By Vaughn Crandall, Marina Gonzalez and Reygan Cunningham

Community violence prevention is an emerging field of public safety work focused on reducing and preventing lethal and sublethal violence.1 Yet, despite growing awareness of evidence-informed approaches, historic levels of investment and political support from the federal government, few cities have been able to sustainably reduce community violence at the city level through purposeful strategies. With support from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the California Partnership for Safe Communities (CPSC) worked with a diverse range of field experts to identify key capacities that may play essential roles in reducing community violence at the city level and over time. The project team began by combining findings from research across a range of disciplines and interviews with leading subject matter experts to identify key capacities that were likely to play important roles in the ability of cities to sustainably reduce community violence. The six identified capacities were: 1. Political governance and public sector leadership, 2. Data-informed problem analysis, 3. Cross-sector collaboration on a shared strategy, 4. Effective operational management, 5. Robust violence reduction infrastructure, and 6. Sustainability planning and institutionalization. To test and refine these capacities, CPSC project leads explored the role of each capacity in seven cities with long-term violence challenges as well as significant experience with violence prevention efforts: Baltimore; Boston; Cincinnati; Los Angeles; New Orleans; Oakland; and Philadelphia. This second stage of the study surfaced the following city findings: Cities with more key capacities present appeared to be more successful. These cities were able to assemble violence reduction strategies that formal evaluations found to be effective in reducing violence over multi-year time horizons.2 Higher levels of effective political governance corresponded with more robust operational management, which appeared to play a crucial role in cities' ability to reduce violence; Sustained funding, a clear theory of change, a strategic focus on a highest-risk of violence population and organizational support were associated with effective CVI ecosystems. These ecosystems appeared to help cities sustain longer-term reductions. Problem-oriented, data-driven, collaborative policing appears to play an important role, operationally and politically; The challenge of scaling programs and strategies in larger cities is significant, but can drive creative adaptation when supported by robust management structures; and Sustainability and institutionalization of violence reduction strategies appear to depend heavily on stable political governance and effective management 

Oakland, CA: California Partnership for Safe Communities. 18p.

By Patricia C. Lewis , Nadine J. Kaslow, Yuk Fai Cheong, Dabney P. Evans and Kathryn M. Yount

Femicide Refers to the intentional gender-related killing of women and girls (1). Despite the high prevalence of female murder victimization in the United States (U.S.) (2, 3), the U.S. lags behind other nations in defining and documenting gender-related female homicides (4). While efforts are underway within the criminal justice and public health sectors to better track violent deaths, deficient surveillance systems limit efforts to estimate the annual incidence of femicide in the U.S. Here, we position femicide as a preventable death that should be treated as a social and public health problem and a distinct form of homicide in the legal code. This approach is especially salient, given the documented increase of non-lethal intimate partner violence (IPV) in major cities (5) and nationally (6) during the COVID-19pandemic, demonstrating the collateral impacts of public-health crises on violence against women (VAW). 

Front. Public Health, 27 February 2024 Sec. Injury Prevention and Control Volume 12 - 2024 |

