LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – When it comes to reducing violence, one Lansing lawmaker is betting that prevention may be cheaper than prosecution – even if it means spending taxpayer money on people considered most likely to commit violent crimes.
Michigan Capitol Confidential, a nonprofit news service, reports that State Rep. Emily Dievendorf (D- Lansing) has requested $2 million in state funding for the Advance Peace program in Lansing through 2028. The nonprofit works with individuals deemed at high risk of involvement in gun violence.
MORE NEWS: Farm Worker Killed After Off-Road Vehicle Rollover in Menominee County
Dievendorf’s request cites a 19% drop in shootings and a 52% decline in fatal shootings since the program launched in Lansing in 2022. However, the request provides no evidence directly linking those reductions to the program.
Critics have raised eyebrows.
Advance Peace has drawn criticism in other states. A 2021 ABC News report on the program’s California operations noted that that the organization does not share information with police in order to maintain trust with participants, though it may alert authorities if violence appears imminent.
Funding faces questions.
The Michigan funding request may face more than political opposition. It could also run into legal and procedural questions. On the required legislative disclosure form, Dievendorf marked “not applicable” when asked whether the nonprofit recipient had continuously operated in Michigan for at least 36 months and maintained a physical office in the state for at least 12 months. The proposal also comes as Michigan courts weigh the legality of certain legislative earmarks.
Where funding comes from.
On their website, it says that Advance Peace Lansing is supported by grants from the Department of Justice, MDHHS (Michigan Department of Health and Human Services), Ingham County Michigan, and the City of Lansing. The earmark request was submitted on behalf of Ingham County.
Whether Advance Peace represents a smart investment in violence prevention or an expensive experiment in rewarding bad behavior will likely be part of the debate if the funding request moves forward. For now, taxpayers are left with a question: is it cheaper to try to stop crime before it happens, or does paying potential offenders send the wrong message?
