CalNonprofits briefing on OMB Rules Impacts

This morning, staff from CalNonprofits led a 90-minute briefing for hundreds of listeners into the current status of rule changes proposed by the Federal Office of Management and Budget. Here is a summary of what was discussed.

  • Threats to Federal Grants and Nonprofits
    • Overview and Federal Funding Context
      • Public sector grants/contracts are second largest nonprofit revenue stream (~1/3 of total sector funding)
      • California is a donor state sending ~$80B more annually to Washington DC than received back
        • Subsidizes operating budgets of ~11 other states lacking state income taxes
      • May OMB proposal introduced sweeping changes across hundreds of pages governing federal fund flows
  • OMB Regulatory Proposals and Systemic Threats
    • Proposals introduce political screening into grant selection
      • Political appointees could reject proposals deemed inconsistent with vague “national interest” or agency priorities without explanation or appeals process
      • Considers organization memberships, affiliations, and activities unrelated to grant proposals
      • Discretionary funds could be withheld indefinitely if not advancing White House policy priorities
    • Mid-performance grant changes
      • Agencies could terminate/suspend grants without cause or notice, and alter terms/conditions mid-delivery without hearings
    • Restrictions on equity programming
      • Bars funding for “unlawful DEI” or immigration work despite legality upheld in court
    • Proposed SAM.gov certifications
      • Vague attestations required under penalty of civil/criminal law and perjury
  • Federal Oversight and Enforcement Trends
    • Broad federal pressure across executive actions
      • Approaching 300 executive orders and over 400 active investigations targeting nonprofits via White House, DOJ, FBI, and congressional committees
      • OMB Director Russell Vought testing Impoundment Control Act limits via executive fund halts and pocket rescissions
    • Legal and advocacy counter-offensives
      • Litigation win rate exceeds 80%; over 600 legal actions filed against unlawful administration measures
      • Nearly 500,000 public comments submitted against OMB rules
      • Bipartisan congressional action inserted a stay in the continuing resolution (CR) delaying implementation through December 11, 2026
  • California State Action and Legislative Efforts
    • California DOJ led by Attorney General Rob Bonta filed 80+ lawsuits, supported by $25M legislative funding
    • State legislation passed
      • AB 1318 (enacted October 2025): California will not recognize unilateral federal revocation of 501(c)(3) status
      • Permissive advance pay legislation authorizing up to 25% grant funds upfront to nonprofits
    • Stalled state measures
      • AB 1039 to mandate 25% advance pay vetoed/opposed by Governor Newsom over grant control concerns; targeting reintroduction under future Governor Becerra
        • Proposal to establish an Office of Nonprofit Empowerment modeled on GO-Biz stalled
    • Feasibility of state tax strike: impossible since individual citizens pay federal taxes directly, exposing residents to federal prosecution for tax evasion
  • Upcoming Deadlines and Action Items
    • December 11, 2026: Expiration of current continuing resolution and rule stay
    • November 10, 2026: National Day of Action for nonprofits
  • Key direct actions
    • Sign national opposition letter circulated by National Council of Nonprofits (~2,000 organizations signed to date)
    • Contact congressional representatives urging permanent blocks on OMB rule during the post-election lame-duck session
    • Continue applying for federal grants and documenting discriminatory or arbitrary agency actions for court records

Here is a link to the full recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXATeWq7JUo

And the Resources presented in the Webinar: Resources:

CalNonprofits CA Nonprofit Equity Initiative

NCN Call to Action: Comment Guide

NCN Executive Orders Affecting Charitable Nonprofits

NCN OMB Uniform Guidance

NCN Letter Sign On: Oppose Sweeping Changes to Federal Grantmaking

The Impacts of the Recent Executive Orders on Nonprofits

A Nonprofit Checklist: Conducting a Risk Assessment for Federal Funding

CalNonprofits Advocacy Tools

Entrusting Land for Public Purposes

I realized this week that I’ve been in the land trust business almost all my life. Beginning with populating common use trails to surf spots along the Southern California coast in high school, and continuing on to become a nonprofit manager specializing in acquiring land and properties for childcare, housing, parklands, schools, and coastal access, I have learned how to use trust for public good.

That’s important to note because we seldom call it establishing land trusts. Lately, that term is popular, often sounding like a magical elixir to our current housing crisis. This post is intended to provide the broader perspective on how land control and access has facilitated positive public purposes.

