Tag: news

Sonoma County’s HealthCare Crossroads

Short Summary

A forum on the major threats facing healthcare access for the Latino community in Sonoma County was held on November 14th.

Long Summary

At the Los Cien Health Care Forum, where leaders discussed dire threats to community healthcare. Keynote speaker Francisco J. Silva detailed how federal policies like HR 1 and a state ballot initiative could devastate Medi-Cal and community clinics, disproportionately impacting Latino families. A panel of local health leaders reinforced the urgency, discussing the local impact of these cuts, the rise in uninsured patients, and the strain on services. The core message was a call for unified community action to protect the healthcare safety net.

Membership and Business Support

A membership program has been relaunched after being closed for reimagining. A dedicated email about membership will be sent, including a link to join online. A new non-profit and business directory is being developed to provide a trusted list of services. There is a focus on creating programs to support business owners and professionals inclusively, rather than forming a formal business chamber.

Los Cien Health Care Forum

The event began with a welcome by Herman G. Hernandez, Executive Director of Los Cien. Acknowledgments were given to partners, including the Luther Burbank Center, and the design team volunteers. The BRIDGE alumni program (Building Representation, Inclusion, Diversity, and Governance Excellence) was recognized. A tribute was paid to Rick Nolan, the retired CEO of the Luther Burbank Center, for his decade-long partnership and support of the Latinx community.

Keynote on Threats to California Healthcare

Keynote speaker Francisco J. Silva, CEO of the California Primary Care Association, discussed major challenges facing healthcare.

Impact on Latino Communities:

Cuts to Medi-Cal and community health centers are direct cuts to the Latino community, as they form the largest group of enrollees and patients.

Federal HR 1 Impacts:

This federal law represents a significant rollback of Medicaid access. It imposes work requirements and frequent eligibility hurdles. Nationally, it could cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and strip $32 billion from community health centers. In California, it is estimated that 1-3 million people could lose Medi-Cal coverage.

State-Level Cuts:

State proposals aim to limit Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants by freezing enrollment and introducing a $30 monthly premium. These changes threaten the “Health Care for All” progress made in the state.SEIU UHHW Ballot Initiative. A statewide ballot initiative filed by SEIU UHHW is described as the “most dangerous attack on community health centers in California history.” An independent analysis projects the initiative would: Divert $1.7 billion from patient care into penalties; Push a majority of clinics into financial deficit, with 47% at risk of closure; Force cuts to enabling services like translation, transportation, and community health worker programs. The public is urged to read petitions carefully and understand that this measure could cripple the healthcare safety net.

Local Impact in Sonoma County

One in three residents of Sonoma County (approximately 140,000 people) is on Medi-Cal. Proposed policy changes will double the county’s administrative workload for recertifications while simultaneously cutting its caseload-based funding. The cost of uncompensated care will financially impact everyone, from private employers to public services. Safety-net providers are already seeing an increase in patients, with the Jewish Community Free Clinic reporting a 25% rise in the last 60 days. There is a growing level of fear among patients, with some rationing visits or hesitating to seek care due to immigration concerns.

Community Collaboration and Response

Sonoma County’s healthcare leaders are working together to create solutions for the impending crisis. The community is advised to seek information from trusted sources like 211, OpenDoorsSC.com, and local health organizations to combat misinformation. Health centers affirmed that they do not ask for or share patient immigration status with government agencies. Partnerships are key, with organizations like Kaiser Permanente investing in community health grants and housing projects based on shared needs assessments.

Behavioral Health Crisis

The panel highlighted a severe and worsening crisis in behavioral and mental health. There is a critical shortage of services, clinicians, beds, and facilities for all populations, not just those on Medi-Cal. The county’s behavioral health system currently has a waitlist of over 500 people for its high-need services. This crisis existed before the current policy threats and is expected to be exacerbated by them.

Call to Action

Leaders emphasized that local action is critical, as federal and state support is no longer reliable. The community is called to get involved, advocate, and hold legislators accountable. Local control over funding through measures like Measure O is crucial for sustaining services. Training future healthcare professionals within the community is a key strategy, as many tend to stay and practice where they train.

Gen H Sonoma County State of Housing Presentation at Redwood Credit

Short Summary

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

Long Summary

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

2025 State of Housing Report

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

Housing & Community Impact

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

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

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

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

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

Calculating Sonoma County’s Housing Need

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

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

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

“Housing for Healthy Communities” Initiative

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

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

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

Fiscal Benefits of Infill Housing

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

Sonoma DHS Homeless Revamping Workshop, Oct 23rd

Short Summary

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

Long Summary

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

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

The problem

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

Themes discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Specific ideas

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

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

Future directions

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

Measure I Citizens Advisory Council Meeting, Oct 23rd

Short Summary

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

Long Summary

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

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

sense of accomplishment and gratitude.

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

Review of Progress

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

Key Achievements

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

Challenges and Adjustments Needed

Provider Eligibility and Prioritization

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

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

Broadening Strategy Language

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

Clarifying Service Types

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

Compensation Model for ECE Providers

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

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

Action Items and Accountability for the Week Ahead

Finalize Strategy 1A Language

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

Correct Strategy 2A Language

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

Update ECE Strategy 1B

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

Implement Approved Changes

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

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

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

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

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

• Help more people leave unsheltered homelessness. 

