Victories against Trump HUD Actions

Appeals Court Rejects Latest Trump-Vance Administration Attack on Funding for Solutions to Homelessness

Court Continues to Block Unlawful Grant Restrictions that Would Push Nearly 200,000 Americans into Homelessness

Contact: press@democracyforward.org

Press Release

Court Finds Trump-Vance Administration Violated Law In Rush to Politicize Housing Grants

National Alliance to End Homelessness and Women’s Development Corporation Secure Victory in Key Executive Overreach Lawsuit

Date

March 31, 2026

Issue Area

  • Civil Rights, Equity, & Inclusion

Media Contact

press@democracyforward.org

Providence, R.I. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island today ruled that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD Secretary Scott Turner violated the law through their “slapdash imposition of political whims,” when approving new funding restrictions that would have unlawfully conditioned access to federal housing grants on compliance with the Trump-Vance administration’s partisan agenda. 

The decision issued today in National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Turner, et al., is a victory for The National Alliance to End Homelessness and Women’s Development Corporation, which filed a lawsuit last September challenging the grant restrictions. The groups are represented by Democracy Forward, National Homelessness Law Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, and ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island in the matter.

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means. On behalf of the people and providers we serve, the National Alliance to End Homelessness pledges to continue fighting back against efforts to dismantle homeless response in America.”

“The solution to homelessness is stable, predictable, permanent housing,” said Frank Shea, Executive Director of Women’s Development Corporation.  “Organizations providing this housing need fair, predictable programs that are free of politicized criteria.  We are glad the court agrees.  Our neighbors in need of housing deserve nothing less.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, asserted that HUD’s newly imposed criteria for “Continuum of Care (CoC) Builds” grants were unlawful. This is the third time that HUD has issued this same grant opportunity, even after grant awards had already been announced to Congress. In so doing, HUD introduced extreme political criteria to the application. Under the new funding application rules, service providers and communities were blocked from applying for federal housing funds for new Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness if they operate in jurisdictions with policies the Trump-Vance administration disfavors. This includes states and cities with sanctuary protections and cities that criminalize public camping. The new funding criteria also would have disqualified organizations that provide services considered “harm reduction,” such as Safe Drug Use Criteria practices and those that have inclusive policies for transgender people. 

Today’s ruling declares the notice announcing the funding opportunities, the new political criteria used by HUD when deciding to issue grants, and the one-week application period for the grants all to be unlawful and orders the policies vacated and set aside. The court additionally ordered the already-appropriated funding to remain available for award, consistent with the Court’s order. 

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “We are honored to have worked with these brave plaintiffs and co-counsel to hold this administration accountable for their unlawful actions, and we are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

“Hundreds of thousands of unhoused people need housing and supports to survive.  Instead of following Congress’ direction to increase that supply of supportive housing, this Administration unlawfully manipulated a grantmaking process that would have only made homelessness across the country worse,” said Antonia Fasanelli, Executive Director at the National Homelessness Law Center.  “We were honored to represent the National Alliance to End Homelessness and to work with our esteemed co-counsel in preventing the Administration from forcing an ideological agenda on a program that is intended to save lives.”

“The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island will continue to fight for Rhode Islanders whenever and however the Trump Administration threatens them with unlawful actions,” said Amy Romero, Chief Legal Counsel of Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island. “We are pleased with this court’s decision that recognizes that this Administration violated the law by imposing their political whims on federal funds intended to address the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness.”  

“The federal government’s distortion of the grant process for blatant political and ideological gains put funding for life-saving services at risk,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “We are extremely gratified that Rhode Island organizations like the Women’s Development Corporation will be allowed to receive federal funding thanks to the court’s decision.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Kristin Bateman, Yenisey Rodríguez, Kristen Miller, and Robin Thurston from Democracy Forward; Amy Romero and Kevin Love Hubbard for the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island; Antonia Fasanelli from the National Homelessness Law Center; and Lynette Labinger for the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island. 

Read today’s order here and the original filing here.

We did it.

For the second time in two days, the courts have ruled against the Trump Administration’s efforts to illegally meddle in federal homelessness programs. Today’s ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cannot move forward with its plan to release the December 19th Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to hold an absurd partial-year competition. Our Preliminary Injunction remains in place.

