Commission gathers community input on Proposition 1 Innovation Partnership Fund

The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission hosted a virtual listening session in September to gather community input on the Innovation Partnership Fund (IPF), the five‑year, $100 million program created by Proposition 1.

Sarah Brooks, senior director at SellersDorsey, told participants that Proposition 1, which passed in March 2024, revamps the Mental Health Services Act into the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) and establishes the IPF as a $20 million per year stream for five years — a $100 million total — to be administered by the commission for behavioral health beginning July 1, 2026. Brooks said the statute already defines the IPF’s purpose and target populations and that some implementation details (governance, metrics, technical assistance) will be developed later.

The IPF’s statutory scope, as read in the session, limits eligible investments to projects that advance statewide BHSA goals and county integrated plans; the presenters specifically cited the statutory reference shown in the slide deck (WIC 5892) and said additional guidance is available from the Department of Health Care Services’ BHSA policy manual. The commission staff emphasized that statutory definitions of priority populations and eligible program types cannot be changed through this listening process.

Why it matters: the IPF is intended to fund innovative behavioral‑health projects that target populations with the highest needs and the greatest barriers to care. Community members at the session pressed staff to clarify how the fund will treat prevention and early intervention, how effectiveness will be measured, whether funded projects can be nonproprietary and scalable, and how the fund will support workforce pipelines and culturally and linguistically specific programs.

Key details from the presentation and discussion

• Funding and timing: Sarah Brooks said the IPF is structured as $20 million per year for five years (a $100 million total) starting in fiscal year 2026, administered by the commission for behavioral health. Brooks and other presenters said the fund’s statutory language constrains which populations and program types are eligible. (Presentation slides cited Proposition 1, the BHSA, and WIC 5892 as the governing references.)

• Statutory target populations and program types: The presenters read the statute’s priority lists for eligible children, youth, adults and older adults (chronically homeless or at risk of homelessness; in or at risk of entering the juvenile or criminal justice systems; reentering from incarceration; in or at risk of child welfare involvement or institutionalization). The statute also lists eligible program areas such as housing interventions, full‑service partnerships, early intervention programs, outreach and engagement, workforce education and training, capital facilities and technology, and innovative behavioral health pilots.

• Proposed priorities and pillars: Commission staff proposed six priorities — equity; financing and sustainability; public/private partnerships; lived experience and community leadership; alignment with state efforts; and agility/lean integration — and three strategic investment pillars: (1) youth prevention and early intervention at the population level, (2) workforce (expanding peers and nontraditional providers), and (3) connection (improving quality and integration of behavioral‑health systems). Commissioner Gary Tsai said the pillars were intended to be broad and to include mental health and substance use services.

Community feedback (major themes and representative attributions)

• Prevention and early intervention: Multiple speakers — including Patty (National Alliance on Mental Illness), Mia Cooper Khan (Alameda Health Consortium), and others — urged that prevention and early intervention remain visible priorities, not be crowded out by eligibility focused on higher‑severity populations. "Our early intervention programs are pretty much cut out," said Patty of NAMI. Several commenters asked staff to clarify how prevention fits within the statute’s listed priority populations.

• Evaluation and effectiveness: Josefina Alvarado Mena (CEO, Safe Passages; representative, California Reducing Disparities Project) and others asked for concrete effectiveness and evaluation requirements in the IPF framework. Josefina said the definition of innovation should "include some language related to demonstrating effectiveness." Multiple commenters urged measurable outcomes and data requirements for funded projects.

• Cultural and community‑defined approaches: Speakers from community‑based organizations, including representatives involved with the California Reducing Disparities Project (CRDP) and community defined evidence practices (CDEP), advocated that community‑defined evidence and culturally and linguistically appropriate services be central. Ghoshani (Muslim American Society Social Services Foundation) and Estee Song (SSG, Asian Pacific Counseling and Treatment Centers) described programs serving refugees, immigrants and AAPI communities and urged that those approaches be recognized and prioritized.

• Financing, sustainability and nonproprietary access: Josefina and other commenters warned that short‑term innovation grants can fail without sustainable infrastructure. Josefina urged the commission to avoid proprietary arrangements that would prevent counties from adopting proven approaches. "Financing and sustainability is critical," she said.

• Workforce/pipeline concerns: Shanti Ezerin (California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists) and others urged funding to support the behavioral‑health workforce pipeline (for example, paid practicum sites and support for trainees) so graduates can remain in public‑sector settings. Several commenters noted workforce shortages and asked for investments that enable providers to be trained, retained and fairly compensated.

• Risk tolerance for true innovation vs. evidence requirements: Representatives from digital mental‑health and other innovative fields argued for a balanced approach that allows ventures that are "evidence‑informed" but not yet "evidence‑based" to receive funding paired with requirements to produce outcome data. Katrina (digital mental‑health commenter) said that requiring clinical‑trial‑level evidence up front would exclude many genuinely innovative solutions; she recommended softer entry requirements with clear data‑production obligations.

• Scope and statutory limits: Staff repeatedly reminded participants that many eligibility and population definitions are prescribed by statute. Staff said early intervention is included in the statute, but that the commission would need to research how the term "prevention" intersects with statutory priority populations.

Process and next steps

Staff said they will present a revised framework at the Program Advisory Committee meeting on Sept. 18 and then at the full commission meeting in October. Presenters asked for further written input and noted that governance details, metrics, capacity building and other "nuts and bolts" will be developed with the advisory committee and commission in upcoming meetings.

Ending: The session collected extensive community feedback on how to interpret statutory priorities, how to define and evaluate innovation, and how to ensure funded projects are culturally appropriate, sustainable and able to scale. Staff will incorporate public comments into the materials presented to the Program Advisory Committee on Sept. 18 and to the full commission in October.