Commission discusses Innovation Partnership Fund definition, public urges equity and recognition of community-defined models

The Program Advisory Committee held an extended discussion about the Innovation Partnership Fund, which Marco Mijic described as authorized by Proposition 1 and intended to fund new or adapted approaches to behavioral health challenges. The committee asked for public feedback on a working definition that staff circulated in a meeting packet.

"The idea here really is to engage in a lot more conversation. We're not taking action on anything, so I just wanna be very clear about that," Marco Mijic said while presenting the IPF concept and timeline. The staff working document outlined a draft definition of innovation and proposed investment pillars and cross-cutting priorities.

The working draft defined innovation as new or adapted approaches that: advance models not widely implemented in California; introduce or scale community-centered solutions that increase access to prevention, treatment and recovery supports (including harm reduction); demonstrate a clear break from the status quo rather than incremental tweaks; be actionable and ready for real-world implementation; and "not be designed to supplant or replace existing public funding streams." The draft also described proposed priority pillars: equity-focused projects, financing and sustainability, youth engagement, lived-experience leadership, and alignment with existing state efforts.

Public commenters — including representatives of the California Reducing Disparities Project (CRDP), community defined evidence practice (CDEP) proponents, and community clinics — urged changes. Ava (speaker identified in transcript as a CRDP/partner) and Joel Baum of Safe Passages highlighted the CRDP work: project leaders said 35 CRDP projects have been running for years and demonstrate community-defined evidence approaches that have been evaluated and found effective. "These are models that have been proven in the state of California but are not widely implemented," a CRDP speaker said. Joel Baum asked that community-defined evidence practices be explicitly elevated in the IPF design and said limiting funding to narrow clinical diagnoses would exclude prevention and early-intervention projects.

Commenters and some commissioners warned against an interpretation of "not widely implemented in California" that would exclude efforts ready to be scaled in counties that lack capacity. Commissioner Fernandez suggested allowing projects that have worked in one county to be funded to scale in other counties: "Different counties in the state of California are at very different sort of points in terms of their maturity or sophistication," he said. Multiple public speakers and Commissioner Fernandez also urged that the fund allow proposals that build on successful pilots or scale proven community programs.

Several speakers pressed staff to ensure equity is explicit and specific rather than general. Rekaya Ahmad of the California Pan Ethnic Health Network asked how community members would participate in the review process and whether an equity rubric or scoring tool would be incorporated: "Given how central the framework is in guiding funding decisions, 1 day is not really enough time for community stakeholders to really review and provide meaningful feedback," she said.

Other public suggestions: adopt a lean startup or rapid-iteration approach that allows small "incubator" grants to test minimum viable solutions; publish evaluation data and learnings from IPF projects; and require clear sustainability plans so one-time funding does not create expectation of ongoing support without a transition path. Jerry Hall suggested using a small portion of the fund to seed an incubator and to "fail fast" on low-performing ideas so successful models can be scaled.

Staff presented a tentative engagement timeline: a series of virtual community engagement sessions in July and August, a lived-experience session, a return to the PAC for more detailed discussion in September, and presentation to the full commission in October. Several public commenters asked for evening or weekend engagement options to increase participation.

Commissioners and staff agreed the IPF definition and pillars are a starting point. Staff asked for written feedback on the working paper and said they would iterate the draft based on public and commissioner input. No funding decisions or RFPs were approved; staff emphasized that proposals for RFPs and award processes will require additional committee and full commission steps.

The committee did not set final eligibility rules at this meeting; instead it sought input on how to balance incentives for new models, scale proven practices, and ensure equity and sustainability.