This will bring immense relief to communities across the country who were faced with the prospect of running overlapping local CoC NOFO competitions. Most importantly, this means HUD must renew all awards expiring this year — which will keep people in their homes, program staff employed, and landlords paid their rent. The full opinion can be found here:Read the Full Press ReleaseAnd it’s not over yet. Preventing the December NOFO is just a part of our ongoing litigation. The full merits of our case remain before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island awaiting final judgment, and we trust our legal counsel has put forth a strong set of arguments for the Court to consider.  Democracy Forward and the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island represent the coalition of nonprofit organizations in the matter; the National Homelessness Law Center represents NAEH and NLIHC; Public Rights Project represents the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Nashville, and Tucson as well as King County; Santa Clara County and San Francisco are also plaintiffs. The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island represents all plaintiffs.

Homeless Action! Settlement Terms with County/City

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

Here is a summary of each:

City Settlement Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City settlement will remain in effect for one year. 

County Settlement Highlights

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

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

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

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

The County settlement will remain in effect for three years. 

Questions: BH Board’s Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee Meeting, March 3rd, 2026.

Post was the generated by submitting a summary of the meeting developed by Fieldy to Adobe Acrobat’s AI Assistant, and choosing to ask it to pursue its questions and suggested research.

Summary

Navigating Sonoma County’s Behavioral Health Crossroads

Sonoma County’s behavioral health and homelessness services are facing a pivotal moment due to severe funding cuts and shifting priorities.1

  • Critical Funding Threats: Federal Medicaid reductions and dwindling local funds jeopardize essential services, with Measure O playing a vital role in current support.2
  • Strategic Shifts: The county is reorganizing teams, seeking new partnerships, and focusing on residents with higher behavioral health needs to adapt to the changing landscape.3
  • Community Engagement: Transparent processes and proactive outreach to local leaders are prioritized to maintain support and awareness.4
  • Achievements Amidst Uncertainty: Despite challenges, key programs like the Crisis Stabilization Unit and Crestwood Healing Center are making significant impacts.5

Understanding these dynamics is crucial for stakeholders aiming to support, advocate for, or adapt to the evolving behavioral health environment.Ask a question

Funding Challenges and Strategic Responses

Challenge/AdjustmentDetails
Federal Medicaid CutsAnticipated reductions threaten core behavioral health and homelessness services1
Measure O RelianceFunds 58.33 staff; projected ending balance of $7.1M is a major concern2
Realignment Fund DepletionLocal funds are dwindling, increasing fiscal pressure3
NOFA ($10M)New funding opportunity to support at-risk programs; deadline: Sept 174
Strategic ReorganizationHomelessness team moving under behavioral health to leverage Medi-Cal billing5
Allocation AdjustmentsPossible reallocation of NOFA funds to support struggling providers6

Key Program Achievements and Impact

  • The Crisis Stabilization Unit is now almost fully staffed and operational, addressing previous shortages.1
  • QPR suicide prevention training at Analy High School has boosted counselor confidence in crisis response.2
  • Crestwood Healing Center, a 16-bed psychiatric facility, is reducing reliance on private hospitals.3
  • Measure O supports over 58 essential mental health and crisis service staff across the county.4

Upcoming Actions and Accountability

  • Develop a data-driven proposal for a second psychiatric health facility to cut private hospital costs.1
  • Continue monthly leadership meetings with the new ad hoc committee to align on Measure O priorities.2
  • Launch community outreach to inform local groups and officials about funding impacts and Measure O’s role.3
  • Search for interim and permanent leaders for the reorganized homeless services team is underway.4

Evaluate potential impacts of Medicaid cuts on local health programs

The document highlights several potential impacts of Medicaid cuts on local health programs, particularly in Sonoma County. Below is an evaluation based on the information provided:

1. Financial Strain on Behavioral Health and Homelessness Services

  • Impact: Federal Medicaid cuts are described as a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding, creating significant financial uncertainty for Sonoma County’s behavioral health and homelessness services. This could lead to reduced funding for critical programs that rely heavily on Medicaid/Medi-Cal reimbursements.
  • Example: The county’s Realignment fund balance is already dwindling, and the projected Measure O ending balance of $7.1 million is causing concern among leadership. This indicates that the county may struggle to sustain current service levels without additional funding sources.