Let’s start with a recent decision by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to grant $1.4 million from its Agricultural and Open Space District funds to the Camp Meeker Recreation and Park District to undertake a seven-year development for public access of a 371acre Camp Meeker Forest Preserve next door to the housing development in western Sonoma County. While the purchase of land to preserve agriculture and open space has long been the focus of the Board of Supervisors use of these funds, it has only recently begun to award funding to prepare its properties for public access. It came to my attention because I have been a board member for twenty years of Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, a nonprofit which obtained a contract from the California Resources Department ten years ago to operate two local state parks when they were threatened to be closed during tough budget times. The actions of the Board of Supervisors is entrusting the Camp Meeker Recreation District with land control and adaptation for needed public purposes.

In many other ways over the past sixty years, land has been entrusted to community groups (mostly nonprofit organizations) to use for public good. Recognizing the existence of under-utilized land and buildings in colleges, I became active in the development of child care programs on campuses, alternative food services, and community gardens. Leaving college, I continued combining public resources, land and buildings, to further the aims of a wide variety of social needs. Once California linked housing development along its coast with property owner cooperative access, offers to dedicate trail land parcels became possible with local land trusts and with a statewide nonprofit which I chaired for many years. Property tax relief for nonprofit-owned parcels being used for public purposes became possible. Public bodies declared surplus land parcels which they transferred to nonprofit low income housing developers. Childcare and charter schools were given long-term leases from public school districts. In the last ten years, California has purchased thousands of poorly performing hotels for use as homeless transitional and permanent supportive housing.

The use of land in trust with those serving the common good has taken many forms, and served many purposes. Let’s hope that we can continue to combine and create together these valuable resources for many years to come.

California Transparency Project (CTP) Explained

HEAPA believes that a democracy’s strength comes when local citizens are able to participate in the operation of local government. Not only does such involvement result in widespread understanding of community needs, but increases the capacity of the community to monitor and evaluate the performance of proposed civic solutions. Too often, however, planning processes fail to include those who have experienced the needs being addressed. Instead, participants consist only of those with the time and resources to attend required civic meetings, but with little direct understanding.

HEAPA has a history of providing resources and management support to community programs which have been proposed by nonprofit organizations run by low-income residents themselves. We have witnessed the development of strong solutions to community problems held accountable by knowledgeable consumers. Our partnership grants have also resulted in some of the most empowered community leaders who not long ago were fragile, dependent, and dis-engaged residents.

At the same time, local governments have begun to recognize the value and importance of responding to client and resident “Not about us, without us” movements by adopting “Lived Experience Advisory Planning (LEAP)” Boards to assist in their decision-making processes.

When California voters passed Proposition One, it charged counties with the transformation of several major health service programs through an expanded stakeholder-engaged planning process. Sonoma County, already beginning to merge a community-driven, LEAP Board-advised Homeless Coalition into its Department of Health Services, partnered with HEAPA to support the needed expenses and accommodations of homeless clients to attend and participate in the planning process. For the first time, the voices and first-hand experiences of homeless residents informed a three-year, $800 million plan.

It’s just a start, and all would admit it could have been more robustly implemented, but we’re committed to expanding its application. In its California Transparency Project, which is equipping and training homeless activists to accept and fulfill appointments to city, county, and state government advisory committees, we will continue our empowerment of a pool of invaluable citizens, and strengthening our local democracy in the process.

One of the ways which HEAPA is supporting the participation of Sonoma’s Lived Experienced Unhoused is to equip them with devices which capture and summarize meetings they attend. We’ve begun to collect the summaries in a folder on our HEAPA drive. Check them out.

A Proposal for Building Parent Leadership and Power

First 5 Sonoma County is pleased to announce the release of a new Request for Proposals (RFP): Building Parent Leadership & Power in Sonoma County (RFP#2627-201).

Through this funding opportunity, First 5 Sonoma County seeks proposals from community-based organizations to develop and implement culturally and linguistically responsive activities that strengthen parent leadership, advocacy, civic engagement, and opportunities for shared decision-making on issues impacting young children and families.

A total of $900,000 over a three-year period has been allocated for this initiative, with contracts anticipated to begin on August 1, 2026.

