Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Connecticut, 2013-2020.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) statutes, which allow temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Connecticut was the first state to enact such a law in 1999. The law's implementation and use between 1999 and 2013 were previously described, finding that ERPOs were pursued rarely for the first decade and that most orders were issued in response to concerns about suicide or self-harm rather than about interpersonal violence. The current study analyzes over 1,400 ERPOs in Connecticut between 2013 and 2020 in several domains: respondent demographics, circumstances leading to ERPO filing, type of threat (suicide, violence to others, or both), number and type of firearms removed, prevalence of mental illness and drug and alcohol use, and legal outcomes. Results are similar to the earlier study, indicating that ERPO respondents in Connecticut are primarily White, male, middle-aged residents of small towns and suburbs who pose a risk of harm to themselves (67.9%) more often than to others (42.8%). Significant gender differences between ERPO respondents are discussed, as are state-specific trends over time and differences between Connecticut and other states with published ERPO data.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Older Adults in Six U.S. States: A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVES: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) allow a court to restrict firearm access for individuals ("respondents") at imminent risk of harm to self/others. Little is known about ERPOs use for older adults, a population with higher rates of suicide and dementia. METHODS: We abstracted ERPO cases through June 30, 2020, from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington. We restricted our analysis to petitions for older (≥65 years) respondents, stratified by documented cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Among 6,699 ERPO petitions, 672 (10.0%) were for older adults; 13.7% (n = 92) of these noted cognitive impairment. Most were white (75.7%) men (90.2%). Cognitively impaired (vs. non-impaired) respondents were older (mean age 78.2 vs 72.7 years) and more likely to have documented irrational/erratic behavior (30.4% vs 15.7%), but less likely to have documented suicidality (33.7% vs 55.0%). At the time of the petition, 56.2% of older adult respondents had documented firearm access (median accessible firearms = 3, range 1-160). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 14% of ERPO petitions for older adults involved cognitive impairment; one-third of these noted suicide risk. Studies examining ERPO implementation across states may inform usage and awareness. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: ERPOs may reduce firearm access among older adults with cognitive impairment, suicidality, or risk of violence.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Washington State: Understanding the Role of Health Professionals.

Objective: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) allow a petitioner to file a civil order to temporarily restrict access to firearms among individuals ("respondents") deemed to be at extreme risk of harming themselves, others, or both. Although unable to file ERPOs for their clients in most states, health professionals may play a pivotal role in the ERPO process by recommending an eligible petitioner initiate the process. We describe the process of filing an ERPO when a healthcare, mental health, or social service professional contacted an ERPO petitioner. Method: Court documents of ERPOs involving health professionals in Washington State between December 8th, 2016 and May 10th, 2019 were qualitatively analyzed (n=24). We constructed pen portraits from the documents and analyzed them using an inductive qualitative thematic approach. Results: Themes included factors influencing the process by which each professional evaluated respondent behaviors, factors considered during assessment, factors influencing interpretation of respondent behaviors and subsequent provider response during a crisis. These influenced the outcome of the crisis event that led to ERPO filing. Conclusions: Each professional group differed in their approach to risk assessment of respondent behaviors. Strategies to better coordinate and align approaches may improve the ERPO process.

Extreme risk protection orders in response to threats of multiple victim/mass shooting in six U.S. states: A descriptive study.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, are a potential tool to prevent firearm violence, including mass shootings, but little is currently known about the extent of their use in cases of mass shooting threats or about the threats themselves. We collected and abstracted information from ERPO cases from six states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington). Ten percent (N = 662) of all ERPO cases (N = 6787) were in response to a threat of killing at least 3 people. Using these cases, we created a typology of multiple victim/mass shooting threats, the most common of which was the maximum casualty threat. The most common target for a multiple victim/mass shooting threat was a K-12 school, followed by businesses, then intimate partners and their children and families. Judges granted 93% of petitions that involved these threats at the temporary ERPO stage and, of those cases in which a final hearing was held, judges granted 84% of final ERPOs. While we cannot know how many of the 662 ERPO cases precipitated by a threat would have resulted in a multiple victim/mass shooting event had ERPO laws not been used to prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms, the study provides evidence at least that ERPOs are being used in six states in a substantial number of these kinds of cases that could have ended in tragedy.

