary

The meeting was called by the Department of Health Services feedback session where new leadership, Nolan Sullivan and Desirae

Olstrom, unveiled a revamped strategy to address homelessness. They proposed a “funnel” system using county facilities to support individuals with high-acuity behavioral health needs. The majority of the meeting was dedicated to gathering your and other partners’ feedback on this new model, identifying systemic gaps, and discussing the need for better collaboration, data transparency, and a unified system of care.

The problem

The Department of Health Services is revamping its homeless services team and seeking feedback on a new vision to improve partnerships and service delivery. The county aims to address its historically siloed approach and open up its resources and processes for better collaboration. The primary focus of the new vision is the segment of the homeless population with high-acuity behavioral health and substance use needs, which is estimated to be 5-10% of the total 1,900 homeless residents. This group is often difficult to serve in traditional programs and can destabilize properties.

Themes discussion

A new “funnel” system was proposed by the county to create a continuum of care for high-acuity individuals. The pathway would move clients through a series of facilities with increasing levels of independence: 

  • Eliza’s Village: The entry point for stabilization.
  • Arrowwood: Single occupancy rooms with more services. 
  • Mickey Zane: Individual apartments to prepare for independent living.

The end goal is to graduate individuals back into the Coordinated Entry (CE) system for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH).

A major concern raised was the large population that the county’s proposed funnel would not serve, leaving approximately 1,500 individuals for partner agencies to handle. This includes specific hard-to-house groups, such as arson (219) and sex offense (290) registrants, who are often screened out of existing housing options. The need for a single, unified system of care was a recurring theme, emphasizing the need to break down silos between county departments (e.g., Homelessness and Behavioral Health) and external partners. Data transparency and system functionality were highlighted as critical for building trust and enabling effective

collaboration. The current HMIS system is considered limited in its reporting capabilities. Resource constraints and funding limitations for the county, cities, and non-profit providers were an underlying issue throughout the discussion.

Specific ideas

Integrate county behavioral health staff directly with partner agencies and on-site at facilities. This “in-person handoff” is seen as extremely beneficial for navigating clients into services. 

  • Develop a centralized and transparent referral system for providers. This would allow agencies to submit referrals for high-needs clients and track their status. 
  • Provide a higher level of ongoing support for clients once they are in PSH. An Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model was suggested for individuals who continue to need intensive services after being housed. 
  • Address the challenge of individuals who refuse services or are too ill to engage with support systems. 
  • Streamline the contracting and RFP process to reduce administrative burden. Suggestions included creating multi-year contracts and consolidating various city and county RFPs into a single cycle.

Future directions

  • The county should take on a lead role as a convener to bring together all stakeholders, including shelter providers, tribal entities, and cities, to address system-wide issues. 
  • One immediate project suggested was creating a coordinated emergency weather response plan. 
  • The group should develop a unified advocacy message to state legislators regarding restrictive funding and unfunded mandates.
  • A formal “gap analysis” is needed to inventory all existing services and providers in the county to identify where deficiencies lie.
  • The county will continue to refine its “funnel” model while considering the feedback on excluded populations and operational challenges, such as the remote location of Eliza’s Village. 
  • The county acknowledged the need to improve internal policies, noting they recently implemented a six-month time limit at facilities like Eliza’s Village to ensure client progression.

Measure I Citizens Advisory Council Meeting, Oct 23rd

Short Summary

The group refined and approved funding strategies for early childhood and community health initiatives.  It finalized early childhood support strategies, focusing on community-based care and inclusive language, ending with personal reflections.

Long Summary

The advisory council made final adjustments to strategic language for early childhood funding.  The group meticulously refined the language for early childhood funding strategies, deciding to prioritize local ‘place-based’ organizations and add ‘play-based’ approaches to mental health. It also discussed including license-exempt centers in future compensation models and creating a flexible scholarship model. The discussion emphasized supporting local providers and ensuring service availability before expanding screening.The session concluded with a successful vote to approve the amended strategies and 

reflections on the work’s impact and importance for the community.  The group expressed heartfelt reflections from members on the collaborative process, the importance of the work, and a shared 

sense of accomplishment and gratitude.

