Jeff Goldman, Chief Probation Officer, led a discussion about how the CCP should handle promising projects that begin with innovation funding and may be candidates for ongoing support.

The question matters for CCP budgeting: members worried that routinely absorbing innovation projects into baseline funding could grow long-term expenditures without measurable results.

Goldman summarized options discussed at prior meetings: a department that best matches a project’s client base could sponsor it in the regular budget process; the CCP could seek external grants as bridge funding; or the CCP could require a sustainability plan and robust data before approving longer-term funding. “If it's effective and successful, it's my clients who are benefiting the most from it,” Goldman said, arguing that the department that benefits most may be the appropriate sponsor.

Alex (APD officer) and other members emphasized the need for clear metrics: programs moving out of the innovation phase should show data that they serve the intended client population and demonstrate outcomes before being considered for ongoing CCP support. Participants warned that always converting innovation projects to line-item funding could substantially increase expenditures over time.

A practical next step proposed in the meeting was drafting a written proposal to present at the next CCP meeting to incorporate a transition mechanism into the CCP’s existing budget or bylaws process; the group did not adopt a motion or vote. A staff member offered to “tee it up” and circulate a draft for review. Members also suggested using grants as bridge funding while programs establish sustainability plans and data collection.

No formal vote was taken. The discussion closed with agreement to prepare a draft proposal and to bring back metrics and draft language for committee review.