AB 2378 creates the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program (CalVIP) and places it under the Office of Community Violence Intervention within the Board of State and Community Corrections. The program’s stated purpose is to fund evidence-based, community-centered gun-violence reduction initiatives that interrupt cycles of retaliation and target a small, high-risk segment of the population.
CalVIP directs competitive grants to cities, counties, and community-based organizations in areas disproportionately affected by community gun violence; it requires coordination with tribal governments and prioritizes interventions that reduce shootings and homicides without contributing to mass incarceration. The bill also sets governance, reporting, and evaluation requirements intended to make funded efforts transparent and to build capacity in the field of community-based violence intervention and prevention.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a state-administered competitive grant program that funds evidence-based community gun-violence reduction strategies and requires grantees to coordinate services, measure outcomes, and report results. It establishes an executive steering committee and gives the administering office roles for technical assistance, evaluation, and program promotion.
Who It Affects
Cities, counties, community-based organizations, tribal governments, public safety and public health departments, and the state agency that will administer grants and evaluations. Frontline violence intervention professionals and organizations that train or support them are direct operational targets of the program.
Why It Matters
This law channels dedicated state funding toward community-led, public-health oriented approaches to gun violence in places with concentrated violence, while setting rules intended to prioritize non-carceral responses and to build sector capacity and public accountability.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2378 establishes CalVIP as a dedicated grant program to support community-based, evidence-driven responses to interpersonal gun violence that typically occurs in public places and among non-intimately related parties. The bill defines the program’s purpose narrowly: support interventions that interrupt retaliation cycles and provide focused services to a relatively small group at high near-term risk of perpetration or victimization.
Eligible activities explicitly include hospital-based intervention, street outreach, and focused deterrence models that incorporate public-health and community approaches.
Applicants must file a board-prescribed proposal describing measurable objectives, the evidence base for the chosen strategy, how they will identify and engage high-risk individuals, and how they will coordinate existing services to avoid duplication. The bill also requires demonstration of community support for city and county applicants and directs the administering office to prioritize proposals most likely to reduce violence during the grant period without contributing to mass incarceration.Governance mechanisms emphasize community voice and program learning: the bill sets up an executive steering committee made up of people with lived experience, formerly incarcerated persons, subject-matter experts, and practitioners; requires grantees to report progress at prescribed intervals; and mandates public availability of evaluations.
The statute also directs the administering office and board to provide technical assistance and build capacity across the field through training, intermediary support, frontline worker mental-health supports, and problem analyses to help providers identify high-risk individuals.The bill includes special rules for tribal governments, recognizing data collection challenges and directing consultation on how to establish “compelling need.” It also requires grantees to channel a substantial portion of funds to community-based organizations or non-law-enforcement public agencies or tribal governments, and it contemplates reserving a portion of appropriations for program administration and capacity-building. Finally, the law requires the board’s administering office to submit post-grant-cycle reports to the Legislature and to make evaluation results public, creating an explicit learning loop for evidence and practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
CalVIP is administered by the Office of Community Violence Intervention within the Board of State and Community Corrections.
A city qualifies as 'disproportionately impacted' if it had 20+ homicides per year in two of the prior three years, or 10+ homicides and a homicide rate at least 50% above the statewide rate in two of the prior three years, or if it demonstrates a compelling need (with tribal consultation for tribes).
Grants are competitive, may not exceed $2,500,000 per applicant per year, and must run for at least a three-year cycle; the board must award at least two grants to jurisdictions with populations of 200,000 or less.
At award, the board must make at least 20% of a grantee’s total award available at the start of the grant period, and cities/counties receiving grants must distribute no less than 50% of grant funds to community-based organizations, non-law-enforcement public safety or prevention departments, or tribal governments.
The bill authorizes reserving funds for administration and capacity building: it identifies both a fixed-dollar reservation (references to at least $1,000,000 and up to $2,000,000 appear) and authorizes reserving up to 5% of appropriations for administrative costs and up to 5% for capacity-building activities (training, intermediaries, mental-health supports, problem analyses).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates CalVIP and assigns administration
This provision formally establishes the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program and places it under the Office of Community Violence Intervention inside the Board of State and Community Corrections. Practically, this centralizes program control in the board office that will set application forms, run competitions, and oversee reporting, which concentrates both technical assistance and accountability in a single state entity.
Purpose and working definition of community gun violence
The statute frames CalVIP as a public-health-oriented effort to reduce intentional interpersonal firearm violence occurring in public settings and among non-intimate parties. That definition narrows the program to street/public-space shootings and related retaliatory violence, which matters because it signals preferred intervention models (outreach, hospital-based intervention, focused deterrence) rather than domestic or intimate-partner firearm violence responses.
Permitted uses, targeting, and eligible applicants
The bill lists evidence-based models that grants should support and emphasizes services targeted to the small high-risk segment. Eligible applicants include disproportionately impacted cities (the bill explicitly includes tribal governments in the definition of 'cities'), counties with such cities, and community-based organizations serving those areas. Applicants must include measurable objectives, an evidence rationale, outreach and engagement plans for high-risk individuals, coordination strategies, and, for cities/counties, documented support from non-law-enforcement public agencies or CBOs. The requirement to coordinate with nearby tribal governments, and to take tribal input on 'compelling need,' is an explicit acknowledgment of tribal data gaps and sovereignty concerns.