Members expressed humility, gratitude, and respect for the collaborative process and the work of early childhood educators.  The group acknowledged the significance of having funding and a community-driven process to support families, which is not a given everywhere.  Appreciation was extended to the staff for preparing materials that enabled detailed and productive conversations.

Review of Progress

The team met to finalize the language and allocations for several key strategies before a formal vote. The team reviewed and finalized funding strategies for a five-year plan, marking a significant milestone from the initial idea phase to an approved plan.  The discussion’s goal was to ensure the intent of the strategies was clearly captured, particularly for the development of future Requests for Proposals (RFPs).  Participants reflected on the progress made, from initial concepts to a voted-upon five-year plan, acknowledging it as a significant accomplishment for the county’s early childhood and health initiatives. Discussion centered on refining the language of the strategies to ensure the intent is clear for the Request for Proposals (RFP) process.  The overall progress was framed as a major accomplishment in supporting the county’s children and families, even while acknowledging that the funding is a “drop in the bucket” compared to the total need.

Key Achievements

The group successfully reached a consensus on several complex language changes after detailed discussion. The council successfully voted on and approved the proposed strategies and allocations with a series of amendments. A motion was passed to approve the strategic plan with all discussed amendments, marking a major milestone, to implement specific language changes across several strategies, finalizing the framework for future funding.

Challenges and Adjustments Needed

Provider Eligibility and Prioritization

A concern was raised about large, external organizations applying for funds instead of local providers who know the community.

It was suggested to explicitly call out both “new and existing service providers” to expand the field while prioritizing local expertise.

Broadening Strategy Language

The term “Family Resource Center” was deemed too restrictive. Several strategic adjustments were made to proposal language to ensure clarity and inclusivity:   Also included was the broader “place-based locations in neighborhoods” to include a wider range of trusted community organizations. The “sliding scale” language for family scholarships was questioned for not accounting for family expenses beyond income. The group moved toward the idea of “developing a model” to allow for more flexibility.

Clarifying Service Types

To ensure mental health services are not purely clinical, language was added to strategy 1A. The phrase “which could include play-based” was inserted after “mental health services” to emphasize the importance of play without being overly prescriptive.The group discussed the need to expand service capacity in tandem with developmental screenings to avoid causing anxiety for families whose children are identified as needing support.There was concern that increasing developmental screenings could cause family anxiety if corresponding intervention services are not available.

Compensation Model for ECE Providers

It was discussed whether legally license-exempt centers “will be considered” when the compensation model is determined, acknowledging the complexity of their full inclusion. The group debated whether legally licensed exempt centers should be “included” or “considered” for the new compensation model. The final decision was to use the language “will be considered when the compensation model is determined” to ensure they are part of the conversation without making a premature commitment.  A future process will be initiated to design the ECE compensation system, which will consider legally licensed exempt centers.

Several strategic adjustments were made to proposal language to ensure clarity and inclusivity: Added the phrase “which could include play-based” to the mental health services strategy to emphasize the importance of play without being overly prescriptive. Removed specific examples like “family literacy programs” to make the strategy for non-traditional early learning programs more general. 

Action Items and Accountability for the Week Ahead

Finalize Strategy 1A Language

Add “which could include play-based” after “mental health services” and before “and nutritional supports.”

Correct Strategy 2A Language

Add the word “and” to correct a grammatical error in the phrase “mobile and pop up clinical.”

Update ECE Strategy 1B

Remove specific program names to broaden the scope, changing the wording to “Invest in and elevate non-traditional early learning programs.”

Implement Approved Changes

Staff is accountable for incorporating all approved amendments into the official strategy documents that will guide the development of RFPs.

