Community exposure to gun homicide and adolescents' educational aspirations.

INTRODUCTION: Witnessing violence and violent victimization have detrimental effects on adolescents' emotional functioning and ability to envision and plan for their futures. However, research is limited on the impact of violence that occurs in adolescents' communities-whether or not it was witnessed or experienced firsthand. This paper investigated the associations between community exposure to gun homicide and adolescents' high school and college graduation aspirations. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 3031), a cohort study of children born 1998-2000 in 20 large US cities, merged with incident-level data on deadly gun violence from the Gun Violence Archive (2014-2017). Outcomes were reported by adolescents (girls and boys) during wave 6 (2014-2017) of the study, conducted when the children were 15 years of age. We employed ordinary least squares regression, ordered logistic regression, and multilevel stratification to examine the average and heterogeneous impacts of community exposure to gun homicide on adolescents' educational aspirations. RESULTS: Community exposure to gun homicide was associated with reduced high school graduation aspirations, particularly among adolescents with the lowest risk of exposure to gun homicide. Gun homicide exposure was also associated with increased college graduation aspirations; this association was concentrated among adolescents with moderate-high risk of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of education for job opportunities and the better health that accompanies education and occupational attainment, preventing early exposure to gun violence and providing institutional supports to help adolescents facing adversity realize their goals is essential to their long-term health and success.

Optimism Bias in Firearm-Related Risk Perceptions.

This survey study assesses the perceptions of California adults about the safety and risk of personal firearm use or access vs firearm use or access by others.

Neighborhood collective efficacy and environmental exposure to firearm homicide among a national sample of adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Living near an incident of firearm violence can negatively impact youth, regardless of whether the violence is experienced firsthand. Inequities in household and neighborhood resources may affect the prevalence and consequences of exposure across racial/ethnic groups. FINDINGS: Using data from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study and the Gun Violence Archive, we estimate that approximately 1 in 4 adolescents in large US cities lived within 800 m (0.5 miles) of a past-year firearm homicide during 2014-17. Exposure risk decreased as household income and neighborhood collective efficacy increased, though stark racial/ethnic inequities remained. Across racial/ethnic groups, adolescents in poor households in moderate or high collective efficacy neighborhoods had a similar risk of past-year firearm homicide exposure as middle-to-high income adolescents in low collective efficacy neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Empowering communities to build and leverage social ties may be as impactful for reducing firearm violence exposure as income supports. Comprehensive violence prevention efforts should include systems-level strategies that jointly strengthen family and community resources.

Anticipatory concerns about violence within social networks: Prevalence and implications for prevention.

Most research on exposure to violence focuses on direct victimization, offending, or witnessed violence, yet many people also experience concerns about potential violence in their environments and social networks. Using a state-representative survey of California adults (n = 2870) administered in July 2020, we estimate the prevalence of anticipatory concerns about violence within respondents' social networks and describe characteristics of the persons at perceived risk of violence, reasons for respondents' concerns, and actions undertaken by respondents to reduce that risk. Approximately 1 in 5 respondents knew at least one person, usually a friend or extended family member, whom they perceived to be at risk of other- or self-directed violence. Among respondents living with the person at perceived risk, about one-quarter reported household firearm ownership. Alcohol and substance misuse and a history of violence were among respondents' top reasons for concern; serious mental illness and firearm access also contributed to concerns. About one-quarter of respondents with such concerns said harm was likely or very likely to occur in the next year. Most respondents reported having taken action to reduce the risk of violence, including providing resources and asking family or friends to help; few acted to reduce access to lethal means. The most common reasons for inaction were the perception that a dangerous situation was unlikely and that it was a personal matter. Our findings can help inform a broader understanding of exposure to violence and interventions that leverage the knowledge of those close to persons at risk to prevent violence.

Inequities in Community Exposure to Deadly Gun Violence by Race/Ethnicity, Poverty, and Neighborhood Disadvantage among Youth in Large US Cities.

Understanding the burden of gun violence among youth is a public health imperative. While most estimates are based on direct and witnessed victimization, living nearby gun violence incidents may be consequential too. Yet detailed information about these broader experiences of violence is lacking. We use data on a population-based cohort of youth merged with incident-level data on deadly gun violence to assess the prevalence and intensity of community exposure to gun homicides across cross-classified categories of exposure distance and recency, overall and by race/ethnicity, household poverty, and neighborhood disadvantage. In total, 2-18% of youth resided within 600 m of a gun homicide occurring in the past 14-365 days. These percentages were 3-25% for incidents within 800 m and 5-37% for those within a 1300-m radius. Black and Latinx youth were 3-7 times more likely, depending on the exposure radius, to experience a past-year gun homicide than white youth and on average experienced incidents more recently and closer to home. Household poverty contributed to exposure inequities, but disproportionate residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods was especially consequential: for all racial/ethnic groups, the difference in the probability of exposure between youth in low vs high poverty households was approximately 5-10 percentage points, while the difference between youth residing in low vs high disadvantage neighborhoods was approximately 50 percentage points. Given well-documented consequences of gun violence exposure on health, these more comprehensive estimates underscore the importance of supportive strategies not only for individual victims but entire communities in the aftermath of gun violence.

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.

