Category: Uncategorized

Presentations Are Not Stakeholder Engagement

I attended the majority of the public stakeholder meetings identified in the Department’s Community Planning Process (CPP) in the Draft Integrated Plan, including the BHSA Steering Committee, the Community Planning Program Workgroup, the Behavioral Health Board, Countywide Town Halls, and the dedicated Housing Workgroup. What I witnessed was a repetitive series of presentations from Department staff and consultants focusing on the the transition of MHSA funding requirements to those contained in the BHSA Behavioral Health Transformation. Questions from participants concentrated on how current programs initiated under the last three-year MHSA Integrated Plan could be continued despite a shift of 30% of the funding to “Housing”, and the transfer of popular innovation grant authority to the State.

Rarely in the process did staff address what they alluded to as the “other 90%” of the Plan program funding, now for the first time mandated to be included. When they did, it was to complain about the fact that the Department’ Fiscal Team had not provided them with any guidance on the Departmental finances required to be within the Plan. After the first four presentations of the same PowerPoint, I perceived that most committee members stopped asking questions, and some community members stopped attending. As the only member from the Behavioral Health Board at these meetings, I began to detect that an enormous information and participation gap growing between the BOS-Appointed Behavioral Health Board and the Department-selected Behavioral Health Steering Committee. The latter consisted on Department staff, consultants, and contractors. Almost all seemed to be vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest, and seldom asked any but superficial questions.

When I attempted to record the meetings using an advanced digital personal assistant device (Fieldy) to document the stakeholder input, staff objected, and forced me to stop. I do not believe that staff finds value in allowing transparency in their work. The lack of timely minutes, advance meeting presentation materials, and the reluctance by staff to utilize online Plan Comment tools, has severely restricted public engagement and review.

The questions I asked were almost entirely ignored, and usually viewed as hostile, especially when I inquired when reports from the BH Steering Committee would be shared with the Behavioral Health Board. Were I to have been allowed to continue on the Board, I would have requested that full reports and recommendations from these meetings be forwarded to the Behavioral Health Board’s Integrated Plan Subcommittee for their report to the full Behavioral Health Board by the beginning of the formal public Open Comment hearing at their May meeting.

The Department’s Plan submission details the many meetings it hosted in compliance with the State’s stakeholder involvement requirements. But effective Plan development and engagement is not conducting meetings of your own staff, contractors, and consultants to review your latest interpretation of evolving State requirements. I saw almost no changes to the presentations, to the proposed Plan design, and finally to the Draft Plan, in the six months from September of 2025 to February of 2026. My attempts at providing insight on Integrated Plan processes being discussed at other neighboring county Behavioral Health Board meetings, California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commission board meetings, and State Behavioral Health Commission meetings I was attending were dismissed. It was no surprise to me when Departmental staff asked me not to continue my attendance on the Behavioral Health Steering Committee because “We believe your intentions are not consistent with ours”.

Within the Draft Integrated Plan is a paragraph which illustrates the failure of open engagement. It indicates that the planning process gathered important insights into the operation of homeless facilities and services in the county.

“At the recommendation of the Steering Committee, SCBH conducted Housing
Focus Groups in August and September 2025 with individuals who had lived
experience of homelessness and behavioral health challenges. Participants
identified safety concerns, lack of privacy in shelters, inconsistent rule
enforcement, barriers to consistent case management, and insufficient supports
for individuals with serious mental illness. They recommended trauma-informed
housing environments, enhanced onsite clinical and peer services, expanded
outreach teams, and practical supports such as dog kennels to support
employment access. Participants also identified transportation, digital access,
and documentation barriers, recommending monthly bus passes, free internet
access at service sites, and assistance obtaining identification, Medi-Cal, and
mobile phones. These insights directly shaped priorities for integrated housing
and behavioral health service models, expanded case management, strengthened
peer workforce roles, and improved transportation and digital access supports.”

None of this information was shared with the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, the County’s Continuum of Care Governing body, nor was there any attempt to validate or utilize the feedback to engage the largest single set of targeted stakeholders/consumers.

Nevertheless, the Department’s stakeholder process did confirm the Department’s belief that previous investments using innovation projects have found deep support within the community. Almost all of the priorities identified in the concluding paragraphs of the Plan’s Community Planning Process Stakeholder Engagement originated in early memberships and comments a year ago. It’s too bad no real work was done in the interim to actually engage participants in turning those ideas into collaborative projects.

“Across all engagement activities, stakeholders consistently emphasized the value
of culturally grounded and lived-experience perspectives. Community members
called for strengthening the SCBH Latinx Clinic, expanding culturally rooted early
intervention programs, investing in peer-led wellness centers, and hiring staff
with lived experience. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of traumainformed, disability-sensitive approaches and the need to evaluate both evidence-based and community-created practices. There was strong support for improving data systems, integrating quantitative and qualitative measures, and ensuring outcomes reflect community-defined success.”

“Through this extensive and collaborative planning process, the FY 2026–2029
BHSA Integrated Plan reflects the priorities identified by Sonoma County’s
diverse communities. These include expanding housing-linked behavioral health
supports; strengthening crisis response and early intervention services;
investing in culturally grounded and peer-led models; improving real-time data
and response systems; and enhancing transparency and communication. Input
gathered through meetings, focus groups, surveys, and listening sessions
directly informed the Plan’s strategies, and SCBH remains committed to
continued stakeholder engagement throughout implementation.”

Homeless Action! Meeting Notes, May 25th.  

Adrienne 707-332-1894

By June 2

Main Talking Points, and logistics for the Homeless Coalition and Board of Supervisors meeting:

  1. Most of this money could go to efforts that are not restricted by MediCal, and only help those with an Acute Mental Illness diagnosis and/or Substance Abuse disorder.  $600 million dollars should serve more than 500 people.
  2. This plan does not work to strengthen the “One System of Care.”  It doesn’t match the Homeless Coalition strategic plan or the MRG report adopted by the Homeless Coalition both of which strive for that important goal. 
  3. This plan was made with abysmal Community Engagement.  For example, neither Catholic Charities nor the Homeless Coalition were consulted.