California Behavioral Health Planning Council Meeting on June 19, 2025, Housing and Homelessness Committee

Item #2 California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) Action Plan for 2025 – 2027 

Cody Zeger, Director of Statewide Policy at the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), presented an overview of their 2025-2027 Statewide Action Plan to prevent and end homelessness. Cody began with a brief introduction to Cal ICH, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of Housing First policies, guidelines, and regulations supported by an advisory committee and a lived-experience advisory board. 

Initially launched in 2020, Cal ICH’s Action Plan aims to coordinate state efforts to address homelessness with a vision of building an equitable and just California where homelessness is rare, brief, and a one-time experience. The 2025-2027 Action Plan focuses on the following five key goals: 

• Help more people leave unsheltered homelessness. 

• Help more people move into housing. 

• Ensure people do not experience homelessness again. 

• Prevent more people from experiencing homelessness. 

• Create more housing. 

Cody also presented the plan’s three-year targets: 

• Move 70% of unsheltered individuals into shelters. 

• Place 60% into permanent housing. 

• Create 1.5 million new housing units with 710,000 designated for low-income residents. 

He described key strategies to meet these goals such as interagency coordination, strategic investments, and equity-centered frameworks to address systemic barriers. Cody highlighted core principles that guide the plan, such as prioritizing racial equity, adopting trauma-informed approaches, and elevating the voices of those with lived experience of homelessness. 

Cody concluded his presentation and opened the floor for questions from committee members. Key topics included: 

• A committee member inquired about the size of the lived experience advisory board. Cody shared that Cal-ICH reduced its membership from 30 to approximately 25 members. Each member serves a two-year term. He explained that the board provides subject matter expertise, reviews key documents, and offers recommendations to Cal ICH members before key decisions. 

• A committee member raised concerns about the proposed 44% federal cuts to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), particularly their impact on project-based and tenant-based rental assistance. Cody acknowledged the risk, noting that 15,000 emergency housing vouchers are slated to expire. 

• A committee member asked how the number of homeless individuals aligns with the projected housing units. Cody explained that the 2.5 million planned units, including 1.5 million by 2027 and 710,000 reserved for low-income residents, are part of a broader housing strategy and not specifically designated for the homeless population. 

• A committee member asked how racial equity is reflected in the plan’s goals and data analysis. Cody emphasized Cal ICH’s commitment to disaggregating targets by race, ethnicity, and gender to ensure a more inclusive and equitable approach. 

• When asked about Cal ICH’s leverage in advancing the Action Plan, Cody described their statutory authority and stressed the importance of cross-agency relationships. He noted that their influence stems from formal power and their ability to communicate and coordinate across state departments. 

Public Comment: 

Paula, a member of the public, inquired about current data reflecting progress toward the plan’s three-year goal of a 42% increase in housing placements. Cody directed her to Cal ICH’s website, where quarterly updates provide the latest information. He noted that the most recent data covers the calendar year 2024. 

Barbara Wilson from Los Angeles County raised a question about tracking individuals moving from hospital settings to residential facilities, particularly those with psychosis. She was concerned about how these transitions are captured and whether individuals lose housing access once in licensed facilities. 

Council Member John Black emphasized the importance of early intervention, proposing the use of peer support workers to help individuals who are newly experiencing homelessness before their situation worsens. 

Item #3 Perspectives on Recovery Housing Panel Discussion 

Over the past two quarterly meetings, the Housing and Homelessness Committee engaged in discussions about recovery housing and the Housing First model. The discussions focused on their roles within behavioral health services and highlighted key challenges and best practices. This panel built on those discussions and provided first-hand insights to inform the Committee’s work further. 