2. Risk to Existing Programs

  • Impact: Many homeless and housing providers are in urgent need of financial support to sustain their operations. Medicaid cuts could exacerbate this issue, potentially leading to program closures or reduced services.
  • Example: The document mentions the release of a $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to support programs facing funding loss. This suggests that the county is already taking steps to mitigate the impact of funding reductions, but the long-term sustainability of these programs remains uncertain.

3. Increased Pressure on Local Funding Sources

  • Impact: With federal Medicaid cuts, local funding sources like Measure O will face increased pressure to fill the gap. However, Measure O’s projected ending balance of $7.1 million may not be sufficient to address the growing needs.
  • Example: Measure O currently funds 58.33 employees who provide essential mental health and crisis services. Any reduction in funding could jeopardize these positions and the services they provide.

4. Challenges in Expanding Services

  • Impact: Medicaid cuts could hinder the county’s ability to expand services to meet growing needs. For example, the planned mental health unit at the county jail is already stalled due to insufficient funding, and further cuts could delay or cancel similar projects.
  • Example: The allocated $39 million for the mental health unit is insufficient for current construction costs, and the state has not allowed for plan alterations. This highlights the difficulty of expanding services in the face of financial constraints.

5. Increased Reliance on Strategic Partnerships

  • Impact: The county may need to rely more heavily on strategic partnerships and community advocacy to maintain vital services. This could lead to increased collaboration but also require significant effort to align priorities and secure additional resources.
  • Example: A new ad hoc committee has been established to oversee Measure O funding and enhance collaboration with partners. This indicates a proactive approach to addressing funding challenges, but the effectiveness of these partnerships will depend on the availability of resources.

6. Potential Service Integration

  • Impact: The reorganization of the homelessness team into the behavioral health department is aimed at leveraging Medi-Cal billing and improving service integration. However, Medicaid cuts could undermine these efforts by reducing the available funding for Medi-Cal services.
  • Example: The strategic pivot for homeless services to focus on residents with higher behavioral health needs may be compromised if funding is insufficient to support these specialized services.

Conclusion

Medicaid cuts could have far-reaching impacts on local health programs in Sonoma County, including financial strain, risk to existing programs, challenges in expanding services, and increased reliance on local funding and partnerships. While the county is taking proactive steps to address these challenges, such as releasing the $10 million NOFA and reorganizing services, the long-term sustainability of these efforts remains uncertain without additional funding sources or policy changes.

What can I help with next?
Brainstorm alternative funding sources for homeless services
Summarize key challenges faced by Sonoma County health programs

Summarize key challenges faced by Sonoma County health programs

The document outlines several key challenges faced by Sonoma County health programs, particularly in the areas of behavioral health and homelessness services. Below is a summary of these challenges:

1. Financial Uncertainty

  • Federal Medicaid Cuts: Anticipated reductions in Medicaid/Medi-Cal funding are described as a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding, creating significant financial uncertainty for the county’s health programs.
  • Dwindling Local Funds: The county’s Realignment fund balance is decreasing, and the projected Measure O ending balance of $7.1 million is causing concern among leadership about the sustainability of current services.

2. Project and Funding Gaps

  • Mental Health Unit at County Jail: The planned mental health unit is stalled due to insufficient funding. The allocated $39 million is not enough to cover current construction costs, and the state has not approved plan alterations.
  • Support for Homeless and Housing Providers: Many providers are in urgent need of financial assistance to sustain their operations, and the county is struggling to meet these needs.

3. Strategic Adjustments

  • Reorganization of Services: The homelessness team is being moved into the behavioral health department to leverage Medi-Cal billing and improve service integration. However, this transition may face challenges due to funding constraints.
  • Focus on Behavioral Health Needs: The county is pivoting its homeless services to prioritize residents with higher behavioral health needs, which may require additional resources and specialized services.

