State commission hears community feedback on Innovation Partnership Fund design

The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission convened a virtual listening session to gather public input on the design of the Innovation Partnership Fund (IPF), a grant program created under Proposition 1 and the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA). Sarah Brooks, senior director at Sellers Dorsey, told participants the fund totals $100,000,000 and is expected to provide about $20,000,000 per year for five years beginning in fiscal 2026-27.

The session brought commissioners, staff and community stakeholders together to test a working definition of —innovation,— review statutory target populations and discuss proposed investment priorities and —cpillars.— Sarah Brooks said the draft definition aims to include approaches that are —actionable and ready for real world implementation— and emphasized that some parts of the IPF statutory language are fixed: —this is defined in statute and that this is an area that at this point, no additional feedback is needed,— she said.

Why it matters: the IPF money is intended to support projects that reduce behavioral health disparities among prioritized groups specified in welfare and institutions code WIC 5892, including children and youth at risk of homelessness or involved in juvenile justice, adults who are chronically homeless or justice-involved, and people at risk of conservatorship. Because the program is modest relative to statewide needs, participants repeatedly urged clear priorities and guidance so small community-based organizations and peer-run groups can compete.

Discussion highlights

Definition of innovation: Presenters proposed four —cor— criteria (examples, scaling local models, community-centered solutions and departure from the status quo, and readiness for implementation). Community members praised the flexibility but urged clarification. Several speakers recommended explicitly centering peers and people with lived experience. Tristan, a participant with lived experience, argued peers should be —more central in this— work, saying peer-run groups often create innovative, side-door approaches. Others suggested adding language about cultural responsiveness and community-defined practices.

Target populations and statutory limits: Sarah Brooks and other staff repeatedly noted that eligible priority groups are established by statute and cannot be changed in the IPF design process. Participants asked how the IPF will align with county integrated plans and flagged the timing challenge of counties and state entities developing plans simultaneously.

Pillars and priorities: Staff proposed three investment pillarsyouth, workforce and connection (integration). Commenters urged changes or clarifications: some recommended broadening —cyouth— to an intergenerational or family focus, others said disparities (BIPOC, immigrant, LGBTQ communities) should be named explicitly. Multiple speakers recommended workforce investments that include paid trainee/practicum support and expansion of the peer workforce. Laurel Bem Hamada and others suggested explicit language on culturally and linguistically appropriate services.

Grant mechanics and scale: Participants asked how the $20 million-per-year budget will be allocated across counties, community groups and possible project sizes. Presenters reiterated the total and said design details, including governance, metrics, and funding types, will be refined through the next round of stakeholder sessions and a Program Advisory Committee meeting in September.

Community concerns and process requests: Speakers from nonprofits and peer organizations asked for practical supports: noncompetitive seed funding or community engagement subgrants, explicit language about eligibility (whether organizations must partner with a county), and straightforward application materials. Several urged clear outreach to small BIPOC-led and linguistically specific organizations; one participant asked that recordings and materials be posted so communities can review discussions.

Next steps: Staff said they will post updates to a version 3 IPF design after the remaining listening session(s), present recommended grant design to the Program Advisory Committee in September, and bring a proposal to the full commission in October. For more information or to share written feedback, staff provided program@bhsoac.ca.gov.

The session was a listening and information-gathering meeting; no formal votes or policy decisions were taken.