Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Youth Injustice: Trump Administration Cuts Violence Prevention Programs

Hands protecting a child. A child being protected.

Just three months into his second term, the Trump Administration terminated 373 grants worth about $500 million from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs.

Getty Images, Mary Long

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Just three months into his second term, the Trump Administration abruptly terminated 373 grants worth about $500 million from the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The grants were ended without any prior notice and affected programs across the country that provide support for the complete range of department activities, including juvenile and youth justice, violence prevention, child protection, policing and prosecution, and victims’ services.


Most of these cuts attacked multi-year programs that were already in progress. The result? Critically important violence prevention services are no longer available for those most in need. Staff and service providers on the front lines will lose their jobs. The Vera Institute of Justice, a national research and policy organization, says that lives are in danger.

Overall, the scope of the grant cuts is staggering. Affected programs also include research and evaluation initiatives, efforts to better address the treatment of mental health conditions, substance use disorder, plans to improve the corrections and reentry justice systems, and projects providing training and technical assistance for youth advocates, public defenders, prosecutors, and judges.

Many of the programs are dedicated to combating gangs and preventing violence. Moreover, the cuts hit programs in urban, suburban, and rural communities in 37 states, both “red” and “blue”. In the history of federal grants across Republican and Democratic administrations, nothing like this has happened before. No notice, no opportunity for debate, just boom, it's gone.

The Administration’s blandly dismissive reason for killing these programs is that the "awards no longer effectuate the program or agency goals or agency priorities.” But this makes no sense as the focus of the agency is violence prevention. Do you protect public safety by cutting violence prevention programming?

Project 2025 may offer a more insidious reason for these cuts. Crime and crime prevention disproportionately affect communities of color. Failing to support these communities reflects Project 2025’s goal of eliminating the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Examples of Massachusetts-based nonprofits dedicated to violence prevention intervention in communities of color that are damaged by the funding cuts are Roca, based in Boston, and UTEC, in Lowell. Both work with young adults 18 to 25, many of whom have been involved in child protection and the juvenile and criminal legal systems. Tools to help them include street gang prevention, educational and job readiness, help with reentry from youth correctional and criminal facilities, and community outreach.

Roca lost $4 million in grant money, and UTEC lost $2 million, even as their initiatives dramatically reduced the recidivism rates of their young clients by treating them as assets to be developed rather than problems to be managed (or ignored). These programs have created models of community-based collaboration with police, courts, and legal service providers.

Also hit hard were initiatives supporting crime investigation and prosecution; child protection; and training for advocates, prosecutors, and judges. The OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime lost $50 million, and programs designed to safeguard children against abuse and neglect suffered cuts of $137 million, undermining the training of juvenile and family court judges, weakening protections for youth at risk, and hindering the work of regional centers dedicated to investigating and prosecuting child abuse.

Some school-based programming was terminated as well, after cuts to projects aimed at preventing bullying and school violence in Oregon, Minnesota, California, and Pennsylvania.

A further cut of $8 million hit nonprofit efforts to combat youth substance abuse. Other cuts hobbled programs in hospitals to provide lifesaving assistance for victims of crime and their families. The implication seems to be that these victims are undeserving and simply need to move on.

WHY IT MATTERS

These cuts would suggest that violence prevention programs no longer help combat violence or protect victims. But this is false. Cutting these programs will increase recidivism and compromise public safety while pushing countless numbers of people into juvenile and criminal courts. Every study has shown that it costs much less to reduce crime through community-based programs than to lock people up.

Law enforcement specialists increasingly talk about the importance of being smart on crime. These cuts aren't smart. Reacting to crime after it has happened is a losing proposition. Eliminating the safety net of community support and violence prevention services can only result in worse outcomes for all of us.

Contrary to what many believe, crime rates for youth in most places are historically low. This is attributable to programs like UTEC and Roca. These cuts will increase crime and result in reactively spending more money to detain and incarcerate. More people will enter jails and prisons and be more likely to return, given the lack of concern about community reentry.

