Behavioral health commission advisory committee adopts four-priority "refresh" to align plan with BHSA; housing, peer workforce and funding stability flagged

The Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission—advisory committee met to review proposed updates to the commission—strategic plan designed to align the commission's work with the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) following the passage of Proposition One. The committee framed the changes as a two-year "refresh," not a full overhaul, intended to guide the commission's work in calendar years 2026 and 2027 and to be forwarded for full-commission adoption in May 2026.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the refresh must demonstrate clear, implementable value given constrained state revenues and the commission's advisory and funding limitations. The proposed priorities target the BHSA—priority populations with the intention of directing the commission's existing portfolio (no new state resources) toward measurable results. Committee members and public commenters repeatedly raised housing-service mismatches, the near-term loss of peer jobs as counties reorganize under BHSA, and long-term revenue stability as issues requiring further work.

What the committee proposed

Brenda Greyish, the commission's executive director, and consultants from Leading Resources described four cross-cutting priorities for 2026——————and 2027: 1) meeting the needs of people with the highest behavioral health needs (with an emphasis on full-service partnerships, or FSPs), 2) intentionally integrating substance use disorder (SUD) services across the portfolio, 3) expanding peer behavioral health services (including peer-run and peer-owned programs), and 4) using the commission's new statutory role over an innovation partnership fund to build evidence and explore mission-aligned public—private partnerships and strategies to improve system revenue stability.

Greyish summarized the committee's approach: "This is a refresh, not an overhaul," and said the draft results ground the priorities in concrete deliverables the commission would pursue over the next two calendar years.

Key proposed results presented to commissioners included: educating stakeholders about BHSA vs. the prior MHSA framework; increasing transparency about county allocations to serve BHSA priority populations; stewarding knowledge about FSP implementation and the standard of care for FSP clients; expanding medication-assisted treatment and school-based SUD pilots; launching a peer respite RFP and strengthening peer roles and training; and using the new innovation partnership fund to uplift promising practices and examine long-term funding strategies.

Points of contention and public input

Definition of priority populations. A public commenter, Si (Safe Passages), asked, "how that population is going to be defined," noting concern that broadly stated goals could omit groups with high disparities such as BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities. Executive Director Greyish replied that "the BHSA priority populations are already defined in statute" and that equity should be embedded across all priorities.

Housing and FSPs. Commissioners pushed for clarity about the commission's role versus county responsibilities on housing, and warned that service-housing mismatches can undermine outcomes. Several commissioners urged the commission to document how housing scarcity and inappropriate placements affect FSP clients and to use findings to inform policy and investments. One commissioner noted that counties receive roughly 90% of BHSA funds and cautioned against duplicative activities.

Peer workforce losses. Multiple speakers—including commissioners and public commenters—raised alarm that counties are cutting peer positions during the BHSA transition. Laurel Bena (Mass Social Services Foundation / REMCO) urged the commission to use its platform to preserve peer jobs and support peer-run organizations, saying listening sessions reported that "one organization or county is going to be cutting 200 peers."

Funding and public-private partnerships. Commissioner Brown urged exploring partnerships with philanthropic and other external funders to leverage scarce state resources: "we need to really try to be innovative and look at partnering with philanthropic and other kindred organizations," he said while also acknowledging controversy from a prior London trip. Several commissioners and public commenters urged that any exploration of public-private partnerships or revenue-stabilization mechanisms include independent review, clear governance safeguards, and public transparency to avoid circumventing normal deliberative processes.

Next steps and timeline

Staff and the consultants said the advisory committee would reconvene in April to translate the proposed priorities into specific strategies and performance measures. The committee expects to forward a final recommendation to the full commission for adoption at the May 2026 meeting; if adopted, staff would work with consultants on an implementation plan.

The meeting produced no formal motions or votes. Commissioners directed staff to refine results, clarify the commission's role vis-———vis counties on housing and FSP oversight, and develop guardrails for any work exploring partnerships or revenue strategies.

What to watch for

- April advisory committee meeting: staff will bring strategies and measures tied to each result. - May 2026 full commission meeting: anticipated adoption of the two-year refresh and next steps for implementation. - Peer workforce reports and public comments: staff indicated they will synthesize community-sourced insights about FSP implementation and peer service impacts to inform quality-improvement work.

The committee adjourned after public comment and brief closing remarks from Chair Karen Larson.