Identifying armed respondents to domestic violence restraining orders and recovering their firearms: process evaluation of an initiative in California

CHASE (Children's Housing Assessment for a Safe Environment): a protocol for the inspection and modification of injury risks in children's homes

BACKGROUND

Decades of research and practice experience have led to an extensive body of evidence about effective home safety modifications. However, the benefits of safety modifications have not reached all segments of society. Poor quality housing in low-income neighborhoods, along with limited access to safety products and injury prevention information, can be significant barriers to child safety.

METHODS

This is a longitudinal study of 300 low-income families in Baltimore City and Baltimore County with children under 7 years of age who are referred from existing Green & Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI) home visiting programs. Three home visits will be completed to assess home injury hazards using a previously developed tool, the Children's Housing Assessment for a Safe Environment (CHASE), and provide a Scope of Work that includes home modifications specific to the identified home injury hazards. An Assessor will also provide do-it-yourself education materials and injury prevention supplies to assist residents in completing the modifications. If the parent or caregiver is unable to complete the home modifications, a professional Housing Intervention Services team will complete the home modifications necessary to prevent injury in the home. This study will involve both quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods. Paired and regression analyses will be conducted to examine the maintenance of modifications and the variables associated with positive outcomes. A thematic analysis of staff and participant interviews will be used to identify perceived barriers and facilitators of successful program implementation.

DISCUSSION

Better data on residential injuries of children and an improvement in the overall surveillance of home injuries are necessitated. This study will set a strong foundation for a larger future study of health and cost effectiveness outcomes and will advance our understanding of the feasibility, costs, and potential benefits of addressing and preventing home injuries to children.

What is the role of firearms in nonfatal intimate partner violence? Findings from civil protective order case data

BACKGROUND

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use firearms to injure, scare, and manipulate their partners. Abusers who have a firearm in their homes are more likely to threaten and/or kill their partner. To date, however, limited research documents the nature of IPV perpetrator firearm access or the prevalence of nonfatal firearm abuse behaviors.

METHODS

Federal law restricts firearm access for IPV perpetrators in qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) cases and information about firearms should be disclosed during the DVPO process. We used secondary data from civil DVPO cases (n = 406) in North Carolina that were collected using a representative sampling strategy. Data were from DVPO case files and structured DVPO hearing observations. We conducted a content analysis to record IPV perpetrator access to guns and reported firearm abuse behaviors. We used a linear regression analysis to determine whether IPV perpetrator gun access was associated with higher levels of reported abuse. We also examined factors associated with perpetration of nonfatal firearm abuse.

RESULTS

We found evidence of perpetrator firearm access in nearly half of all cases (46%, n = 108). Controlling for covariates, gun access was significantly associated with higher levels of reported IPV (b = 0.5, p < .001). Firearm abuse was reported in nearly one out of four cases (23.1%, n = 101), and often entailed spoken threats, displaying a gun, or holding a partner at gun point. The only factors associated with firearm abuse in the multivariate models were related to English language speaking/fluency.

CONCLUSIONS

Gun access should be considered an indicator for severe IPV. We must ensure that existing legal mechanisms to identify and restrict abuser access to firearms are fully implemented and enforced. Firearm abuse often manifests as non-physical coercive control which is traumatic and has the potential to escalate to homicide, even in the absence of past physical violence.

Firearms and protective orders in intimate partner homicides

PURPOSE

To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH.

METHOD

We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH.

RESULTS

We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

Background

Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State’s ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention.

Methods

We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data.

Results

Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. The 75 petitions filed described respondents’ risk as to “themselves only” in 30 cases (40%), to “others only” in 20 cases (27%) and “to themselves and others” in 25 cases (33%). Five cases where the threat was to “others only” met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts’ reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n = 13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n = 48, 64%).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that Washington’s ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases.

Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California From 2016 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia now have extreme risk protection order (ERPO) or similar policies, and others are considering them; however, little research exists describing their use.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize early use of California's ERPO policy by providing the first aggregate, statewide description of ERPOs, individuals subject to them, and petitioners.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed 1076 respondents to ERPOs recorded in the California Department of Justice California Restraining and Protective Order System from 2016 to 2019. Descriptive analyses of orders issued between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019 in California were performed, and univariate Moran I was calculated to examine county-level spatial autocorrelation of the policy's use.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcomes included the characteristics of ERPO respondents (demographic characteristics), petitioners (law enforcement vs family or household members), and orders (type and service) as well as temporal and spatial variation in policy use during the first 4 years of implementation.