By Pamela B. Teaster, Erica Wood,  Sally B. Hurme,  Carlisle Shealy

In the United States, 10.6% of adults ages 18-64 and 35.2% of people age 65 and older live with a disability (Kraus et al., 2018). Four and a half percent of adults ages 18-64 and 8.9% of people age 65 and older have a cognitive disability (Kraus et al., 2018). Certain cognitive disabilities make adults vulnerable to abuse and require the help of a surrogate decision-maker, such as a guardian or an agent under a power of attorney (Gunther, 2011). A wide spectrum of adults may need the assistance of a guardian, including individuals with serious mental illness, intellectual disability, and traumatic brain injury. The number of adults with serious mental illness increased from 8.3 million in 2008 to 13.1 million in 2019; the greatest increase occurred in young adults ages 18-25 (Lipari, 2020). More than 7 million people in the United States have an intellectual disability, with many requiring assistance (Population Specific Fact Sheet–Intellectual Disability | National Disability Navigator Resource Collaborative, n.d.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year there are more than 2.87 million visits to emergency departments, hospitalizations, and deaths due to traumatic brain injury; some of these result in long-term disability (TBI Data | Concussion | Traumatic Brain Injury | CDC Injury Center, 2021). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reports that more than 400,000 U.S. service members experienced a traumatic brain injury between 2000 and 2019 (VA Research on Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), n.d.). Individuals with serious mental illness, intellectual disability, and traumatic brain injury may require short- or long-term guardianship depending on the progression and treatment of their disability. Advancements in medical care not only expand the lifespan of older individuals but also enhance the life expectancies of younger individuals with brain injuries, serious mental illness, or intellectual disabilities, who may outlive their family caregivers (Patja et al., 2000). Terminology for guardianship differs by state. In many but not all states, court-appointed surrogates who make decisions concerning an individual’s finances are referred to as “conservators,” and those who make decisions concerning an individual’s health or personal matters are called “guardians.” For this report, we use the term guardian to refer to both, unless specifically indicated. Guardians are bound by statutory requirements and case law — as well as ethical principles — to act in the best interests of a vulnerable adult. Guardians are fiduciaries, which means that they must act according to the highest standards of care, accountability, trust, honesty, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflict of interest (Managing Someone Else’s Money: Help for Court Appointed Guardian of Property and Conservators, 2019). Powers given to guardians are often immense — for example, the authority to sell a person’s home and personal property, make contracts on their behalf, and consent to all medical treatments. In addition, guardians may be authorized to charge fees for their services that are payable from an adult’s estate — a situation that, left unmonitored, opens the potential for abuse. Moreover, adults with cognitive impairments may be unable to recognize when guardians are not serving as they should. Although guardians should provide protection, there is also the risk that a guardian may take advantage of an adult whom they were named to protect. Despite this situation, we currently lack reliable data both on how many guardianships or guardians exist and on the outcomes of these  arrangements. A number of high-profile media exposés (e.g., Aviv, 2017; Day, Stark, & Coscarelli, 2021; Garland, 2017) have highlighted how, in some egregious cases, guardian actions have harmed adults who are at risk. 

Washington DC: National Institute of Justice , 2022. 64p.