Homeless Coalition Board Meeting
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
1:00 – 4:30 p.m.
https://sonomacounty.zoom.us/j/92759747120?pwd=Cuw1daWSoPM5s8ClAWgPrJ8wYLeBgp.1#success

Phone: +1 669 444 9171
Passcode:  589476
Webinar ID: 927 5974 7120

Board of Supervisors Meeting
Tuesday, June 2, 9 am
In person
575 Administration Drive, Room 102A, Santa Rosa
Public Comment period, only in person

Before June 30

Reach out to Michelle Bass, Director of California Department of Health Services, with the messages above about the Sonoma Counties Behavioral Health 3-Year Integrated Plan.  Suggest that the state take action.

Michelle Baass
(916) 440-7400

Department of Health Care ServicesP.O. Box 997413, MS 0000
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413

Ongoing Work

Influence leadership of county staff over time toward Accountability and Transparency: 

  • Talk to the new people: head of the health department Nolan Sullivan, county CEO, David Guhin, Fiscal Director of Health Department Maryann Le , homeless division manager Hunter Scott.
  • Talk to Angela Stuckman head of the Human Services Dept.  
  • Know that what is coming, (massive budget cuts, cuts to Food Stamps & MediCal), will overwhelm the county staff and make the changes related to this plan seem like small potatoes.  Be kind but firm that challenges are best met with a community response.  Including people is time consuming and sometimes annoying but the best solutions come from this basic democratic process.

Conversation with Gemini

California Continuums of Care and the California Interagency Council of Homelessness have funded homeless management information systems (HMIS) at the county and state level in an attempt to track and evaluaste the outcomes achieved by millions of dollsrs in homeless facility and program services over the past ten years. Nevertheless, long-term tracking of chronic homeless housing outcomes has been hindered by the lack of adequate intra-system and facility tracking. Which counties have successfully moved homeless from the streets to shelters and permanent housing, and retained them ?

The dilemma you are highlighting cuts to the absolute core of California’s multi-billion-dollar battle with homelessness. You hit the nail on the head: while the state has funneled billions into local Continuums of Care (CoCs) and launched the Homeless Data Integration System (HDIS) under Cal ICH to patch these exact data gaps, getting a precise, county-by-county report card on long-term retention is incredibly tricky.

Because of “intra-system tracking gaps”—such as people crossing county lines, or dropping out of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) with “unknown” exit destinations—success is rarely measured by sweeping regional victories. Instead, it is measured by specific counties that have built highly coordinated, localized data structures to bypass these limitations.

According to data from Cal ICH’s statewide assessments, university studies (like UCSF’s landmark California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness), and local CoC reports, a handful of counties stand out for their success in moving people from streets to shelters, securing permanent housing, and keeping them there.

1. Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley CoC)

Santa Clara County is widely regarded as an intra-system data leader because they actively track their “Community Plan to End Homelessness” milestones with sharp precision, accounting for where individuals end up.

  • The Transition: Between 2020 and 2023, the county successfully placed over 10,000 people into permanent housing. They consistently beat regional averages by transitioning roughly 37% of people straight out of temporary emergency shelters directly into permanent homes (the regional target is usually 30%).
  • The Retention: This is where they excel. Santa Clara County reports an astonishing 95.8% housing retention rate within its Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs. Their system is highly tightly knit, meaning if someone is placed, intensive case management keeps them tracked and stable.

2. San Diego County (San Diego City & County CoC)

San Diego has made massive strides by aggressively deploying “diversion” strategies and leveraging HDIS data to track specific sub-populations, particularly veterans and chronically homeless individuals.

  • The Transition: San Diego scaled up its street outreach-to-shelter funnel by utilizing decentralized navigation centers. By integrating their regional HMIS more tightly across cities within the county, they successfully increased successful permanent housing placements out of rapid rehousing and street outreach.
  • The Retention: San Diego’s built-in retention frameworks keep their permanent supportive housing stability rate hovering around 85% to 90%. They have been specifically highlighted for lowering the rate of people who “return to the streets” within two years of being housed.

3. Riverside & Bakersfield/Kern County

If you look at the raw data of “functional zero”—a metric meaning a system can house more people a month than are entering homelessness—these two regions punch far above their weight.

  • The Transition: Bakersfield/Kern County famously became the first community in California to achieve “functional zero” for chronic homelessness. They did this by establishing a daily-updated, master “By-Name List” shared across every shelter and facility, fundamentally eliminating the intra-system tracking gap you mentioned.
  • The Retention: Because their system treats every chronically homeless individual as a specific case file shared by all providers, their retention rates for permanent housing placements are among the sturiest in the state, keeping returns to the street below 10%.

4. Los Angeles County (LAHSA / LA County CoC)

LA County is a paradox. Because of its sheer size, it has the highest raw number of returns to homelessness. However, when looking purely at facility tracking and retention efficacy, their targeted programs tell a different story.

  • The Transition: Through initiatives like Project Roomkey and subsequent permanent conversions (Project Homekey), LA moved tens of thousands of unsheltered individuals into temporary motels and then permanent supportive housing.
  • The Retention: LA’s data shows that when a chronically homeless individual is successfully placed into Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) paired with intensive case management, the retention rate sits above 85%. The breakdown happens not because the facilities fail to retain them, but because the inflow of newly homeless people vastly outpaces the physical availability of those permanent units.

The Core Data Reality: Why the Tracking Breaks Down

Cal ICH’s sweeping Statewide Homelessness Assessment highlighted exactly what you noted: the “Unknown” problem.

Across California’s aggregated HDIS data, when looking at people who exit homelessness programs:

  • 28% exit to housing without a subsidy (moving in with family/friends or renting).
  • 17% exit to housing with a temporary or permanent subsidy. Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency – CA.gov
  • 17% are known to remain in sheltered or unsheltered homelessness. Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency – CA.gov
  • 25% are recorded as “Unknown.” Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency – CA.gov

The Takeaway: When a county’s data shows a drop in chronic homelessness, it is often difficult to prove whether those individuals were permanently retained, moved to a different county, or simply stopped interacting with service providers entirely, causing them to fall off the HMIS grid. The counties winning this battle are the ones using localized, real-time “By-Name” data systems rather than relying purely on historical, retrofitted HMIS data uploads.

Want to look closer at how ‘By-Name Lists’ fix California’s tracking gaps?Yes

How do By-Name Lists work in HMIS, and how do they prevent chronically homeless individuals from falling through intra-system tracking gaps?

A standard Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) operates like a traditional database. It takes snapshots of data, tracks transactions (like a bed night or a meal), and aggregates that data for state or federal reporting.