The grant cuts raise serious questions and deserve public scrutiny. Has the Trump administration offered better ways to prevent crime and gang violence other than to react after it has happened? What steps does it envision to stop people from falling through the social services safety net and ending up on the street?

TAKEAWAY

If reducing crime and increasing public safety isn't the goal, what is? The objective appears to align with Project 2025, which unapologetically seeks to block the reach of the federal government. Not incidentally, Project 2025 also conflates federal programs with furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion, which it has demonized as if it were the source of all of our nation's ills.

America deserves thoughtful, effective steps toward progress, not a vision that stops and ends at slash and burn.


The Hon. Jay Blitzman is a retired Massachusetts Juvenile Court Judge and former Executive Director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children. Jay is a law school lecturer who consults on youth and criminal issues. Blitzman is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

holding hands

holding handsPhoto by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash


Read More

50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

circa 1770: The English-born American revolutionary philosopher Thomas Paine, (1737 - 1809), who wrote and published 'The Rights of Man', (1791 - 1792), in England. In it he expressed his support for the French Revolution and called for the overthrow of the British monarchy.

(Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

The 50501 Movement can be viewed as a 21st-century manifestation of the anti-authoritarian, pro-egalitarian framework that Thomas Paine championed in Common Sense. Both movements share a core belief in challenging entrenched power and mobilizing the collective voice of everyday people to defend democracy. By utilizing decentralized, nationwide grassroots mobilization to challenge executive overreach and billionaire consolidation, the 50501 movement directly echoes Paine’s anti-authoritarianism, his belief in collective civic power, and his demand that power remains in the hands of the people.

The 50501 Movement mirrors the spirit of Paine’s Common Sense through three primary parallels:

Keep ReadingShow less
  Creative Images & Video Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video I Voted Today paper sticker on mans finger on rustic wooden table

How class, identity, and political recognition shaped the Democratic Party's relationship with rural white working-class voters over two decades.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

The Thousand Injuries: The Not-Qwhite Voter and the Politics of Recognition

In the fall of 2003, Howard Dean said he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in the back windows of their pickup trucks. It was clumsy but not dishonest. He meant that his party had written off a whole category of American voter and wanted to change that. He was attacked at once, mostly by his own side, and walked it back within forty-eight hours. The lesson his party drew was not that the outreach had been badly phrased; It was that the outreach itself was impermissible, that to pursue the rural white working class voter was to be complicit with everything he was presumed to represent. Dean was the last major Democrat to try, and the consequences have accumulated in the shape of the electoral map.

Edgar Allan Poe understood something the party still does not. "The Cask of Amontillado" opens with a line that ought to hang in every campaign office: the thousand injuries of Fortunato the narrator had borne as best he could, but when Fortunato ventured upon insult, he vowed revenge. Injuries can be borne as long as the injured man believes his tormentors still regard his suffering as real. The insult is different. It reframes the injuries as deserved, telling the sufferer he is the kind of person who deserves to suffer. Poe's narrator does not recalculate his interests; he takes his revenge at great cost to himself. That is not irrational but human, and it is the most precise framework we have for what has happened to rural white working-class voters over the last twenty years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Painting by John Trumbull made in 1818 depicting the Committee of Five (Adams, Livingston, Sherman, Jefferson, and Franklin) presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Painting by John Trumbull made in 1818 depicting the Committee of Five (Adams, Livingston, Sherman, Jefferson, and Franklin) presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Gwengoat/Getty Images

Defending Democracy Through the Founders’ Principles

As we have been celebrating the 250th anniversary of our country's founding, America is faced with its biggest challenge probably ever, save the Civil War. While there is much to celebrate in the 250 years of our existence, this moment is fraught with danger—not just for our democracy but for our founding principles of equality and the people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand the critical role that our country's structure, democracy, and the rule of law play in their efforts to live their lives and pursue happiness. People think, "So what, these issues don’t impact my life."

Keep ReadingShow less