Programs funded through this opportunity should support:

  • Parent and caregiver networking and leadership development
  • Advocacy and civic engagement training
  • Participation in boards, commissions, councils, and policy efforts
  • Culturally responsive and inclusive engagement strategies for families with young children


Priority will be given to proposals that engage:

  • Low-income and under-resourced communities
  • Multilingual families
  • Families of children with developmental, behavioral, or social-emotional needs

Key Dates:

  • May 15, 2026 – RFP Released
  • May 22, 2026  (5:00PM) – RFP Questions due to First 5
  • May 26, 2026 (5:00 PM) -Responses to questions posted on the First 5 Sonoma County website
  • May 29, 2026 (5:00 PM) – Mandatory Letter of Intent Due
  • June 22, 2026 (5:00 PM) – Proposals Due 

Only applicants that submit a complete and eligible Letter of Intent will be invited to submit a full proposal.

Questions regarding the RFP may be submitted to: funding@first5sonomacounty.org. Please visit the First 5 Sonoma County website to review the full RFP and application materials.

HEAPA’s Response

The Request For Proposals above got us thinking about how HEAPA could participate in a submission. Our collective history has demonstrated our commitment to developing leadership, advocacy, and civic engagement among low income and under-resourced communities. That includes years of focus in early child development and behavioral health.

Currently, our projects are designed to bring increased civic engagement and power acquisition to experienced unhoused through personal support and communication technology training serving: SAVS and Share of Sonoma County case managers, Homeless Coalition Lived Experience Advisory Board members, Los Cien BRIDGE Members, and Asian American Teen Advocacy Council members.

Upcoming projects include applying the lessons learned in our work with Share of Sonoma County case managers to better communicate and collect data within the new amalgamation of the current HMIS and Smart Key data systems in the Department of Health Services. We are additionally exploring utilizing current participants to research the barriers to full participation by parents and caregivers in Sonoma County advisory boards and commissions. Expenses for the project could address child care, transportation, employment, and the impact on benefit allowances.

HEAPA will be contacting our partners to discuss other ways in which we might play a role in the development of responses to this RFP.

Homeless Action! Settlement Terms with County/City

Here is a link to the Powerpoint (coming soon) outlining the recent settlement terms between Homeless Action! and the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa resolving their 8-year old federal lawsuit over the rights of the unhoused during clearance of their encampments.

Here is a summary of each:

City Settlement Highlights

The settlement with the City of Santa Rosa provides that the City will not remove unhoused people’s belongings from public property except in very limited circumstances: 

  • There are exigent circumstances—e.g., an immediate threat to health and safety—that require the items’ removal; 
  • When the police arrest someone and safekeep their property; or  
  • When items are collected for evidence. 

Instead—and even in exigent circumstances, where possible—the City agrees to give people time to move their own belongings, including letting them move their belongings in multiple trips and other accommodations based on individual needs and circumstances. 

The language also includes requirements for City staff and contractors to document instances when they remove belongings from public property, including posting notices where feasible and sharing information on the City’s website. 

The City also agreed not to use threats of citation or arrest to pressure people into abandoning their belongings. 

These and other requirements will be incorporated into the written policies for SRPD and the City’s Debris Response Team, and the City will train staff on the policy changes. 

The City settlement will remain in effect for one year. 

County Settlement Highlights

The settlement with Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Community Redevelopment Commission includes policy commitments related to the County’s treatment of unhoused people’s personal property, reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, and due process in County shelter facilities. 

The settlement requires the County—including sheriff’s deputies on the Joe Rodota Trail—to provide reasonable written notice of no less than 10 hours before it removes unhoused people’s belongings from public property, as well as storage of those belongings for at least 90 days, with limited exceptions. It also requires a post-removal notice and a process for people to get their belongings back. 

The County settlement includes requirements for certain County policies, protocols, and contracts to include language regarding reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities to ensure fair treatment and meaningful access for unhoused people with disabilities.  

The County will also comply minimum due process requirements that must be followed before people can be “exited” from County homeless shelters, ensuring that individuals have notice of the reason for the exit and an opportunity to challenge the exit if they disagree. 

The County settlement will remain in effect for three years. 

March 3rd, 2026 Agenda – Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee

The California Brown Act, “shall not be construed as preventing a member of the legislative body from engaging in separate conversations or communications on an internet-based social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body provided that a majority of the members of the legislative body do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.”

