Nevada County CCP reviews four innovation-fund requests, asks applicants to show scalability and sustainability

Nevada County's Community Corrections Partnership on Monday reviewed four proposals for the CCP "innovation fund," an annual pot of seed money set at $40,000 for community-based programs serving justice-involved populations. Presenters from Community Beyond Violence, Connecting Point, Women of Worth and a volunteer-led animal-foster program described pilot projects and asked the CCP to fund start-up or expansion costs.

The proposals aim to expand local options for people involved with the justice system: a restorative-justice pilot for survivors of domestic violence, job-skills and navigation services for youth, a community wellness curriculum used in a county shelter and jail, and temporary foster care for clients' pets while they enter treatment. Applicants requested a range of funding, including two for the full $40,000 and one request for up to $20,000 for the animal program.

The issue matters to the CCP because the innovation funds are drawn from county realignment dollars and are intended to seed programs that could lower rearrest or incarceration rates among AB 109 realigned populations. CCP members repeatedly pressed applicants on measurable outcomes, long-term funding plans and whether proposals were scalable or could operate if the CCP provided a smaller award.

Allison Bischoffberger, a representative of Community Beyond Violence, described that group's plan as "to create a pilot restorative justice program for survivors of domestic violence and [sexual] assault in Western Nevada County," saying the program would train two staff as certified mediators and offer victim-offender dialogue as a voluntary option for people who either decline prosecution or want an alternative to the criminal process. Bischoberger said the organization estimated it could serve roughly 20 people a year in the criminal-justice–involved cohort and requested $40,000 to cover training and program start-up.

Connecting Point representatives said their application would supplement an existing youth employment and navigation program, allowing faster intake for referrals from probation and paying for roughly half of a staff position to reduce a waiting list. A Connecting Point presenter said their age focus is roughly 16 to 30 and that the $40,000 request would cover about half-time staff capacity.

Women of Worth said it sought funding to expand a 12-week "wellness" curriculum launched last year in a local safe house; the presenter said 35 people completed the program in its first seven months and requested additional hours for the program director to run more classes and improve meeting space.

A volunteer-led animal-foster program asked for up to $20,000 in reimbursable expenses to provide temporary foster care, food and veterinary services for pets of people entering treatment, noting that some clients decline services because of pet-care barriers. The presenter described a reimbursement model (an up-front seed of $5,000 with receipts submitted for additional funds) and warned that a single emergency surgery could quickly use a large share of the request.

CCP members focused their discussion on three recurring issues: metrics, sustainability and administrative overhead. One member noted the difference between "doing good" and programs that demonstrably reduce recidivism for the AB 109 population and asked whether the CCP's data subgroup could help define measurable outcomes. Several members suggested requiring applicants to submit a written plan explaining how they would scale the program if awarded less than the requested amount and how the program would seek ongoing funding beyond CCP seed money.

County staff clarified the innovation fund's origin and size. Participants were told the annual allocation varies with growth in four subaccounts and that the fund currently stands at $40,000 for the year; past years have ranged widely. Staff and members cautioned that contracting and ongoing monitoring impose administrative work for probation and CCP staff.

There were two brief formal votes earlier in the meeting: approval of January and February minutes and adoption of CCP bylaws. Both motions passed by voice vote; individual tallies were not recorded in the available transcript.

Rather than awarding funds at this meeting, the CCP asked applicants to provide written answers about scalability and sustainability and scheduled a follow-up meeting to finalize decisions. Members said they would circulate proposals to department heads and the data subgroup ahead of that meeting.

The CCP did not take a final funding vote on the innovation proposals at this session; members framed the current discussion as a chance to gather more detail before allocating the limited $40,000 seed fund.