Assembly hearing tests May Revision plan to shift Prop.1 behavioral‑health dollars as commission warns of cuts

Chair (Assembly member Addis) opened the subcommittee's final May Revision hearing, saying members are weighing difficult budget choices. Victoria Rapley of the Department of Finance presented the administration's proposal to allocate Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA/Prop. 1) resources across state priorities, including $174.8 million for population‑based prevention at the California Department of Public Health and $131.1 million for behavioral‑health workforce programs at the Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Riley Thompson of the Department of Finance told the committee the May Revision shifts $211.9 million in behavioral‑health programs from the general fund to BHSA in 2026‑27 to reduce general‑fund pressure while supporting workforce and prevention programs. "These programs are in line with the intentions of Proposition 1 to bolster access to population‑based preventive care as well as invest in workforce pipelines," Thompson said.

The Legislative Analyst's Office, represented at the hearing by Will Owens, said it is reviewing whether those program shifts comply with Prop. 1's non‑supplementing language and whether the specific programs proposed to be offset are eligible under the proposition. "A key question for the legislature is whether the proposed solutions are consistent with the language within Proposition 1," Owens said.

Commission for Behavioral Health Executive Director Brenda Greylish and Commissioner Dr. Gary Tsai urged the subcommittee to reject the May Revision's cuts to two commission programs. Greylish said the plan would cut the five‑year Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and permanently reduce the community advocacy grant program by $6.7 million. "Cutting innovation midstream will directly reduce the number of high‑quality implementation‑ready projects that can be funded," Greylish said, warning that midprocurement reductions would undercut community‑based applicants and smaller organizations that invested resources to apply.

Greylish and Tsai emphasized the advocacy grants support community engagement and the ability of historically underserved groups to participate in county BHSA planning. "These contractors are community‑based infrastructure," Greylish said. "Cutting the program at this stage would destabilize community partners at the exact moment the BHSA depends on credible community engagement."

Department of Finance staff disputed that the proposed changes violate Prop. 1. Victoria Rapley said the May Revision keeps counties' local BHSA allocations intact (90% to counties) while directing up to 10% of state‑level BHSA funds toward workforce and population prevention administered by state agencies. "We do not see this proposal as a violation of statute," Rapley said, adding the administration assessed programmatic eligibility against Prop. 1's requirements.

Multiple public commenters — including county behavioral‑health directors, youth advocates, and statewide advocacy organizations — urged preservation of prevention dollars and opposed using BHSA as a general‑fund backfill. George Cruz of the California Behavioral Health Association asked the committee to focus BHSA prevention dollars on proven local programs such as the California Reducing Disparities Project. Youth speakers, community‑based organizations and disability advocates described how advocacy grants enable outreach, culturally competent services, and local planning participation that they said cannot easily be replicated by statewide campaigns.

Assemblymember Rob Bonta and other members pressed DOF and LAO on the legal and practical questions raised by the fund shifts, including whether the allocations would reduce county prevention capacity and whether the administration's definition of "population‑based prevention" overlaps with community advocacy work. DOF officials said they are open to follow‑up discussions and technical adjustments in the runup to the final budget.

The subcommittee did not take a final vote; members said they will continue negotiations as the Assembly and administration refine the May Revision into the enacted budget.