California Dept of Public Health Behavioral Health Inititive RFP

Today, the California Department of Public Health produced an online webinar explaining how its long-awaited participation in Prop One’s Behavioral Health Transformation would occur. Two thousand two hundred people attended the two and a half hour webinar, listening to how California proposes to use $30 million over two years to impact population-based prevention. Soliciting applications by November 6th from 501© (3) organizations which propose to support health promotion, universal prevention, and selective prevention directed to a population or subgroup, Applicants must explain how their proposed approach meets the RFA requirements, reflects or responds to the community, supports an eligible population-based prevention pathway, and connects to measurable outcomes. Thirty to forty grants of between $400,000 to $1,000,000 over the period from Feb 1, 2027 to April 30, 2029 are expected to be allocated.”

One attendee asked: “If my proposal includes activities for both individuals age 25 and under and adults age 60+, could you fund only the younger age group’s activities, or would including the 60+ activities make the entire proposal ineligible or less competitive?”

Answer: “The requirement that at least 51% of applicable prevention funds serve people 25 years of age or younger applies across the overall CDBHI portfolio. It is not an eligibility requirement, minimum budget percentage, or scoring preference for each individual application unless otherwise stated in the RFA. Applicants should accurately describe the populations that will benefit from their proposed activities and the portion of the project expected to serve children and youth.”

Noting that the funding required applicants to utilize “Community-Defined Evidence Practices”, an attendee asked “For the Community-Defined Evidence requirement, what evidence is sufficient for an existing community-based practice that has not previously been formally identified or evaluated as a CDEP? In particular, what documentation of lived experience, participant feedback, community use, and practice adaptation would reviewers consider persuasive?”

Answer: “The CDEP practice list is non-exhaustive, and a practice is not ineligible solely because it is not listed. Applicants proposing an unlisted practice must demonstrate that it satisfies the applicable CDEP and population-based prevention requirements. The RFA states that effectiveness may be demonstrated through real-world experience, sustained community use, cultural knowledge, community consensus, practice-based evidence, local evaluation, and community-defined measures of success. Applicants may also reference the Final CDEP Resource Guide for additional information on CDEPs.”

Continuing to press the funders, the attendee continued “How should applicants demonstrate community-defined evidence for an emerging practice that builds on years of lived experience, trusted relationships, and community-led activities but has not yet been formally evaluated?”

Answer: “Applicants may propose an eligible community-defined evidence practice or evidence-based practice that satisfies the requirements described in the RFA. Applicants may also reference the Final CDEP Resource Guide for additional guidance. Inclusion of a model in a resource guide or illustrative list should not be interpreted as automatic approval of a proposed project. Applicants must explain how the proposed approach meets the RFA requirements, reflects or responds to the community, supports an eligible population-based prevention pathway, and connects to measurable outcomes.”

On evaluating outcomes, an attendee asked “Will there any specific metrics that will be used to measure/quantify outreach/engagement and recruitment activities?”

Answer: “Awardees will participate in the statewide CDBHI evaluation and collaborate with CIBHS, CDPH, and designated evaluation partners. Statewide evaluation requirements will be developed in consultation with funded organizations. Awardees will provide input on evaluation methods and community-defined measures of success, collect required demographic, geographic, reach, output, outcome, and fiscal data, and use approved or locally appropriate measures where authorized. Additional statewide evaluation guidance may be issued.”

On developing a budget, an attendee asked: “When submitting our proposal, how do we structure the budget request in support of the project, in a way that reflects other possible funding avenues for the project?”

Answer: “Allowability depends on whether a cost is reasonable, necessary, allocable to the proposed project, adequately documented, consistent with the approved scope and budget, and otherwise permitted by the RFA. CIBHS cannot pre-approve a fact-specific cost through the question-and-answer process. Applicants should clearly identify and justify proposed costs in the required budget and budget narrative. Final costs remain subject to application review, budget negotiation, CDPH approval, and the executed subaward agreement.”

On the question of sustaining the projects, an attendee asked: “For programs that will remain primarily philanthropically supported after the grant period, what level of sustainability planning does CDPH expect? Is a diversified fundraising strategy considered sufficient, or are applicants expected to identify committed post-grant funding sources at the time of application?”

Answer: “Please reference the RFA §C.12 Sustainability Statement (RFA p. 20) Applicants are required to provide a sustainability statement describing how the benefits of the proposed project can continue beyond the award period. The statement may address community capacity, partnerships, prevention practices, staff or community knowledge, data and evaluation tools, organizational systems, infrastructure, future funding, and integration of effective activities into ongoing programs.”

On who can be served: “For programs that will remain primarily philanthropically supported after the grant period, what level of sustainability planning does CDPH expect? Is a diversified fundraising strategy considered sufficient, or are applicants expected to identify committed post-grant funding sources at the time of application?”

On whether immigrants can be served: “Can we apply specifically to serve immigrant and refugee communities as our priority population under this funding opportunity?”

Answer: “Applicants must clearly identify the proposed population, describe the relevant strengths, needs, risks, disparities, and barriers, and explain how the community informed the proposed approach. CIBHS cannot determine through an individual question whether a proposed population or project will qualify or be selected.”

For more information regarding all webinar materials and upcoming engagements, please go to CDPH’s BHSA Partner and Community Engagement webpage: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPP/Pages/Engagement.aspx. https://www.cibhs.org/projects/cdbhi/#RFA-Application-Materials. Today’s recording and materials will be shared afterwards and posted to the CDPH Partner and Community Engagement webpage: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPP/Pages/Engagement.aspx.

