State commission approves $20 million Innovation Partnership Fund RFP after heated debate over financing set‑aside

The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission voted Jan. 22 in Sacramento to issue a request for proposals for the Innovation Partnership Fund (IPF), authorizing staff to proceed with $20 million in initial grants to support innovation projects that align with the Behavioral Health Services Act. The vote followed more than two hours of debate over whether to hold back a portion of the money for a separate financing study.

Commission staff described the RFP outline as the product of a year of public outreach and statutory review and said it is designed to center equity, lived experience, and county behavioral‑health priorities. "We really want to center equity and the reduction of disparities in the IPF," Melissa Martin Millard, acting deputy director for research and evaluation, told commissioners during the presentation.

Opponents of a late proposal to partition funding argued that a 20% set‑aside for a new sustainable‑finance effort had not been vetted with stakeholders and would reduce already limited grant dollars for community organizations. "If the funding does not specifically prioritize and reach these communities, the disparities do not get reduced," said Ash Wilhelm of the California Reducing Disparities Project during public comment, urging the commission to adopt the framework as developed through the public process and not to reallocate funds at the eleventh hour.

Commissioner Mike Brown moved an amendment to reduce the IPF allocation to $16 million and reserve $4 million for further analysis; that amendment failed on roll call. The original RFP outline proceeded and passed on a subsequent roll‑call vote. Commissioners and staff signaled that the RFP will include scoring criteria to prioritize peer‑run, tribal, and smaller community‑based organizations, set tiered grant sizes (a small‑grant track for CBOs and tribal groups and larger grants open broadly), require applicants to demonstrate community need and sustainability planning, and incorporate shared learning and data reporting requirements.

Commissioners and many public commenters repeatedly raised concerns about scale, sustainability and county collaboration — pressing staff to make applications demonstrate local need and to explore mechanisms by which county partners would indicate willingness to collaborate. Staff said the procurement will include conflict‑of‑interest safeguards and that intent‑to‑award determinations will follow standard procurement and protest procedures.

Next steps: staff will finalize the RFP based on the outline approved by the commission and release it under the procurement rules; the commission also signaled it will continue to gather input on possible future financing options though no set‑aside was taken from this round.