4. Leadership and Operational Challenges

  • Leadership Transition: The county’s homeless services unit is undergoing a leadership transition, and there is an active search for interim and permanent leaders to guide the team.
  • Staffing and Operational Issues: While the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) has addressed staffing shortages and is now operational, other programs may face similar challenges if funding is reduced.

5. Community Engagement and Advocacy

  • Need for Transparency: The county is working to ensure transparent processes for the $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to support struggling programs.
  • Community Outreach: Plans are being developed to inform community groups, mayors, and councils about Measure O’s impact and the financial challenges ahead.

Conclusion

Sonoma County health programs are facing significant challenges due to financial uncertainty, project funding gaps, and operational hurdles. While the county is taking steps to address these issues through strategic adjustments, community engagement, and funding initiatives like the $10 million NOFA, the long-term sustainability of these efforts remains uncertain without additional resources or policy changes.

What can I help with next?
Brainstorm advocacy strategies for sustaining Medicaid funding
Analyze potential impacts of funding gaps on mental health services

Brainstorm advocacy strategies for sustaining Medicaid funding

Based on the document, here are potential advocacy strategies for sustaining Medicaid funding in Sonoma County:

1. Community Engagement and Awareness Campaigns

  • Strategy: Launch a public awareness campaign to educate residents, community groups, and local leaders about the importance of Medicaid funding for behavioral health and homelessness services.
  • Implementation:
    • Organize town hall meetings and workshops to discuss the impact of Medicaid cuts.
    • Use social media platforms and local media outlets to share stories of individuals and families who benefit from Medicaid-funded programs.
    • Develop informational materials that outline the consequences of funding cuts and distribute them to community stakeholders.

2. Collaboration with Local Government and Stakeholders

  • Strategy: Strengthen partnerships with local government officials, nonprofit organizations, and healthcare providers to present a unified front in advocating for Medicaid funding.
  • Implementation:
    • Work closely with the newly established ad hoc committee to align advocacy efforts and ensure transparency in funding processes.
    • Engage mayors, city councils, and other local leaders to support resolutions or statements opposing Medicaid cuts.
    • Collaborate with organizations like NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) to amplify advocacy efforts.

3. Data-Driven Advocacy

  • Strategy: Use data to demonstrate the critical role of Medicaid funding in supporting behavioral health and homelessness services.
  • Implementation:
    • Develop a comprehensive report that highlights the financial impact of Medicaid cuts on local programs, including projected service reductions and community outcomes.
    • Share success stories, such as the operational success of the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and the Crestwood Healing Center, to showcase the positive impact of Medicaid-funded initiatives.

4. Legislative Advocacy

  • Strategy: Advocate for state and federal policy changes to protect Medicaid funding.
  • Implementation:
    • Organize meetings with state and federal legislators to discuss the local impact of Medicaid cuts and propose solutions.
    • Mobilize community members to contact their representatives and express their concerns about funding reductions.
    • Partner with other counties facing similar challenges to form a coalition and advocate for Medicaid funding at the state and federal levels.

5. Strategic Use of Local Funding

  • Strategy: Optimize the use of local funding sources, such as Measure O, to mitigate the impact of Medicaid cuts while advocating for long-term solutions.
  • Implementation:
    • Allocate Measure O funds strategically to support programs most at risk due to Medicaid cuts.
    • Ensure transparent processes for the $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to maximize its impact on struggling programs.

6. Mobilizing Public Support

  • Strategy: Build a grassroots movement to rally public support for Medicaid funding.
  • Implementation:
    • Organize rallies, petitions, and letter-writing campaigns to demonstrate widespread community opposition to Medicaid cuts.
    • Encourage local businesses and community leaders to publicly endorse the importance of Medicaid funding.

7. Leveraging Media and Storytelling

  • Strategy: Use media and storytelling to highlight the human impact of Medicaid cuts.
  • Implementation:
    • Share personal stories of individuals who have benefited from Medicaid-funded services through videos, articles, and social media.
    • Partner with local journalists to cover the issue and raise awareness.

Conclusion

These advocacy strategies aim to address the challenges posed by Medicaid cuts by mobilizing community support, leveraging data, and engaging with policymakers. By combining grassroots efforts with strategic partnerships and transparent funding processes, Sonoma County can strengthen its case for sustaining Medicaid funding and protecting vital health programs.