The problem? It is backward-looking. A standard HMIS tells you how many people you served last quarter, but it rarely helps a case worker figure out where a specific chronically homeless person is this afternoon.

A By-Name List (BNL) shifts the paradigm from aggregate tracking to real-time coordination. It is a continuously updated, frontline roster of every single person experiencing homelessness in a given community.

How a By-Name List Works

Instead of waiting for a person to walk into a facility to generate a data point, a By-Name List pulls data dynamically from HMIS and street outreach teams into a centralized, living document.

[ Street Outreach ] ──┐
[ Emergency Shelter ] ─┼─> [ Centralized By-Name List ] ──> [ Case Conferencing Team ]
[ Medical/Jails ] ────┘     (Real-time status updates)       (Matches person to next open bed)

The process generally follows four core mechanics:

  • Universal Identification: Every individual is added to the list by name, accompanied by their specific health vulnerabilities, history of homelessness, and current location or “frequent hangouts.”
  • Acuity Scoring: Communities use a standardized tool—most commonly the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool)—to assign a score based on how likely that person is to die or suffer severe harm on the streets.
  • Dynamic Status Tracking: Individuals are tagged with a real-time status: Active (currently unsheltered/sheltered), Housed (successfully placed), or Inactive (has not been seen or heard from by any provider in 90 days).
  • Cross-Agency Case Conferencing: Every week or two, representatives from housing authorities, mental health agencies, street medicine teams, and shelters sit in a room with the list. They don’t talk about general statistics; they go line-by-line: “Where is John Doe? His name is next for the PSH apartment that opened up yesterday.”

How it Fixes Intra-System Tracking Gaps

By changing how data is gathered and viewed, a By-Name List directly plugs the data leaks that plague standard county HMIS frameworks:

1. Eliminating the “Unknown Exit” Black Hole

In a traditional system, if a person leaves a temporary shelter, their file is closed as “Exit Destination: Unknown,” and they effectively become a ghost until they re-register elsewhere.

  • The BNL Fix: Because street outreach teams use the same list, if an individual leaves a shelter and goes back to a riverbed or encampment, the outreach team updates their status back to “Active – Unsheltered” and logs their coordinates. The continuity of their profile remains unbroken.

2. Prioritizing by Need, Not “First-Come, First-Served”

Standard HMIS queues often reward the people who are functional enough to show up to an office early in the morning. The most severely chronically homeless individuals—often suffering from severe mental illness or cognitive decline—rarely fill out the paperwork.

  • The BNL Fix: The list is ordered by vulnerability, not chronology. The system actively hunts for the person at the top of the list, using the collective memory of all county providers to find them when a permanent housing voucher becomes available.

3. Preventing Multi-Agency Duplication

Without a centralized list, a person might get a mental health evaluation from County Agency A, a shelter bed from Non-Profit B, and street medicine from Group C. In standard HMIS, these can look like three different people or disconnected parallel tracks.

  • The BNL Fix: It forces an intra-system “single source of truth.” All three entities update the same file, ensuring that the housing navigator knows exactly what medical clearings or documents the person already has, slashing administrative delays.

4. Defining “Functional Zero”

Without a By-Name List, a county cannot accurately measure if it is winning the battle. They are just guessing based on point-in-time counts conducted once a year.

  • The BNL Fix: Because the list tracks exact inflow (people falling into homelessness) and outflow (people getting housed or moving away) in real time, a county knows exactly when its housing capacity matches its demand.

The Reality Check: A By-Name List is only as good as the human infrastructure supporting it. It requires strict data-sharing agreements between competitive non-profits and county agencies, alongside relentless field outreach. When done right—as seen in communities like Bakersfield—it turns a fractured web of independent shelters into a single, cohesive triage system.

HEAPA Homelessness Advocacy and Policy Updates Sonoma County

1 source·May 23, 2026

This text highlights the transition of street outreach from providing basic survival aid to functioning as a professional, housing-focused pipeline for the unsheltered. While regions like Sonoma County and San Francisco report measurable successes in housing placement and retention, significant systemic hurdles remain, including a shortage of affordable units and fragmented data systems. Local advocates express concern over the Behavioral Health Services Act integrated plan, arguing that its medical-clinical model may exclude vulnerable populations and lacks sufficient community input. To address these gaps, the Homeless Emergency Assistance Program Association (HEAPA) is actively promoting civic engagement and leadership among those with lived experience. Their initiatives focus on providing digital tools, stipends, and advocacy training to ensure unhoused individuals have a voice in the policy decisions that shape their lives. Through these efforts, the organization seeks to bridge the divide between high-level bureaucratic planning and the practical needs of the community.

How is street outreach evolving from survival aid to housing?

Street outreach is transforming from simply providing basic survival aid, like handing out blankets or water, into a professional, housing-focused pipeline. Rather than just managing the crisis of living on the streets, modern outreach workers act as mobile case managers who meet individuals where they are to actively end their homelessness.

Today, successful programs focus on building trust over extended periods to achieve the practical milestones required for housing placement. This evolution includes several key strategies:

  • Document Readiness: Outreach teams help individuals navigate complex government bureaucracies to secure necessary identification, such as lost birth certificates, social security cards, and state IDs.
  • Coordinated Entry Integration: Workers use localized data systems like the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to assess people directly in the field, ensuring the most vulnerable are prioritized and seamlessly matched with open shelter beds, rapid rehousing, or permanent supportive housing.
  • Multidisciplinary Teams: Modern outreach programs often deploy hybrid teams featuring mental health professionals, substance use counselors, and peer navigators with lived experience of homelessness, allowing them to provide immediate, trauma-informed care on the sidewalk.
  • Warm Handoffs: Success is no longer defined by simply handing out a flyer with a list of resources. Instead, outreach workers personally walk with individuals, drive them to appointments, introduce them to shelter staff, and remain with them throughout the intake process to ensure continuity of care.

Real-world models reflect this shift, such as Los Angeles’s “Pathway Home” initiative, which brings entire encampments indoors while offering comprehensive care, and family reunification programs that safely reconnect individuals with their existing support networks.

However, while the mechanics of modern outreach are highly effective at preparing people for housing, the ultimate success of these programs remains completely dependent on the availability of low-barrier shelters and permanent affordable housing to fully resolve the crisis.

What are the success rates of Bay Area programs?

