P-07-02Community Safety, Crime Prevention, & Gun Violence Prevention · claim-level record
Expand community violence intervention
Voters could reasonably understand this as a mayoral commitment to expand community violence intervention during the next administration.
- Authority
- direct
- Confidence
- moderate
- Material cost
- Yes
- Last reviewed
- 2026-07-15
The claim
expand Community Violence Intervention (CVI) programs
What voters are likely to hear
Voters could reasonably understand this as a mayoral commitment to expand community violence intervention during the next administration.
What the mayor actually controls
- Authority level
- direct
- City Hall controls
- OPD oversight, city budget, public information, partnerships
- City Hall does not control
- City Council appropriations, independent partners, and state or federal law remain outside unilateral mayoral control.
What implementation requires
- A written implementation scope and public deadline
- Mayoral direction and departmental workplan
- City Council appropriation or a documented outside funding award
- Staffing, procurement, and public performance reporting
What it would cost
| Scale | Range | Recurring annual | One-time | Capital | Staffing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small pilot | $2,000,000–$5,000,000 | $3,500,000 | $300,000 | $0 | 8–18 outreach, case-management, evaluation, and program staffAnchored to Orlando’s one-time $5.1 million ARPA CVI allocation and national CVI cost benchmarks; a sustained program requires recurring funding. |
| Meaningful citywide program | $8,000,000–$15,000,000 | $11,500,000 | $750,000 | $0 | 25–50 city and contracted frontline staffAnchored to Orlando’s one-time $5.1 million ARPA CVI allocation and national CVI cost benchmarks; a sustained program requires recurring funding. |
| Full version implied | $15,000,000–$25,000,000 | $20,000,000 | $1,250,000 | $0 | 45–80 staff across multiple neighborhoods and service partnersAnchored to Orlando’s one-time $5.1 million ARPA CVI allocation and national CVI cost benchmarks; a sustained program requires recurring funding. |
This is a claim-level order-of-magnitude range. It overlaps with related platform staffing, grants, facilities, and partner reimbursements and must not be added to other promise ranges without a shared-scope reconciliation.
- Campaign-identified funding
- None identified for this claim
- Funding still unidentified
- Recurring city appropriation, outside award, partner contribution, or offsetting reduction sufficient for the selected scale
What already exists
What Eskamani has previously done
People's Platform campaign-promise inventory
The campaign published a 28-section platform that this project has separated into 294 independently testable promise records.
The strongest evidence
Evidence supporting the finding
The campaign’s primary platform page publishes this commitment in the cited section.
Evidence that qualifies the finding
The cited governing or program record qualifies unilateral mayoral authority, existing-program overlap, or the delivery path.
The unresolved problem
The campaign does not identify a claim-level deadline, eligible population, delivery owner, recurring appropriation, staffing plan, or measurable completion standard.
The accountability question
For "Expand community violence intervention," what is the eligibility or scope, deadline, annual city cost, outside-approval sequence, and public completion measure?