Award criteria, award size, and grant length
The board must award grants competitively and give preference to proposals most likely to reduce community gun violence during the grant without contributing to mass incarceration. The bill caps annual awards per applicant and requires multi-year grant cycles to promote continuity. It also requires the board to direct a proportionate award size tied to proposal scope and demonstrated need, and to ensure geographic diversity by reserving awards for smaller jurisdictions.
Initial disbursement and mandated pass-through to community actors
To accelerate program startup, the board must make a portion of an approved award available at the start of the grant period. For city or county grantees, the statute mandates that at least half of the grant be distributed to community-based organizations, non-law-enforcement public safety or prevention departments, or tribal governments—this is a structural requirement to keep funds flowing to community-led providers rather than centralized municipal control.
Steering committee, technical assistance, and reservation of funds
The bill creates an executive steering committee chaired by the administering office and populated by people with lived experience, formerly incarcerated persons, subject-matter experts, and frontline implementers. The statute authorizes reserving a portion of appropriations for program administration and for capacity-building activities—training, intermediary support, frontline mental-health services, and targeted problem analyses—to support a sustainable practitioner field. The text includes multiple numeric references regarding reserved amounts and percentages; implementers will need to reconcile these when setting budgets.
Reporting, evaluation, public disclosure, and retroactivity
Grantees must report progress to the administering office at intervals prescribed by the board, and the office must prepare and submit post-grant-cycle reports to the Legislature and make evaluations publicly available. An applicability clause limits the effect of the bill’s amendments to grant applications and awards made after January 1, 2024, which preserves prior grant actions from being reopened under the new rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- High-risk individuals and their families — the bill directs services to a narrowly defined high-risk population, increasing access to hospital-based intervention, outreach, and support services for those most likely to be victimized or to perpetrate community gun violence.
- Community-based organizations (CBOs) and frontline workers — the statute mandates passing a significant share of funds to CBOs and authorizes capacity-building dollars, training, and mental-health supports aimed at recruiting and retaining frontline personnel.
- Smaller jurisdictions and tribal governments — the program creates explicit pathways for tribes and smaller cities/counties to receive funds (including reserved awards for smaller jurisdictions and a consultation requirement for tribal 'compelling need'), expanding funding access beyond large urban centers.
- Public health and non-law-enforcement safety departments — the bill prioritizes public-health‑oriented strategies and requires coordination with non-police public agencies, potentially expanding their role in local violence reduction systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- Cities and counties applying for grants — jurisdictions must prepare competitive proposals, meet reporting requirements, coordinate services, and potentially redistribute half of awarded funds to community actors, creating administrative and fiscal responsibilities.
- The state budget — the bill authorizes programmatic reserves and ongoing technical assistance and evaluation functions that require appropriations; those administrative and capacity-building reserves will compete with direct service dollars unless funded separately.
- Board/Office staff and evaluators — administering competitive rounds, providing technical assistance, conducting evaluations, and maintaining public reporting will create ongoing workload and require expertise that the office must staff or contract for.
- Community-based organizations with limited capacity — while designated as primary recipients of funds, many CBOs will need to scale operations, comply with reporting and evaluation demands, and potentially absorb advanced disbursement management, creating short-term cash-flow and compliance burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speed and scale on one hand—getting substantial, sustained funding quickly into communities and to frontline organizations—and rigor and equity on the other—ensuring funded interventions are demonstrably effective, do not expand carceral responses, and that smaller, under-resourced community groups and tribes can meet application and reporting requirements without being crowded out by better-resourced applicants.
The bill balances rapid funding for community-led interventions with built-in evaluation and accountability, but that balance creates several implementation challenges. First, the statute ties awards to being 'evidence-based' and 'likely to reduce' violence within the grant period, yet community-based models often rely on intermediary, community-trusted practices whose evidence base is evolving; determining what counts as sufficient evidence will drive selection decisions and may privilege well-documented models over promising but less-studied local innovations.
Second, the text includes multiple references to reserved amounts for administration and capacity building—both fixed-dollar figures and percentage-based reservations—creating potential ambiguity about how much of an appropriation will reach frontline work versus overhead.
Third, the program’s anti-incarceration preference is conceptually clear but operationally fraught: reviewers will need objective criteria to determine whether a proposal risks increasing surveillance, policing, or courtroom involvement that could feed mass incarceration, and those criteria might vary across communities. Fourth, the reporting and evaluation requirements increase transparency but also impose administrative and data-collection burdens on small CBOs; without dedicated capacity-building funds or simplified reporting tracks, the program risks favoring applicants with grant-writing and evaluation infrastructure rather than those with deep community trust.
Finally, tribal inclusion provisions are constructive but rely on consultation to define 'compelling need'—until that process produces clear standards, tribal applicants may face inconsistent treatment across grant cycles.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.