Suchergebnisse

The Maryland Gun Violence Act, enacted into law in 1996, explicitly authorized courts to order batterers to surrender their firearms through civil protective orders. It also vested law enforcement with the explicit authority to remove guns when responding to a domestic violence complaint. In order to assess how these laws were implemented, we designed a case study and collected data from in-depth, key informant interviews, court observations, and relevant documents. We present findings from this study and recommend how to increase the likelihood that policies designed to separate batterers and guns are implemented in a way that will result in greater protections for victims of domestic violence.

Firearms play an important role in lethal domestic violence incidents. The authors review state laws regarding two policies to separate batterers from firearms: laws authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint ("police gun removal laws") and laws authorizing courts to order guns removed from batterers through a protective order ("court-ordered removal laws"). As of April 2004, 18 states had police gun removal laws; 16 states had court-ordered removal laws. The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.

AbstractFirearms increase the risk of lethality in violent intimate relationships. Policies that restrict access to firearms by respondents to civil domestic violence protective orders (DVROs) are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, yet there is scant literature about how such prohibitions are implemented. We document how four localities are implementing gun possession prohibitions that result from civil and criminal restraining orders and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; and assess the findings in the context of Kingdon's agenda setting framework. We identified four jurisdictions where gun dispossession of prohibited domestic violence offenders was underway and collected data through in-depth interviews, site visits, and documents. We coded the data, identified explanatory themes, and compared the findings to Kingdon's framework. The four jurisdictions have policies ranging from no state laws restricting domestic violence offenders' access to guns to comprehensive state laws. We describe implementation initiatives to dispossess prohibited people of their guns in the four jurisdictions, two distinct implementation models through which gun dispossession occurs, and an expanded application of Kingdon's model. In each jurisdiction, we identified one or more individuals who championed implementation. Policies that prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing guns are promising, and possible in diverse settings and jurisdictions. Here we provide insight into implementation efforts in four jurisdictions, emphasize the role of individuals in prioritizing implementation, and highlight the potential to realize these restrictions across states with different laws. Focusing on implementation is a much-needed paradigm shift that complements the traditional focus on passing domestic violence prevention laws.

Cities are increasingly adopting CeaseFire, an evidence-based public health program that uses specialized outreach workers, called violence interrupters (VIs), to mediate potentially violent conflicts before they lead to a shooting. Prior research has linked conflict mediation with program-related reductions in homicides, but the specific conflict mediation practices used by effective programs to prevent imminent gun violence have not been identified. We conducted case studies of CeaseFire programs in two inner cities using qualitative data from focus groups with 24 VIs and interviews with eight program managers. Study sites were purposively sampled to represent programs with more than 1 year of implementation and evidence of program effectiveness. Staff with more than 6 months of job experience were recruited for participation. Successful mediation efforts were built on trust and respect between VIs and the community, especially high-risk individuals. In conflict mediation, immediate priorities included separating the potential shooter from the intended victim and from peers who may encourage violence, followed by persuading the parties to resolve the conflict peacefully. Tactics for brokering peace included arranging the return of stolen property and emphasizing negative consequences of violence such as jail, death, or increased police attention. Utilizing these approaches, VIs are capable of preventing gun violence and interrupting cycles of retaliation.

The coronavirus disease pandemic has highlighted the key role epidemiologic models play in supporting public health decision-making. In particular, these models provide estimates of outbreak potential when data are scarce and decision-making is critical and urgent. We document the integrated modeling response used in the US state of Utah early in the coronavirus disease pandemic, which brought together a diverse set of technical experts and public health and healthcare officials and led to an evidence-based response to the pandemic. We describe how we adapted a standard epidemiologic model; harmonized the outputs across modeling groups; and maintained a constant dialogue with policymakers at multiple levels of government to produce timely, evidence-based, and coordinated public health recommendations and interventions during the first wave of the pandemic. This framework continues to support the state's response to ongoing outbreaks and can be applied in other settings to address unique public health challenges.