What can I help with next?
List pros and cons of current advocacy approaches
Explain Medicaid funding mechanisms and their local impact

List pros and cons of current advocacy approaches

Based on the document, here are the pros and cons of the current advocacy approaches for sustaining Medicaid funding in Sonoma County:

Pros of Current Advocacy Approaches

  1. Proactive Funding Initiatives:
    • The release of the $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) demonstrates a proactive effort to support programs facing funding losses. This initiative provides immediate relief to struggling behavioral health and homelessness services.
  2. Strategic Partnerships:
    • The establishment of a new ad hoc committee, including key supervisors, aims to enhance collaboration with partners and ensure transparent allocation of Measure O funds. This approach fosters accountability and strengthens relationships with stakeholders.
  3. Community Engagement:
    • Plans to inform community groups, mayors, and councils about Measure O’s impact and financial challenges show a commitment to transparency and public involvement. This can help build trust and mobilize support for advocacy efforts.
  4. Focus on Data-Driven Solutions:
    • The development of a proposal for a second psychiatric health facility highlights the county’s focus on using data to address service gaps and reduce costs associated with private hospital placements.
  5. Leadership and Expertise:
    • The recommendation to appoint Marc, a former board chair of NAMI, to the “lived experience” seat on the Board of Supervisors ensures that advocacy efforts are informed by individuals with firsthand knowledge of behavioral health challenges.
  6. Operational Success Stories:
    • Highlighting achievements like the operational success of the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and the Crestwood Healing Center provides evidence of the positive impact of Medicaid-funded programs, strengthening the case for sustained funding.

Cons of Current Advocacy Approaches

  1. Limited Funding Sources:
    • The county’s reliance on Measure O and dwindling Realignment funds creates a precarious financial situation. These local funding sources may not be sufficient to address the growing needs caused by Medicaid cuts.
  2. Uncertainty in Federal Funding:
    • The anticipated “seismic shift” in Medicaid/Medi-Cal funding creates a significant challenge for long-term planning and sustainability of health programs.
  3. Delayed Projects:
    • The stalled mental health unit at the county jail highlights the difficulty of securing adequate funding for critical infrastructure projects, which could undermine advocacy efforts.
  4. Leadership Transition:
    • The ongoing search for interim and permanent leaders for the homeless services team may delay the implementation of advocacy strategies and hinder progress in addressing funding challenges.
  5. Potential Misalignment of Priorities:
    • The strategic pivot to focus on residents with higher behavioral health needs may leave other vulnerable populations underserved, potentially creating gaps in service delivery.
  6. Dependence on Community Support:
    • While community engagement is a positive step, it requires significant effort and resources to mobilize public support effectively. There is also a risk that public advocacy may not yield immediate results in influencing federal funding decisions.

Conclusion

The current advocacy approaches in Sonoma County have several strengths, including proactive funding initiatives, strategic partnerships, and a focus on data-driven solutions. However, they face challenges such as financial uncertainty, leadership transitions, and potential gaps in service delivery. Addressing these cons will require innovative strategies, increased collaboration, and sustained efforts to secure additional funding and support.

What can I help with next?
Explain Medicaid funding mechanisms and their local impact
Draft a policy brief on Medicaid cuts for local officials

Explain Medicaid funding mechanisms and their local impact

Medicaid funding mechanisms and their local impact in Sonoma County are discussed in the document, particularly in the context of behavioral health and homelessness services. Below is an explanation based on the document:

Medicaid Funding Mechanisms

Medicaid is a federal and state program that provides health coverage to eligible low-income individuals. Funding for Medicaid is shared between the federal government and state governments, with the federal government matching a percentage of state expenditures. In California, Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal, and it plays a critical role in funding healthcare services, including behavioral health and homelessness programs.

