By Rachel Rein

This Note explores human trafficking in the United States through Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit). First, the Note offers background on trafficking and applicable federal law. The Note shows that not only does trafficking disable people, but that people with preexisting disabilities are especially at risk for trafficking. Next, the Note indicates that trafficking law follows a Law-and-Order framework that retraumatizes marginalized survivors. Then, the Note introduces DisCrit and justifies its use for anti-trafficking advocacy. Finally, the Note applies DisCrit. By looking at trafficking law through DisCrit, it becomes clear that trafficking law must work with—not against—survivors to end human suffering.

42 Colum. J. Gender & L. 183 (2022).

By Michele Ubaldi Matteo Picchio 

We study the effect of mass shooting exposure on individuals’ mental health by using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Our identification strategy relies on the quasi-randomness of mass shootings in a staggered difference-in-differences design. We compare changes in mental health outcomes of individuals living in affected cities with changes in matched individuals living in non-proximal and not-affected cities. We find that mass shootings have a substantial adverse impact on mental health, which persists for up to six years. This impact is not statistically significant for Black individuals, whereas it is slightly more pronounced among women and older cohorts

Bonn, Garmany:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics  2024. 45p.

By Chelsa L. Kenney

Some Caribbean nations, such as Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, have high rates of violence, including homicide. In 2021, Caribbean countries accounted for six of the world’s 10 highest national murder rates, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The United Nations and other organizations monitoring firearms trafficking have reported that a high percentage of the firearms used in these crimes have been trafficked from the U.S. GAO was asked to report on U.S. efforts to counter firearms trafficking to Caribbean nations. This report examines (1) what data and reporting show about the trafficking and use of firearms in Caribbean countries; (2) U.S. agencies’ efforts to disrupt firearms trafficking in these countries; and (3) agency efforts to track results of key efforts to combat firearms trafficking from the U.S. to the Caribbean. GAO reviewed federal firearms recovery and trace data, and other related U.S. agency data, analysis, and program information for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the most recent available at the time of our review. GAO interviewed U.S. and Caribbean officials through in-person site visits in the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, and through video conferences with Barbados, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica. GAO selected these countries based on geographic diversity, the percentage of recovered firearms that were of U.S. origin, and U.S. agency efforts in country to combat firearms trafficking. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that State update the CBSI’s Results Framework to establish firearms trafficking specific indicators. State concurred.  

Washington, DC:  United States Government Accountability Office, 2024. 55p.

By Everytown Research & Policy , Everytown for Gun Safety

The gun industry has long avoided taking responsibility for the use of its products in crimes and violence. Despite receiving notifications from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) when their guns are recovered and traced,2 manufacturers often deny knowledge of just how often their guns inflict harm upon communities.3 Instead, they continue to produce increasingly deadly weapons and lean into dangerous advertising tactics, while generating an estimated $9 billion in revenue annually.4 Meanwhile, America’s gun violence epidemic costs the country over 44,000 lives and $557 billion each year.

To combat this attempt to avoid responsibility, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (Everytown) embarked on a city-by-city collection of recovered crime gun data, seeking to answer the question of which gun manufacturers’ weapons are showing up at America’s crime scenes. This data collection was made possible by Everytown’s long-standing coalition of mayors fighting to end gun violence: Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The data received included 178,218 crime guns recovered in 34 US cities over the past five years

Key findings from Everytown’s analysis include:

• Of the over 11,000 licensed gun manufacturers in the United States, four manufacturers—Glock, Taurus, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger—accounted for over 40 percent of the guns recovered in crimes in 2023.6

• Glock pistols were recovered at crime scenes twice as often as the second-leading manufacturer, Taurus.7

• Crime scene recoveries of Polymer80s—the largest producer of ghost guns today—increased nearly 1,200 percent over the past five years, finally showing signs of decline in 2023, following litigation as well as regulatory and legislative fixes.8

• Twenty cities reported recovering more than 560 machine gun conversion devices in 2023, at least two-thirds of which were “Glock switches.”

This report adds to the growing evidence about the use of gun manufacturers’ products in crimes.9 It highlights the urgency for manufacturers and policymakers to act by implementing codes of conduct, cutting off irresponsible dealers, innovating safety features, and advertising products responsibly because the best time to prevent gun violence is before it happens.

New York: Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety, 2024. 15p.