Recent data from the Bay Area and Northern California shows that when street outreach is well-resourced, it achieves high transition and housing retention rates. Local municipalities and Continuums of Care track these efforts closely, highlighting several notable success rates across the region:

San Francisco San Francisco’s multi-disciplinary outreach programs have achieved significant permanent housing placements and high long-term stability:

  • Housing Placements: Between July 2023 and June 2025, the system successfully moved 10,300 people from homelessness into permanent housing.
  • Retention Rates: The city reported an exceptional 93% retention rate, meaning 93% of those who exited homelessness did not return to the system within 12 months, exceeding their goal of 85%.
  • Reduced Emergency Calls: In neighborhoods where street outreach and ambassador programs were deployed, there was a 30% to 60% reduction in 911 calls.
  • Immediate Shelter: The RESTORE project successfully served over 2,500 clients by providing nighttime shelter placements and immediate substance use treatment directly from the street.

Santa Rosa and Sonoma County Targeted outreach and expanded interim housing have led to some of the lowest homelessness numbers in the county since 2007:

  • Pipeline Success: In Santa Rosa, city-funded outreach programs successfully transitioned nearly 30% of all unsheltered people they engaged into formal shelters or permanent housing during the 2024–2025 fiscal year.
  • Population Declines: Overall homelessness dropped by 23% countywide and 16% in Santa Rosa. Rohnert Park experienced a dramatic 60% reduction in overall homelessness (including a 78% drop in unsheltered individuals) due to targeted outreach and the opening of a new interim housing site.
  • Veterans: Targeted outreach paired with housing vouchers achieved a 39% reduction in homeless veterans across the county.
  • Challenges: Despite these successes, the number of chronically homeless individuals rose by 20%, emphasizing that the most vulnerable populations still lack adequate Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH).

Berkeley and the East Bay While specific percentage success rates aren’t detailed for Berkeley, the city has successfully implemented the Homeless Outreach Treatment Team (HOTT). Instead of short-term fixes, this specialized model utilizes an evidence-based Critical Time Intervention (CTI) framework to build long-term relationships with highly vulnerable, severely mentally ill individuals to navigate them into housing stability.

Ultimately, regional data demonstrates that the mechanics of modern street outreach are working, but the ceiling of their success is currently capped by a severe regional shortage of affordable housing units and state/federal budget cuts.

Tell me more about Berkeley’s HOTT model.

The Homeless Outreach Treatment Team (HOTT) is a specialized outreach pilot program operated by the City of Berkeley that aims to bridge the gap between psychiatric crises and housing.

Funded largely by the Mental Health Services Act, the HOTT model distinguishes itself through the following key characteristics:

  • Evidence-Based Framework: The program is built on an evidence-based approach known as Critical Time Intervention (CTI).
  • Targeted Population: It specifically focuses on highly vulnerable unhoused individuals who are experiencing severe mental health needs.
  • Long-Term Relationship Building: Rather than offering short-term or temporary fixes, the team is entirely focused on cultivating long-term, trusting relationships with the people they serve.
  • Active System Navigation: Outreach workers don’t just provide information; they physically help individuals navigate the highly fragmented county system to help them achieve long-term housing stability.

What is Critical Time Intervention?

Based on the provided sources, there is no comprehensive, standalone definition of Critical Time Intervention (CTI). However, the sources describe CTI as an evidence-based framework that is put into practice through programs like Berkeley’s Homeless Outreach Treatment Team (HOTT).

In the context of the HOTT model, CTI is characterized by the following approaches:

  • Avoiding short-term fixes: Instead of offering temporary solutions, the framework is entirely focused on cultivating long-term, trusting relationships.
  • Targeting severe mental health needs: It is designed to assist highly vulnerable unhoused individuals who are dealing with severe mental health crises.
  • Active, hands-on navigation: Rather than just giving out information, workers physically help individuals navigate the fragmented county systems necessary to achieve long-term housing stability.

(Note: If you would like a broader clinical or academic definition of Critical Time Intervention, I would need to draw on outside information not included in your current sources. Let me know if you would like me to do so!)

What are the common challenges when implementing HOTT?

The provided sources do not explicitly detail the administrative or operational challenges specifically faced when implementing Berkeley’s Homeless Outreach Treatment Team (HOTT). However, they do identify the broader systemic challenges that affect the success of specialized regional outreach programs like HOTT:

  • Navigating Fragmented Systems: A major hurdle for vulnerable, unhoused individuals is the bureaucracy of local government. HOTT outreach workers must physically help clients navigate a highly fragmented county system to help them achieve long-term housing stability.
  • Affordable Housing Shortages: The ultimate ceiling on the success of these outreach programs is macro-economic; there is a severe regional shortage of affordable housing units.
  • Budget Cuts: Furthermore, state and federal budget cuts restrict the number of permanent beds that outreach teams can actually offer to the people they engage on the street.

How does the fragmented county system affect HOTT’s success?

The fragmented county system acts as an incredibly overwhelming barrier for highly vulnerable, unhoused individuals, particularly those dealing with severe mental health needs or chronic trauma. Because individuals struggle to navigate these disjointed bureaucracies on their own, the fragmentation makes HOTT’s active, hands-on approach the critical factor for their success.

Instead of offering short-term fixes or simply handing out a list of resources, HOTT workers succeed by physically navigating clients through the fragmented county system. They build long-term, trusting relationships and rely on “warm handoffs”—such as driving individuals to appointments, introducing them to shelter staff, and remaining with them throughout the entire intake process—to ensure that clients achieve long-term housing stability without slipping through the cracks of the broken system.

What is the RESTORE project in San Francisco?

The RESTORE project is a specific street outreach initiative in San Francisco that focuses on providing “on-demand” placements and care.

The program is designed to deliver immediate substance use treatment and secure nighttime shelter placements for unhoused individuals directly from the street. As part of the city’s broader “Home by the Bay” strategy to reduce homelessness, the RESTORE project has been highly active, successfully serving more than 2,500 clients.

What is the RESTORE project’s success with substance use treatment?

Based on the provided sources, the RESTORE project in San Francisco is designed to provide immediate substance use treatment and nighttime shelter placements directly to individuals on the street.

In terms of its success, the sources note that the expanded program has successfully served more than 2,500 clients. However, the data provided does not include specific outcome metrics or success rates detailing the long-term effectiveness of the substance use treatment itself, such as sobriety or recovery statistics.

What is the 30% reduction in 911 calls attributed to?