• Help more people move into housing. 

• Ensure people do not experience homelessness again. 

• Prevent more people from experiencing homelessness. 

• Create more housing. 

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

• Move 70% of unsheltered individuals into shelters. 

• Place 60% into permanent housing. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

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

Item #3 Perspectives on Recovery Housing Panel Discussion 

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

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

• Elizabeth Colorado, Advocate for the Unhoused Community 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

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

Item #4 Cal ICH and Recovery Housing Panel Debrief Discussion 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: 

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

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

Action/Resolution 

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

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – April 2025 

Item #5 Proposition 1 Update 

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

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

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

• 21,882 new outpatient treatment slots. 

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

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

Action/Resolution 

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

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – May 2025 

Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board Meeting on Oct 21st

Short Summary of a presentation at the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board meeting on 10/21/25

A review of California’s mental health data to address care disparities and improve community access.

Long Summary

The Board heard a presentation on mental health service disparities in California, using a CalMHSA data dashboard. The discussion highlighted challenges with data inconsistencies and access to care in Sonoma County, particularly for Asian, Pacific Islander, and native communities due to stigma and language barriers. The conversation also covered funding strategies, community outreach, and a call for more personal stories to better illustrate how individuals navigate the mental health system.

Data Analysis and Disparities

The California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) created a data dashboard to compare mental health measures across California’s 58 counties. According to 2023 data from the CalMHSA workbook, Sonoma County is performing poorly on the “access to care” measure. The data is based on claims submitted by the county to the state. Disparities in care were identified across different demographic groups and ethnicities. Data for small populations, such as Asian, Pacific Islander, Alaskan Native, and American Indian communities, is sometimes suppressed, making analysis difficult.

Access to Care Challenges

The county’s rate for access to care is below the statewide average, based on 2020-2021 data. Specific groups show very low service penetration rates: Alaskan Natives have a rate of 1.7%. Asian or Pacific Islanders have the lowest rate at 1%. Barriers to accessing care include: Cultural stigma around mental health treatment, especially within Asian Pacific Islander communities. Language barriers, such as a lack of Spanish-speaking staff at service locations.

Strategies and Funding

Best practices to support BIPOC communities are being implemented: Coordinated specialty care for individuals experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Community outreach events to inform residents about available services. Funding to address access to care goals will primarily come from: Behavioral health services and supports.

Full-service partnerships.

State-level funding from Prop 1 is allocated for workforce training and development, and the state is seeking local input on its use. A contractor provides support for staff in crisis situations, such as those on the mobile support team and at the crisis stabilization unit.

Patient Pathways

A request was made for more concrete examples of an individual’s journey through the mental health system. Three primary pathways for accessing care were outlined:  Through an individual’s private insurance. By contacting the county’s access teams, which serve as the “front door” to services. It was suggested that a future meeting could feature individual stories to better illustrate how the system works on a personal level.

Short Summary of Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board Meeting on 10/21/25

The meeting began with a discussion about fixing communication issues.

Long Summary

Significant frustration was expressed regarding poor communication and the difficult onboarding process for new members. The group discussed proposals to improve orientation and to be more involved in vetting new recruits, highlighting a clear disconnect with the appointing authority.

Review of Progress

The Chair’s report was noted as being brief. The board reviewed current vacancies by district:

District 3: One vacancy. District 4: Two vacancies. District 5: Two vacancies.

Key Achievements

The board website has been updated. All new members and the latest minutes are now available on the website.

Challenges and Adjustments Needed

Significant frustration was expressed regarding the lack of communication and support for new board members. New members reported confusion over meeting schedules, specifically regarding a canceled August meeting that was then held. There have been difficulties with basic orientation, such as obtaining name tags and understanding procedures. A systemic issue was identified with the board’s inability to meet with prospective members before their appointment.  The board feels this prevents them from setting clear expectations and providing a proper orientation. There is a conflict with a higher authority regarding the board’s role in the member appointment process, with the board feeling they are being excluded.

Action Items and Accountability for the Week Ahead

A member will contact ISD to correct a website error where a former co-chair is still listed. A motion was made and seconded to take formal action to address the board’s lack of involvement in the member appointment process.  It was suggested that the group co-sign and send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors. The letter would advocate for the board’s involvement in recruiting and orienting prospective members.

Board Communication and Onboarding Issues

Board members expressed significant frustration over systemic communication failures. New members reported not receiving notifications for meetings, leading to confusion and missed sessions.  Onboarding processes are lacking, with members struggling to get name tags or find sign-in sheets.

The board website had outdated information and was missing meeting minutes, though steps are being taken to resolve this with the IT department.  A strong desire was voiced for the board to participate in the recruitment and orientation of new members to set expectations early.  A consensus was reached to communicate again with the Board of Supervisors to assert their role in the appointment process, which is currently a point of contention.

