By:Robin Joy and Monica Weeber

Domestic violence is a national and Vermont public health crisis. The Vermont Department of Health estimates that up to 16% of adult Vermonters have experienced either fear, control, or violence at the hands of an intimate partner. In Vermont, a victim may seek a Relief from Abuse Order (RFA) in the Family Division of Superior Court. As part of the process, the victim may also request that a defendant relinquish their firearms. This study examines general case processing statistics for RFAs, how often firearm relinquishment is requested, and if granted, who is the designated holder of the weapons. The report also documents the processes related to serving orders and storing and returning weapons. Methods Researchers worked with the Vermont Judiciary to create an extract of RFA cases to answer quantitative questions. They also conducted interviews with court personnel, police officers, and licensed firearms dealers. Findings • Bennington County has the highest rate of disposed RFA dockets per 1,000 of the population. Chittenden County has the lowest. • Seventy percent of denied temporary orders are not pursued to final orders. • Fifty-eight percent of all requested temporary orders are granted. • Most RFAs (59%) are between parties who are current or former household members. • Women are overrepresented as plaintiffs (74%) as compared to the general population. Men are overrepresented as defendants (75.8%). • The Judiciary does not record in the case management system whether a request to relinquish was made by the plaintiff. • The rate of relinquishment orders mirrors the estimated firearm ownership rates. • Essex and Orange Counties had the highest rate of firearm relinquishment orders. • Bennington and Rutland Counties has the lowest rate of firearm relinquishment orders. • Temporary RFAs with a relinquishment order are more likely to continue to a final hearing. Recommendations This is the first report on RFA and firearm relinquishment data in Vermont and the first report outlining the relinquishment and storage process. Based on the information CRG has developed suggestions for practice, policy, and further research 

Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2024. 22p.

By Astrid De Schutter

KEY FINDINGS • Most European Union (EU) member states show relatively low and stable levels of family homicide. Nevertheless, a significant number of women are regularly and disproportionately victimized in incidents of firearm- and non-firearm-related family violence. • Firearms have certain characteristics that make them a convenient

modus operandi in some specific constellations of family violence. • Firearms can allow a family member to overpower a physically stronger opponent in family conflicts, which may explain their appeal to adolescents, women, and elderly family members. • Incidents of family gun violence involve legally held firearms more than those sourced from a criminal milieu, suggesting that firearms trafficking and the illicit gun market play a less important role in this context. The analysis of a randomized sample size of media reports in the EU further indicates that there is little evidence to suggest that these guns tend to be illegally held. • A firearm is often the weapon of choice in familicide–suicides, despite their low prevalence rate.

Brussels: Flemish Institute for Peace, 2023. 20p.

By Giovanna Maletta

Some European Union (EU) member states—as well as the EU, through Eurostat—collect and publish useful and gender-disaggregated information about violent crimes, intentional homicides, or domestic violence. In addition

to using different methodologies and definitions, however, available data does not always include information on the weapons used in the commission of such crimes, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, or the context in which the violence has occurred.

Available data collected at the international, regional, and national level does not allow for a comprehensive picture of the trends and dynamics of gender-based violence (GBV), including firearm violence, within the EU.

The EU is working to establish a common understanding of GBV at the EU level and among its member states, and to detail minimum standards for the criminalization of GBV against women and domestic violence—thus providing the opportunity to address the use of firearms to facilitate and commit GBV across the EU. These regulatory initiatives also have the potential to improve the availability of relevant information by promoting the collection of comparable data and the development of harmonized practices in collecting and reporting this information, which in turn will allow states to better monitor and adapt measures being taken to tackle GBV.

These EU initiatives could benefit from establishing linkages with the existing EU framework for the control of the production, trade, and possession of firearms.

KEY FINDINGS • Some European Union (EU) member states—as well as the EU, through Eurostat— collect and publish useful and gender-disaggregated information about violent crimes, intentional homicides, or domestic violence. In addition to using different methodologies and definitions, however, available data does not always include

information on the weapons used in the commission of such crimes, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, or the context in which the violence has occurred. • Available data collected at the international, regional, and national level does not allow for a comprehensive picture of the trends and dynamics of gender-based violence (GBV), including firearm violence, within the EU. • The EU is working to establish a common understanding of GBV at the EU level and among its member states, and to detail minimum standards for the criminalization of GBV against women and domestic violence—thus providing the opportunity to address the use of firearms to facilitate and commit GBV across the EU. These regulatory initiatives also have the potential to improve the availability of relevant information by promoting the collection of comparable data and the development of harmonized practices in collecting and reporting this information, which in turn will allow states to better monitor

and adapt measures being taken to tackle GBV. • These EU initiatives could benefit from establishing linkages with the existing EU framework for the control of the production, trade, and possession of firearms.

Brussels: Flemish Institute for Peace, 28p.

By Alice M. Ellyson, Avanti Adhia, Sandra Shanahan, Aisha Alsinai, Lisa DiMascolo, Maxmilliaan Reygers, Deirdre Bowen, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar

We quantified the implementation of WA state's domestic violence (DV)-related firearm prohibitions (RCW9.41.800) by the courts and the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit (RDVFEU), a regional approach to compliance promotion. We measured implementation, vetting, compliance, and enforcement of firearm prohibitions before (2014–2016) and after (2018–2020) the RDVFEU was implemented using a 55% random sample of granted domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) in King County, WA (n = 3543). We evaluated differences in judicial orders to surrender firearms and other dangerous weapons (OTSWs), respondent documented compliance, and respondent weapon and/or firearm relinquishment before and after implementation. Compared to DVPOs granted prior to RDVFEU implementation, granted DVPOs after RDVFEU implementation were at least 4.5 times more likely to include an OTSW. RDVFEU implementation was also associated with at least 3.4 times the odds of respondent documented compliance and at least 3.3 times the odds of respondent relinquishment of at least one firearm and/or other dangerous weapon. These findings demonstrate RDVFEU implementation was associated with benefits at each stage of the protection order process with improvements in both judicial enforcement and respondent compliance. Overall, RDVFEU implementation was associated with improvements in granted orders to surrender weapons, respondent compliance, and relinquishment.

Policy Implications

DV-related firearm prohibitions can be supported by interdisciplinary teams within the legal system to promote respondent compliance and enhance safety planning for DV victim–survivors.

Criminology & Public Policy Volume 23, Issue 4 Nov 2024 Pages 801-1017