RESULTS

Of 1076 respondents during the study period, most were men (985 [91.5%]) and white individuals (637 [59.2%]), with a mean age of 41.8 years (range, 14 to 98 years). A law enforcement officer was the petitioner in 1038 cases (96.5%). The number of respondents increased during the study period from 70 in 2016 to 700 in 2019, and there was substantial county-level variation in ERPO use (ranging from 0 to 354 respondents), with significant spatial clustering in counts of ERPO respondents among neighboring counties (observed Moran I, 0.18, mean [SD] Moran I from reference distribution, -0.01 (0.05); z value, 3.58; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study, among the first to describe the early utilization of an ERPO or similar policy, found a substantial increase in the use of ERPOs in California from 2016 to 2019. These results could inform policy makers and other stakeholders involved in policy implementation and outreach in California and elsewhere. Similar studies in other states would be useful to understand variation.

The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates among Black and White Populations in the United States, 1991-2016

This study aimed to investigate the potential differential effects of state-level firearm laws on black and white populations. Using a panel design, authors examined the relationship between state firearm laws and homicide victimization rates among white people and black people in 39 states during the period between 1991 and 2016. Authors modeled homicide rates using linear regression with year and state fixed effects and controlled for a range of time-varying, state-level factors. Results showed that universal background check laws and permit requirement laws were associated with lower homicide rates among both white and black populations, and "shall issue" laws were associated with higher homicide rates among both white and black populations. Laws that prohibit firearm possession among people convicted of a violent misdemeanor or require relinquishment of firearms by people with a domestic violence restraining order were associated with lower black homicide rates, but not with white homicide rates. Author identification of heterogeneity in the associations between state firearm laws and homicide rates among different racial groups has implications for reducing racial health disparities.

After the gun: examining police visits and intimate partner violence following incidents involving a firearm

Laws have been enacted to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers. In this study, we examined one such effort-removal of a firearm at the scene of intimate partner violence (IPV)-to assess the subsequent occurrence and number of IPV incidents responded to by police and subsequent risk of injury to the victim. Using the 28,977 IPV calls in one large U.S. city to which officers responded during the 2013 calendar year, we identified 220 first-time incidents in which offenders used (i.e., brandished, pistol whipped, shot) a pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun. Officers reported removing a firearm from 52 (24%) of the offenders. After using full propensity score matching to control for potential confounders, logistic and Poisson regressions were used to assess differences between those from whom a firearm was removed and those whose firearm was not removed. Firearm removal at the scene of an IPV incident appears to increase the likelihood of subsequent IPV reports to police and suggestive evidence that subsequent injury to the victim might increase as well. The offender shifting from threats with a firearm to physical violence and a change (an increase as well as a decrease) in victim willingness to summon police may account for the findings.

Removing Firearms From Those Prohibited From Possession by Domestic Violence Restraining Orders: A Survey and Analysis of State Laws

Under federal and many state laws, persons under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) are prohibited from possession of firearms. Using multiple sources and a Lexis Nexis search, we developed a list of state laws pertaining to the relinquishment or removal of firearms from persons prohibited from possession by DVROs. After downloading the text of each law, we conducted a legal analysis to enumerate provisions of the laws specifying implementation. We found 49 laws in 29 states and Washington, DC. The laws were conceptualized as instructions to the court, the respondent, and law enforcement. We detail the content of each state's law, including such elements as whether it applies to ex parte DVROs; whether certain criteria must be met, such as previous use of a firearm in domestic violence or lack of an employment exemption, before the law can be applied; and whether the application of the law is mandatory. We also detail instructions to the respondent regarding to whom firearms may be relinquished, whether the respondent must seek permission to transfer the firearm to a third party, and the time by which dispossession must occur. Finally, whether law enforcement bears the responsibility for removing the firearm or whether the law gives the court the authority to order a search and seizure for the firearms is discussed. The purpose of the research is to provide an overview of these state laws that can be used by key stakeholders in legislative, judicial, advocacy, or research roles. Implications are discussed.

Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Associations With Intimate Partner Homicide

In this research, we estimate the association of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders with intimate partner homicides (IPHs) on the basis of the strength of the policies. We posit that the association of firearm laws with IPHs depends on the following characteristics of the laws: 1) breadth of coverage of high-risk individuals and situations restricted; 2) power to compel firearm surrender or removal from persons prohibited from having firearms; and 3) systems of accountability that prevent those prohibited from doing so from obtaining guns. We conducted a quantitative policy evaluation using annual state-level data from 1980 through 2013 for 45 US states. Based on the results of a series of robust, negative binomial regression models with state fixed effects, domestic violence restraining order firearm-prohibition laws are associated with 10% reductions in IPH. Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when restraining order prohibitions covered dating partners (-13%) and ex parte orders (-13%) and included relinquishment provisions (-12%). Laws prohibiting access to those convicted of nonspecific violent misdemeanors were associated with a 23% reduction in IPH rates; there was no association when prohibitions were limited to domestic violence. These findings should inform policymakers considering laws to maximize protections against IPH.