By Tara Wheeler, Julia Bergeron-Smith, George Shaler, Lisa Sampson

Sex offender recidivism data can be difficult to comprehend, especially when conducting research across states. For example, sex offenders can be categorized in numerous ways: by the type of crime committed (e.g., rape, assault, exhibitionism), by offense severity, by victim age (adult or child). Likewise, recidivism definitions (e.g., rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration) and timeframes (e.g., one-year, two-year, or three-years following release) can vary across local, state, and federal agencies. Thus, there is no single measure systemically used across jurisdictions. Recognizing the public’s concerns about sex offender recidivism, the Maine and Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs), proposed and received funding for a retrospective sex offender recidivism study through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. This collaboration marks the first time either state has undertaken this type of study. This project studied the recidivism rates of Maine sex offenders who were released from prison between 2005 and 2019 and Massachusetts sex offenders released between 2009 and 2018. In total, the Massachusetts cohort was composed of 1,210 offenders and the Maine study of 905 offenders. Criminal history records were obtained for each offender from their respective states to determine whether the offender recidivated (i.e., committed post-release offenses that resulted in a conviction). To be included in the recidivism portion of this study, there must have been at least a five-year window between the time of release and the time the criminal history data was pulled. Overall, 880 offenders were included in the Massachusetts recidivism analysis and 661 in the Maine recidivism analysis. A primary interest area was to determine whether recidivism rates differed by offense severity (i.e., rape or non-rape) and victim age (i.e., child or adult), however, these two groupings are not entirely separate from one another— while rape is considered more severe than other types of sex offenses, crimes against children are also deemed to be more egregious than crimes against adults. Therefore, an offender typology—based on the original sex offenses associated with the commitment and subsequent release—was created that incorporates both victim type and offense severity. The first, and most severe, category is child rapist, which includes all offenders who committed a child rape offense, followed by the rapist category, which includes all other offenders who committed a rape offense. Next is child predator and is used for those who committed a sex offense against a child but did not commit a rape offense. Last, is the other category and captures those who did not fall within one of the prior three categories. To gain a better understanding of recidivism among the sex offender population, survival analysis (specifically, the Cox Proportional Hazards regression method) was conducted to determine which offender characteristics, if any, influenced recidivism rates. Using this approach, researchers were able to control for other known attributes. The attributes tested in this study were: • offender type • severity of sex offense(s) (Maine only) • number of sex offense(s) • commitment length (Maine only) • release type (supervision or discharge) • security level of facility offender was released from (Massachusetts only) • release age Key Findings • Age at earliest sex offense associated with commitment varied by offender type for both Maine and Massachusetts. Interestingly, child predators had a mean age that was statistically higher than that of rapists and child rapists. o In Massachusetts, the average offense age of child predators was 36.6 years old, which was significantly higher than the offense age of rapists (31.1 years old) and child rapists (33.9 years old). o For Maine, child predators were, on average, 35.0 years old at the time of their earliest sex offense associated with commitment, compared to 30.4 years old for child rapists and 31.1 years old for rapists. • Maine’s five-year recidivism rate (43%) was much higher than the Massachusetts five year recidivism rate (25%). While there are numerous potential scenarios that could explain the differences in recidivism rates, it is important to note that each state has its own criminal laws and procedures that, in turn, impacts the underlying study population and their recidivism rates. For instance, an offense that resulted in commitment to state prison in Maine might result in a county jail commitment for Massachusetts. Therefore, caution should be taken when making comparisons between the two states. • Offender type, severity of sex offense, and release age were found to be associated with Maine recidivism rates. When coupled with release age, release type was also found to have an influence on recidivism rates. Holding all other attributes constant: o Individuals whose most severe sex offense was a misdemeanor are expected to recidivate at a rate 45% higher than those with a felony level offense. o ‘Other’ type offenders (those whose offenses fell short of rape and did not target children) have an expected recidivism rate 45% higher than offenders who committed sex offenses against children (child predators and child rapists) o Age at release, both by itself and as an interaction with release type, is associated with recidivism rates. For every 10-year increase in age at release, the predicted recidivism rate decreased by 21%. However, for offenders who were released to supervision, the hazard rate decreases even further, with supervised offenders having a 38% decrease in risk for every 10-year increase of age at release. • Of the attributes tested, offender type, release type, release level, and release age were found to be associated with Massachusetts recidivism rates. Holding all other attributes constant: o Offenders released from a maximum-security level facility are predicted to recidivate at a rate 2.4 times higher than that of offenders released from a medium security level facility or lower. o ‘Other’ type sex offenders are predicted to recidivate at a rate 115% higher than those who committed child-based sex offenses (child predators and child rapists). Meanwhile, non-child rape offenders are expected to recidivate at a rate 58% higher than child offenders. o Discharged offenders released without supervision have an expected recidivism rate 61% higher than offenders who were supervised following release. o For every 10-year increase in age, the recidivism rate is expected to decrease by 37%.    

 Portland:  Maine Statistical Analysis Center;   Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Center, 2023. 50p.

By Kara Miller

The Oklahoma Statistical Analysis Center (SAC), a unit located within the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI), is tasked with analyzing and reporting crime data. In 2019, Oklahoma House Bill 2597 was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. Effective November 1, 2019, the bill modified Oklahoma law to permit anyone over 21 years or military services members and/or veterans over 18 to carry a firearm without first obtaining a self-defense act (SDA) license provided they are not disqualified based on their criminal history. In order to evaluate whether the change in law impacted crime in Oklahoma, the SAC chose to study violent, gun-related crimes in Oklahoma using State Incident-Based Reporting System (SIBRS) data for the offenses of “murder and non-negligent manslaughter” and aggravated assault. This initial report evaluates 2018 data to establish a baseline. Future reports will analyze data from 2019 and beyond comparing the results to this benchmark report. Key Findings:  For the 37 victims of murder where the sex was known: o Male victims (27) were killed by offenders whose sex was reported as male (17, 56.7%), female (8, 26.7%), or unknown (5, 16.7%). o Female victims (10) were killed by offenders whose sex was reported as male (9, 90.0%) or female (1, 10.0%).  The majority (540, 79.3%) of victims of aggravated assault with a gun were reported with no injury. Victim-to-offender relationship: o For 73.7% of victim-to-offender relationships for victims of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, the victim was within the family of the offender (42.1%), or the victim was outside of the family but known to the offender (31.6%). o For 64.8% of victim-to-offender relationships for victims of aggravated assault, the victim was within the family of the offender (17.8%), or the victim was outside of the family but known to the offender (47.0%).  Victims of Aggravated Assault and Injuries of Aggravated Assault is defined as the presence of a weapon that could cause serious injury or presence of severe injuries.  Nearly 80.0% of victims were reported with no injury. 

Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Office of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2020. 81p.