I’m calling this one out right from the starting gate. A $4 million federal grant has just been awarded to Pennsylvania through the U.S. Department of Justice Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), claiming its goal is to expand evidence-based programs targeting root causes of violence and attempting to provide support to victims and communities. On its surface, the initiative sounds well-intentioned, however, upon further inspection, it feels a lot like one of those programs used to move money around to political allies in the name of public interest.
“Gun violence isn’t just a Philadelphia problem—it’s a Pennsylvania problem, and uniquely, an American problem … But it’s a problem we can and must do something about,” says Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Austin Davis.
Pennsylvania’s hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) are the key focus of the grant. These programs purportedly deploy intervention specialists to hospitals with the intent to engage victims of gun violence in the immediate wake of an injury, claiming this action will disrupt retaliatory cycles and address violence as a public health crisis and community epidemic. But what does this all really mean?
Advocates for HVIPs are quick to point out that gun violence disproportionately affects communities of color, but they never address the crisis as being driven by the very same communities. A great deal of the effort is spent making excuses for the decisions of those who perpetrate violent crimes, often treating them more like societal victims than pointing out the opportunistic reality of the criminal mindset.
A frequently cited excuse is the lack of access to the support necessary for recovery and rebuilding, encouraging advocates to argue that federal grants, such as the CVIPI, are able to identify disparities and offer resources to address inequalities directly. If this causes you to question whether these programs are simply redistributing your tax dollars as a form of socialism cleverly disguised as a public service, stop scratching your head because you’re correct. If you also think the programs sound like a way to reward criminal behavior by attempting to purchase votes from particular communities, pat yourself on the back because you’re nailing it. For icing on the hypocritical cake, consider the kid-glove approach proposed here in contrast to the propensity of the state to criminalize Constitutionally protected activities of law-abiding gun owners.
When you look at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s record, you’ll see a deeply embedded Biden ally. From his legal attacks against President Trump during his first administration and in the wake of the “election anomalies” of 2020 to his support for illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, gun control and red flag laws that have made him an Everytown sweetheart, it is no surprise to see the Biden DOJ rewarding Shapiro for being a loyal collaborator.
If Governor Shapiro and the DOJ really cared to put a dent in community violence, they would spend money to increase police presence and resources in areas with the highest saturation of violent crime. Additionally, the state would allocate greater resources for prosecuting and incarcerating those who put the community at risk. The truth is that budgetary increases for law enforcement agencies and keeping violent offenders off the street is too tangible a way to spend money, bringing what Democrat lawmakers fear the most right to the governor’s doorstep: accountability. Follow the money on this one.