By Everytown for Gun Safety 

 Deaths due to firearm violence occur in alarming numbers in the United States (U.S.) each year. In 2023, over 43,000 people died from a firearm-related injury, and the majority (55%) of these deaths were from suicide (Gun Violence Archive, 2024). Young people are at heightened risk, with firearms being the leading cause of death for youth ages 13-24, and the cause of half of all suicide deaths in this age group as well (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024; National Violent Death Reporting System, 2024). Only in the last five years did Congress allocate federal resources for firearm violence research, and the prior decades-long ban on this research has stymied information that could have been used to prevent these deaths (Hellman, 2019). This lack of research has had wide-reaching effects, including the limited understanding of how firearm violence impacts specific vulnerable populations, such as LGBTQ+ individuals. Although much progress has been made, systematic data collection efforts that assess LGBTQ+ identity and experiences have long been a challenge in the U.S., similarly limiting available research on LGBTQ+ health and wellness (Healthy People 2030, 2023). One of the most consistent findings we do know from available research, however, is that LGBTQ+ young people experience higher rates of considering and attempting suicide compared to their peers. The Trevor Project’s 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People found that 39% of all LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year. This finding is important in the context of what we know about firearms: they are the most lethal means used in suicide attempts; nearly 9 in 10 (89.6%) suicide attempts with a firearm result in death (Conner, Azrael, & Miller, 2019). Furthermore, though mass shootings constitute a small fraction (1.5%) of firearm deaths in the U.S., the public nature of this violence, often targeted toward members of oppressed groups, still have noteworthy impact. Mass shootings are defined by The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as any incident in which four or more people are shot and wounded or killed, excluding the shooter. Many LGBTQ+ people across the country identified with the victims of two widely publicized mass shootings that occurred at LGBTQ+ nightclubs in recent years: the Pulse shooting in 2016, and the shooting at Club Q in 2022. The mental health of survivors and directly impacted geographic communities are adversely affected by mass shootings (Lowe & Galea, 2017), and individuals not directly affected by mass shooting events can  also experience post-traumatic stress through media exposure (Thompson et al., 2019). In the instance of the Pulse shooting, those who identified as LGBTQ+ responded more strongly to media coverage and, in turn, experienced more post-traumatic stress (First et al., 2023). Everytown for Gun Safety states that not only is addressing firearms essential to any strategy to reduce suicide, but also that the effect of mass shootings extends to survivors, families, and communities. Despite the elevated risk of suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ young people, the fact that the majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and the high lethality of suicide attempts involving firearms, little is known about how many LGBTQ+ young people own or have access to firearms, or how experiences of mass shooting events impact suicide risk. Using data from the 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young people, this brief examines relationships between access to firearms, the impact of mass shootings, and suicide risk among LGBTQ+ young people. Results Access to Firearms Overall, 40% of LGBTQ+ young people reported that there was a firearm in their home. The majority (92%) of those with a firearm in the home reported that it was not theirs. Additionally, of those who reported the presence of a firearm in their home, 63% reported that the firearm was kept in a locked place, 22% reported that it was not kept in a locked place, and 15% reported that they did not know whether it was kept in a locked place. Demographics LGBTQ+ young people ages 13-17 reported higher rates of having a firearm in their home (44%), compared to their LGBTQ+ young people ages 18-24 (36%). LGBTQ+ young people living in the South reported the highest rates of having a firearm in their home (48%), followed by LGBTQ+ young people living in the Midwest (43%), West (37%), and Northeast (25%). Cisgender boys and men reported the highest rates of living in a home with a firearm (46%), followed by transgender girls and women (43%), transgender boys and men (42%), nonbinary youth (38%), youth questioning their gender identity (38%), and cisgender girls and women (36%). Native and Indigenous LGBTQ+ young people reported the highest rates of living in a home with a firearm (58%), followed by White LGBTQ+ young people (45%), Multiracial LGBTQ+ young people (38%), Black LGBTQ+ young people (31%), Latinx LGBTQ+ young people (29%), Middle Eastern and North African LGBTQ+ young people (22%), and Asian American and Pacific Islander LGBTQ+ young people (21%). No significant differences were found in rates of having a firearm in the home when comparing LGBTQ+ youth based on their socioeconomic status  LGBTQ+ young people who reported the presence of a firearm in their home reported higher rates of having seriously considered suicide in the past year (43%), compared to their LGBTQ+ peers who did not report a firearm in their home (37%). Reporting the presence of a firearm in the home was associated with 19% higher odds of seriously considering suicide in the past year (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.19, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.11-1.28, p < 0.001), compared to LGBTQ+ young people who did not report the presence of a firearm in the home. LGBTQ+ young people who reported having a firearm in their home had higher rates of attempting suicide in the past year (13%), compared to their LGBTQ+ peers who did not report having a firearm in their home (11%). The presence of a firearm in the home was associated with 17% higher odds of reporting a suicide attempt in the past year (aOR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05-1.30, p < 0.01), Among LGBTQ+ young people who reported having a firearm in their home, 48% of those who did not keep it in a locked place and 46% of those who did not know if it was kept in a locked place seriously considered suicide in the last year, compared to the 40% who said the firearms were kept in a locked place (p<.001). Similarly, among those LGBTQ+ young people who reported the presence of a firearm in their home, 14% of those who did not keep it in a locked place and 15% of those who did not know if it was kept in a locked place attempted suicide in the last year, compared to the 12% who said the firearms were kept in a locked place (p<.001).

New York: Everytown for Gun Safety, 2024. 11p.