Here is the announcement of the RFP on the California Department of Public Health’s website: https://www.cibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/01.-CDBHI_RFA_14Sep26.pdf

Entrusting Land for Public Purposes

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

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

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

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

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

California Transparency Project (CTP) Explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations Are Not Stakeholder Engagement

I attended the majority of the public stakeholder meetings identified in the Department’s Community Planning Process (CPP) in the Draft Integrated Plan, including the BHSA Steering Committee, the Community Planning Program Workgroup, the Behavioral Health Board, Countywide Town Halls, and the dedicated Housing Workgroup. What I witnessed was a repetitive series of presentations from Department staff and consultants focusing on the the transition of MHSA funding requirements to those contained in the BHSA Behavioral Health Transformation. Questions from participants concentrated on how current programs initiated under the last three-year MHSA Integrated Plan could be continued despite a shift of 30% of the funding to “Housing”, and the transfer of popular innovation grant authority to the State.

Rarely in the process did staff address what they alluded to as the “other 90%” of the Plan program funding, now for the first time mandated to be included. When they did, it was to complain about the fact that the Department’ Fiscal Team had not provided them with any guidance on the Departmental finances required to be within the Plan. After the first four presentations of the same PowerPoint, I perceived that most committee members stopped asking questions, and some community members stopped attending. As the only member from the Behavioral Health Board at these meetings, I began to detect that an enormous information and participation gap growing between the BOS-Appointed Behavioral Health Board and the Department-selected Behavioral Health Steering Committee. The latter consisted on Department staff, consultants, and contractors. Almost all seemed to be vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest, and seldom asked any but superficial questions.

When I attempted to record the meetings using an advanced digital personal assistant device (Fieldy) to document the stakeholder input, staff objected, and forced me to stop. I do not believe that staff finds value in allowing transparency in their work. The lack of timely minutes, advance meeting presentation materials, and the reluctance by staff to utilize online Plan Comment tools, has severely restricted public engagement and review.

The questions I asked were almost entirely ignored, and usually viewed as hostile, especially when I inquired when reports from the BH Steering Committee would be shared with the Behavioral Health Board. Were I to have been allowed to continue on the Board, I would have requested that full reports and recommendations from these meetings be forwarded to the Behavioral Health Board’s Integrated Plan Subcommittee for their report to the full Behavioral Health Board by the beginning of the formal public Open Comment hearing at their May meeting.

The Department’s Plan submission details the many meetings it hosted in compliance with the State’s stakeholder involvement requirements. But effective Plan development and engagement is not conducting meetings of your own staff, contractors, and consultants to review your latest interpretation of evolving State requirements. I saw almost no changes to the presentations, to the proposed Plan design, and finally to the Draft Plan, in the six months from September of 2025 to February of 2026. My attempts at providing insight on Integrated Plan processes being discussed at other neighboring county Behavioral Health Board meetings, California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commission board meetings, and State Behavioral Health Commission meetings I was attending were dismissed. It was no surprise to me when Departmental staff asked me not to continue my attendance on the Behavioral Health Steering Committee because “We believe your intentions are not consistent with ours”.

Within the Draft Integrated Plan is a paragraph which illustrates the failure of open engagement. It indicates that the planning process gathered important insights into the operation of homeless facilities and services in the county.

“At the recommendation of the Steering Committee, SCBH conducted Housing
Focus Groups in August and September 2025 with individuals who had lived
experience of homelessness and behavioral health challenges. Participants
identified safety concerns, lack of privacy in shelters, inconsistent rule
enforcement, barriers to consistent case management, and insufficient supports
for individuals with serious mental illness. They recommended trauma-informed
housing environments, enhanced onsite clinical and peer services, expanded
outreach teams, and practical supports such as dog kennels to support
employment access. Participants also identified transportation, digital access,
and documentation barriers, recommending monthly bus passes, free internet
access at service sites, and assistance obtaining identification, Medi-Cal, and
mobile phones. These insights directly shaped priorities for integrated housing
and behavioral health service models, expanded case management, strengthened
peer workforce roles, and improved transportation and digital access supports.”

None of this information was shared with the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition, the County’s Continuum of Care Governing body, nor was there any attempt to validate or utilize the feedback to engage the largest single set of targeted stakeholders/consumers.

Nevertheless, the Department’s stakeholder process did confirm the Department’s belief that previous investments using innovation projects have found deep support within the community. Almost all of the priorities identified in the concluding paragraphs of the Plan’s Community Planning Process Stakeholder Engagement originated in early memberships and comments a year ago. It’s too bad no real work was done in the interim to actually engage participants in turning those ideas into collaborative projects.

“Across all engagement activities, stakeholders consistently emphasized the value
of culturally grounded and lived-experience perspectives. Community members
called for strengthening the SCBH Latinx Clinic, expanding culturally rooted early
intervention programs, investing in peer-led wellness centers, and hiring staff
with lived experience. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of traumainformed, disability-sensitive approaches and the need to evaluate both evidence-based and community-created practices. There was strong support for improving data systems, integrating quantitative and qualitative measures, and ensuring outcomes reflect community-defined success.”

“Through this extensive and collaborative planning process, the FY 2026–2029
BHSA Integrated Plan reflects the priorities identified by Sonoma County’s
diverse communities. These include expanding housing-linked behavioral health
supports; strengthening crisis response and early intervention services;
investing in culturally grounded and peer-led models; improving real-time data
and response systems; and enhancing transparency and communication. Input
gathered through meetings, focus groups, surveys, and listening sessions
directly informed the Plan’s strategies, and SCBH remains committed to
continued stakeholder engagement throughout implementation.”

A Proposal for Building Parent Leadership and Power

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

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

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

Programs funded through this opportunity should support:

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

Priority will be given to proposals that engage:

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

Key Dates:

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

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

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

HEAPA’s Response

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

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

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

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