This post, supplied by Gregory Fearon, a member of the legislative body of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board), is provided in support of an agenda topic on a legally-noticed meeting of that legislative body on March 3rd, 2026.

The Specific Powers and Duties of the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board are:

a. Review and evaluate on the community’s behavioral health needs, services, facilities
and special problems.
b. Review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Code or
any subsequent amendments.
c. 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.
d. Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional
involvement at all stage of the planning process.
e. Submit an annual report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on the needs and
performance of the County’s behavioral health system.
f. Review and make recommendations on applicants for the appointment of a local
director of behavioral health services. The Board shall be included in the selection
process prior to the vote of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
g. Review and comment on the County’s performance outcome data and communicate
it’s findings to the State Behavioral Health Planning Council.
h. Review and assess the impact of the realignment of services from the State to the
County, on services delivered to clients, and on the local community.
i. Any additional duties or authority the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors may
transfer to the Board.

The Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board has established a standing committee known as the “Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee (AR/IP Committee)” for the purpose of 1) fulfilling its reviewing responsibilities in sections a,b,d,f,g & h; 2) submitting an annual report in compliance with section c; and 3) advising 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.

Agenda Items for the AR/IP Committee are:

1) Review responsibilities associated with the bolded section of our duties:

a. Review and evaluate on the community’s behavioral health needs, services, facilities
and special problems.

b. Review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Code or
any subsequent amendments.
c. 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.
d. Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional
involvement at all stage of the planning process.

e. Submit an annual report to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on the needs and
performance of the County’s behavioral health system.
f. Review and make recommendations on applicants for the appointment of a local
director of behavioral health services. The Board shall be included in the selection
process prior to the vote of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
g. Review and comment on the County’s performance outcome data and communicate
it’s findings to the State Behavioral Health Planning Council.

h. Review and assess the impact of the realignment of services from the State to the
County, on services delivered to clients, and on the local community.

i. Any additional duties or authority the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors may
transfer to the Board.

2) Determine the contents, and develop a workplan, for the annual report.

3) Review and discuss the information we have been provided concerning the Draft FY26-29 Integrated Plan.

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.  

California lawmakers reject hundreds of bills in rapid-fire hearings

By Jeanne Kuang and Yue Stella Yu, CalMatters

        
           

Tax credits for the parents of young children. A state-funded scientific research institute. Exempting service workers’ tips from state income tax.

Those are among the hundreds of proposals California lawmakers swiftly rejected Friday under the banner of cost savings, as they cited the state’s $12 billion budget deficit — a worsening figure due to the threat of unprecedented federal funding cuts and California’s ballooning spending on health care for low-income residents. 

“We are in (a) very difficult budget environment this year, so consequently many good bills are going to fall by the wayside today,” said Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, before beginning that chamber’s hearing. 

“We are not in a year where we can be expanding programs, developing new offices, new agencies, new departments, and expanding our footprints.”

The Friday procedure is known as the “suspense file” — the state Legislature’s most secretive and fast-paced biannual hearing, where the chairs of the Assembly and Senate Appropriations committees quickly shoot down pricey proposals with little explanation, often acting more aggressively during years of budget woes. 

The suspense files are where the appropriations committees send bills that would cost the state at least $50,000 in the Senate and $150,000 in the Assembly. The process was originally a way for lawmakers to consider policy proposals that cost the state money together by balancing them against each other. 

But the well-accepted open secret in Sacramento is that it’s also an opportunity for lawmakers to quietly kill controversial bills, appease powerful special interests or just winnow down the number of bills they’ll have to debate on the floor. Lawmakers decide ahead of time, in secret, whether to pass the bills to the full Senate or Assembly, or to withhold them. The public hearings are a rapid-fire announcement of the decisions.

On Friday, the Senate Appropriations Committee axed 29% of the 432 bills on its list, although it kept a handful of those alive to work on next year. That’s more aggressive trimming than the committee did last May. 

“The state is facing a significant budget deficit and with that in mind, the committee had to make difficult choices on a number of bills to reduce costs,” said Senate Appropriations Chairperson Anna Caballero, a Merced Democrat, before the hearing. She opened the hearing with a defense of the arcane proceedings, explaining that the results would be posted online, but rushed out to catch a flight after the meeting without discussing her approach with reporters. 