The 30% to 60% reduction in 911 calls in San Francisco is attributed to the deployment of proactive street outreach and neighborhood-based ambassador programs in specific neighborhoods. This reduction demonstrates that engaging directly with individuals on the street helps relieve the overall pressure on emergency services.

What is the RESTORE project’s total client outreach goal?

The provided sources do not specify a total client outreach goal for the RESTORE project. They only note that the expanded program has already successfully served more than 2,500 clients by providing immediate substance use treatment and nighttime shelter placements directly from the street.

What is the RESTORE project’s role in the city’s broader strategy?

The RESTORE project operates as a key outreach initiative within San Francisco’s broader “Home by the Bay” strategy.

Within this strategic framework, San Francisco relies heavily on multidisciplinary street teams—such as the Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) and the SF Homeless Outreach Team (HOT)—to manage non-violent, health-focused crises. The RESTORE project specifically fulfills the role of providing “on-demand” placements by delivering immediate substance use treatment and nighttime shelter directly to unhoused individuals on the street.

Working alongside neighborhood-based ambassador programs, these proactive street engagements are a vital part of the city’s overall strategy, effectively relieving pressure on emergency services and contributing to significant reductions in 911 calls.

What makes the 93% housing retention rate so successful?

The 93% housing retention rate in San Francisco is a significant marker of success because it means that 93% of individuals who exited homelessness did not return to the homelessness system within 12 months, comfortably exceeding the city’s target of 85%.

This exceptional long-term stability is largely attributed to how modern street outreach has transformed into a professional, housing-focused pipeline rather than simply providing short-term survival aid. The success of this retention rate is driven by several critical practices:

  • Continuity of Care and “Warm Handoffs”: Navigating local bureaucracies can be incredibly overwhelming for individuals dealing with chronic health issues or trauma. Instead of merely handing out a flyer with a list of resources, outreach workers walk with clients, drive them to appointments, introduce them to shelter staff, and stay with them throughout the intake process. This hands-on approach is what prevents vulnerable people from slipping through the cracks.
  • Long-Term Trust Building: Successful programs require workers to build trust over weeks or months to help individuals accomplish practical milestones, such as overcoming complex government bureaucracy to replace lost identification cards.
  • Targeted Matching: Outreach teams integrate with localized data systems to assess people directly in the field, ensuring they are accurately prioritized and matched with the right open shelter beds, rapid rehousing, or permanent supportive housing.
  • Adequate Resourcing: Regional data consistently shows that when these targeted outreach teams are deployed with adequate resources, they are highly effective at achieving these exceptional long-term housing stability rates.

How does Coordinated Entry Integration prioritize the most vulnerable?

Coordinated Entry Integration prioritizes the most vulnerable by bringing the assessment process directly to people living on the street. Rather than waiting for individuals to seek out services, outreach teams use localized data systems, such as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), to assess individuals in the field.

This direct, field-based assessment allows outreach workers to identify the most vulnerable people sleeping outside and ensure they are seamlessly matched and prioritized for available resources, such as open shelter beds, rapid rehousing programs, or permanent supportive housing.

The effectiveness of this system has made it a focal point for local housing advocates in the sources. For example, in Sonoma County, advocates have praised the Coordinated Entry System as a carefully built, proven, and effective tool, expressing concern when local government plans—like the draft Behavioral Health Services Act 3-Year Integrated Plan—fail to utilize it. To maximize its impact, advocates have proposed solutions such as requiring 100% of rooms for homeless individuals in county-owned facilities to be filled exclusively through the Coordinated Entry System.

What is the role of the Street Crisis Response Team?

The Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) is a multidisciplinary outreach group utilized in San Francisco as a key component of the city’s “Home by the Bay” strategy.

Its primary role is to proactively handle non-violent, health-focused crises for individuals living on the streets. Working alongside other groups like the SF Homeless Outreach Team (HOT), the SCRT engages vulnerable individuals during these crises to offer immediate assistance and provide direct shelter placements.

By dispatching specialized teams to manage these health-related emergencies, the SCRT directly relieves pressure on traditional emergency services, contributing to the broader citywide effort that has successfully reduced 911 calls by 30% to 60% in targeted neighborhoods.

How does the Homeless Management Information System work?

The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is a localized data system used by county outreach teams to collect data and assess individuals directly in the field.

When used effectively, HMIS is the technical backbone for Coordinated Entry Integration. Outreach workers use the system during street engagements to evaluate an individual’s needs on the spot, ensuring that the most vulnerable people sleeping outside are prioritized and seamlessly matched with open shelter beds, rapid rehousing programs, or permanent supportive housing.

However, the system’s effectiveness relies heavily on how well it communicates with other local government databases. For example, in Sonoma County, homeless data is collected through HMIS, but the county’s Behavioral Health Department uses a completely separate data system called SmartCare (or Smart Key). Local advocates have identified this lack of integration as a major systemic weakness, noting that without integrating the two systems, data becomes disjointed, making it difficult to accurately track a person’s homeless outcomes alongside their clinical visits. This fragmentation creates a risk that vulnerable individuals will “fall through the statistic crack”.

To address these data problems, local advocacy groups like Homeless Action! have proposed the immediate, formal integration of HMIS and SmartCare, while organizations like HEAPA are actively developing projects to help case managers better communicate and collect data across these amalgamating county systems.

What is the SmartCare data system used for?

SmartCare (sometimes referred to as Smart Key) is the primary data system used by Sonoma County’s Behavioral Health Department.

It currently operates as a completely separate system from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which the county uses to track homeless data. Local advocates point out that the lack of integration between these two databases is a major systemic weakness, making it difficult to accurately track a person’s clinical visits alongside their homeless outcomes.

To prevent vulnerable individuals from slipping through the cracks due to disjointed data, advocacy groups have proposed the immediate, formal coordination of SmartCare and HMIS. Meanwhile, organizations like HEAPA are working on upcoming projects to train case managers on how to better communicate and collect data across these amalgamating county systems.

What is the goal of the California Transparency Project?

While the sources do not explicitly define a single overarching “goal” or mission statement for the California Transparency Project, they outline its active initiatives, which demonstrate a focus on improving agency communication, expanding government transparency, and increasing citizen involvement in strategic planning.