By Jennifer Carlson  

This review is about scholarly contributions to a hotly debated issue—gun policy. Teasing apart the politics of evidence within gun politics, it examines both how research agendas shape gun policy and politics as well as how gun policy and politics shape research agendas. To do so, the article maps out two waves of gun research, Gun Studies 1.0 and Gun Studies 2.0. Gun Studies 1.0 emphasizes scientific evidence as a foundation for generating consensus about public policy, and it includes criminological studies aimed at addressing guns as criminogenic tools, public health work aimed at addressing guns as public health problems, and jurisprudential scholarship aimed at adjudicating guns as legal objects. Reviewing how these approaches incited popular debates and public policies that, in turn, shaped subsequent conditions of gun scholarship, the article then turns to Gun Studies 2.0. Instead of taking evidence as self-evident, this body of scholarship tends to prioritize the meaning-making processes that make meaningful—or not— evidence surrounding gun policy. Accordingly, Gun Studies 2.0 unravels the political and cultural conditions of the contemporary US gun debate and broadens inquiries into gun harm and gun security. In addition to discussing areas for future study, this study concludes by encouraging gun researchers to attend to the politics of evidence as they mobilize scholarship not just to inform the gun debate but also to transform it

Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2020. 16:183–202 

By Thomas R. Simon,  Heather B. Clayton,  Linda L. Dahlberg; Corinne David-Ferdon,  Greta Kilmer,  Colleen Barbero, 

Suicide and homicide are the second and third leading causes of death, respectively, among youths aged 14–17 years (1); nearly one half (46%) of youth suicides and most (93%) youth homicides result from firearm injuries (1). Understanding youth gun carrying and associated outcomes can guide prevention initiatives (2). This study used the updated measure of gun carrying in the 2017 and 2019 administrations of CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey* (YRBS) to describe the national prevalence of gun carrying for reasons other than hunting or sport among high school students aged <18 years and to examine the associations between gun carrying and experiencing violence, suicidal ideation or attempts, or substance use. Gun carrying during the previous 12 months was reported by one in 15 males and one in 50 females. Gun carrying was significantly more likely among youths with violence-related experiences (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] range = 1.5–10.1), suicidal ideation or attempts (aPR range = 1.8–3.5), or substance use (aPR range = 4.2–5.6). These results underscore the importance of comprehensive approaches to preventing youth violence and suicide, including strategies that focus on preventing youth substance use and gun carrying (3). CDC’s YRBS uses an independent three-stage cluster sample design to achieve a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9–12 who attend public or private schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (4). The overall response rates for 2017 and 2019 were 60% (14,765) and 60.3% (13,677), respectively. After the removal of responses missing age (153; 0.5%), those indicating legal age to purchase a firearm (i.e., age ≥18 years) (3,412; 12%), and those missing sex (138; 0.5%) or gun carrying information (2,927; 10.3%), the final analytic sample included 21,812 students. Information on YRBS weighting, sampling, and psychometric properties has previously been reported (4,5). YRBS was reviewed and approved by CDC and ICF institutional review boards.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Weekly / Vol. 71 / No. 30 July 29, 2022 

By Clément Evroux

Manufacturing and trade in firearms for civilian purposes employs around 150,000 people in the EU. In 2020, the Commission adopted a 2020-2025 action plan on firearms trafficking to help curb the illegal flows of firearms, and ammunition, while also strengthening the legal market. The adoption of Directive (EU) 2021/555 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons in 2021 was the first legislative outcome of the plan. In October 2022, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on import, export and transit measures for firearms, their essential components and ammunition, another legislative commitment in its action plan. The proposed regulation would pursue three main objectives: a) neutralising the risks of trafficking at import and export; b) ensuring traceability in the firearms trade, based on systematic written information; and c) promoting efficient implementation of controls. Compared to the current rules, the proposal extends the material scope to exports, provides for consistent interpretation of rules across Member States, and allows for the flow of data at EU level. The Committee on International Trade (INTA) adopted its report on 27 October 2023. It strengthens the transparency and traceability provisions contained in the proposal, whilst ensuring alignment with the directive. Second edition. The 'EU Legislation in Progress' briefings are updated at key stages throughout the legislative procedure.

Brussels: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2023. 10p.

By Evan D. Gumas, Munira Z. Gunja, and Reginald D. Williams II,

Firearm mortality in the United States has been well documented, and for good reason: far more Americans die of firearm-related causes than do residents of any other high-income country. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children in the U.S. and the weapon used most in interpersonal violence against women. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that nearly 49,000 Americans died from firearm-related causes in 2021, up from about 45,000 in 2020.1 In 2019, firearms accounted for 10.4 deaths for every 100,000 people in the U.S., around five times greater than in the countries with the second-and third-highest death rates, France (2.2) and Switzerland (2.1). Less publicized, however, is how gun violence burdens the healthcare system. Each year in the U.S., firearm-related injuries lead to roughly 30,000 inpatient hospital stays and 50,000 emergency room visits, generating more than $1 billion in initial medical costs. In 2020 alone, deaths from these injuries cost $290 million, an average of $6,400 per patient. Medicaid and other public insurance programs absorbed most of these costs. But the impact of gun violence reaches far beyond the hospital room. Firearm injuries leave victims with hefty medical bills. Medical spending increases an average of $2,495 per person per month in the year following the injury. Survivors are also more likely to develop mental health conditions and substance use disorders, areas in which the U.S. has poor outcomes.

