Commission on Behavioral Health warns $20 million Mental Health Wellness Act cut would halt key grants

The Commission on Behavioral Health told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health that the governor's May Revision proposal to eliminate $20,000,000 in Mental Health Wellness Act funding would immediately derail multiple near‑launch grants and, if sustained, could effectively end most of the commission's grantmaking capacity after the five‑year Innovation Partnership Fund sunsets.

Brenda Greilish, executive director of the commission, said the May Revision reduces the commission's local‑assistance resources and would eliminate three projects that were "just about ready to launch": a $20,000,000 grant focused on children ages 0‑5 to six community‑based organizations and a technical‑assistance provider; a $20,000,000 full‑service partnerships (FSP) grant to support performance‑based contracting; and a $20,000,000 peer‑respite grant.

Greilish told the committee that the commission's Mental Health Wellness Act grants are distinct from the Proposition 1 Innovation Partnership Fund scheduled to begin in 2026–27, and that the latter is time‑limited to five years and requires demonstration of "innovation" and the ability to compete with public and private entities. "If this cut is enacted, then by fiscal year '30–'31, the Commission will no longer have any permanent ongoing grant programming," Greilish said, citing the commission's reliance on ongoing grant funds to support local crisis prevention and early‑intervention services.

Commissioner Rachelle Chambers, who spoke as a consumer representative, described local impact and personal experience: she said the funding supports peer respite and maternal mental‑health services and that the loss of the Wellness Act funds could not readily be replaced by the Innovation Partnership Fund because of scope and timing differences.

Department of Finance said the May Revision proposal is part of an administration package of general‑fund solutions to address a multi‑billion‑dollar deficit and noted the commission will receive up to $20,000,000 in Innovation Partnership Fund resources beginning in 2026–27 under statute. The Legislative Analyst's Office noted it was still evaluating the broader fiscal picture and requested further detail.

Why it matters: The commission's grants are targeted at local, unmet behavioral‑health needs and at pilot programs the commission says are not easily substituted by other programs. Commission witnesses warned that losing the short‑term Mental Health Wellness Act grants would interrupt services for small community partners and reduce capacity for equity‑focused, peer‑led and early‑intervention programs.

Public comment: Dozens of community groups and behavioral‑health advocates joined the CDPH comment period earlier and associated concerns about behavioral‑health funding cuts; several speakers referenced the commission's programs when describing gaps in local care.

Committee response: Subcommittee members pressed the Department of Finance on whether alternatives existed to protect these discretionary grants and asked for additional analysis of service‑level impacts and possible funding offsets. No final appropriation decisions were made at the hearing.

Clarifying details: The commission described three specific near‑launch grants each at $20,000,000 (children 0–5, FSP performance contracting, peer respites). The Innovation Partnership Fund established by Proposition 1 is limited to five years of funding and carries different statutory scope requirements than the Wellness Act grants.

Ending note: The commission and some legislators urged the administration to reconsider the proposed elimination or provide a phased approach that avoids mid‑contract interruptions.