Tag: homelessness

Sonoma DHS Homeless Revamping Workshop, Oct 23rd

Short Summary

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

Long Summary

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

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

The problem

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

Themes discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Specific ideas

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

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

Future directions

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

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

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

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

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

• Help more people leave unsheltered homelessness. 

• Help more people move into housing. 

• Ensure people do not experience homelessness again. 

• Prevent more people from experiencing homelessness. 

• Create more housing. 

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

• Move 70% of unsheltered individuals into shelters. 

• Place 60% into permanent housing. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

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

Item #3 Perspectives on Recovery Housing Panel Discussion 

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

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

• Elizabeth Colorado, Advocate for the Unhoused Community 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

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

Item #4 Cal ICH and Recovery Housing Panel Debrief Discussion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

Action/Resolution 

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

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – April 2025 

Item #5 Proposition 1 Update 

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

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

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

• 21,882 new outpatient treatment slots. 

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

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

Action/Resolution 

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

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – May 2025 

Measure O Annual Update

There is a Dec 10th Report to the Board of Supervisors from the Department of Health Services titled ” Measure O Update for Fiscal Year 2023-2024” which updates them on the progress of Measure O, our sales tax-funded Behavioral Health and Homeless Community Solutions Initiative. 

Executive Summary: The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors requested an update on Measure O during the June 2024 Budget hearings. This update covers fiscal year 2023-2024 expenditures by category; estimated fund balance for fiscal year 2024-2025 and fiscal year 2025-2026; and provides a review of outcomes and numbers served from last fiscal year. Additionally, staff will highlight Measure O successes and discuss the approach for current and future Measure O funding.

Discussion: In November 2020 Sonoma County voters passed Measure O to provide essential funding for mental health and homeless services with 68.07% of the vote. Measure O, a one-quarter cent sales tax, was estimated to generate over $25 million each year for ten years to help protect essential mental health and homelessness services.

The Measure O Sales Tax Ordinance identified five categories of services to be funded with the revenue: 1) Behavioral Health Facilities, 2) Emergency Psychiatric and Crisis Services, 3) Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Services, 4) Homeless Behavioral Health and Care Coordination, and 5) Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing. The Measure O Expenditure Plan designates a set percentage of funding for each category.

On December 7, 2021, the Board of Supervisors established a Citizen’s Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of Measure O. The Citizen’s Oversight reviews expenditures for alignment with the intent of the Measure and does not make or recommend funding decisions.

On October 23, 2024, the committee voted to confirm that the Measure O expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 met the intent of the measure. This past fiscal year was the 3rd full year of Measure O funding. Tax revenues for the year again exceeded the initial projections made when voters considered Measure O. Tax receipts totaled $32 million as opposed to the initially projected $24 million (total revenues including interest and unrealized gains was $34.2 million) The surplus has provided capacity to pursue expanded opportunities within the established categories to support our community.

For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, below are the Measure O funds used/spent by category: · Behavioral Health Facilities: $7,055,539 · Emergency Psychiatric & Crisis Services: $12,425,458 · Mental Health & Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Services: $1,275,496 · Behavioral Health Homeless & Care Coordination: $7,842,652 · Transitional & Permanent Supportive Housing: $3,345,616 The total projected Measure O revenue for FY 2024-2025 is $32,865,501.

In FY 24/25 a total of $66.2M of Measure O resources are available for programming, financed with $33.3 in fund balance and $32.9M of total revenues.  The approved FY24-25 budget includes $37.5 million in expenditures for Measure O.  The Department will be seeking $10.2 in additional appropriation in FY 2024-2025 Q4. Given the total planned expenditures of $47,739,541 for FY 2024-25 budget, the ending fund balance in June is projected to be $18,478,541.

Details of the various expenses by categories with additional information can be found in Attachment A Presentation.

The Mobile Support Team and Crisis Assessment Prevention and Education described below highlight recent updates from the Measure O-funded Mobile Support Team (MST) and Crisis Assessment Prevention & Education (CAPE).

· In December 2022, California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) established a new Medi-Cal benefit providing 24/7/365 community-based mobile crisis intervention services to those experiencing a behavioral health crisis. On April 16, 2024, county staff launched Sonoma County’s 24/7 call center and a revamped Mobile Support Team (MST) to meet this need. The MST is partnering with SAFE (which serves Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Sonoma State University) and inRESPONSE (which serves Santa Rosa)) to provide countywide coverage. The Sonoma County 24/7 call center and revamped MST is available to all Sonoma County residents regardless of insurance status. An additional $5M in Measure O funds are being held for contingencies from potential MST expansion based on future county and Regional Model City needs. The actual draw on the fund balance will be recalculated based on Federal Financial Participation action receipts from the Medi-Cal program.