New York: Commonwealth Fund, Apr. 2023. https://doi.org/10.26099/a2at-gy62

By United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

Crimes that affect the environment cover a broad range of illegal activities that cause harm to the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area.1 They include wildlife crime, illicit trafficking in timber and timber products, crimes in the fisheries sector, trafficking in waste, including hazardous substances, and the subject of the present guide: illegal mining and trafficking in metals and minerals. Some ramifications of these crimes are irreversible and can be severe enough to destroy entire ecosystems and communities, undercutting legal and ecologically viable operations and diminishing future resource alternatives. They can also deprive local communities of vital resources and limit their access to legitimate income through traditional production activity, thus perpetuating impoverishment and armed violence.2 The various negative consequences of crimes that affect the environment hinder the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, including Goal 3 (healthy lives and well-being for all at all ages), Goal 6 (availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all), Goal 12 (sustainable consumption and production patterns), Goal 15 (sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable management of forests and combating of desertification, land degradation and biodiversity loss) and Goal 16 (peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels).3 There are many drivers of crimes that affect the environment. Among the most notable are attractive financial revenues and high demand for the goods and services generated through those crimes. Poverty situations are also regarded as a prominent enabler of crimes that affect the environment because economic hardship facilitates the recruitment of low-level offenders into organized criminal groups.4 People may be pushed into crimes that affect the environment by their income needs, especially in places where employment alternatives are not available. In its resolution 10/6, entitled “Preventing and combating crimes that affect the environment falling within the scope of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, adopted in 2020, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime noted with concern that crimes that affect the environment had become some of the most lucrative transnational criminal activities and were closely interlinked with different forms of crime and corruption. Against that background, the Conference of the Parties reaffirmed that the Organized Crime Convention constitutes an effective tool and an essential part of the legal framework for preventing and combating transnational organized crimes that affect the environment and for strengthening international cooperation in this regard5 and asserted its resolve to protect the victims, expressing its deep concern about all those killed, injured, threatened or exploited by organized criminal groups involved in or benefiting from crimes that affect the environment and about those whose living environment, safety, health or livelihoods are endangered or put at risk by those crimes.6 The Conference of the Parties called upon States parties to the Organized Crime Convention to make crimes that affect the environment, in appropriate cases, serious crimes … as defined in article 2, paragraph (b), of the Convention, to ensure that, where the offense is transnational and involves an organized criminal group, effective international cooperation can be afforded under the Convention.7 and requested the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, subject to the availability of extrabudgetary resources, and within its mandate, to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to States parties, upon request, to support their efforts to effectively implement the Convention in preventing and combating transnational organized crimes that affect the environment.8 Those recommendations of the Conference of the Parties to the Organized Crime Convention are aligned with resolution 8/12 of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, entitled “Preventing and combating corruption as it relates to crimes that have an impact on the environment”, in which the Conference of the States Parties noted with concern the role that corruption can play in crimes that have an impact on the environment and that money-laundering may be used to disguise and/or conceal the sources of illegally generated proceeds, as well as to facilitate crimes that have an impact on the environment. The Conference urged States parties to the Convention against Corruption to implement the Convention by their domestic legislation and to ensure respect for its provisions, to make best use of the Convention to prevent and combat corruption as it relates to crimes that have an impact on the environment and the recovery and return of proceeds of crimes that have an impact on the environment, by the Convention.9 In 2021, the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice adopted the Kyoto Declaration on Advancing Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law: Towards the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.10 It underscores the commitment of Member States to the adoption of effective measures to prevent and combat crimes that affect the environment, such as illicit trafficking in wildlife, including, inter alia, flora, and fauna as protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, in timber and timber products, in hazardous wastes and other wastes and precious metals, stones and other minerals, as well as, inter alia, poaching, by making the best possible use of relevant international instruments and by strengthening legislation, international cooperation, capacity-building, criminal justice responses and law enforcement efforts aimed at, inter alia, dealing with transnational organized crime, corruption and money-laundering linked to such crimes, and illicit financial flows derived from such crimes, while acknowledging the need to deprive criminals of proceeds of crime.11 Most recently, in its resolution 76/185, adopted on 16 December 2021, the General Assembly called for a “balanced, integrated, comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach and response to address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to crimes that affect the environment”, acknowledging a need for long-term, comprehensive and sustainable development-oriented measures   

Vienna: UNODC, 2023. 135p.

By Rachel Swaner, Elise White, Andrew Martinez, Anjelica Camacho, Basaime Spate, Javonte Alexander, Lysondra Webb, and Kevin Evans