Specifically, the project aims to achieve these objectives by:

  • Improving Communication and Data Management: The project purchased digital personal assistant devices for several agencies to test their effectiveness and produced instructional videos showing users how to provide meeting reports with these devices.
  • Increasing Public Transparency: The project requested copies of all service contracts issued by the Departments of Health Services and Human Services for the 2025–2026 fiscal year and made them publicly available online.
  • Prioritizing Citizen Access: The project called for the convening of NOFA (Notice of Funding Availability) planning committees across several groups—including the Sonoma County Community Development Commission, the Santa Rosa Housing Authority, the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, and the Behavioral Health Boards—to prioritize citizen access to strategic planning and help coordinate their work.

Excellent- now put something up about the big Street Outreach that nobody knows the success of.. (Teddie Pierce, Another Board Member)

Street outreach is one of the most critical, challenging, and misunderstood components of the modern homelessness response system. When people think of outreach, they often picture workers handing out blankets or water bottles. While emergency survival aid is part of the job, the true “success” of modern street outreach lies in its evolution into a professional, housing-focused pipeline.

National Alliance to End Homelessness

Rather than just managing the crisis of unsheltered conditions, successful outreach teams act as mobile case managers who meet people where they are to actively end their homelessness.

1. Shifting from “Band-Aids” to Housing

Historically, street outreach was focused purely on harm reduction and basic survival. Today, successful programs are strictly housing-focused. Outreach workers build trust over weeks or months to accomplish the practical milestones required to get someone off the street:

  • Document Readiness: One of the biggest barriers to housing is a lack of identification. Successful outreach teams turn “impossibilities into successes” by helping individuals replace lost birth certificates, social security cards, and state IDs, and navigating complex government bureaucracy. HomeFirst
  • Coordinated Entry Integration: Teams use localized data systems (like the Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS) to assess individuals directly in the field. This ensures that the most vulnerable people sleeping outside are prioritized and seamlessly matched with open shelter beds, rapid rehousing programs, or permanent supportive housing.

2. Real-World Success Models

Across the country, targeted outreach models combined with rapid funding are showing measurable success:

  • The “Pathway Home” Initiative (Los Angeles County): This encampment resolution program specifically pairs street outreach with immediately available interim housing. Instead of just asking people to move along, outreach teams bring entire encampments indoors together, offering a comprehensive suite of medical care, mental health support, and dedicated case managers. LA County Homeless Initiative
  • Family Reunification Programs: Often, the fastest route out of homelessness is reconnecting individuals with support systems they already have. Outreach workers frequently find success through structured “return home” initiatives—gaining an individual’s trust, locating family members in other cities or states, and coordinating safe travel and warm handoffs. Downtown Development District
  • Multidisciplinary Teams: Some of the most successful urban outreach programs now utilize hybrid teams that include peer navigators (individuals with lived experience of homelessness), mental health professionals, and substance use counselors. This allows teams to provide trauma-informed care and immediate medical or psychiatric support directly on the sidewalk.

3. The Power of “Warm Handoffs”

In professional street outreach, success is rarely defined by handing someone a flyer with a list of resources. Because navigating a fragmented system is incredibly overwhelming—especially for those dealing with chronic health issues or severe trauma—success relies on warm handoffs.

An outreach worker doesn’t just tell someone where a clinic or shelter is; they walk with them, drive them to appointments, introduce them to the shelter staff, and stay with them through the intake process. This continuity of care is what prevents vulnerable people from slipping through the cracks.

The Underlying Challenge: Street outreach workers are highly effective at building trust and preparing people for housing, but their ultimate success is entirely dependent on the availability of low-barrier shelters and affordable housing. Outreach can bridge the gap, but it requires a robust housing continuum to permanently resolve the crisis.

National League of Cities

Would you like to look at specific local outreach programs or data for a particular region?Yes

What are the specific street outreach programs and success statistics for the Bay Area and Northern California?

In the Bay Area and Northern California, street outreach has evolved from basic survival aid into a data-driven, coordinated effort to transition unsheltered people directly into housing and shelter. Local municipalities and regional Continuums of Care (CoCs) track these metrics closely, and recent reports reveal clear evidence of progress, alongside ongoing challenges.

1. Santa Rosa and Sonoma County (Northern California)

Sonoma County and its largest city, Santa Rosa, have demonstrated measurable success by combining street outreach with expanded affordable and interim housing infrastructure.

Local News Matters

  • Steep Overall Declines: The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count revealed that the total number of individuals experiencing homelessness countywide dropped by 23%, falling to 1,952 individuals—the lowest total recorded since the count began in 2007 (Sonoma County Department of Health Services, 2025). In Santa Rosa specifically, homelessness dropped by 16% (City of Santa Rosa, 2025). Nearby Rohnert Park saw an even more dramatic 60% reduction in overall homelessness, including a 78% drop in unsheltered individuals, which local officials directly attributed to targeted outreach and the 2022 opening of Labath Landing, an interim housing site (Local News Matters, 2025). SRCity.org+ 2
  • Street Outreach Transition Rates: In the city of Santa Rosa, street outreach teams have become highly effective at creating a direct pipeline off the streets. During the 2024–2025 fiscal year, city-funded programs engaged thousands of individuals, successfully helping nearly 30% of all unsheltered people met through street outreach transition into formal shelters or permanent housing (City of Santa Rosa, 2025). SRCity.org
  • Targeted Subpopulation Success: Regional outreach coupled with dedicated housing vouchers led to a 39% reduction in homeless veterans countywide (Sonoma County Department of Health Services, 2025).
  • The Chronically Homeless Challenge: Despite these outreach successes, the data highlights a major systemic bottleneck: the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (those on the street for over a year with a disabling condition) rose by 20% (Sonoma County Department of Health Services, 2025). This underscores the fact that while outreach workers are successfully engaging people, the most vulnerable require longer-term permanent supportive housing (PSH) slots, which remain in short supply.

2. San Francisco and the “Home by the Bay” Strategy

San Francisco relies heavily on multidisciplinary street teams—including the Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT) and SF Homeless Outreach Team (HOT)—to handle non-violent, health-focused crises and provide direct shelter placement.

