Nevada County delays funding decisions after providers present innovation-fund requests

Nevada County officials and community providers spent the meeting reviewing multiple applications for the county’s innovation fund, hearing detailed presentations about treatment capacity, workforce training tied to benefits reporting, transitional housing for women, a day-reporting center for people on mandatory supervision and a pet-reunification service for clients entering treatment. After questions about capacity, sustainability and whether the county can meet a July 1 start date, the committee moved to take the proposals under advisement and postponed final funding decisions for roughly two weeks.

The meeting opened with staff noting the county’s timing constraint: the group is aiming for projects to begin by July 1 and staff estimated the available innovation-fund balance at about $181,800. Probation Officer Jeff Goldman (first introduced during roll call) and other department staff asked detailed operational and referral questions throughout the presentations.

Jordan of Crow's Nest described a three-year outpatient treatment program that is currently under contract with Nevada County and said the provider is pursuing other funding and contracting opportunities. “We are in year three ... we're at a steady 10 and still climbing,” Jordan said, and added Crow’s Nest’s model includes higher-intensity tracks (PHP/IOP) and a Spanish‑language track. Jordan reported a current census of about 20 people and said the program can serve up to 24 people per day, and that local DUI-court referrals are already expected to route clients to Crow’s Nest.

A Connecting Point representative outlined a structured re-entry workforce development and benefits‑stability program aimed at able‑bodied adults who must meet CalFresh (transcribed as “Calresh”) participation requirements. Staff said the program would combine job training, internships and a reporting function between nonprofits and participants to help preserve benefits. “We could serve at least 120, possibly more, but that’s our base target,” the representative said, and noted some program funding is currently in place through December as the group seeks a sustainable medical‑funding pathway.

Women Worth described a transitional house for women exiting incarceration or at risk of homelessness that would offer case management, counseling, drug testing and housing support. The organization said the transitional house would broaden eligibility beyond its existing safe house mission so it can accept women who do not meet domestic‑violence shelter criteria; staff said the program will open regardless of grant awards but would welcome county support to scale capacity.

Project Heart proposed a day‑reporting center focused on the 1170/mandatory‑supervision population. Project Heart staff cited past grant performance: in one cohort they said the program served 47 people and that 25 were judged successful with a low rate of new‑law arrests. The presenter said the center would be located in the Brunswick Basin area, would provide daily evidence‑based programming and peer‑led case management, and would operate transportation support and a restorative‑justice facilitator.

A pet‑reunification program (identified in materials as Fox) described services that keep clients’ animals safe while owners enter treatment: temporary kenneling, foster placements, visits and reunification. The presenter said the program has helped a dozen clients and reunified seven animals to date and requested funding to create an emergency kenneling capacity for situations with 24‑hour notice, to ensure owners can begin time‑sensitive treatment without losing their pets.

David, presenting for the Veterans Services Office, proposed one‑time funding to create a limited‑term veterans specialist to work with the district attorney and public defender offices to establish diversion pathways and a veterans treatment court. He said the county has limited data but estimated “over 100 veterans” entered the legal system in the past three years and emphasized that a staffed position would both provide immediate services and produce the data needed to pursue federal or state grant funding.

After presentations, members asked operational questions about sustainability if the full award is not granted, referral pipelines (DUI court, probation), space and transportation, and how awards would be prioritized given the roughly $181,800 estimate for available funds. Multiple presenters said they could scale programs to smaller awards by reducing staffing or participants; several asked for help with matching funds and partnerships.

A committee member moved that staff and departments take the information presented, review the proposals with their respective departments and return with recommendations; the motion was seconded and members verbally indicated support. Staff noted the innovation fund’s limited balance and suggested a CCP‑specific budget workshop to review long‑term implications; the group agreed to reconvene in about two weeks to continue deliberation and possible allocation decisions.

The meeting closed with the panel scheduling the follow up and without any final awards made at the session.