Despite a significant decline in violent crime nationally over the last 15 years, high rates of gun violence persist among youth in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods (Children’s Defense Fund 2019). In New York City, gun violence has been increasing in specific communities, with many attributing the increase to youth gang conflicts (Sandoval 2019; Watkins 2019). Efforts to prevent young people from acquiring guns must address the reasons why they are getting guns, not just the logistics of how they are doing so. This is especially true given that young people acquire them almost exclusively through the informal economy (Webster, Meyers & Buggs 2014), likely eluding traditional policy interventions. This project investigated the experiences of New York City youth ages 16-24 who were at high risk for gun violence (e.g., carried a gun, been shot or shot at). Youth participants were recruited from three neighborhoods with historically high rates of gun violence when compared to the city as a whole—Brownsville (Brooklyn), Morrisania (Bronx), and East Harlem (Manhattan). We explored the complex confluence of individual, situational, and environmental factors that influence youth gun acquisition and use. This study is part of a broader effort to build an evidence-based foundation for individual and community interventions, and policies that will more effectively support these young people and prevent youth gun violence. Through interviews with 330 youth, we sought to answer these questions: 1. What are the reasons young people carry guns? 2. How do young people talk about having and using guns? 3. What are young people’s social networks like, and what roles do guns play in these networks? Youth were recruited through respondent-driven sampling, with initial interviews accessed through outreach at Cure Violence programs (gun violence prevention programs with credible messengers on staff), observation at outdoor public housing project “hot spots,” and ethnography at indoor gang spaces. These initial interview participants then helped recruit other eligible youth from their social networks. Participatory Methods  Participatory methods and trust-building were vital to accessing these youth. Early in the study, we faced challenges in gaining trust and candid responses from these heavily streetinvolved youth—unsurprising given the sensitive nature of our questions regarding guns, gangs, and violence. Accordingly, it was critical to employ field researchers—the people conducting the interviews and the public face of the project—with significant personal experience in the social networks of the target population. Some of our team members reflected the demographic composition of the neighborhoods and had connections to the street in such a way that research participants could, as these field researchers explain, “feel your gangsta.” Beyond merely ensuring access, this approach also led to more honest engagement from the interviewees. It further yielded more accurate analysis and interpretation, as field researchers not only conducted many of the interviews, but also helped to code and analyze the data, draw study conclusions, and develop recommendations. The importance of building trust with 16- to 24-year-olds at risk for gun violence cannot be overstated. The processes for gaining trust in each neighborhood differed significantly; this geographic specificity further played out on the micro level within specific housing developments and indoor gang spaces. New approaches had to be identified in each location. Researchers collected data in the areas gangs or housing developments “controlled,” since that was where the participants felt the most comfortable. To undertake this networking, researchers had to be consistently present and visible in spaces important to participants, showing respect for local gang politics, and acknowledging interpersonal and social trauma. The necessity of a street ethnography/participatory approach and ongoing trust-building meant the team consistently put in long hours on activities not immediately connected to the project deliverables, such as helping neighborhood youth create resumes and apply to jobs, navigate housing issues, and connect to services; providing food; and attending holiday parties and community events. Further, our research team had countless spontaneous interactions with community members such as basketball games and informal conversations about hip-hop or politics. We also found it essential to engage gang leadership in each new neighborhood we worked in. This involved our field researchers identifying and meeting with the heads of local gangs to discuss the research and answer any questions they had. During these meetings, field researchers disclosed their own past street involvement and familiarity with gang culture. Once these relationships were solidified, gang leaders gave our team permission to conduct interviews with members of their gang in the physical spaces they controlled. We would not have gotten access to the high number of young gun carriers without this engagement and relationship building with gang leaders. As we release this report, sweeping national protests against the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks by police officers, specifically, and continued police violence against people of color more broadly are pushing many jurisdictions to reexamine traditional approaches to public safety. This research—arguably the most ambitious of its kind—into why some young New Yorkers carry guns can be used to inform new strategies for keeping communities safe. This summary outlines our study findings, and the implications for policymakers. Major Findings Analysis of interview data revealed findings across five areas: participants’ neighborhoods, guns and violence, gangs, alternative-economy survival strategies, and the police. Key findings from each of these areas are below. Participants and Their Neighborhoods • Demographics The 330 youth in the study overwhelmingly were men (79%), living in public housing (78%), and Black or Latinx (94%). On average, participants were 21 years old. A higher percentage of the women interviewed had children (58%, v. 31% for men). • Neighborhood Perceptions Most reported it was easy to get drugs (83%), there was a lot of crime (78%), and there were regular gunshots (70% said at least monthly) in their neighborhood. Over a third (36%) reported hearing weekly about someone threatened with a gun. • Lack of Neighborhood Safety Lack of safety was reported as a major driver of gun carrying. Participants reported feeling unsafe because of beefs between rival gangs or housing projects affecting how they could “move”—i.e., where they could safely walk or go; police harassment for small infractions but lack of responsiveness for serious crime; and fear of being shot by a police officer. • Violent Victimization Violence was a near universal experience among the young people we interviewed. Eighty-one percent had been shot or shot at. Experiences with violent victimization often related to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having fights related to romantic relationships, and getting caught up in gang-related altercations. Some participants made explicit connections between their victimization, attendant decrease in trust of others, and feeling that carrying a weapon was the only choice left to them. • Gun Carrying Practices Most participants (87%) had owned or carried a gun at some time. Participants reported being more likely to carry at nighttime. Those who carried all the time—i.e., night and day—identified the gun as central to their strategies for selfpreservation. • Carrying for Protection These communities’ lengthy histories of violent victimization at the hands of other residents and the police—whether or not participants had themselves been injured—were repeatedly cited as the backdrop against which decisions around weapons-carrying were made. Some youth reported carrying guns because of their pervasive sense of neighborhood mistrust and a feeling that they could be victimized at any time—a kind of generalized fear. Other participants felt a more localized fear— needing protection from people seeking retaliation. Finally, many participants felt a sense of overarching fear of the state, primarily in the form of law enforcement. “You gotta protect your life because the cops might shoot you.” (Black man, 24) • Gender Nuances Self-protection took on further nuances for female participants who were involved in traditionally male street activities. The women in our study indicated that their gender did not exempt them from retaliation and in some cases even increased  (continued) 

New York: Center for Court Innovation . 2020. 68p.

