times as likely to be shot to death as their White 
peers. 
(5) African-American men make up just 6 per-
cent of the population in the United States, but ac-
count for more than 50 percent of all gun homicide 
victims each year. 
(6) Violence is responsible for half of all deaths 
among young African-American men, ages 15 
through 24, as many as every other cause of death 
combined. 
(7) This violence imposes enormous human, so-
cial, and economic costs. Nationwide, the annual so-
cietal cost of firearm violence was estimated at 
$229,000,000,000 per year in 2012. Economists es-
timate that each firearm homicide generates hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars in direct public costs, 
including medical care and criminal justice expenses. 
(8) Several evidence-based violence intervention 
strategies have demonstrated remarkable success at 
interrupting entrenched cycles of violence, victimiza-
tion, and retaliation. These strategies reflect the im-
portant fact that in most cities, the vast majority of 
violence is perpetrated by a relatively small number 
of identifiable groups or individuals that comprise 
less than 0.5 percent of the city’s total population. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(9) When properly implemented and consist-
ently funded, coordinated, evidence-based strategies 
focused on interrupting cycles of violence among in-
dividuals at highest risk can produce life-saving and 
cost-saving results in a short period of time without 
contributing to mass incarceration. Multiple cities 
have substantially reduced community violence in re-
cent years by implementing such strategies, includ-
ing the following: 
(A) Hospital-based violence intervention 
programs (referred to in this section as 
‘‘HVIP’’), which work to break cycles of vio-
lence by providing intensive counseling, peer 
support, case management, mediation, and so-
cial services to patients recovering from gunshot 
wounds and other violent injuries. Research has 
shown that violently injured patients are at 
high risk of retaliating with violence themselves 
and being revictimized by violence in the near 
future. Evaluations of HVIPs have found that 
patients who received HVIP services were 4 
times less likely to be convicted of a violent 
crime and roughly 4 times less likely to be sub-
sequently reinjured by violence than patients 
who did not receive HVIP services. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(B) Evidence-based street outreach pro-
grams, which treat gun violence as a commu-
nicable disease and work to interrupt its trans-
mission among community members. These 
public health-centered initiatives use street out-
reach workers to build relationships with high- 
risk individuals in their communities and con-
nect them with intensive counseling, mediation, 
peer support, and social services in order to re-
duce their risk of violence. Evaluations have 
found that these programs are associated with 
significant reductions in gun violence, with 
some sites reporting up to 70-percent reduc-
tions in homicides or assaults. 
(C) Strategies, including group violence 
interventions (referred to in this section as 
‘‘GVI’’), which are a form of problem-oriented 
policing that provides targeted social services 
and support to individuals at highest risk for 
involvement in community violence, and a proc-
ess for community members to voice a clear de-
mand for the violence to stop. This approach 
coordinates law enforcement, service providers, 
and community engagement efforts to reduce 
violence among a small, identifiable segment of 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
the population that is responsible for the vast 
majority of gun violence in most cities. In one 
evaluation of the GVI program in Boston, re-
searchers found a 63-percent reduction in youth 
homicides and a 25-percent decline in monthly 
gun assaults across the city. Other studies have 
found that GVI programs were associated with 
homicide reductions of up to 60 percent. 
(10) These strategies are often most effective 
when local officials and dedicated staff work to co-
ordinate stakeholders, relevant public agencies, and 
service providers. Mayors in cities like Los Angeles 
and New York have established city departments 
that are primarily dedicated to violence prevention, 
and their offices have played a critical role in ensur-
ing cross-agency collaboration and information-shar-
ing. 
(11) These strategies are also most effective 
when they receive consistent funding. For example, 
large cuts in funding for violence prevention pro-
grams in Chicago in 2008, 2012, and 2015 through 
2016 corresponded with large spikes in homicides in 
those years. Similarly, the city of Stockton, Cali-
fornia, saw an increase in homicides after dis-
continuing funding for its highly successful GVI pro-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
gram. When Stockton’s funding was restored, homi-
cides decreased. 
(12) A national strategy for reducing gun vio-
lence must include substantial and targeted Federal 
funding to expand and replicate the most effective 
strategies in communities most impacted by violence. 
(13) At present, however, these strategies are 
implemented in only a handful of cities and are 
funded through an unreliable patchwork of discre-
tionary grant programs. The current level of Federal 
funding to support the scaling of these strategies is 
woefully inadequate. 
(14) Intentional and sustained investments in 
evidence-based violence reduction strategies can re-
verse recent crime trends, help to heal impacted 
communities, and reduce the enormous human and 
financial costs of violence, without contributing to 
mass incarceration. 
SEC. 
3. 