The panel featured three distinguished speakers with lived experiences of addiction and homelessness: 

• Elizabeth Colorado, Advocate for the Unhoused Community 

• Claudine Sipili, Lived Experience & Innovation Director, Destination Home 

• Anna Kokanyan, Director of Admissions & Program Director, Conquer Recovery Centers 

Each panelist shared their personal story of how recovery housing played a pivotal role in their journey to stability and long-term recovery. They addressed the barriers often faced during transitions from homelessness and addiction to stable housing, including financial hardship, limited guidance, and systemic obstacles. Their experiences highlighted the need for compassionate, structured environments that foster connection and provide resources without rigid requirements. 

The panelists called for more flexible, trauma-informed approaches that prioritize human dignity, autonomy, and choice. Claudine emphasized the need to advocate for policies that center racial equity and incorporate lived expertise. She also stressed that recovery housing should remain voluntary and not a requirement. Anna emphasized the need to validate individuals’ feelings and provide care in safe and supportive settings. Elizabeth highlighted the need to meet people where they are and guide them through both recovery and permanent housing pathways. 

The panelists expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to share their experiences. The discussion concluded with a Questions-and-Answers session with committee members. Key topics included: 

• A committee member asked Anna about the duration of her program at Conquer Recovery Centers and why participants travel from out of town. Anna explained that many public facilities have waitlists of six to nine months. Her program, which accepts private insurance, provides more immediate access to treatment. 

• A committee member celebrated Anna’s recent acceptance into a college program and shared heartfelt reflections on her journey. They emphasized the value of lived experience, resilience, and personal growth. 

• Another member raised concerns about the decision to offer housing before addressing mental health and substance use needs. The panelists acknowledged the diverse perspectives on the Housing First model and emphasized that services must reflect individual needs and allow each person to guide their own recovery. 

• When asked how they remain strong and grounded in their work, the panelists shared personal wellness practices. Anna spoke about the importance of caring for the mind, body, and spirit through exercise, prayer, meditation, a healthy diet, and therapy. Claudine described her connection with nature through off-road travel as a source of peace, reflection, and spiritual strength. Elizabeth emphasized simple acts of kindness to give back and stay rooted in empathy and purpose. 

• A committee member offered encouragement and shared a personal story about how they helped an individual regain custody of her children. The story affirmed the power of persistence, compassion, and hope. 

Public Comment: 

Barbara Wilson expressed appreciation for the panel discussion and proposed the creation of a safe healing space for individuals with behavioral health challenges. She shared that, in her experience, every unhoused person she had worked with could successfully maintain housing. Barbara also raised concerns about the Housing First model, noting that some individuals struggle with its structure and may feel like failures when they must return to more supported environments. Additionally, she questioned defining success solely in terms of paid employment, emphasizing that mental health conditions can impact a person’s ability to work. 

Anna, a college student, shared how impactful it was to hear directly from individuals with lived experience. While she studied incarceration and homelessness in her coursework, she said the personal stories gave her a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the issues. 

A committee member highlighted the challenges of treating individuals who use substances. She acknowledged the value of harm reduction but emphasized that trauma work remains difficult when a person remains under the influence. 

Item #4 Cal ICH and Recovery Housing Panel Debrief Discussion 

The Committee debriefed on the information presented by Cody Zeger from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) and the panelists from the Recovery Housing Panel. Committee members also discussed potential next steps. 

A committee member expressed deep appreciation for the lived expertise shared by the panelists. She emphasized the value of hearing from individuals who have experienced addiction and homelessness, are now in recovery, and are helping others through successful programs. She encouraged the inclusion of similar presentations in future meetings. Another committee member outlined the following follow-up items in response to the presentation from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH): 

• Federal Housing Voucher Concerns: Urged follow-up with Cal ICH about federal funding cuts and reduced availability of rental vouchers. She noted that the presentation addressed only Homeless Prevention vouchers, which make up a small portion of the total supply. In Monterey County, she reported that no new Tenant-Based Vouchers appear available, and Project-Based Vouchers remain unavailable, which has stalled progress for individuals on waitlists. 

• Support for Undocumented Populations: Requested information on Cal ICH’s strategy to support undocumented individuals. The committee member shared that 13.5% of her county’s population are undocumented and many in this group experience homelessness. She shared that local shelters have reached capacity and often house undocumented families for extended periods, which forces others in need of emergency shelter to go without. She urged the Committee to seek state-level guidance and data on this growing concern. 

The committee member raised concerns about the long-term effectiveness of six-month rapid rehousing programs. She explained that individuals with serious mental illness who are unemployed often do not meet eligibility requirements for these short-term services. Even among those who do qualify, many are unable to sustain rent payments once the assistance ends. In one local case, 90% of participants became homeless again after the six-month support period. She questioned whether this approach offers a sustainable solution. 

A committee member added that shelters should function as gateways to permanent housing, not long-term temporary accommodations. While acknowledging the value of recovery housing, he stressed that it is just one piece of a broader housing continuum that requires support. 

Another committee member emphasized the importance of homelessness prevention. She referenced research from the University of California, San Francisco, showing that many people become homeless after missing a single rent or mortgage payment. She questioned why state and national investments remain focused on rehousing rather than proactively preventing housing loss. She also acknowledged the efforts of one panelist whose organization is working effectively in the prevention space. 

A committee member described the current moment as a pivotal opportunity to advance the Committee’s advocacy efforts. He noted that, although the presenter outlined several strategic goals, homelessness prevention remained undefined. He emphasized the value this Committee brings, as members provide firsthand insight into effective prevention strategies. The committee member added that the collective effort of this Committee could help influence broader policy decisions and bring hope to individuals at risk of homelessness. 

Public Comment: 

Barbara Wilson expressed appreciation for the Committee’s longstanding work, recalling her early involvement when she raised concerns about the closure of licensed adult residential facilities due to low reimbursement rates. She also highlighted the gap in oversight for sober living homes, which are unlicensed and therefore not subject to consistent standards. Barbara noted she has been in dialogue with her county’s Sober Living Council and referenced similar efforts in Santa Clara County to establish operational guidelines for these homes. 

She emphasized the lack of communication between systems and that many individuals’ experiencing homelessness are unaware of licensed residential options. In contrast, mental health providers often lack insight into the realities of homelessness. Barbara stressed the urgency to break down these silos, particularly due to recent resistance from the substance use community during a Los Angeles County town hall meeting, where concerns were raised about merging mental health and substance use systems. 

Action/Resolution 

Committee staff will follow up with the questions to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH). 

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – April 2025 

Item #5 Proposition 1 Update 

Council staff, Simon Vue, shared an update on Proposition 1 Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) Round 1: Launch Ready. 

On May 12, 2025, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) announced Proposition 1 BHCIP Round 1: Launch Ready awards. Eligible organizations applied for funding to construct, acquire, and rehabilitate properties for behavioral health services for Medi-Cal members. The Department awarded 124 projects across 214 behavioral health facilities in California to support: 

• 5,077 new residential/inpatient treatment beds for mental health and substance use disorders. 

• 21,882 new outpatient treatment slots. 

Additionally, the Department is preparing to launch BHCIP Round 2: Unmet Needs in May 2025, which will provide up to $1 billion in competitive funding awards. 

This funding is a vital part of the Department’s Behavioral Health Transformation efforts, which aim to strengthen California’s approach to providing services for mental health and substance use disorders by focusing on community-based care and support. Although the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) is not part of Proposition 1, the measure allocates up to $4.4 billion through the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act (BHIBA), which establishes the program as a key vehicle to expand California’s behavioral health infrastructure. This funding supports the development of treatment facilities, including residential care settings and supportive housing. The Department distributes these funds through competitive grants, focusing on community-based services and regional projects. 

Action/Resolution 

Staff will continue to monitor for the May updates regarding the Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program Round 2: Unmet Needs. 

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – May 2025