By Terra Wiens

Gun violence impacts all communities in the United States, though each in different ways. Communities of color are especially impacted by fatal gun violence.a While substantial research has described the disproportionate impact gun violence, specifically firearm homicide, has on Black communities, less research has been done to describe the impact on the American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) community in the U.S. This study examines the impact of lethal firearm violence in the AI/AN community in the U.S. by analyzing mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)b and Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While CDC mortality data capture more homicides in the U.S. compared to crime data, FBI SHR data provide additional details about homicide deaths not available in the CDC data used for this report. Therefore, this report includes CDC mortality data to describe victim demographics and the use of firearms for both homicide and suicide, while FBI SHR data describe the victim and offender relationship and circumstances for homicides  

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2024. 19p.

By Melissa M. Labriola, Nastassia Reed, Anna White Hewitt

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary's directive on human trafficking and the agency's strategy for combating human trafficking outline ambitious goals to address the harms of this criminal activity on its victims and society. However, the logistics and tactics needed to properly implement a victim-centered approach in all facets of law enforcement can be complex. The first step in implementing a victim-centered approach to countering human trafficking is to understand what is already known, what policies may hinder or promote a victim-centered approach, and what training and programming can assist law enforcement. This knowledge can assist DHS's Center for Countering Human Trafficking in both recognizing the importance of a victim-centered approach and understanding how to factor it into day-to-day duties. To address the challenges and outcomes stated above, the authors conducted a review of academic and gray literature to build out a baseline of knowledge. The authors also summarize applicable practices (external to DHS) that implement a victim-centered approach in the following key areas: victim identification and screening, training, and law enforcement operations.

Key Findings

There is limited research in peer-reviewed articles and gray literature on how to improve victim identification and screening for human trafficking in a law enforcement setting

• Most victim identification screening tools are implemented in clinical settings by clinical providers or social workers.

• Understanding the risk factors, accepting how an individual's exposure to trauma affects cognition, and recognizing common symptoms of trauma can inform agents in their daily work.

Effective training programs can create a workplace with a common understanding of trauma

• Building a workforce capable of using trauma-informed and victim-centered approaches relies on effective training programs to build knowledge, capacity, and skills.

• Key skills to develop through training include avoiding retraumatization, building relationships with survivors, working with a diverse population, and conducting effective interviews with survivors.

• During training, alternatives to standard lectures can be valuable to encourage participation and skill retention.

Organizational change is needed to implement a victim-centered approach in law enforcement operations

• Implementation of a victim-centered approach requires organizational change and an overarching framework that affects every step and person within the system.

• A victim-centered approach is centered in a culture of continuous learning and collaboration.

• The depth of knowledge about human trafficking, including prevalence rates and successful intervention methods, points to the difficulties in operationalizing an evidence-based, victim-centered approach.

• According to the literature review, individual police agencies and service agencies are prioritizing some operations that can possibly be adopted and adapted to a federal law enforcement setting.

Recommendations

• DHS law enforcement's best course of action would be to take an informal approach to screening and prioritize identifying trauma symptoms during law enforcement’s brief interactions with potential victims.

• Law enforcement personnel should educate themselves on myths and stereotypes about victim behavior and the cultural backgrounds and unique challenges faced by trafficking victims from different communities, including cultural differences and language barriers.

• Cultural sensitivity; acknowledging cultural norms, beliefs, and languages; and rapport-building would support victims in sharing their stories.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 28p.

By Andrew R. Morral, Rosanna Smart, Terry L. Schell, Brian G. Vegetabile, Emma Thomas

