Advisory committee backs Innovation Partnership Fund framework, urges emphasis on community-run organizations

The Client, Family and Community Inclusion, Lived Experience and Diversity Advisory Committee voted Sept. 25 to recommend that the full Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission adopt version 3 of the Innovation Partnership Fund framework, while adding a committee request that the fund’s forthcoming request-for-proposals emphasize and incentivize community-run organizations and community-defined practices.

The Innovation Partnership Fund, or IPF, is a Prop 1 program that the commission will administer beginning July 1, 2026. Commissioner Gary Tsai, chair of the commission’s Program Advisory Committee, described the fund during the committee’s presentation as “a $20,000,000 per year for five years” effort to invest in new or adapted approaches to California’s behavioral health system. Melissa Martin Mollard, deputy director for research, evaluation and programs, told the committee staff are preparing an RFP outline for January 2026 and aiming to make grant awards so projects can begin July 1, 2026.

The committee’s endorsement was symbolic — advisory committees can only advise the full 27-member commission — but members and public commenters pressed staff to ensure the RFP 1) protects funding paths for smaller community-based and peer-run organizations, 2) builds robust evaluation and technical assistance support into awards, and 3) clarifies how the statute’s priority populations will be interpreted.

Why it matters: Prop 1 modernizes prior county-directed MHSA innovation funding by placing $20 million a year under state administration (IPF) to target populations the statute identifies as having the highest behavioral health needs. Committee members and community advocates repeatedly warned that without explicit scoring or capacity-building measures, well-resourced applicants could outcompete smaller culturally rooted providers that serve people most affected by behavioral health disparities.

What the committee heard

At the Sept. 25 meeting, Tsai and Melissa Martin Mollard presented the IPF framework, summarized stakeholder engagement to date and explained the staff timeline. Martin Mollard said staff convened three community listening sessions and received 49 concept submissions in an earlier open call; she reported the listening sessions attracted 321 unique participants. The presentation defined “innovation” to include new or adapted models or “community-defined evidence-based practices” and emphasized cross-cutting considerations such as equity, sustainability, lived-experience leadership and evaluation.

Commissioner Gary Tsai said the fund is intended to be “stretched” across the state’s 58 counties and warned the program will not fix all needs, but should aim for high-yield investments. Martin Mollard said staff intend to present the framework to the full commission on Oct. 23 and to present an RFP outline in January 2026 so a competitive procurement can proceed for awards effective July 1, 2026.

Committee members sought clarifications about eligible activities and applicants. Committee member Jason Robison asked whether IPF would fund capital projects such as housing development or would instead fund services that complement housing and other county efforts. Tsai and Martin Mollard said the intent is to avoid duplication and to “complement” existing investments so the IPF dollars are not consumed by a single capital project. Robison said the fund should be careful to preserve resources for supportive services embedded in housing projects.

Multiple committee members and public commenters — including representatives of Mental Health America of California, REMCO (the Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition), Safe Passages and several peer-run and community-based advocates — urged that the RFP explicitly prioritize community-based organizations (CBOs), peer-run programs and community-defined evidence-based practices (CDIPs). Public commenters called for:

- explicit language in the framework that names and prioritizes community-based and peer-run organizations; - set-asides or smaller-grant tracks (several commenters suggested ranges such as $50,000–$250,000) to reduce administrative burden on small providers; - dedicated funds for evaluation and technical assistance so smaller applicants can meet reporting requirements and demonstrate outcomes (one commenter urged a significant share of funding for evaluation); and - clarity about how the statutory priority populations will be interpreted and operationalized in the RFP.

Several public commenters and committee members also asked that the scoring process account for organizational composition and community leadership, so that proposals from historically marginalized communities and peer-led programs are not disadvantaged.

Statutory and program constraints

Staff repeatedly referenced the statute while answering legal questions from the public and committee. Martin Mollard said the IPF must be consistent with the BHSA/Prop 1 statutory language that focuses funds on people with the most significant needs and those who face structural barriers. Chief counsel Sandra Gallardo explained that the IPF statute cross-references county-priority language in Welfare and Institutions Code sections the staff identified; participants raised multiple statutory citations during public comment and requested continued legal clarification offline.

Next steps and timeline

Martin Mollard said staff will bring the framework and the record of stakeholder feedback to the full commission on Oct. 23 for further discussion. Staff plan to present an RFP outline to the commission in January 2026 and begin the competitive procurement so grant awards can begin July 1, 2026. The presentation and committee discussion are intended to inform the RFP drafting and final scoring criteria.

Votes and committee action

The CFC advisory committee held a symbolic motion to recommend the full commission adopt IPF framework version 3 with an added recommendation that the commission emphasize and incentivize community-run organizations and community-based practices.

Motion: "Recommend adoption of the Innovation Partnership Fund framework version 3 to the full commission, with an added recommendation to emphasize and incentivize community-run organizations and community-based practices." Motion by Committee member Jason Robison; second by Committee member Carolina Ayala.

Roll call (as recorded at the meeting): Yes — Tannight Admasu; Carolina Ayala; Jim Gilmer; Larissa Owen; Jason Robison; Richard Zaldivar; Vice Chair Myra Alvarez; Chair Rayshell Chambers. Absent or marked absent — Camille Chavez; Committee member Travis (listed earlier as absent); Committee member Gantzig/Gentswig; Committee member Kayali; Committee member Kisha Novoski; Committee member McFeder; Committee member Novotny; Committee member Zhang. Outcome: symbolic motion passed.

What the committee asked staff to consider

Committee members and public commenters asked staff to: 1) build explicit language and scoring that supports CBOs, peer-run and community-led projects; 2) include capacity-building and technical assistance resources and funding for rigorous evaluation; 3) consider smaller-grant tracks or simplified application paths for smaller providers; and 4) clarify how the statute’s priority-population language will be interpreted and presented in the RFP.

Context and limitations

The committee’s vote was advisory. Only the full commission can adopt the final framework and RFP. Committee members and public commenters repeatedly noted that the IPF operates within the new Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA)/Prop 1 statutory structure, which shifts some programmatic emphasis from county-directed MHSA tools to state-directed allocations. Several commenters urged the commission to use the RFP drafting and scoring to preserve pathways for smaller, culturally grounded and peer-run providers during that transition.

The committee also flagged evaluation and dissemination as priorities: several speakers urged that program evaluation and follow-up measurement (including multi-year outcomes) be funded explicitly so the IPF can document what works and what does not.

—

Speakers quoted in this article and their first-reference roles are taken from the committee meeting transcript and public comment record.