COMMUNITY-BASED 
VIOLENCE 
INTERVENTION 
PROGRAM GRANTS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 
the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(2) ELIGIBLE UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.— 
The term ‘‘eligible unit of local government’’ means 
a unit of local government that— 
(A) for not less frequently than two out of 
the 3 years preceding the grant application, ex-
perienced twenty or more homicides per year 
and had a homicide rate that was not less than 
double the national average; or 
(B) demonstrates a unique and compelling 
need for additional resources to address gun 
and group-related violence within the commu-
nity of the unit of local government. 
(b) GRANTS.—The Director shall award Community- 
Based Violence Intervention Program grants to support, 
enhance, and replicate coordinated violence reduction ini-
tiatives in units of local government that are dispropor-
tionately impacted by gun and group-related violence. 
(c) ELIGIBILITY.—The Director shall award grants 
under this section on a competitive basis to— 
(1) eligible units of local government; and 
(2) community-based organizations that serve 
the residents of an eligible unit of local government. 
(d) USE OF FUNDS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—A grant awarded under this 
section shall be used to implement coordinated vio-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
lence reduction initiatives, through strategies such 
as hospital-based violence intervention, evidence- 
based street outreach, and group violence interven-
tion. 
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—A coordinated violence 
reduction initiative implemented using grant funds 
awarded under this section shall— 
(A) be primarily focused on providing com-
munity-based violence intervention services to 
the small portion of a grantee’s community who 
are, regardless of age, identified as having the 
highest risk of perpetrating or being victimized 
by gun or group-related violence in the near fu-
ture; and 
(B) use strategies that are evidence-based 
and have demonstrated effectiveness at reduc-
ing violence. 
(e) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.—Each applicant 
for a grant under this section shall submit a grant pro-
posal, which shall, at a minimum— 
(1) describe how the applicant proposes to use 
the grant to implement a coordinated violence reduc-
tion initiative in accordance with this section; 
(2) describe how the applicant proposes to use 
the grant to promote or improve coordination be-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
tween relevant agencies and community organiza-
tions in order to minimize duplication of services 
and achieve maximum impact; 
(3) provide evidence indicating that the pro-
posed violence reduction initiative would likely re-
duce gun and group-related violence; and 
(4) in the case of a unit of local government ap-
plicant, demonstrate strong support within the unit 
of local government for the proposed violence reduc-
tion initiative, such as letters of support from— 
(A) the mayor or chief executive officer; 
(B) the chief of police; 
(C) the local health department director; 
and 
(D) the director of one or more commu-
nity-based organizations that provide services to 
individuals at high risk of violence in the area. 
(f) PRIORITIZATION.—In awarding grants under this 
section, the Director shall give preference to applicants 
whose grant proposals demonstrate the greatest likelihood 
of reducing gun and group-related violence in the commu-
nity of the applicant without contributing to mass incar-
ceration. 
(g) GRANT DURATION.—A grant awarded under this 
section shall be for a 5-year period. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(h) GRANT AWARD.—The amount of funds awarded 
to an applicant under this section shall be commensurate 
with the scope of the proposal of the applicant and the 
demonstrated need for additional resources to effectively 
reduce gun and group-related violence in the community 
of the applicant. 
(i) MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-
graphs (2) and (3), the Federal share of each grant 
awarded under this section shall be 75 percent of 
the eligible costs incurred by the grant recipient. 
(2) EXEMPTION
FROM
REQUIREMENT.—Para-
graph (1) shall not apply to a grant awarded to 
community-based 
organization 
under 
subsection 
(c)(2). 
(3) WAIVER.—The Federal share of a grant 
awarded to a unit of local government under sub-
section (c)(1) may be up to 100 percent if the Direc-
tor determines there is good cause to waive the Fed-
eral share requirement in paragraph (1) of this sub-
section. 
(j) COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS.—Each unit of local 
government awarded a grant under this section shall dis-
tribute not less than 50 percent of the grant funds re-
ceived under this section to— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
(1) one or more community-based organizations 
that provide services to individuals at high risk of 
perpetrating or being victimized by violence; or 
(2) a public agency or department that is not 
a law enforcement agency, but that is an agency or 
department primarily dedicated to the prevention of 
violence or community safety. 
(k) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date 
on which the first 5-year grant period under this section 
ends, the Director shall publish a report identifying best 
practices for cities implementing evidence-based violence 
intervention initiatives. 
(l) REWARDING SUCCESS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director may reserve 
not more than 10 percent of the funds appropriated 
for a fiscal year under subsection (o) for supple-
mental incentive funds to be distributed to grantees 
outside the competitive grant process in accordance 
with paragraph (2). 
(2) DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS.— 
The Director may distribute amounts reserved under 
paragraph (1), in the discretion of the Director, to 
a grantee under subsection (b) that has— 
(A) implemented the grant for not less 
than 2 years; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
22:24 Oct 29, 2019
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4836.IH
H4836
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS