Budget & Fiscal Advisory Committee adopts decision framework; staff outlines Mental Health Wellness Act funding and procurements

The Budget and Fiscal Advisory Committee of the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission voted unanimously on June 27 to recommend using a draft decision‑making framework to evaluate and prioritize funding proposals, Chair Al Rowlett said.

The vote, taken as a roll‑call symbolic recommendation because the committee is advisory, followed a staff presentation and discussion of the commission’s existing Mental Health Wellness Act (MHWA) grant portfolio, procurement schedule and budget constraints. Norma Pate, deputy director for administrative services and performance management, reviewed program history, current contracts and timeline considerations for encumbrances and procurements through fiscal year 2026–27.

The framework the committee endorsed is intended to guide decisions by assessing alignment with behavioral‑health priorities, likely impact and equity implications, and the broader service landscape. Commissioners framed the framework as a living tool: the committee can adopt it now and amend it later. Chair Al Rowlett moved the recommendation; Vice Chair Contreras seconded. A roll call of present committee members recorded seven aye votes and the chair declared the motion passed.

Staff stressed that the MHWA funding stream remains fragile in annual budget negotiations even though the final state budget adopted June 27 preserved a $20,000,000 annual allocation through fiscal year 2026–27. Norma Pate said the commission currently manages 188 active grants and contracts totaling approximately $473,500,000 across multiple program lines, many of which use braided or multi‑year funding and therefore have staggered encumbrance and spending windows.

Pate summarized the MHWA’s legislative history and program changes: the MHWA grant program began under Senate Bill 82 (2013), was expanded in later legislation (SB 833 in 2016 to include children and youth and SB 184 in 2022 to broaden eligibility and contracting flexibility) and has been funded at $20 million annually in recent budgets. She told the committee that earlier rounds delivered tens of thousands of crisis‑service encounters, but implementation faced operational challenges including delayed interagency agreements, inconsistent evaluation methods across counties, workforce shortages and pandemic impacts on hiring and service delivery.

Commission discussion emphasized cross‑committee coordination, evaluation, and attention to equity and contract transparency. Commissioners asked staff to ensure that program evaluations and contract monitoring are accessible to committee members and to the public where appropriate. Public commenters including Stacy Hiramoto (Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition) and Theresa Comstock (California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commissions) urged the committee to prioritize contract review and to minimize gaps that leave small contractors unable to bill when agreements lapse.

Staff described current and planned procurements funded from MHWA allocations: completed procurements include EMPATH units (crisis‑adjacent units outside emergency departments), older adult programs (AgeWise/PEARLS), maternal behavioral health and children 0–5 programs, and a substance use disorder pilot; in progress are procurements for full service partnerships (FSP) with technical assistance, two separate technical assistance/capacity building projects, and peer respite planning. Pate also said a reappropriation of roughly $16.4 million from earlier rounds expanded the number of EMPATH awards.

Officials reminded the committee of fiscal rules and timelines: most commission appropriations must be encumbered by June 30 of the fiscal year or they revert to the Behavioral Health Services Fund; MHWA funds operate with a two‑year encumbrance period that allows more planning time. Staff said the commission must begin planning in 2026 for investments to take effect in 2027–28, and commissioners flagged a separate Proposition 1 innovation allocation (a $100 million category starting 2026) as an upcoming discretionary pot to coordinate across committees.

The committee asked staff to bring a deeper contract and grant dashboard to the August meeting (the staff indicated an interactive Tableau dashboard is in development). Staff also noted state operations reductions will shrink the commission’s operations by three positions and approximately $1.5 million; staff will provide finalized year‑end actuals and an updated proposed 2025–26 budget at the August meeting. The chair adjourned the committee after confirming the next meetings in August and September.