The Assembly Appropriations Committee killed 35% of the 666 measures on its suspense file, similar to last year. Lawmakers had been warned to keep the cost of their proposals down, Wicks said. 

“We stressed heavily to members as they were putting together their legislative package this year to be very mindful of cost,” she told reporters.

The state’s fiscal future is anything but certain: As federal threats loom, Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this month rolled out a $322 billion spending plan that included significant cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s health care system for low-income Californians, and a 3% cut to public universities. 

Health care expansions on the chopping block

On Friday, some Assembly measures that would have expanded health care services for Californians met their fate. That includes Wicks’ own proposal seeking federal approval to qualify some housing services as Medi-Cal benefits, a $40 million endeavor that Newsom previously vetoed. The committee also killed a proposal to allow more Medi-Cal enrollees to receive home-based care and another that would have allowed higher-earning immigrants in the country illegally to purchase insurance plans on Covered California, the state-run health care marketplace.

Several lawmakers and state Capitol staff sit behind a two-row dais during a legislative hearing. A large oval image of the California State Assembly seal can be seen hung up on the wall behind them.
Assemblymembers meet during a suspense file hearing at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on May 23, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters

In the Senate, lawmakers shelved a proposal by Sen. Catherine Blakespear to impose campaign contribution limits on candidates for judicial office and school board races, which the influential California Teachers Association opposed. They axed Sen. Henry Stern’s proposal to expand the state’s contentious new mental health program CARE Courts to include defendants with bipolar disorder I, and Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil’s bill to address mountain lion interactions that has pitted rural communities against animal rights and wildlife conservation advocates. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee also killed two Republican tough-on-crime proposals, showing the limits of Democrats’ recent shift slightly rightward on crime. Until Friday, it had been surprisingly smooth sailing this year for Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones’ bill to block sex offenders from being released from prison through the state’s elderly parole program, and Sen. Kelly Seyarto’s bill to increase penalties for selling or giving fentanyl to minors.

The law enforcement-backed bills were opposed by criminal justice reform advocates, who still hold sway with the majority party and often argue it would be too costly for the state to imprison more people. 

In a statement, Jones, a San Diego Republican, called the suspense file process “anti-democratic” and accused Democrats of “silencing the voices of victims and the public.”

Some measures are now postponed until next year. That includes two Assembly measures seeking tighter regulations on ticket sales for sports and musical events, amid fierce opposition from ticketing platforms such as Stubhub and from local chambers of commerce. The measures would restrict when those platforms can resell tickets, strengthen the disclosure of ticket information and require venues to accept proof of purchase as tickets. 

Assm. Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat who authored one of the measures, said Wicks never articulated her concerns with his proposal, even though Wicks told reporters Friday her staff had been in touch with Bryan’s office. “There was never an attempt to discuss the bill,” which led him to believe her concerns had been alleviated, Bryan said in a statement.

Lawmakers also pushed off some issues to be debated further during budget negotiations between the Legislature and Newsom. That process will accelerate in the coming weeks before a mid-June deadline to pass a balanced budget. 

Newsom’s film tax credit pushed to budget talk

They stripped out language in both Assembly and Senate bills to more than double the state’s film tax credit to $750 million. Newsom has pushed hard for the tax credit expansion to help the ailing Los Angeles industry and keep production in state, and he’s included the money in his budget proposals which lawmakers will debate separately. 

Assemblymember Rick Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat who authored the Assembly version of the measure, said the committee move was merely a technical one to separate budget allocations from policy changes. 

“The increase in the size of the program will happen in the budget,” Zbur said. “I’m not that nervous about it.”

But to others, the move indicated that some lawmakers remain skeptical of spending so much on the program. Sen. Ben Allen, an El Segundo Democrat who sponsored the Senate bill to boost the tax credits, said he was “certainly disappointed.”

“It’s something we are going to push back against as budget negotiations begin to heat up,” he said in a statement.

An ambitious and highly technical proposal by Sen. Scott Wiener reining in the landmark California Environmental Quality Act to make it harder for opponents of development to sue to block housing projects also will be debated in the budget process.

In the Senate Appropriations Committee, lawmakers passed the bill but Caballero said they would continue negotiating it to help the state meet its housing needs “without compromising environmental protections.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

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.