Firearm Ownership in High-Conflict Families: Differences According to State Laws Restricting Firearms to Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Offenders

This study examines the association between state laws that prohibit firearm ownership for offenders convicted of misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence (MCDV) and firearm ownership in two-parent families with high-conflict male partners with arrest histories. Mixed effects logistic regression models applied to data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth cohort (n = 5,350) determined that living in a state with laws that prohibited firearm ownership for convicted MCDV offenders decreased the likelihood of firearm ownership among families with high-conflict males by 62%. The length of the time limit length on firearm prohibition was correlated with incremental decreases in firearm ownership in such families, with the probability of firearm ownership among families with high-conflict males decreasing from 30% in states with no MCDV laws restricting access from firearms to 12% in states with permanent prohibition on firearm ownership. These findings have significance for public health policy aimed at decreasing intimate-partner homicide.

Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Associations With Intimate Partner Homicide

In this research, we estimate the association of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders with intimate partner homicides (IPHs) on the basis of the strength of the policies. We posit that the association of firearm laws with IPHs depends on the following characteristics of the laws: 1) breadth of coverage of high-risk individuals and situations restricted; 2) power to compel firearm surrender or removal from persons prohibited from having firearms; and 3) systems of accountability that prevent those prohibited from doing so from obtaining guns. We conducted a quantitative policy evaluation using annual state-level data from 1980 through 2013 for 45 US states. Based on the results of a series of robust, negative binomial regression models with state fixed effects, domestic violence restraining order firearm-prohibition laws are associated with 10% reductions in IPH. Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when restraining order prohibitions covered dating partners (-11%) and ex parte orders (-12%). Laws prohibiting access to those convicted of nonspecific violent misdemeanors were associated with a 24% reduction in IPH rates; there was no association when prohibitions were limited to domestic violence. Permit-to-purchase laws were associated with 10% reductions in IPHs. These findings should inform policymakers considering laws to maximize protections against IPH.

Firearms and the incidence of arrest among respondents to domestic violence restraining orders

BACKGROUND

Persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), known as respondents, are generally prohibited from possessing firearms. Efforts to enforce that prohibition have not been evaluated. The study objective was to determine whether associations exist between risk of incident arrest among DVRO respondents and 1) respondents' access to firearms, and 2) law enforcement recovery of firearms from respondents with access to them.

METHODS

This was an observational study of 2,972 DVRO respondents in San Mateo County, California, 525 of whom were linked to firearms by standardized screening procedures. Enrollment occurred from May 2007 to June 2010 and follow-up through September 2010. Follow-up began when DVROs were served (or when issued if no date of service was available); median duration was 689 days. Principal exposures were access to firearms and, for subjects with access to firearms whose DVROs were served, contact by law enforcement personnel to recover those firearms. Main outcome measures were 1) incidence of arrest; 2) relative risk for arrest, adjusted for age, sex, prior criminal history, and duration of follow-up, assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Respondents linked to firearms were older than others and were more likely to have a history of prior arrest (49.7 % and 37.3 %, p < 0.0001). The incidence of arrest was 20.6 % for respondents linked to firearms and 21.1 % for others (p = 0.78). In multivariate models, access to firearms was associated with a modest, generally not statistically significant, decrease in risk for incident arrest. Among respondents who were linked to firearms and whose restraining orders were served, no statistically significant association existed between firearm recovery and risk for incident arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study of DVRO respondents, findings are inconclusive for an association between access to firearms or firearm recovery and risk of incident arrest. Controlled trials on larger populations are indicated.

Risks and Targeted Interventions: Firearms in Intimate Partner Violence

The use of firearms in intimate partner violence (IPV) is widely recognized as an important public health threat. However, what we know about the risks of firearm access on IPV outcomes is limited. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to determine the state of knowledge on 1) the risks of firearm access and use in IPV and 2) the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to reduce firearm violence in intimate relationships. Only studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 through 2014 were included. Results of the review suggest that, when violent intimates have access to firearms, IPV increases in severity and deadliness; however, increases in severity may not be due to firearm use. Additionally, statutes prohibiting persons under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, but certain provisions of these laws and their enforcement may impact their effectiveness. Future research should focus on elucidating the link between firearm access and increased IPV severity and on investigating whether and which specific provisions of domestic violence restraining order laws impact the laws' effectiveness. Additionally, more evaluations of initiatives designed to improve the enforcement of domestic violence restraining order firearm prohibitions are needed.

California Firearms Law and Mental Illness

California provides numerous pathways by which people with mental illness can qualify for a state-level firearm prohibition. The state's involuntary detention for psychiatric treatment, or "5150" (CA W&I Code 5150) process, is often cited as one potential mechanism for reducing violence by dangerous people, though its use is limited to people whose dangerousness is due to a mental illness. Additionally, California has taken legislative steps to prohibit firearm ownership among other people who have an increased risk of violence, regardless of whether or not mental illness is a factor. This article compares the California firearm ownership disqualification system for mental illness with the federal system and those of other states, examines the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and reviews alternatives.