Survey of Washington clinicians' willingness to use and preferences related to extreme risk protection orders.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) temporarily restrict access to firearms if an individual is deemed a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. Some states allow clinicians to initiate ERPO petitions for their patients and a new Justice Department model statute recommends clinicians should be eligible petitioners. Washington clinicians cannot currently file ERPOs independently. This article presents the results of an electronic survey of all actively licensed Washington physicians and advanced registered nurse practitioners in 2021 to gauge clinicians' familiarity, willingness, barriers, facilitators, and preferences for initiating ERPOs by counselling a patient or patient's family, contacting law enforcement, or filing independently. 3021 Clinicians responded. 75.2% were not familiar with ERPOs but reported being willing to counsel patients about ERPOs if they encountered a patient at substantial risk of harm to themselves (96%) or others (97%). Counselling was the preferred approach to filing; however, approximately 75% would be willing to file independently if allowed. Lack of knowledge about ERPOs was the most reported barrier and training the most common facilitator for all initiation approaches. Having a trained social worker to refer patients (81.5%), an ERPO liaison to law enforcement (70.9%), or coordinator to assist with filing (71.3%) was highly desired. Survey response rates were: 13.5% for physicians, 17.2% for nurse practitioners. Washington clinicians are willing to use ERPOs for their patients, but they need training. Counselling was the preferred initiation approach, and there was a strong preference for a social worker or ERPO coordinator to assist in counseling and filing.

Civilian Petitioners and Extreme Risk Protection Orders in the State of Washington.

OBJECTIVE: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are civil orders designed to temporarily restrict access to firearms when people are at substantial risk of harm to themselves or others. A minority of ERPOs in the United States have been filed by civilians, with most filed by law enforcement. The authors examined barriers and facilitators to the ERPO filing process from the perspective of the civilian petitioner. METHODS: Semistructured interviews of civilian petitioners who filed ERPOs in Washington State from December 2016 to September 2020 were conducted. The interviews examined both barriers and facilitators to filing an ERPO. A descriptive and qualitative approach with inductive-deductive thematic analysis was used to identify and code themes. RESULTS: Fifteen civilian petitioners were interviewed. Barriers to ERPO filing included perceived lack of help connecting with social services to address the potential for harmful behavior, confusion regarding the filing and court process, and petitioner distress. Facilitators included having previous legal experience, having assistance from advocates who helped shepherd petitioners through the process, and simplification of the ERPO process. CONCLUSIONS: ERPO is a useful tool for suicide and violence prevention, but several barriers may be inhibiting ERPO use among civilian petitioners. Better educational resources and advocacy programs, as well as simplified filing steps, could improve the process and make ERPOs more accessible for civilians.

A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states.

BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those that considered but did not pass such laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 244 newspaper articles about ERPOs, published in 2018, in three passing (FL, VT, RI) and three non-passing states (PA, OH, CO). Measures included language used, stakeholders mentioned, and scientific evidence cited. We use chi-square tests to compare the proportion of articles with each measure of interest in passing versus non-passing states. RESULTS: Compared to newspaper coverage of non-passing states, news articles about ERPOs in passing states more often used only official policy names for ERPOs (38% vs. 23%, p = .03), used less restrictive language such as "prevent" to describe the process of suspending firearm access (15% vs. 3%, p < .01), mentioned gun violence prevention advocacy groups (41% vs. 28%, p = .08), and referenced research on ERPOs (17% vs. 7%, p = .03). Articles about passing states also more often explicitly stated that a violent event was or could have been prevented by an ERPO (20% vs. 6%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Media messaging that frames gun violence as preventable, emphasizes identifiable markers of risk, and draws on data in conjunction with community wisdom may support ERPO policy passage. As more states consider ERPO legislation, especially given endorsement by the Biden-Harris administration, deeper knowledge about successful media framing of these life-saving policies can help shape public understandings and support.

News media coverage of extreme risk protection order policies surrounding the Parkland shooting: a mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there was a dramatic increase in media coverage of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) and in state policy proposals for ERPO laws. This study documents the frequency of news coverage of ERPOs throughout 2018 and examines the narratives used by media outlets to describe this risk-based firearm policy. METHODS: Using a mixed-method descriptive design, we examine the frequency of national news media coverage of ERPO legislation in 2018, before and after the Parkland shooting, and analyze the content of news articles related to a sample of states that considered ERPO legislation after the shooting. RESULTS: We find a sharp increase in the frequency of articles related to ERPOs following the Parkland shooting and smaller increases in coverage surrounding ERPO policy proposals and other public mass shootings that year. Nearly three-quarters of articles in our content analysis mentioned the Parkland shooting. The news media often mentioned or quoted politicians compared to other stakeholders, infrequently specified uses for ERPOs (e.g., prevention of mass violence, suicide, or other violence), and rarely included evidence on effectiveness of such policies. More than one-quarter of articles mentioned a mass shooting perpetrator by name, and one-third of articles used the term "gun control." CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the emerging public discourse, as informed by media messaging and framing, on ERPOs as states continue to debate and implement these risk-based firearm violence prevention policies.

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.