The Client, Family and Community Inclusion advisory committee recommended that the full Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission approve an RFP outline for the Innovation Partnership Fund (IPF), a program staff said is designed to seed innovative behavioral‑health projects that serve underserved populations.

Staff presented the IPF framework and said the commission plans to release the RFP in 2026 after incorporating committee feedback. The outline will require applications to demonstrate a clear definition of innovation, alignment with county programs under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), community and lived‑experience input in design and implementation, financial sustainability beyond the grant term, and data plans for continuous improvement.

Committee members and public commenters pressed staff on two central issues: whether the IPF should create a small‑grant tier reserved for community‑based organizations (CBOs) and how sustainability will be assessed. Jason Robison, a committee member, voiced concern that carving out small grants might “push smaller organizations into smaller grants when they might need bigger grants to be effective,” and urged scoring preferences instead. Staff replied that a small‑grant carve‑out, if adopted, would not prevent CBOs from applying for larger awards and that staff are seeking the committee’s input on tiers and scoring. Dr. Melissa (assistant deputy director, Research Evaluation and Programs) told members the commission is considering a small‑grant tier and will avoid mandatory match requirements that could disadvantage grassroots groups.

Public commenters urged that equity be made measurable. Josefina Alvarado Mena (Safe Passages, California Reducing Disparities Project) recommended developing an equity evaluation framework and requiring grantees to disaggregate data by race, ethnicity and LGBTQ status. A number of speakers also urged that the IPF preserve and build on lessons from the California Reducing Disparities Project (CRDP).

On a procedural motion, Eugene Duro moved and Richard Zaldivar seconded that the committee recommend the RFP outline to the full commission. The committee held a roll call and the chair announced the motion passes; the recommendation is advisory and will go to the full commission for final approval.

What happens next: staff will revise the RFP outline to reflect committee suggestions (including options on small‑grant tiers, scoring priorities for community and lived‑experience leadership, and technical assistance/shared infrastructure), then present the revised outline to the full commission.