AVERT Future Violence Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 19, 2026
Bottom line
The AVERT Future Violence Act of 2026 aims to understand and prevent violence by studying the link between animal cruelty and human violence, while also funding local intervention programs.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Attorney General, through the National Institute of Justice, to conduct a study on the underlying factors contributing to animal cruelty and its correlation with future violence against humans. It also authorizes a grant program, called the "Stop Future Violence Grant Program," to assist eligible entities in developing detection strategies, early interventions, and diversion resources to prevent animal cruelty and rehabilitate offenders.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that understanding the link between animal cruelty and human violence is crucial for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies for both. They contend that addressing animal cruelty early can serve as a predictor and preventative measure for future interpersonal violence, thereby enhancing public safety and animal welfare simultaneously. The grant program would provide much-needed resources to local communities to implement evidence-based practices.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the link between animal cruelty and human violence is recognized, dedicating federal resources to a study and grant program specifically on this topic might be an inefficient use of funds, especially given other pressing crime prevention needs. Some may also raise concerns about the scope of "animal cruelty" definitions or potential overreach in intervention strategies.
The bill is very concise, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 3
Directing a Study on Animal Cruelty and its Link to Human Violence
This section mandates the Attorney General, via the National Institute of Justice, to conduct a comprehensive study within three years. The study will investigate the factors contributing to animal cruelty and analyze how acts of animal cruelty predict future violence against humans. It will also develop best practices for early interventions to prevent animal cruelty and for interventions with offenders to prevent future violence.
Supporters argue
Supporters assert that this study is vital for establishing an evidence-based foundation for interventions. By identifying risk factors and correlations, it can lead to more effective strategies to prevent both animal abuse and subsequent human violence, ultimately improving public safety and animal welfare.
Critics contend
While the concept of studying violence links is generally supported, some might argue that existing research already highlights these connections, and further study might delay action or duplicate efforts. Others might question the specific focus or methodology without more detail.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the immediate need for action and the value of further research to ensure interventions are truly effective and evidence-based.
Section 4
Establishing a Grant Program for Intervention and Rehabilitation
This section authorizes the Attorney General to create a grant program to help eligible entities develop and strengthen strategies for detecting animal cruelty, implementing early interventions, and providing diversion resources. Funds can be used for training law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, and mental health professionals, expanding specialized units, developing effective policies, and improving data collection systems related to animal cruelty.
The definition of "eligible entity" for the grant program is exceptionally broad, including not only State and local governments, courts, and Indian Tribes, but also "any other organization that has a documented history of effective work" related to animal cruelty or its link to interpersonal violence. This includes a wide range of non-profits, animal shelters, mental health service providers, domestic violence and child abuse victim service providers, and culturally specific organizations.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms early in the bill. The breadth of the definition is likely intentional to ensure a wide array of potential grantees can access funds.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a broad definition ensures that the grant program can reach a diverse set of organizations with direct experience and expertise in addressing animal cruelty and its links to human violence, including those working with underserved communities.
Case against: Critics might suggest that such a broad definition could lead to a diffusion of funds, making it harder to ensure accountability or focus resources on the most impactful interventions. It could also increase administrative complexity for the Attorney General in vetting a wide range of applicants.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly expands the potential pool of recipients for the $2,000,000 grant program, allowing for a more distributed impact across various types of organizations.
The definition of "animal cruelty" explicitly excludes several activities, including customary veterinary, agricultural, or animal management practices; slaughter for food; hunting, trapping, fishing, sporting activities not federally prohibited, predator/pest control; medical/scientific research; actions necessary to protect a person's life; and euthanasia.
Section 2(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of a definition and prevent unintended consequences or overreach into legitimate activities. It ensures the bill targets malicious cruelty, not common practices.
Case for: Proponents would argue these exclusions are crucial to protect legitimate industries and activities, ensuring the bill focuses solely on malicious acts of cruelty and does not inadvertently criminalize or complicate standard practices in agriculture, research, or wildlife management.
Case against: Some animal rights advocates might argue that certain excluded activities, particularly some "sporting activities" or "animal management practices," could still involve forms of suffering that warrant examination or regulation, even if not classified as "cruelty" under this bill.
Estimated impact: These exclusions narrow the scope of the study and grant program, ensuring resources are directed specifically at intentional harm and neglect rather than broader animal welfare issues.