Behavioral Health Board Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee Meets

Greetings!

As you know, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors-approved Bylaws of the Behavioral Health Board (BHB) require the BHB to:

  • Submit an annual report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on the needs and performance of the County’s behavioral health system.
  • Advise the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the local behavioral health director as to any aspect of the local behavioral health and substance use disorder programs.
  • Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional involvement at all stage of the planning process.
  • Review and comment on the County’s performance outcome data and communicate its findings to the State Behavioral Health Planning Council.

The BHB has determined that, in order to produce our bylaws-required Annual Report, to fulfill its remaining responsibilities under the bylaws, and to fulfill its responsibilities under the legislation known as Proposition One (to advise the Sonoma County Department of Health Services (DHS) on the development of its required three-year Integrated Plan), the BHB needed to establish a Standing Committee consisting of four members of the BHB.  The BHB voted to establish an Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee, and three of its members were appointed to the Committee at its meeting on  November 18, 2025.  The Committee members are Gregory Fearon (Chair), Alexandra Jacobs, and Angelina Grab.

The BHB’s Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee (AR/IP) met for its first meeting on January 6th, 2026 from 4pm-5pm in the Santa Rosa Conference Room at 1450 Neotomas Way, Santa Rosa.  BHB Members Alexandra Jacobs and Gregory Fearon were in attendance.  Member Angelina Grab attempted to join via Zoom, but failed to succeed due to erroneous posting information from DHS on the published agenda.  

The discussion which occurred focused on the two questions posed on the noticed agenda:

  • How to Gather Annual Report Material
  • How to Review and Advise the Department and Board on its Integrated Plan .   

The AR/IP Committee decided to undertake three activities which will support its development of its Annual Report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors over the next three months;

  • Assemble and publish, available to the public, all materials it can find on the “Health of Health Services” in a format which allows members of the public to comment in real time on the materials.
  • Prior to each monthly meeting of the AR/IP Committee, provide editorial direction toward phased completion of the Annual Report
  • By March 31st, approve and forward a proposed BHB AR/IP Committee-Recommended Annual Report to the BHB, and DHS.

The Committee also discussed a workplan to meet its responsibilities to advise DHS, and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, on the Proposition One FY 26-29 Integrated Plan.  The proposed Integrated Plan is being developed by DHS, and staff provided the BHB with a schedule last July which outlined DHS activities conducting stakeholder input, internal Department research, and collaboration with the California Department of Health Care Services (CDHCS) in anticipation of forwarding a draft Integrated Plan to the Sonoma County Executive Officer this month for approval, and to the CDHCS by March 31st.  Upon receiving comments from CDHCS, DHS is then planning on producing a final draft of the Integrated Plan, which would then be published and set for a public hearing at the May 18th meeting of the BHB.  Comments received from the BHB and the public would be considered for inclusion in the recommended Final Integrated Plan presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors for approval at its June 16th meeting.

The AR/IP Committee adjourned its first meeting at 5:20pm.  

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.

Behavioral Health Board

Recommendations to the Behavioral Health Board – July 15th Meeting in Guerneville, 5-7pm, Russian River Resiliency Center, 16385 First Street.

  1. Schedule Bi-Monthly Open Comment periods for the FY 26-29 Behavioral Health Integrated Plan, in September, November, January, March, and June.

Over the last month, the Behavioral Health Director and I have communicated concerning important Executive Committee recommendations about publishing recent behavioral health reports, guidelines, and the draft plan.  The result is that, soon, the public will be able to find those reports and guidelines on the Department’s website. Their remaining decision, included in our recommendations, is to place the draft Integrated Plan, on the Department website in Open Comment Periods between now and the State submission deadline.

Motion: To advise the Department of Health Services and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to place the developing Implementation Plan documents on the County website, inviting Open Comment by all stakeholders online over the next eight months.  Governmental planning has utilized this procedure regularly to broaden the opportunity for public input on important strategic plans and policy changes.   