Key Features of Medicaid/Medi-Cal Funding:

  1. Federal Matching Funds:
    • The federal government matches state spending on Medicaid services, with the match rate varying based on state-specific factors.
    • Cuts to federal Medicaid funding directly reduce the resources available for state programs, creating financial strain.
  2. Reimbursement Model:
    • Medi-Cal operates on a reimbursement basis, meaning providers deliver services and then receive payment from the program. This model is crucial for sustaining services like mental health care and crisis intervention.
  3. Targeted Populations:
    • Medicaid funding is designed to support vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people with disabilities. In Sonoma County, this includes residents with higher behavioral health needs and those experiencing homelessness.

Local Impact of Medicaid Funding

Medicaid funding is a cornerstone of Sonoma County’s ability to provide essential health services. The document highlights several ways in which Medicaid cuts could impact local programs:

  1. Financial Strain:
    • Federal Medicaid cuts are described as a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding, creating significant financial uncertainty for Sonoma County. This could lead to reduced funding for critical programs that rely heavily on Medi-Cal reimbursements.
  2. Threat to Behavioral Health Services:
    • Programs like the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) and the Crestwood Healing Center, which are currently operational and effective, depend on Medicaid funding. Cuts could jeopardize their ability to continue providing services.
  3. Impact on Homelessness Services:
    • The county is reorganizing its homelessness team into the behavioral health department to leverage Medi-Cal billing and improve service integration. However, Medicaid cuts could undermine these efforts by reducing the available funding for Medi-Cal services.
  4. Pressure on Local Funding Sources:
    • With federal Medicaid cuts, local funding sources like Measure O and the Realignment fund are under increased pressure to fill the gap. However, these funds are already dwindling, with Measure O’s projected ending balance of $7.1 million causing concern.
  5. Delayed Projects:
    • The planned mental health unit at the county jail is stalled due to insufficient funding. Medicaid cuts could further delay or cancel similar projects, impacting the county’s ability to expand services.
  6. Increased Costs for Private Services:
    • Without adequate Medicaid funding, the county may need to rely more on private hospital placements, which are more expensive and less sustainable in the long term.

Conclusion

Medicaid funding is a critical component of Sonoma County’s health programs, particularly for behavioral health and homelessness services. Cuts to this funding would have far-reaching consequences, including financial strain, reduced service availability, and increased pressure on local funding sources. The county is taking steps to address these challenges, but the long-term impact of Medicaid cuts remains a significant concern.

What can I help with next?
Analyze potential effects of funding cuts on homelessness services
Draft a policy brief on Medicaid cuts for local officials

Analyze potential effects of funding cuts on homelessness services

The document provides detailed insights into the potential effects of funding cuts, particularly federal Medicaid reductions, on homelessness services in Sonoma County. Below is an analysis of these impacts:

1. Financial Strain on Homelessness Programs

  • Impact: Federal Medicaid cuts are described as a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding, which could severely affect the financial stability of homelessness services. Many homeless and housing providers are already in urgent need of financial support to sustain their operations.
  • Example: The county has released a $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) titled “Behavioral Health and Homelessness Pathways to Sustainability” to support programs facing funding loss. However, this is a temporary measure and may not address long-term funding gaps.

2. Increased Pressure on Local Funding Sources

  • Impact: With Medicaid cuts, local funding sources like Measure O and the Realignment fund will face increased pressure to fill the gap. However, these funds are already dwindling, with Measure O’s projected ending balance of $7.1 million causing concern among leadership.
  • Example: Measure O currently funds 58.33 employees who provide essential mental health and crisis services. Any reduction in funding could jeopardize these positions and the services they deliver.

3. Risk of Service Reductions

  • Impact: Homelessness services may need to scale back due to insufficient funding, leaving vulnerable populations without access to critical support. This could lead to an increase in homelessness and associated social issues.
  • Example: The county is planning to reorganize its homelessness team under the behavioral health department to leverage Medi-Cal billing and improve service integration. However, Medicaid cuts could undermine these efforts, making it difficult to sustain or expand services.

4. Delayed or Canceled Projects

  • Impact: Funding cuts could delay or cancel planned projects aimed at addressing homelessness and behavioral health needs.
  • Example: The planned mental health unit at the county jail is already stalled due to insufficient funding. Medicaid cuts could further hinder the county’s ability to complete such projects, which are critical for addressing the needs of homeless individuals with behavioral health challenges.