· Crisis Assessment Prevention & Education (CAPE). CAPE provides school-based behavioral health support and interventions to schools in Sonoma County. Four mental health teams are strategically located across the county. CAPE is reinstituting in-person response to students experiencing behavioral health crisis and linking students to substance use disorder treatment services for to youth and young adults.. The program is active and expanding, providing services such as: direct linkage to County Behavioral Health services and navigating other health insurance to connect to treatment; substance use and suicide prevention and early intervention – educational presentations and campaigns, linkage, and referral; and peer support and groups. In the 2024-2025 school year , CAPE will be partnering with these schools: Analy High School and Laguna High School in West County; and  Sonoma Valley High School, Creekside High School, Adele Harrison Middle School, Alta Mira Middle School, and Hanna Boys Center in the Sonoma Valley.

Successful Outcomes from Measure O

The Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) has continued to operate at its full capacity of 16 beds, serving over 150 individuals annually due to Measure O funding.

The Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) served nearly 1,000 individuals and was also able to continue operations at full capacity due to Measure O until the current temporary closure due to facility issues. The Mobile Support Team has expanded into a Regional Collaboration that utilizes exciting new approaches to crisis response.

Measure O has also laid the groundwork for new programs launching this year, including CAPE, additional support for the Valley of the Moon Short Term Residential Treatment facility, and the expansion of Medi-Cal drug service.

This year also saw the finalization of incorporating Homelessness Services into DHS with Measure O providing 100% of funding for the Homeless Encampment Assistance and Resource Team (HEART) and Solving Obstacles for Unsheltered Lives (SOUL) programs, and a significant amount of funding ($4.2M) for George’s Hideaway. The George’s Hideaway project is a Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Project Homekey site near Guerneville. Measure O funds were used to support site renovation (including planning, water/sewer, and demolition work) under oversight of the Community Development Commission (CDC).  This site will provide supportive care including therapy, substance use disorder care, benefit navigation, job training and life skills.

Also, in September of this fiscal year, the funds allowed for the release of the Measure O: Behavioral Health & Homelessness Community Solutions Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the amount of $5.6 million, including $4.2 of Measure O funding and $1.4 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funding. The NOFA is open to applications from interested parties, community partners and any other local government agencies. The NOFA covers multiple program areas within each Measure O category with a specific focus on areas of identified need including on service navigation, staffing shortages, education/training and upstream approaches, peer support, individual and family counseling, and cultural competence. Additionally, the HHAP portion of the NOFA prioritizes permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, emergency shelter (congregate and non-congregate), street outreach, capital expenses for permanent supportive housing or enhancing existing emergency shelter projects for privacy, and lastly, operating subsidies for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing.

To determine priorities and opportunities for strategic application of Measure O funding in the future, department leadership plans to conduct a detailed budget and program analysis and identify areas where Measure O funding could be used and where other funding sources could be leveraged. The goal is to separate annual, recurring commitments from the projects where funding could be shifted as they mature and/or become self-sustaining. 

The remaining Measure O funding would be a mix of unallocated fund balance and expected revenues.  Staff plans to release a recurring Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for which Community Based Organizations and local government partners could apply. Through an open application process, a Community Advisory Panel will be selected to help review NOFA proposals and make recommendations to the Board for final approval. Staff will present the outlines of this proposal to the Board for further guidance and direction at the Board meeting.

https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7040199&GUID=50628097-0FF6-49E5-AB44-8607A01F14CB

Homeless America – Pepperdine University

On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 The Pepperdine School of Public Policy hosted “Homeless America: Creative and Compassionate Responses to a Cross-Sector Challenge” conference in downtown Los Angeles. Before COVID struck the United States in early 2020, California governor, Gavin Newsom, gave his annual “State of the State Address”, which was focused on addressing the burgeoning homelessness crisis in the state. As the impact of the virus has receded, the issue of homelessness has returned to center stage. A recent survey of Californians by the Public Policy Institute of California found that a full 89% of those questioned view homelessness as either a “Big Problem” or “Somewhat of a Problem”. The issue of homelessness draws so many policy domains from housing to mental health services and public safety. It’s also a true “cross sector” challenge, requiring engagement by the government, nonprofit, and business sectors. Through an afternoon of panels and keynotes, we explored how the public sector and nonprofit leaders are taking a variety of approaches to respond to this crisis. Keynote Address:

PANEL 1: The Role for Government MODERATOR

  • Rick Cole , Adjunct Faculty, PepperdineSchool of PublicPolicy and Chief Deputy Controller ,City of Los Angeles

PANELISTS

  • Kevin Faulconer, Visiting Professor of Community Leadership and Government Innovation, Pepperdine School of Public Policy
  • Elizabeth Mitchell, Partner, Umhofer, Mitchell & King, LLP
  • Brandon Young, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

Keynote Address

PANEL 2: The Role for Nonprofits MODERATOR

  • Soledad Ursua, Board Member, Venice Neighborhood Council

PANELISTS

  • Matthew Dildine (JD ’08, MPP ’08, 04), Chief Executive Officer, Fresno Mission
  • Jim Palmer, Chief Executive Officer, TrueSight Solutions
  • Brian Ulf, Chief Executive Officer, SHARE!