  1. Partner with the Community Foundation of Sonoma County to achieve their Strategic Plan Goal #2.

I’m asking the Board to act on a recent invitation by the Community Foundation of Sonoma County when it revealed on July 10th. its new Strategic Plan, and expressed their desire to partner with us.

Motion: To advise the Department of Health Services and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to invite the Community Foundation of Sonoma County into a partnership in the development of our Integrated Plan.

Community Foundation Strategic Plan Goal # 2:

“We will partner with organizations that expand access to healthcare and mental health support, especially for communities historically excluded from care.  By centering community voice, we will support systems change that leads to more just, responsive health outcomes.”

Our Board’s responsibility under Proposition One is to develop this fall an Integrated Plan for all funding available, and I believe that partnering with the Community Foundation of Sonoma County would expand the resources and options available and would be an exciting message to our community.

Gregory

Sonoma County Secure Families Collaborative Funded

Executive Summary:

Consistent with California Code, Government Code – GOV § 26227 during the budget development process for fiscal year 2024-25, the Board approved Board Budget Request BOS-16, submitted jointly by Supervisors Coursey and Hopkins, which consists of a payment of $300,000 to the Secure Families Collaborative to support the Collaborative’s legal representation of undocumented people in Sonoma County.

CG 26227 allows for the county to appropriate and expend money from the general fund or to fund programs deemed by the Board of Supervisors to be necessary to meet the social needs of the population.

This item authorizes the County Administrator and/or designated staff to execute the agreement between the County and the Collaborative, and operationalizes the payment approved during budget. This action brings the total funding provided by the Board to the Collaborative since 2017-18 to approximately $1.2 million.  

Discussion:

In 2018, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors established the Sonoma County Secure Families Collaborative (the Collaborative, website: https://sonomacountysecurefamilies.org/) to meet the needs of the community due to changes in federal immigration policy and the North Bay wildfires. The Collaborative has been a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization since 2021. The Collaborative’s partners include nonprofit and community-based organizations such as the University of San Francisco Deportation Defense Clinic in Healdsburg, the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, Sonoma Immigrant Services, North Bay Organizing Project, Queer Asylum Accompaniment (QAA) Team, and Legal Aid of Sonoma County.

The Collaborative and its partners provide legal assistance with removal defense cases, with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), conduct referrals to wraparound social services, and assist asylum seekers with essential needs such as housing, food, and other services. The Collaborative’s client base and legal work are distinct from County departments like the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) in that the Collaborative represents clients with cases involving the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and affirmative applications for immigration benefits with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). The Collaborative does not represent clients with a criminal conviction. In contrast, the Public Defender’s Office represents justice-involved individuals charged with a criminal offense and handles defensive applications that seek to prevent deportation. 

The Board has provided financial support in varying amounts and from varying sources to the Collaborative over the past seven years. In 2017, the Board approved a $100,000 donation per year for 3 years to the Collaborative using Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds. In 2020-21, the Board provided a payment of $100,000 to the Collaborative using non-guaranteed Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds. Beginning in 2022-23 and again in 2023-24, the Board approved payments of $200,000 per year using one-time General Fund balance.

For 2024-25, the Board authorized a payment of $300,000 to the Collaborative, again drawing on one-time General Fund balance. The $300,000 payment authorized for 24-25 will cover the cost of a .75 FTE Removal Defense Attorney with the University of San Francisco Deportation Defense Clinic, a .75 FTE Sonoma Immigrant Services Removal Defense Attorney, and a .75 FTE Secure Families Collaborative Executive Director (see attached funding breakdown documentation). Each removal defense attorney carries an open caseload of at least 30 cases per year. Removal defense cases are a complex area of law that can take up to 7 years to resolve, and the Collaborative has a waitlist of approximately 100 cases as of September 2024.

The Collaborative plans to return to the Board during the 25-26 budget process and in the out years with additional requests for continued support of these personnel.  In addition to Board support, for 2024-25, the Collaborative will receive approximately $125,000 in grant funds in partnership with the Economic Development Collaborative as part of the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development Local Immigration Integration and Inclusion Grant. The Collaborative sources the remainder of its funding from a combination of state funds, grants and donors.