5. Shift in Service Priorities

  • Impact: The county is pivoting its homelessness services to focus on residents with higher behavioral health needs. While this is a strategic adjustment to address the most vulnerable populations, it may leave other homeless individuals without adequate support.
  • Example: The reorganization of the homelessness team into the behavioral health department is intended to improve service integration and leverage Medi-Cal billing. However, this shift may require additional resources that are at risk due to funding cuts.

6. Increased Reliance on Private Services

  • Impact: Without adequate Medicaid funding, the county may need to rely more on private hospital placements for individuals experiencing homelessness and severe behavioral health issues. This approach is more expensive and less sustainable in the long term.
  • Example: The county is developing a proposal for a second psychiatric health facility to reduce costs associated with private hospital placements, but funding cuts could jeopardize this plan.

7. Leadership and Operational Challenges

  • Impact: The county’s homeless services unit is undergoing a leadership transition, which may delay the implementation of strategies to address funding challenges. This could further exacerbate the impact of Medicaid cuts on homelessness services.
  • Example: The search for interim and permanent leaders for the homeless services team is actively underway, but the lack of stable leadership could hinder progress.

Conclusion

Medicaid funding cuts pose a significant threat to homelessness services in Sonoma County. The financial strain, risk of service reductions, delayed projects, and increased reliance on local funding sources could lead to a decline in the availability and quality of services for vulnerable populations. While the county is taking steps to mitigate these impacts, such as releasing the $10 million NOFA and reorganizing services, the long-term sustainability of homelessness programs remains uncertain without additional funding or policy changes.

What can I help with next?
Explain strategies to mitigate funding cuts impact on homelessness services
Compare Sonoma County’s approach with other counties facing Medicaid cuts

Explain strategies to mitigate funding cuts impact on homelessness services

The document outlines several strategies that Sonoma County is implementing or could consider to mitigate the impact of Medicaid funding cuts on homelessness services. Below is a detailed explanation of these strategies:

1. Strategic Allocation of Local Funding

  • Strategy: Optimize the use of local funding sources, such as Measure O and the $10 million Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), to support homelessness services.
  • Implementation:
    • Direct more funds from the $10 million NOFA toward struggling homeless and housing providers.
    • Ensure transparent processes for NOFA allocation to maximize its impact and build trust among stakeholders.
    • Prioritize funding for programs that address the most critical needs, such as behavioral health services for homeless individuals.

2. Service Integration

  • Strategy: Reorganize the homelessness team under the behavioral health department to improve service integration and leverage Medi-Cal billing.
  • Implementation:
    • Focus on residents with higher behavioral health needs to ensure that resources are directed toward the most vulnerable populations.
    • Streamline operations and reduce administrative costs by consolidating services under one department.

3. Community Engagement and Advocacy

  • Strategy: Build public and stakeholder support for homelessness services through community engagement and advocacy.
  • Implementation:
    • Inform community groups, mayors, and councils about the impact of Measure O and the financial challenges ahead.
    • Mobilize public support for Medicaid funding through town hall meetings, social media campaigns, and partnerships with local organizations.

4. Development of Cost-Effective Solutions

  • Strategy: Invest in cost-effective alternatives to reduce reliance on expensive private services.
  • Implementation:
    • Develop a data-driven proposal for a second psychiatric health facility to reduce costs associated with private hospital placements.
    • Explore innovative housing solutions, such as transitional housing programs, to provide affordable and sustainable options for homeless individuals.

5. Strengthening Leadership and Collaboration

  • Strategy: Ensure strong leadership and collaboration to navigate funding challenges effectively.
  • Implementation:
    • Appoint experienced leaders, such as Marc (former board chair of NAMI), to key positions to bring expertise and lived experience to decision-making.
    • Continue monthly meetings with the new ad hoc committee to align on strategic priorities and ensure accountability in funding allocation.

6. Leveraging Data for Decision-Making

  • Strategy: Use data to identify service gaps and prioritize funding for programs with the highest impact.
  • Implementation:
    • Conduct a comprehensive analysis of homelessness services to determine areas of greatest need.
    • Use data to advocate for additional funding and demonstrate the effectiveness of existing programs.