CLOSING REFLECTIONS SPEAKERS:

  • Byron Johnson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Religious Studies and the Common Good,

Pepperdine Schoolof PublicPolicy

  • Robert Marbut, Professor, Northwest Vista College
  • Pete Peterson, Dean, Braun Family Dean’s Chair, Pepperdine School of Public Policy

Brown Act Violations

Greetings!

About three weeks ago, I raised with your staff member (Michael Gause) my belief that the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board had violated the California Brown Act.  My email to him is below.

Greetings!

The meeting of the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition yesterday violated the California Brown Act by:

  1. Introducing, discussing, and taking action on an item not legally agendized.
  2. Coalition members and staff had received and were discussing a letter at the center of the discussion not made available to the public.
  3. Coalition leadership directed staff to conduct an investigation into the performance of a subcontractor charged in the letter, and report back to the Coalition.

As the Lead Agency to the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition (Continuum of Care), you are responsible for advising the Coalition during any meeting of their variance from the meeting requirements contained in the California Brown Act.  I believe that it was apparent to anyone trained in the Act that the Coalition began to violate the Act requirements toward the end of the meeting when the Chair asked members to discuss a letter they had all received from a member of the public.  I believe that you should have advised them that their actions were beginning to violate the provisions of the Brown Act.   Such actions seriously jeopardize the SCHC’s standing as a recipient of State funding directed to CoCs in good standing, and your use of the administrative cost reimbursements.  In addition, while I am aware that a MOU has still not been signed between the Department and the Coalition, I would assume that continued funding from California HCD to the Department and its subcontractors is dependent on its successful approval.

I have notified the County Executive of my concerns, and asked her to engage the County Counsel to review the meeting video to confirm or deny my conclusions.  I ask you to review all your and Coalition actions at the meeting, and be prepared to respond to the County Executive and County Counsel’s questions.  Also, please consider what actions may be necessary to move forward to remedy the violations.

Gregory Fearon

Michael replied to two of my assertions (below).

Hi Gregory,

I am also including Jennielynn and Una here.  To address your concerns:

  • This was brought up during the “Board Member Questions and Comments” Item on the agenda as a comment from the Board Member, Jackie Elward, thus it was on an agenda item that is reserved for specific comments and questions.  
  • No action was taken, no vote was take that gave direction to staff.

My best,

Michael 

Michael Gause

Ending Homelessness Program Manager

Sonoma County Department of Health Services – Homelessness Services Division

1450 Neotomas Avenue, Suite 115

Santa Rosa, CA 95405

(707) 791-8140 Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org

The following is being supplied tomorrow to the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board in the monthly staff report (Follow up on SHARE Sonoma County Questions):

5. Follow up on SHARE Sonoma County Questions: The Coalition Board requested clarity on issues related to SHARE Sonoma County at the June Board meeting.  As there is no formal process for an investigation by the Coalition Board in this matter, an investigation is currently underway by the Department of Health Services Compliance Unit for contract and program compliance as the Department of Health Services has an obligation to the Funding Sources and the County of Sonoma. We will report out as appropriate and applicable per Counsel to the Coalition Board as the Department of Health Services serves as the Lead Agency for the Coalition Board. 

I repeat my belief that, as a result of the three independent violations cited in my first email, the discussion in the last part of the June 26th Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board meeting violated the California Brown Act.  I reject your staff member’s assertion that the conversation in the “Board Members Questions and Comments” agenda item meets the test of the public’s perception of that description.  The topic brought up was not discussed in any way prior to the beginning of the agenda item.

Second, and not addressed by your staff member, the letter being discussed was distributed to the Board, but not distributed to the public prior to the discussion.

Finally, this month’s staff followup report confirms that direction was given to staff, and indicates the actions that have been taken (see above text).

I request that the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board acknowledge their violations, and takes immediate actions to “cure or correct the challenged actions”.  I will be communicating this challenged behavior officially to the Board at tomorrow’s Board meeting.   As I believe that Board has thirty days to cure or correct the challenged actions, should the Board choose not to, I will be authorized to file suit (alternate writ of mandamus in Sonoma County Superior Court) to void the actions (54960.1).

Gregory Fearon