Experiences of violence in daily life among adults in California: a population-representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Research on violence exposure emphasizes discrete acute events such as direct and witnessed victimization. Little is known about the broad range of experiences of violence (EVs) in daily life. This study assesses the prevalence and patterns of distribution of 6 EVs in an adult general population. METHODS: California state-representative survey administered online (English and Spanish), July 14-27, 2020. Adult (age ≥ 18 years) California resident members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel were eligible to participate. Two EVs concerned community environments: (1) the occurrence of gunshots and shootings in the neighborhood and (2) encounters with sidewalk memorials where violent deaths occurred. Four concerned social networks: direct personal knowledge of individuals who (1) had purposefully been shot by someone else or (2) had purposefully shot themselves, and direct personal knowledge of individuals whom respondents perceived to be at risk of violence, either (3) to another person or (4) to themselves. Main outcome measures, expressed as weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were the prevalence and extent (or dose) of each EV and of EVs in combination and associations between EVs and respondents' sociodemographic characteristics and firearm ownership status. RESULTS: Of 2870 respondents (57% completion rate), 52.3% (95% CI 49.5-55.0%) were female; mean [SD] age was 47.9 [16.9] years. Nearly two-thirds (64.6%, 95% CI 61.9-67.3%) reported at least 1 EV; 11.4% (95% CI 9.7-13.2%) reported 3 or more. Gender was not associated with the prevalence of any experience. Non-owners of firearms who lived with owners reported more extensive EVs through social networks than did firearm owners or non-owners in households without firearms. Knowledge of people who had been shot by others was most common among Black respondents, 31.0% (95% CI 20.9-43.3%) of whom knew 2 or more such persons. Knowledge of people who had shot themselves was greatest among respondents aged ≥ 60 years, but knowledge of persons perceived to be at risk of violence to themselves was greatest among respondents aged 18-29 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Experiences of violence in daily life are widespread. They occur in sociodemographic patterns that differ from those for direct victimization and suggest new opportunities for research and intervention.

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.

Public Awareness of and Personal Willingness to Use California's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law to Prevent Firearm-Related Harm.

Importance: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws temporarily suspend firearm and ammunition access by individuals whom a judge has deemed to be at substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Despite widespread recent adoption of these laws, use of ERPOs has been limited. Barriers to ERPO uptake remain unclear. Objective: To assess public awareness and perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use ERPOs in various risk scenarios, and to identify reasons for being unwilling, overall and by firearm ownership status, to inform efforts to improve ERPO implementation. Design Setting and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, a statewide internet survey on firearm ownership and exposure to violence and its consequences, conducted from July 14 to July 27, 2020. Adult respondents were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel using probability-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Awareness and perceived appropriateness of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs; California's official term for ERPOs), willingness to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm, and reasons for being not at all willing to use a GVRO in 1 or more risk scenarios, overall and by firearm ownership status. Results: Of the 5018 panel members invited, 2870 (57%) completed the survey. Of these respondents (mean [SD] age: 47.9 [16.9] years; 52.3% women; 41.9% White, 34.7% Latinx, 14.4% Asian, and 5.8% Black individuals), 65.6% (95% CI, 63.0%-68.1) had never heard of a GVRO or a red flag law. Firearm owners were significantly more likely (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.9%-26.0%) than nonowners who live with owners (6.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.0%; P < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; P < .001) to have heard of both a GVRO and a red flag law. After reading a brief description of California's GVRO law, 72.9% (95% CI, 70.2%-75.4%) to 78.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-80.8%) of respondents, depending on the risk scenario, indicated that GVROs were in general at least sometimes appropriate, while 73.2% (95% CI, 70.5%-75.6%) to 83.6% (95% CI, 81.2%-85.8%) said they would be somewhat or very willing to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm. Firearm owners reported the highest levels of GVRO appropriateness in 4 of 5 risk scenarios (depending on the scenario, 80.0% [95% CI, 73.6%-85.1%] to 85.6% [95% CI, 79.9%-89.8%]). Nonowners who live with owners reported the highest levels of personal willingness to use a GVRO (depending on the scenario, 83.7% [95% CI, 74.7%-90.0%] to 94.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-98.1%]). The most frequently cited reasons for being unwilling to use a GVRO were not knowing enough about GVROs (44.9%; 95% CI, 39.7%-50.3%), believing the risk scenarios are personal or family matters (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.6%), and distrust that the system will be fair (23.1%; 95% CI, 19.1%-27.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, public awareness of GVROs was low, but perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use these tools at least some of the time was high. Foci for efforts to address barriers to GVRO use in California were identified; similar challenges likely exist in other jurisdictions.

Exposure to Violence, Firearm Involvement, and Socioemotional Consequences Among California Adults.

Violence is a leading cause of injury and death, and its impacts extend far beyond physical harm to the victim. We estimated the prevalence of direct or indirect exposure to violence, factors associated with exposure, and effects of exposure on socioemotional health-with effect modification by firearm involvement during the violent event-among a state-representative sample of California adults. We also examined effects of exposure on subsequent intent to purchase firearms. The sample comprised 2,558 California adults who completed the 2018 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey. An estimated 4% of respondents-1.2 million Californians-said they or a household member were exposed to violence while living in their current neighborhood. Half of those exposed to violence reported the event was "severely" distressing, and 47% experienced social functioning problems (i.e., problems with job/school and/or family/friends); for comparison, only 12% of unexposed adults reported having such problems in the past 12 months. When the violent event involved a weapon, respondents who did (versus did not) experience severe distress were significantly more likely to report that a firearm was present (69% versus 14%); those with (versus without) social functioning problems were significantly more likely to report other types of weapons were involved (67% versus 22%). Exposed adults considered buying a gun in response to the violent event more often than did unexposed respondents in the past 12 months (33% versus 17%). These findings highlight the need to address the physical and psychological sequelae of violence exposure among direct and indirect victims and can inform violence prevention research, programs, and policies across the nation.