AB 73 directs the California Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) to develop criteria and specialized training for a Black Mental Health Navigator specialty certificate within the state's community health worker (CHW) framework. The bill specifies training topics, mandates a stakeholder consultation, and authorizes HCAI to contract with community-based organizations with expertise in Black mental health to advise on or develop the curriculum.
AB 73 also requires HCAI to collect and publish, at least annually, nonidentifying data on the number and demographics of individuals certified under this specialty and the number actively employed in CHW roles. Both the certification-development and data-reporting requirements are contingent on a legislative appropriation, and the statute prohibits reporting personal identifying information.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds two sections (Welf. & Inst. Code 18998.15 and 18998.35) directing HCAI to create criteria and specialized training for a Black Mental Health Navigator specialty certificate and to collect/publish aggregate certification and employment data annually. It requires stakeholder solicitation and permits HCAI to engage community-based organizations to help design the program.
Who It Affects
Community health worker training programs, community-based organizations serving Black communities, mental health providers and employers who may hire navigators, and HCAI as the implementing agency. The certification targets individuals working as liaisons between Black Californians and mental health resources.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal, state-recognized pathway for culturally specific mental health navigation targeted at Black communities and builds a data stream to measure uptake and employment. Because enactment depends on appropriation, the bill sets a policy scaffold that requires funding to turn into operational training and workforce expansion.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 73 instructs the Department of Health Care Access and Information to develop a specialty certificate within California’s existing community health worker certificate authority for a Black Mental Health Navigator. The department must design both eligibility/criteria and a specialized training curriculum; it must also solicit stakeholder feedback and may contract with a community-based organization experienced in Black mental health to advise or write the criteria.
The bill situates the navigator role as a culturally specific CHW specialty intended to improve connections between Black Californians and public mental-health resources, licensed clinicians, and wellness services.
The bill lists core training content for the specialty: entry-level assessments, crisis intervention for nonemergency cases, navigation support (finding and connecting to services), and culturally specific practices tailored to Black communities. The statute is written to align this specialty with the state’s CHW certificate infrastructure, so the new credential would sit alongside other CHW certificates rather than create a separate, standalone license.AB 73 also requires HCAI to collect and publish aggregate data at least annually on the number of people who receive certification (including those who complete the specialty program), demographic breakdowns of certified individuals, and the number who are actively employed in CHW roles.
The bill explicitly bars reporting names or other personally identifying information. Both the development of the certificate and the data-collection duties are conditional on appropriation by the Legislature, meaning HCAI only has the obligation to act if funding is provided.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Welfare & Institutions Code sections 18998.15 (certificate criteria and training) and 18998.35 (data collection and publication).
HCAI must solicit stakeholder feedback and may engage a community-based organization with relevant expertise to advise on or develop the certificate criteria.
Required training topics include entry-level mental-health assessments, crisis intervention for nonemergency cases, navigation support, and culturally specific practices for Black communities.
HCAI must collect and publish, at least annually, aggregate counts and demographic information on certified individuals and the number actively employed in CHW roles, without publishing personal identifiers.
Both the certification-development mandate and the reporting requirement are explicitly conditioned on a legislative appropriation to HCAI.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Create specialty certificate criteria and require stakeholder input
This section directs HCAI to develop criteria for a Black Mental Health Navigator specialty certificate and to define the specialized training required to earn it. Practically, that means HCAI must set program standards (eligibility, curriculum scope, learning objectives) and run a consultation process with stakeholders; the statute also authorizes HCAI to contract with a community-based organization to advise or draft the criteria, which creates an avenue for subject-matter expertise to shape the credential.
Mandated curriculum elements for the navigator role
The statute specifies core curriculum elements rather than leaving content entirely open-ended: entry-level assessments, crisis intervention for nonemergency cases, navigation support, and culturally specific practices for delivering public health and mental health assistance in Black communities. Specifying those topics narrows HCAI’s discretion on curriculum priorities and signals the intended competencies of certificate-holders, but the bill does not prescribe hours, assessment methods, or accreditation rules—those implementation details remain for HCAI or contractor design.
Annual aggregate data collection and publication
This section requires HCAI to collect and regularly publish aggregate data—at least annually—on the number of certified individuals (by certificate type) and corresponding demographic information, plus the number actively employed in CHW roles. The provision prohibits collection of names or personally identifying information and is aimed at producing a public data stream to monitor the credential’s uptake and workforce integration; the bill leaves demographic categories and publication format to HCAI.
All duties contingent on legislative funding
Both the instruction to develop the specialty certificate and the instruction to collect/publish data take effect only 'upon appropriation by the Legislature.' That contingency means the statutory obligations create policy expectations but do not create standalone budgetary authority or immediate program rollout; HCAI cannot be compelled to perform these tasks without a legislative appropriation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Black Californians seeking culturally competent mental health navigation — the certification aims to increase access to navigators trained specifically in culturally specific practices and crisis navigation for nonemergency situations.
- Community-based organizations focused on Black mental health — they may be engaged to craft curriculum, get paid as contractors, and see their expertise formalized in state-recognized training standards.
- Mental health providers, clinics, and health systems — they get a clearer pipeline of certified navigators who can perform entry assessments and steer clients to appropriate services, potentially improving referral quality and engagement.
- Policymakers and workforce planners — the required aggregate data creates a new, public information source to assess credential uptake, demographic representation, and employment integration over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health Care Access and Information — HCAI must design criteria, run stakeholder processes, oversee possible contracts, and publish data, all of which require staffing and administrative resources if funded.
- State budget/Legislature — the bill is explicitly dependent on appropriation and therefore requires funding to pay for curriculum development, contractor contracts, and data publication.
- Prospective certificate candidates and CHW employers — even if training is subsidized, candidates typically bear time and opportunity costs for training; employers may face costs integrating certified navigators or supporting additional supervision and liability coverage.
- Community-based organizations that develop curricula without guaranteed sustained funding — organizations that invest time preparing to deliver or design the program risk misaligned expectations if the Legislature does not appropriate funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance two legitimate goals—rapidly building a culturally specific mental health navigation workforce for Black Californians and avoiding unfunded mandates—but does so by creating a policy framework that depends on future appropriations and leaves implementation details to the administering agency, producing a trade-off between setting priorities now and guaranteeing results later.
The bill creates a targeted credential and a data requirement, but implementation depends entirely on the Legislature’s willingness to fund HCAI. That conditionality is a double-edged sword: it protects the state from unfunded mandates, but it also means the statute may simply create expectations without operational follow-through.
For stakeholders planning to build training pipelines or budget for new hires, the absence of guaranteed funding makes timing and scale uncertain.
The statute prescribes training topics but leaves crucial operational choices to HCAI or contracted organizations: required hours, competency assessments, supervision requirements, scope-of-practice limits, and how the credential interacts with existing CHW certificates are unspecified. Those gaps raise practical questions about liability (especially given the inclusion of 'crisis intervention for nonemergency cases'), employer acceptance, and whether the credential will be a recognized qualification for reimbursement or public hiring.
Finally, the demographic data requirement is helpful but underspecified—without standards for categories, collection methods, and publication formats, the utility of the data for tracking equity and workforce outcomes may be limited.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.