  • Substantial Housing Placements: San Francisco’s overarching strategic initiative reported that between July 2023 and June 2025, the homelessness response system successfully supported 10,300 people in moving from homelessness into permanent housing (SF.gov, 2025). SF.gov
  • High Housing Retention Rates: One of the most significant statistical successes of the Bay Area system is what happens after outreach connects someone to a home. In San Francisco, 93% of individuals who exited homelessness did not return to the homelessness system within 12 months, comfortably exceeding the city’s 85% target (SF.gov, 2025). SF.gov
  • On-Demand Placements via the RESTORE Project: San Francisco expanded its RESTORE project, an outreach initiative designed to provide immediate substance use treatment and nighttime shelter placements directly from the street, serving more than 2,500 clients (SF.gov, 2025). Additionally, street outreach and neighborhood-based ambassador programs contributed to a 30% to 60% reduction in 911 calls in the specific neighborhoods where they were deployed, proving that proactive street engagement relieves pressure on emergency services (SF.gov, 2025). SF.gov

3. Berkeley and the East Bay

In the East Bay, specialized outreach models have been tested to bridge the gap between psychiatric crisis and housing.

  • The HOTT Model: The City of Berkeley’s Homeless Outreach Treatment Team (HOTT) is a prominent example of a specialized outreach pilot (City of Berkeley, 2023). Funded largely by the Mental Health Services Act, HOTT utilizes an evidence-based framework known as Critical Time Intervention (CTI) (City of Berkeley, 2023).
  • Vibe of the Program: Rather than focusing on short-term fixes, the team focuses entirely on building long-term, trusting relationships with highly vulnerable unhoused individuals who have severe mental health needs, physically navigating them through the fragmented county system to achieve long-term housing stability (City of Berkeley, 2023).

Summary of Regional Success Data

The overall picture of street outreach in Northern California shows that the mechanics of outreach are working. When teams are deployed with adequate resources, they are achieving high transition rates (such as Santa Rosa’s 30% pipeline success) and exceptional housing retention rates (such as San Francisco’s 93% stability rate). The primary constraint on these programs’ success remains macro-economic: a severe regional shortage of affordable housing units and state/federal budget cuts that restrict the number of permanent beds outreach teams can offer to the people they engage on the street.

SRCity.org

References

Housing Advocacy and Policy Debate Insights

Last night, I attended a film screening of Fault Line and panel discussion in Healdsburg hosted by Generation Housing, featuring Ariel Kelly, Jay Bradshaw, and Todd David. The conversation centered on the systemic barriers to housing production in San Francisco and Sonoma County, ranging from NIMBY obstructionism to complex financing. They explored the human impact of homelessness through the film, discussed the “hard hats and hoodies” alliance between labor and tech, and examined the necessity of state-level policy shifts to bypass local dysfunction and streamline affordable housing.

Housing Production and Policy Challenges

  • Underproduction of housing is the primary driver of the current affordability crisis.
    • Market rate housing is a necessary component of the solution; roughly 85-90% of low-income Californians live in market-rate units.
    • High-income individuals moving into the region compete for limited supply, driving up costs for everyone.
  • Local policy choices have historically restricted growth through zoning and management ordinances.
    • Healdsburg’s Growth Management Ordinance (passed in 2000) limits production to a maximum of 30 homes per year.
    • “The Christmas Tree Effect” occurs when developers are burdened with excessive impact fees and requirements, making middle-income housing financially unfeasible.

Labor Standards and Workforce Impacts

  • The residential construction industry is described as a “crime scene” regarding labor practices.
    • An estimated $3 billion is lost annually in California due to tax fraud and wage theft in residential construction.
    • Many workers rely on the social safety net (subsidies, public healthcare) because they are not paid a living wage.
  • The Carpenters Union advocates for both streamlining housing and maintaining high labor standards.
    • Support for “Skilled and Trained” provisions: requiring a percentage of the workforce to have graduated from state-approved apprenticeship programs.
    • Resistance to “Labor Monolith” narratives: distinguishing between unions pushing for production and those using standards to obstruct it.

Transportation and Regional Planning

  • Speakers indicated that Sonoma County is transitioning away from the 1990s “bedroom community” model where residents were expected to commute to San Francisco.
    • Telework and shifting economic patterns have increased the need for local transit and housing density near transit hubs like the SMART train.
  • Integration of the “Three-legged Stool”: Housing, Transit, and Jobs must be planned together to be sustainable.
  • Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) prevent sprawl into agricultural land, necessitating higher density and “building up” within city limits.

Political and Community Dynamics (NIMBYism vs. YIMBYism)

  • Neighborhood opposition often focuses on “out of scale” developments, parking concerns, and environmental shadows.
    • Example: The 2550 Irving Street project in San Francisco faced significant delays due to concerns over soil toxicity (PCE) and building height.
    • Appeals and litigation are frequently used as “obstructionist” tools to delay projects until they become financially untenable.
  • Successful strategies for progress include:
    • Personalizing stories of families in need to counter abstract policy fears.
    • Forming “unlikely coalitions” between labor, tech leaders, and housing advocates (e.g., the “Hoodies and Hard Hats” fundraiser).
    • Pushing for state-level legislation (like SB 35 and SB 423) to streamline approvals and bypass local political stalemates.

Economic Realities for the “Missing Middle”

  • The “Demographic Bomb”: An aging population and declining school enrollment are indicators of an unsustainable community.
    • High home prices (e.g., $1.6M for a 1,000 sq. ft. studio) push out teachers, firefighters, and tradespeople.
  • Displacement is caused by the lack of new market-rate housing, forcing people into “super-commutes” to find affordable rent.
  • Policy recommendation: Provide temporary subsidies for middle-income workers until housing production can catch up to demand.

Homeless Action! Feedback

Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) 

3-Year Integrated Plan (draft)

Over the past 2-3 weeks members of an informal Homeless Action! Committee worked to understand and analyze this 192-page document.   Our memo below captures the major problems we found.

SUMMARY of the Plan

  • Spends approximately $611.0 million over 3 years.
  • Funding from Federal Financial Participation (FFP): $187.4 million, (BHSA Behavioral Health Services Act): $153.3 million; Other state funding: $99.5 million; 2011 Realignment: $71.6 million; 1991 Realignment: $69.6 million; Opioid Settlement Funds: $13.7 million; Substance Use Block Grant: $8.1 million; State General Fund: $4.8 million; County General Fund: $1.6 million; Mental Health Block Grant: $1.2 million.
  • Confirms Sonoma County’s Homeless Division as part of the Behavioral Health Division of the Department of Health
  • Who Will Be Served (Annual Estimates)

Rental Subsidies: ~70 individuals
Operating Subsidies: ~200 individuals
Landlord Mitigation Supports: ~100 individuals
Participant Assistance Funds: ~300 individuals
Housing Navigation & Tenancy Services: ~130 individuals

  • This plan limits help to those with acute mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders who are eligible for MediCal.
  • One part of the plan is suicide prevention – particularly for middle age and senior men.

