Public Safety - Maryland Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund - Alterations (Community Safety and Intervention Funding Act)
HB 987 would change how Maryland funds the Maryland Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund, a state grant program used to support violence intervention and prevention efforts. The bill raises the required annual budget bill appropriation for the Fund from the current structure to at least $10 million beginning in fiscal year 2028, replacing the prior rule that allowed up to $10 million and required at least $3 million in general funds. It also adds a new distribution formula for grant funding, directing up to 40% of available grant money to programs serving the Baltimore region and up to 40% to programs serving the Capital Region, with the remainder going to other jurisdictions disproportionately affected by violence as determined by the executive director.
The bill amends Sections 4-902 and 4-905 of the Public Safety Article to increase the state’s minimum funding commitment and to constrain how grant dollars are allocated geographically. It would require the Governor to include at least $10 million in the annual budget bill for the Fund starting in FY 2028 and would create statutory allocation caps for Baltimore City/Baltimore County and Montgomery County/Prince George’s County. Local governments and nonprofit organizations that apply for violence intervention grants would be affected by the new regional distribution rules, while the executive director of the program would retain discretion over remaining funds.
Based on the bill text and the limited procedural history, the measure appears to be framed as a public safety and community investment proposal, with no recorded votes or committee testimony available to indicate formal opposition or support. The cancellation of the Judiciary hearing suggests the bill did not advance through committee consideration at this stage, but the substance of the bill indicates a policy goal of expanding and directing resources toward violence prevention in the state’s highest-need areas.
The main points of potential contention are the increased mandatory appropriation and the new geographic earmarks. Supporters are likely to favor the larger, guaranteed funding level and the focus on jurisdictions with high violence rates, while critics may question the budget impact, the shift from a flexible appropriation cap to a mandatory minimum, and the fairness of reserving up to 80% of grant funding for just two regions. Another possible issue is whether the allocation formula could limit funding for other communities affected by violence that fall outside the Baltimore and Capital regions.