(11) These strategies are also most effective when they receive consistent funding. For example, large cuts in funding for violence prevention programs in Chicago in 2008, 2012, and 2015 through 2016 corresponded with large spikes in homicides in those years. Similarly, the city of Stockton, California, saw an increase in homicides after discontinuing funding for its highly successful GVI program. When Stockton’s funding was restored, homicides decreased. (12) A national strategy for reducing gun violence must include substantial and targeted Federal funding to expand and replicate the most effective strategies in communities most impacted by violence. (13) At present, however, these strategies are implemented in only a handful of cities and are funded through an unreliable patchwork of discretionary grant programs. The current level of Federal funding to support the scaling of these strategies is woefully inadequate. (14) Intentional and sustained investments in evidence-based violence reduction strategies can reverse recent crime trends, help to heal impacted communities, and reduce the enormous human and financial costs of violence, without contributing to mass incarceration. 3. Community-based violence intervention program grants (a) Definitions In this section: (1) Director The term Director means the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2) Eligible unit of local government The term eligible unit of local government means a unit of local government that— (A) for not less frequently than two out of the 3 years preceding the grant application, experienced twenty or more homicides per year and had a homicide rate that was not less than double the national average