Measures of the proportion of individuals living in households with a firearm (HFR), over time, across states, and by demographic groups are needed to evaluate disparities in firearm violence and the effects of firearm policies. OBJECTIVE To estimate HFR across states, years, and demographic groups in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this survey study, substate HFR totals from 1990 to 2018 were estimated using Bayesian multilevel regression with poststratification to analyze survey data on HFR from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the General Social Survey. HFR was estimated for 16 substate demographic groups defined by gender, race, marital status, and urbanicity in each state and year. EXPOSURES Survey responses indicating household firearm ownership were analyzed and compared with a common proxy for firearm ownership, the fraction of suicides completed with a firearm (FSS). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE HFR, FSS, and their correlations and differences. RESULTS Among US adults in 2018, HFR was significantly higher among married, nonurban, non-Hispanic White and American Indian male individuals (65.0%; 95% credible interval [CI], 61.5%- 68.7%) compared with their unmarried, urban, female counterparts from other racial and ethnic groups (7.3%; 95% CIs, 6.0%-9.2%). Marginal HFR rates for larger demographic groups also revealed important differences, with racial minority groups and urban dwellers having less than half the HFR of either White or American Indian (39.5%; 95% CI, 37.4%-42.9% vs 17.2%; 95% CI, 15.5%-19.9%) or nonurban populations (46.0%; 95% CI, 43.8%-49.5% vs 23.1%; 95% CI, 21.3%-26.2%). Population growth among groups less likely to own firearms, rather than changes in ownership within demographic groups, explains 30% of the 7 percentage point decline in HFR nationally from 1990 to 2018. Comparing HFR estimates with FSS revealed the expected high overall correlation across states (r = 0.84), but scaled FSS differed from HFR by as many as 20 percentage points for some states and demographic groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This survey study of HFR providing detailed, publicly available HFR estimates highlights key disparities among individuals in households with firearms across states and demographic groups; it also identifies potential biases in the use of FSS as a proxy for firearm ownership rates. These findings are essential for researchers, policymakers, and public health experts looking to address geographic and demographic disparities in firearm violence.  

JAMA Open, 2024.

By Rebecca Pfeffer, Melissa M. Labriola, Lynn Langton, Duren Banks, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Human trafficking is a complex and nuanced social problem that continues to be difficult to combat in the United States and around the world. The lack of understanding of how many people experience trafficking is a pervasive issue with implications for resource allocation, policy response, and intervention programming. Over the years, there have been many attempts to determine the prevalence of trafficking; however, the hidden nature of such exploitation continues to be problematic. Measuring the prevalence of trafficking may have utility for practitioners and other key stakeholders who are assessing the level of need and resources necessary to engage in outreach, prevention, and intervention with suspected or identified victims. However, there is neither a clearly defined set of indicators that have utility for measuring prevalence nor a standard practice for using prevalence studies to fill information gaps that can improve service provision. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert workshop that focused on the type and level of information (national, state, local) related to the prevalence and characteristics of trafficking that are most useful for practitioners working with trafficking survivors. The workshop culminated in the creation of a prioritized list of the key gaps in understanding the scope of labor and sex trafficking, solutions to begin to fill those gaps, and key indicators that should be considered as part of a broader effort to better classify types of trafficking.

Key Findings

• There is a lack of consensus on indicators and definitions of trafficking.

• Prevalence estimates are aggregate; disaggregation is important for better understanding risk (e.g., to inform instrument and sample design).

• There is limited focus on how prevalence estimates can be used to assess the effectiveness of various interventions and preventions.

• Prevalence is measured without any discussion of what to do with those estimates or how to use them to better serve people who experience trafficking.

• Different industries, populations, political landscapes, and forms of exploitation require different methodologies for estimating prevalence.

• Implicit bias is a problem for reporting, identification, recruiting, data collection, and service provision (e.g., some practitioners know to look for white female victims only).

Recommendations

• Establish and validate a standard set of indicators and then apply those indicators to legal definitions of trafficking.

• Create a guide with best practices on instrument design, sampling approaches, testing, open data, and dissemination practices to allow for appropriate disaggregation (while protecting privacy).

• Encourage funders and researchers to gather information during the prevalence stage that can be applied to programs, interventions, and subsequent effectiveness assessments.

• Recommend that research funders and researchers use, at a minimum, a co-creation model, but, ideally, they should use a rigorous community-based participatory action research approach.

• Establish, design, and co-create the research design and implementation with researchers and the affected community (including those with lived experience).

• Ensure that prevalence research includes underrepresented subpopulations by using designs that employ community-based approaches that will identify diverse perspectives in communities.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 20p.

By Leslie M. Barnard, Rachel L. Johnson, Sara Brandspigel, Lauren A. Rooney, Megan McCarthy, Frederick P. Rivara, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Christopher E. Knoepke, Ryan A. Peterson & Marian E. Betz 

Background: Temporary, voluntary storage of firearms away from the home is a recommended option for individuals with a risk of suicide, but it may also be used in other situations (e.g., long trips). Prior work has explored the availability of storage options and the views of storage locations. Little is known about out-of-home storage practices among those who live in homes with firearms (including owners).

Methods: We surveyed English-speaking adults (18 or older) in two states (Colorado and Washington) living in a home with a firearm (June-July 2021).

Results: Among the final sample of 1029, most respondents were white (88.1%) and non-Hispanic (85.0%); half were female (50.8%), and the most common age group was ages 35-44 (25.5%). Just over one quarter (27.3%) of respondents indicated they had stored a firearm away from their home/car/garage in the last 5 years. The place most respondents said they were somewhat or very likely to consider was at a family member’s home (62.7%) or at a self-storage facility (52.5%).

Conclusion: Out-of-home firearm storage is a relatively common practice and endorsed by many gun owners, suggesting out-of-home storage is feasible for firearm owners as an approach to suicide prevention.

Inj Epidemiol. 2023 Mar 13;10(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40621-023-00426-9. PMID: 36915179; PMCID: PMC10012481.