Meeting Logistics and Technology

A discussion was held on whether to hold meetings in a consistent central location or rotate them through different geographical areas to engage local communities. Recurring technology failures, including issues with Wi-Fi and audio during the current meeting, highlighted the need for a reliable setup. A motion passed to adopt a hybrid approach:  Meetings will be held at a consistent, central location with robust technology for a reliable Zoom presence. Presentations will be varied by geographical area to ensure all parts of the county are represented. The November meeting will be held at 1450 Neotomas, a location with superior audiovisual capabilities.

Vice-Chair Election

After a previously nominated candidate resigned, a new election was held for the Vice-Chair position. Alexandra and Angelina were nominated as candidates. Following a vote, Alexandra was officially elected as the new Vice-Chair.

Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Overview

A presentation detailed the transition from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA).  The key difference is that BHSA is broader, officially including substance use disorders alongside mental health.  Under MHSA, funds could not be used to treat someone with only a substance use disorder. The BHSA prioritizes services for the most vulnerable individuals.

BHSA Program and Funding Allocation

Sonoma County expects to receive approximately $38 million in annual BHSA funds for the upcoming three-year plan.  Funding is divided into several main categories:

Housing (30% / $11.4M):  Half of these funds must be dedicated to serving the chronically homeless. Will be used for rental subsidies, vouchers, deposits, and utility bills.

Full-Service Partnerships (FSP) (35%):

Mandated programs for four age groups: children/youth, transitional-aged youth (18-25), adults, and older adults.  Will continue specialty programs like Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT).

Early Intervention & Prevention (51% of population-based funds):

Programs include the Youth Access Team, First Episode Psychosis treatment, Wraparound services for foster youth, and the Suicide Prevention Hotline.

The Integrated Plan

Counties are now required to submit a unified, three-year “integrated plan” for all behavioral health services. The Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) has created a standardized template that all counties will use for this plan.  The plan must account for all behavioral health funding streams, not just BHSA funds. It must address six state-mandated goals, including improving access to care and reducing homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement.  Sonoma County has chosen to add suicide prevention as a seventh local goal due to higher-than-average rates in the area.

Measure O Meeting on August 20th

Short Summary of a meeting of the Measure O Oversight Committee on August 20th

County officials discussed severe funding cuts impacting behavioral health and homelessness services,highlighting critical financial challenges.

Long Summary

The conversation delved into the precarious financial state of Sonoma County’s behavioral health and homelessness services. You heard about federal Medicaid cuts, dwindling local funds, and the critical role of Measure O. Officials expressed nervousness about future reductions, the difficulty in predicting impacts, and the need for tough decisions, strategic partnerships, and community advocacy to maintain vital services amidst a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding.

Announcements

A $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), titled “Behavioral Health and Homelessness Pathways to Sustainability,” has been released to support existing programs facing funding loss.  The deadline for proposals is September 17th, with a pre-bid conference scheduled for the following day.  Marc, the former board chair of NAMI, is recommended to fill the vacant “lived experience” seat.  His appointment will go to the Board of Supervisors for official approval on September 3rd. A new ad hoc committee, including Supervisor Gore and Supervisor Coursey, has been established to oversee Measure O funding and enhance collaboration with partners.  The county’s homeless services unit is undergoing a leadership transition, with a plan to reorganize the team under the behavioral health department.

Key Achievements

The Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) has successfully addressed staffing shortages and is now almost fully staffed and operational.  A successful QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) suicide prevention training was delivered to counselors at Analy High School, increasing their confidence in addressing suicidal ideation.  The Crestwood Healing Center, a 16-bed psychiatric health facility, is running effectively and has become a significant asset, reducing reliance on private hospitals. Measure O currently funds 58.33 employees who are delivering essential mental health and crisis services across the county.

Challenges and Adjustments Needed

Financial Uncertainty: The most significant challenge is the looming fiscal crisis due to anticipated federal cuts to Medicaid/Medi-Cal, described as a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding.  The county’s Realignment fund balance is dwindling, and the projected Measure O ending balance of $7.1 million is causing significant concern among leadership.

Project and Funding Gaps:

The planned mental health unit at the county jail is stalled because the allocated $39 million is insufficient for current construction costs, and the state has not allowed for plan lterations. Many homeless and housing providers are in urgent need of financial support to sustain their operations.

Strategic Adjustments:

A reorganization is planned to move the homelessness team into the behavioral health department to leverage Medi-Cal billing and improve service integration.  A strategic pivot is underway for homeless services to focus on residents with higher behavioral health needs.  An allocation adjustment for the $10 million NOFA may be requested to direct more funds toward struggling homeless and housing providers.

Action Items and Accountability for the Week Ahead

The team will continue developing a data-driven proposal for a second psychiatric health facility to further reduce costs associated with private hospital placements.  The leadership will continue its monthly meetings with the new ad hoc committee to provide updates on. Measure O and align on strategic priorities, including the preference for transparent NOFA processes. A plan is being formulated to “take the show on the road” to proactively inform community groups, mayors, and councils about Measure O’s impact and the upcoming financial challenges.  The search for an interim and permanent leader for the homeless services team is actively underway.

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.   

  2. 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

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.