Critics say anti-violence program pays criminals

Rep. Emily Dievendorf, D-Lansing, requested $2 million in taxpayer funding for a nonprofit program that has drawn criticism in other states for reportedly working with violent offenders while not cooperating with police investigations.

The earmark request, submitted on behalf of Ingham County, would fund the Advance Peace program in the Lansing area through 2028.

The program aims to reduce shootings by intervening with individuals considered most likely to commit gun violence, according to the legislatively directed spending request.

Gun Program Lansing by mcclallen

Dievendorf’s request states that Lansing saw a 19% decrease in shooting incidents — and a 52% decrease in fatal shootings — in the two years after the program launched in 2022. The request offered no evidence that the program contributed to those declines.

There were 1,440 violent crimes in Lansing in 2022, according to the FBI. The bureau reported 1,506 violent crimes in the city for 2024, the latest year for which data is available.

Critics have said Advance Peace pays criminals not to commit crimes, according to a 2021 ABC News report about the program’s operation in Fresno, California.

“The group will counsel (gang members) but, in order to keep their trust and credibility, does not turn them into police,” ABC noted.

“Advance Peace lets police do their investigations without being a source of intelligence,” ABC continued, adding that the program will notify police if it believes violence is imminent.

Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said she had “serious concerns” about the program, while law enforcement officials questioned its legitimacy, according to GV Wire, a Fresno-based news outlet, and KCRA. The funding request comes as the Trump administration has reportedly looked to reduce federal support for the program.

WKAR reported May 14 that a recent federal decision to cancel some grants could affect Advance Peace’s Lansing presence.

Dievendorf’s request could face challenges under Michigan law.

Legislative disclosure forms such as the one Dievendorf submitted to the House ask whether the intended nonprofit recipient has continuously operated in Michigan for at least 36 months and maintained a physical office in the state for at least 12 consecutive months.

In response to both questions, Dievendorf marked “Not Applicable.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently cast doubt on the viability of local and private earmarks that do not meet the Michigan Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement. The court did so by issuing a preliminary injunction in the Mackinac Center’s lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity. The court’s final decision in that case could have repercussions for numerous earmark requests in the state budget.

Dievendorf did not respond to an email seeking comment. Neither did Ingham County.