By Ivan Katchanovski

This open-access book provides a comprehensive analysis of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. It uses a theoretical framework of rational choice, moral hazard, state-repression backfire, and Weberian ideas about rational action to explore the massacre. The book draws on publicly available videos, photos, and audio recordings of the massacre in English, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and other languages, along with several hundred individual testimonies and revelations from the Ukrainian investigation and a trial and its verdict. By examining which parties were responsible for the massacre, the book analyses its implications for not only Russia’s war on Ukraine but also political developments across the globe.

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. 266p.

By Mark T. Berg, Ethan M. Rogers and Hannah Rochford

Background

Describe trends in perpetrator characteristics and firearm use in pediatric homicides across the United States.

Methods

Multiply-imputed data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 1976–2020 Supplementary Homicide Reports were used to estimate perpetrator characteristics (sex, age, and relationship to victim) and firearm use in pediatric homicides. Descriptive analyses were stratified by victim age group, sex, race, and five-year periods.

Results

Family members were the most common perpetrators of infant and toddler (ages 0–4) and child (ages 5–12) homicides, whereas acquaintances accounted for the majority of adolescent (ages 13–19) homicides. Perpetrator characteristics vary across victim sex and race, particularly among adolescents. Despite overall stability, there were changes in perpetrator characteristics from 1976 to 2020. There was a sustained increase in the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm. In 2016–2020, the proportion of firearm-involved homicides was an all-time high for infants and toddlers (14.8%), children (53.1%), and adolescent victims (88.5%).

Conclusions

Policy interventions that improve family stability and well-being may be most effective at preventing infant, toddler, and child homicides, whereas programs that target peer and community relationships, as well as policies that focus on firearm access, maybe more crucial for preventing adolescent homicides.

Injury Epidemiology volume 11, Article number: 37 (2024) 

By The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

The National Crime Gun Intelligence (CGI) Governing Board leverages the collective experience of Federal, State, and local experts working in forensics, law enforcement, and criminal law to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) receives valuable input on national programs relating to CGI. As part of this mission, the Governing Board created this best practice guide to help our law enforcement partners successfully use a CGI model to reduce violent crime.

Washington, DC:  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Operations Division, 2020. 77p.  

By Marc L. Swatt, Craig D. Uchida, Anna M. Goedert, and Alese Wooditch

Gun violence remains a challenging problem for law enforcement agencies across the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2023), there were 20,958 firearm homicide deaths across the United States in 2021 resulting in a rate of 6.3 per 100,000 residents. This rate understates the problem, as the risk for firearm homicide is not evenly distributed and certain segments of the population have a considerably higher risk of firearm homicide victimization. For example, for 15-19-year-old Black males, the rate of firearm homicide death is 98.9 per 100,000 residents and for 20-24-year-old Black males, the rate is 134.4 per 100,000 residents (CDC, 2023). Further, firearm homicide is concentrated within impoverished areas within cities (Kravitz-Wirtz, Bruns, Aubel, Zhang, & Buggs, 2022). Recent research suggests that firearm violence has increased in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kegler, Simon, Zwald, Chen, Mercy, Jones, et al. 2022; McDonald, Mohler, & Brantingham, 2022). While the causes of firearm homicide are complex and involve both risk and protective factors (see American Psychological Association, 2013; Gaylord-Harden, Alli, Davis-Stober, & Henderson, 2022; Mattson, Sigel, & Mercado, 2020; Pardini, Beardslee, Docherty, Shubert, & Mulvey, 2020), there are strategies that law enforcement can adopt to reduce the prevalence of firearm violence (see Braga, Turchan, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2019; Braga, Weisburd, & Turchan, 2019; Uchida & Swatt, 2013). Recently, law enforcement agencies have sought to leverage forensic evidence from gun discharge events to improve gun violence suppression efforts. Traditionally, firearm forensic evidence – namely retrieved firearms and spent casings – were used mainly to enhance prosecutorial efforts at obtaining convictions. However, by rapidly entering and retrieving information from the ATF’s National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) and electronic gun tracing database (eTrace), law enforcement can proactively use this information to identify linkages between seemingly disparate cases to apprehend likely shooters and disrupt gun trafficking networks (see Pierce, Braga, Hyatt, & Koper, 2004). To maximize the efficacy of this strategy, several agencies have been adopting coordinated interagency firearm enforcement programs – Crime Gun Intelligence Centers. The Baltimore Police Department (BPD) is one of 46 agencies across the country that received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to set up a CGIC. In 2018, BPD planned its CGIC and over the next five years implemented key components of it. Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) served as the research partner on the grant and evaluated the program. This report details the results of this evaluation effort. In this chapter, we first discuss the CGIC concept, how CGICs can decrease gun violence and the results of CGIC evaluations. In the second chapter, we discuss the City of Baltimore, the BPD, the implementation of CGIC, and the unique challenges facing this implementation to provide context for our findings. In the third chapter, we discuss the results of the process evaluation for CGIC and discuss CGIC activities,  challenges, and successes. The fourth chapter presents the results of the impact evaluation and examines whether CGIC was successful at reducing violent gun crime. The final chapter provides additional discussion of the conclusions of this research and provides several recommendations to BPD for the continuation of CGIC. 

Los Angeles: Justice & Security Strategies, 2024. 123p.