Tag: news

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.

Government Transformation

The traditional government financing design is being turned upside down.  No longer can we expect the federal or state governments to advance or reimburse local governments.  And if the uses of federal and state funds are now to give tax breaks to the rich, and to end and reduce deficit spending, then federalism and state solvency are going to be severely tested.

Which brings us to the question addressed at Santa Rosa’s goal-setting workshop yesterday – What are the basic services which should consume the City’s budget?  What do our residents want, and what should our elected representatives provide, from the City?  The Council chose to recognize that its own workforce was exhausted and could not perform well on most of its assigned goals and duties.  Their answers were fewer goals, clearly understood by the public, with longer acknowledged timeframes.  Their very top priority was to “Achieve and Maintain Fiscal Sustainability”.   Though you might have heard that before in tough economic times, I’ve never seen a more worried group of leaders and staff.  The word “transformation” was used many times, and I don’t think many had clear visions of positive outcomes.

In the general questioning of the purposes of all government, this local examination is crucial.  To many, it may be the only chance for citizen impact.  Lately, Sonoma County voters have agreed to tax themselves to provide some vital resources under local control.  A unified and cooperative group of leaders could work together to develop a better funding system.  The County and its cities need to protect each other from simplistic departmental budget slashing, or none of us will be happy with how local governments will be transformed. 

Upcoming Public Actions

On Tuesday (tomorrow), the Board of Supervisors will be acting on two Consent Agenda items which have the ability to expand service and housing for residents served by the County:

  • (Item #9) Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program Round-1 Grant Application Resolution Update.  Adopt a Resolution to replace Resolution 24-0519 authorizing the Director of Health Services, or designee, to apply to the California Department of Health Care Services’ Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program Round 1 (BHCIP 2024) Launch Ready Program Request for Applications, increasing the application amount by $10,202,227.50 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $67,702,227.50 for the construction of four Mental Health Rehabilitation Centers and one Adult Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facility.
  • (Item #11) New positions to support California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM). A) Adopt a Resolution amending the Sheriff’s Office Department Allocation List to add 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Administrative Aide, effective February 4, 2025, to support the mandated California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Justice-Involved Initiative. B) Adopt a Resolution amending the Department of Health Services Department Allocation List to add 2.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Client Support Specialists, effective February 4, 2025, to support the mandated California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Justice-Involved Initiative. 
    • In 2023, California became the first state in the nation approved to offer a targeted set of Medicaid services to youth and adults in state prisons, county jails, and youth correctional facilities for up to 90 days prior to release with the goal of addressing the unique and considerable health care needs of justice-involved individuals, improving health outcomes, delivering care more efficiently, and advancing health equity across the state.
    • Through a federal Medicaid 1115 demonstration waiver approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) has partnered with state agencies, counties, and community-based organizations to establish an expanded system for providing enhanced care. Implementation of the mandated expansion in services, called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or CalAIM, involves establishing a reentry process that provides incarcerated adults with the physical and mental health services they need before release, and connecting them to appropriate service providers for care upon reentry to the community. 
    • Eligible inmates will receive services up to 90 days before their release to stabilize their behavioral health conditions and establish a plan for their community-based care. The Sheriff’s Office intends to go-live with the provision of enhanced services in January 2026.  The deadline to go live is September 30, 2026. 

On Wednesday, there are three meetings that are central to the work of providing direction to County and community services for homeless, mentally-ill, and addicted residents in Sonoma County. 

  • Behavioral Health Board Executive Committee, 10:30am, 2227 Challenger Way, Room 201.  Planning meeting for the Full BHB meeting on Feb 18th. 
  • MHSA Program Steering Committee, 1-3pm, 2227 Challenger Way, Galaxy Room (next to Room 201)
  • Measure O Oversight Committee, 4-5:30pm, 1450 Neotomas Ave, Suite 200. Quarterly meeting to review finances and progress on programs funded.

On January 28th, the Santa Rosa City Council considered, and then delayed approval of a an application to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development’s HomeKey+ Grant Program for the City to be a co-applicant with Burbank Housing Development and Caritas Homes Phase II LLC in an amount not to exceed $13.95 million.  The grant is for the development of permanent supportive housing for individuals or households with an individual who is homeless, chronically homeless, or at risk of homelessness and who are also living with a behavioral health challenge. Caritas Homes Phase II, the final stage of the Caritas Village project located in downtown Santa Rosa will add 30 new affordable apartments reserved for homeless individuals referred through the Sonoma County Coordinated Entry system, meets the eligibility criteria for HomeKey+ funding.  The item was pulled from the City Council agenda, and will be rescheduled at a later date.

Measure O Annual Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successful Outcomes from Measure O

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretrial Transitional Housing and Case Management Agreement

Recommended Action:

A)  Authorize the Chief Probation Officer to execute a professional services agreement with Interfaith Shelter Network, Inc. (IFSN) for the initial term December 1, 2024, through November 30, 2027, in the amount of $2,105,870, and to execute up to two one-year renewal options for a maximum five-year agreement value of $3,691,122 in addition to amendments that do not exceed $50,000 per year or otherwise substantively change agreement.  

B)  Authorize the Chief Probation officer to retroactively amend the current agreement expiring 11/30/24 with Interfaith Shelter Network by $135,000 for a maximum five-year value of $2,235,000. 

Executive Summary:

The Probation Department requests Board approval to execute a professional services agreement with IFSN to provide services for individuals on pretrial release who are homeless and have mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorder.  Such individuals pose difficult challenges to the courts because while the crimes for which individuals are charged might not warrant incarceration while awaiting trial, their mental health and living conditions increase their likelihood of committing new crimes, failing to appear in court, causing harm to themselves, or being victimized in the community.  To reduce these risks, courts may require such individuals to remain incarcerated until adjudication.  The continuing services proposed under this agreement provide the courts a viable alternative to incarceration whereby individuals on pretrial release can remain safely in the community and receive supportive housing and intensive case management.  Overall program goals are to reduce unnecessary incarceration and associated costs, provide treatment and services to improve outcomes of justice system-involved individuals, and increase public safety.

Additionally, the Probation Department requests a retroactive increase of $135,000, bringing the 5-year maximum agreement value to $2,235,000. When the contract was originally prepared  in 2019, inflation was estimated to be 3 percent per year. However, the CA Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has averaged 4 percent per year for the past 5 years. In addition, rent, utility, insurance, and living wage increases have contributed to the increase. These updated costs have been programmed into the agreements and contracts within the Community Corrections Partnership’s FY 24-25 budget.

The Sonoma County Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) and Measure O allocate funding for this program and have approved the FY 24-25 expenses.  Future funding will depend upon continued CCP approval and Measure O funding.

Discussion:

Background

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice released a competitive grant for the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP).  Sonoma County was awarded $250,000 for a three-year project to improve public safety and serve individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorder who encounter the justice system.  This grant continued through September 30, 2020 and was expanded upon in 2018 with an additional $750,000 award.

In FY 21-22, upon exhaustion of JMHCP funds, Probation requested partial year funding from the CCP to continue housing and case management for mentally ill individuals on pretrial release.  In FY 22-23, CCP funding was expanded to cover the full year and combined with Health Services allocation of Measure O funds for case management.  The CCP and Measure O have continued to fund pretrial housing and case management, and the CCP has allocated funding for this program as part of FY 24-25 expenses.  Future funding will depend upon continued CCP and Measure O approval.

Request for Proposals

The Probation Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) announcement in August 2024, which was distributed to 714 suppliers as well as 2,200 notifications to subscribers on Purchasing’s RFP posting list.  The RFP sought proposals from organizations that could provide eight or more supportive housing beds along with case management services to individuals with mental illness on pretrial release.  Additionally, the RFP requested an array of supportive services to help individuals on pretrial release stabilize their lives, such as permanent housing assistance, enrollment in health care, and job search assistance.  Finally, the RFP required that the successful organization develop a quality assurance and outcome reporting plan to ensure high service standards and to help stakeholders determine program performance.

Sonoma County received proposals from IFSN and Committee on the Shelterless (COTS).  A panel of representatives from the Probation Department and the Department of Health Services rated the proposals using clear criteria such as qualifications and experience, staffing, program services, and cost of service. 

While both IFSN and COTS presented viable programs, the panel rated IFSN more highly based on the alignment of program services offered with the County’s needs, the ability to provide uninterrupted services, and the cost to provide services.  Additionally, the COTS proposal included community-based case management only, while IFSN offers transitional housing, case management for house occupants, as well as community-based case management.

Based on its proposal review, the panel recommends awarding supportive housing and case management services to IFSN.

Program and Scope Overview

Housing:  The program will provide an eight-bed housing facility, which has averaged 91 percent occupancy for the last 12 months, and support individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorder maintain stability on pretrial release and achieve better outcomes.  Desired outcomes include participants not committing new offenses, making their court appearances, and complying with court orders, and, post-adjudication, being better prepared to live successfully in the community.  The broader goals are to enhance public safety, rehabilitate individuals in the criminal justice system, and reduce unnecessary incarceration.

Case Management:  A case manager working outside the jail will support participants during the pretrial process, including accompanying them to court.  This case manager will work closely with a case manager in the jail to ensure that information regarding participant needs is included in the planning process, and that those selected for the program benefit from a warm handoff and avoid service gaps.  Additionally, a case manager will work on site at the supportive house to help participants connect with stabilization services, obtain medication, address health issues, and other related activities.

Quality Assurance:  IFSN will collaborate with the Probation Department to develop and implement quality assurance and data collection plans to ensure high-quality program implementation and allow the Probation Department to evaluate program performance. 

Conclusion

This program intends to promote public safety, improve outcomes, and reduce costs for justice-system-involved individuals with mental illness.  Commonly, this population ineffectively-and expensively-accesses multiple community services, including police and fire first responders, hospital emergency departments, mental health crisis services, and jails.  Most treatment is short-term and non-rehabilitative, resulting in repeated cycles through these services.  By providing stable housing, intensive case management, and 24-hour monitoring, this program intends to break the cycle.

Homeless America – Pepperdine University

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

PANEL 1: The Role for Government MODERATOR

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

PANELISTS

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

Keynote Address

PANEL 2: The Role for Nonprofits MODERATOR

  • Soledad Ursua, Board Member, Venice Neighborhood Council

PANELISTS

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

CLOSING REFLECTIONS SPEAKERS:

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

Pepperdine Schoolof PublicPolicy

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