7. Exploring Alternative Funding Sources

  • Strategy: Identify and secure alternative funding sources to supplement Medicaid and local funds.
  • Implementation:
    • Apply for state and federal grants targeted at homelessness and behavioral health services.
    • Partner with private organizations and philanthropic groups to secure additional funding.
    • Explore public-private partnerships to fund innovative solutions for homelessness.

Conclusion

Sonoma County is already taking steps to mitigate the impact of Medicaid cuts on homelessness services, such as releasing the $10 million NOFA and reorganizing services. However, additional strategies, including optimizing local funding, strengthening leadership, leveraging data, and exploring alternative funding sources, will be critical to ensuring the sustainability of these vital programs. By combining these approaches, the county can better address the challenges posed by funding cuts and continue to support its vulnerable populations.

What can I help with next?
Generate talking points for community advocacy on Medicaid funding
Explain strategies to mitigate funding cuts impact on homelessness services

Generate talking points for community advocacy on Medicaid funding

Based on the document, here are talking points for community advocacy on Medicaid funding in Sonoma County:

Talking Points for Community Advocacy

1. Highlight the Importance of Medicaid Funding

  • Medicaid/Medi-Cal is a lifeline for vulnerable populations, including individuals experiencing homelessness and those with behavioral health needs.
  • Federal Medicaid funding supports essential services like mental health care, crisis intervention, and housing assistance, which are critical for community well-being.

2. Emphasize the Local Impact of Medicaid Cuts

  • Federal Medicaid cuts are expected to create a “seismic shift” in healthcare funding, leading to financial uncertainty for Sonoma County’s health programs.
  • Many homeless and housing providers are already in urgent need of financial support, and Medicaid cuts could force them to reduce services or shut down entirely.
  • The county’s Realignment fund balance is dwindling, and Measure O’s projected ending balance of $7.1 million may not be sufficient to fill the gap left by Medicaid cuts.

3. Showcase Success Stories

  • Share examples of programs that have thrived due to Medicaid funding, such as:
    • The Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU), which is now fully operational and providing critical mental health services.
    • The Crestwood Healing Center, a 16-bed psychiatric health facility that has reduced reliance on expensive private hospitals.
  • These programs demonstrate the tangible benefits of Medicaid funding and the risks of losing it.

4. Advocate for Transparency and Collaboration

  • Stress the importance of transparent processes for allocating local funds, such as the $10 million NOFA, to ensure that resources are directed to the programs most in need.
  • Encourage community members to support the county’s efforts to reorganize services and enhance collaboration with partners to improve efficiency and service delivery.

5. Mobilize Public Support

  • Urge community members to contact their local, state, and federal representatives to express their concerns about Medicaid cuts.
  • Organize public forums, rallies, and letter-writing campaigns to demonstrate widespread opposition to funding reductions.

6. Call for Alternative Funding Solutions

  • Advocate for the exploration of alternative funding sources, such as state and federal grants, public-private partnerships, and philanthropic contributions.
  • Highlight the need for innovative solutions, such as transitional housing programs and additional psychiatric health facilities, to address homelessness and behavioral health challenges.

7. Stress the Long-Term Consequences

  • Explain that Medicaid cuts could lead to increased homelessness, higher healthcare costs, and greater strain on local resources.
  • Emphasize that investing in Medicaid funding now will save money in the long term by reducing reliance on expensive private services and preventing crises.

Conclusion

These talking points aim to inform and mobilize the community to advocate for the preservation of Medicaid funding. By emphasizing the importance of Medicaid, showcasing success stories, and highlighting the local impact of funding cuts, Sonoma County can build a strong case for sustained support and encourage action from community members and policymakers.

What can I help with next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Items for the AR/IP Committee are:

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

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

b. Review any County agreements entered into pursuant to Section 5650 of the Code or
any subsequent amendments.
c. Advise the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the local behavioral health
director as to any aspect of the local behavioral health and substance use disorder
programs.
d. Review and approve the procedures used to ensure citizen and professional
involvement at all stage of the planning process.

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral Health Board Annual Report/Integrated Plan Committee Meets

Greetings!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.