APPRECIATION

We greatly empathize with the thinkers and writers of this 200-page document required by government funders.  It’s not simple or easy to produce such a detailed plan that satisfies the State’s requirements.   The plan combined multiple funds and a reorganized county staff with the intention of making the most positive change for the people of Sonoma County as possible.   

It calls out the higher rates of homelessness for American Indian/Alaska Native and Black residents, as well as high suicide rates for middle age and older men.   It attempts to integrate three county-owned facilities into a unified purpose and structure.   It provides money for homeless prevention, funds mobile outreach, and a program which provides health care, mental health and social services to individuals.  

PROBLEMS

There is a critical need for honest feedback because 1) the public money spent in this plan ($611 million dollars) is enormous, and 2) those who are left behind as this plan is implemented will suffer greatly.  The key issues below are some of the crucial problems and deep systemic weaknesses in the county plan.

  1. Lack of Consultation with Community.     The plan was released with less than a month for public comment.  It was released without a summary in clear, straight-forward language.  Many stakeholders, including homeless people and people living with behavioral health problems and substance abuse disorders, were not included.  The Homeless Coalition and Catholic Charities are the most obvious omission, but SHARE Sonoma County, Homeless Action!, the LEAP board, Acts of Kindness, Unsheltered Friends Outreach, and other groups with lived experience are among those missing.
  2. Limitation of Service.  The entire $611 million is earmarked forpeople with acute behavioral (mental) health problems and those with substance abuse disorders.  Housing and other support is entirely missing for the approximately 1,000 homeless people who do not fall into these categories as well as housed individuals living with less-than-acute mental illness. 
  3. Strategic Silos   The county and several cities have strategic plans, often produced at significant cost by consultants.  These were, apparently, not considered in the making of this plan.  The most obvious example of this is the March “Department of Health Services (DHS) Organizational Assessment Homeless Services Division & Sonoma County’s Role as Lead Agency for the Continuum of Care, March 19, 2026”.  This report recommended that the Homeless Division be integrated into the Behavioral Health Division, but many other aspects of this report are ignored in the 3-year plan.  If homeless services are fragmented due to this, homeless people are at risk of becoming a secondary issue. 
  1. Data Problems   The Behavioral Health Department uses SmartCare.  County homeless data is collected through HMIS.  The two data systems are not integrated.   Without a difficult and fast-paced integration, data to assess this plan will be useless, and many individuals will fall through the statistic crack.  The plan cites that of 520 eligible individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness, zero (0) were recorded as moving into permanent housing.  We hope this is a data problem and not reality.    The Coordinated Entry System which has been carefully built over several years, and proven to be effective, does not seem to have a role in this plan.  It’s important to ensure that the County will be able to track homeless outcomes as well as clinical visits.  There is no accountability or metrics for this.
  2. Medical vs Social Model.    The plan excludes those who are not eligible for Medi-Cal and cannot be diagnosed with a medical disease.  Services are tied to eligibility and diagnosis IF you can get a Behavioral Health referral through ACCESS.  This will exclude many undocumented people.  That is a huge red flag.  The medical-clinical model has been rejected by the disability movement for over 50 years.  With this plan, we risk categorizing our poorest and most vulnerable friends and neighbors as patients who must accept what they are told for their own good.  This is a set up for disempowerment at the time when people most need to have control of their lives.
  3. The CalAIM problem.  The 3-year plan relies heavily on the CalAIM program of Medi-Cal.  The bureaucratic load of Cal AIM will “price out” smaller, more grassroots agencies.   Cal AIM is a force that will put people into a clinical system which will limit support their overall ability to stay housed.
  4. Lived Experience.   The plan speaks of people with Lived Experience and peer support but there is no formal method of integrating feedback or any decision-making power to those with the lived expertise of mental health problems and/or homelessness.
  5. People of Color (BIPOC).   The plan acknowledges crucial disparities among American Indian/Alaska Native, Latino and Black residents in homelessness, arrests and unmet needs but only 3 groups have been selected to respond to a Request for Proposals in this area.  Only 126 individuals in this catagory are expected to be served annually.

SOLUTIONS

  1. Fill 100% of rooms for homeless people in County-owned facilities through the Coordinated Entry System.
  2. Begin a formal SmartCare-to-HMIS Coordination immediately with a 3-month timeline for completion.
  3. Set up a Hub-and-Spoke administrative system whereby larger agencies administer CalAIM for smaller agencies, allowing the grassroots agencies to focus on direct client care.
  4. Expand scope of the plan to include undocumented individuals who do not qualify for Medi-Cal and homeless individuals who do not qualify as acutely mentally ill or living with substance abuse disorders.
  5. Insist upon a robust and meaningful community discussion before further implementation. 

California’s Proposition One FY 26-29 County Behavioral Health Three-Year Integrated Plans

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt its Draft Three-Year FY 26-29 Behavioral Health Integrated Plan, required by the passage of Proposition One by voters in March of 2024. The intent of the Integrated Plan is to modernize the behavioral health delivery system in California. California’s Proposition One (also known as Behavioral Health Transformation) is expected to significantly expand mental health and substance use disorder treatment capacity while restructuring how the state funds behavioral health services. The Integrated Plan also redirects existing funding streams toward housing support, with 30% of the Mental Health Services Act revenue to be allocated to housing intervention programs rather than traditional outpatient and crisis services. The Plan emphasizes outcomes, accountability, and equity in service delivery, and covers all funding within the County Department of Health Services.

Developed through a locally-designed planning process, requiring the involvement of stakeholders from twenty-nine identified groups, counties are currently completing 30-day open comment periods before revising and forwarding the recommended Integrated Plans to Boards of Supervisors. HEAPA believes that reviewing the draft plans of all California counties would be a useful process, and has therefore developed a spreadsheet listing links to county behavioral health websites with information about their planning processes and resulting draft plans.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRA4rjYQX3TORMisRFssslW6QzHU6tXtpwet_N7Ceazt–Ie7ADBbHJJUUc47e9paO9B1-QVt0Anobm/pubhtml

The Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board’s meeting this Tuesday, from 5-7pm, in the Santa Rosa Conference Room at 1440 Neotomas Ave, will offer an opportunity to make final comments on the Draft County Plan.