Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Connecticut, 2013-2020.

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

Diversion to Treatment when Treatment is Scarce: Bioethical Implications of the U.S. Resource Gap for Criminal Diversion Programs.

Despite significant scholarship, research, and funding dedicated to implementing criminal diversion programs over the past two decades, persons with serious mental illness and substance use disorders remain substantially overrepresented in United States jails and prisons. Why are so many U.S. adults with behavioral health problems incarcerated instead of receiving treatment and other support to recover in the community? In this paper, we explore this persistent problem within the context of "relentless unmet need" in U.S. behavioral health (Alegría et al., 2021).

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

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

Adult criminal outcomes of juvenile justice involvement.

BACKGROUND: The juvenile justice system in the USA adjudicates over seven hundred thousand youth in the USA annually with significant behavioral offenses. This study aimed to test the effect of juvenile justice involvement on adult criminal outcomes. METHODS: Analyses were based on a prospective, population-based study of 1420 children followed up to eight times during childhood (ages 9-16; 6674 observations) about juvenile justice involvement in the late 1990 and early 2000s. Participants were followed up years later to assess adult criminality, using self-report and official records. A propensity score (i.e. inverse probability) weighting approach was used that approximated an experimental design by balancing potentially confounding characteristics between children with v. without juvenile justice involvement. RESULTS: Between-groups differences on variables that elicit a juvenile justice referral (e.g. violence, property offenses, status offenses, and substance misuse) were attenuated after applying propensity-based inverse probability weights. Participants with a history of juvenile justice involvement were more likely to have later official and violent felony charges, and to self-report police contact and spending time in jail (ORs from 2.5 to 3.3). Residential juvenile justice involvement was associated with the highest risk of both, later official criminal records and self-reported criminality (ORs from 5.1 to 14.5). Sensitivity analyses suggest that our findings are likely robust to potential unobserved confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Juvenile justice involvement was associated with increased risk of adult criminality, with residential services associated with highest risk. Juvenile justice involvement may catalyze rather than deter from adult offending.

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

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

Gun violence among young adults with a juvenile crime record in North Carolina: Implications for firearm restrictions based on age and risk.

Youth who acquire a juvenile crime record may be at increased risk of perpetrating gun violence as adults. North Carolina and 22 other states permit young adults who were adjudicated by a juvenile court - even for some felony-equivalent offenses - to legally access firearms. Effectiveness of gun restrictions for adults with juvenile crime histories has not been systematically studied. This article reports findings from a longitudinal study of arrests and convictions for gun-involved and other offenses in 51,059 young adults in North Carolina, comparing those with gun-disqualifying and not-disqualifying juvenile records. The annualized rate of arrest for gun-involved crime in those with a felony-level juvenile record was 9 times higher than the rate of reported comparable offenses in the same age group in the North Carolina general population (3349 vs. 376 per 100,000). Among those with a felony-equivalent juvenile delinquency adjudication who became legally eligible to possess firearms at age 18, 61.8% were later arrested for any criminal offense, 14.3% for a firearm-involved offense. Crimes with guns were most likely to occur among young adults who had committed more serious (felony or equivalent) offenses before age 18; had been adjudicated at younger ages; acquired a felony conviction as a youth; and spent time in prison. The prevalence of arrests for crimes involving guns among young adults in North Carolina with a gun-disqualifying felony record acquired before age 18 suggests that the federal gun prohibitor conferred by a felony record is not highly effective as currently implemented in this population. From a risk-based perspective, these restrictions appear to be justified; better implementation and enforcement may improve their effectiveness. Gun crime prevention policies and interventions should focus on these populations and on limiting illegal access to firearms.

Appropriateness of psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer support specialists and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment teams.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are used to document a person's treatment preferences for a future mental health crisis. Peer support specialists have been proposed to facilitate PADs, but little is known about the quality of peer versus clinician facilitated PADs. AIMS: This study examined whether PAD documents facilitated by peer specialists and non-peer clinicians differed in the mix of treatment requests and refusals and expert ratings of feasibility and consistency. METHODS: Analyses were conducted of content and expert ratings of 72 PAD documents from a randomized trial of PAD facilitation by peers and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. A count of treatment refusals and requests was used to classify documents as predominantly prescriptive, proscriptive, or balanced. Regression was used to estimate relationships between PAD facilitator type and content. RESULTS: Peer-facilitated PADs were significantly more likely to be predominantly prescriptive than were PADs facilitated by non-peer clinicians. Prescriptive PADs were more likely to receive expert ratings of high feasibility and consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Results should alleviate some clinicians' apprehensions regarding the appropriateness of peer-facilitated PADs, such as the concern that people with lived experience with mental illness might encourage other consumers to use their PAD primarily for treatment refusals.

Childhood Gun Access, Adult Suicidality, and Crime.

OBJECTIVES: To test the associations of childhood domestic gun access with adult criminality and suicidality. METHODS: Analyses were based on a 20+ year prospective, community-representative study of 1420 children, who were assessed up to 8 times during childhood (ages 9-16; 6674 observations) about access to guns in their home. Participants were then followed-up 4 additional times in adulthood (ages 19, 21, 25, and 30; 4556 observations of 1336 participants) about criminality and suicidality. RESULTS: During childhood, the 3-month prevalence of having a gun in the home was 55.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.1%-58.7%). Of the children in homes with guns, 63.3% (95% CI: 59.7%-66.9%) had access to a gun, and 25.0% (95% CI: 21.2%-28.8%) owned a gun themselves. Having gun access as a child was associated with higher levels of adult criminality (odds ratios = 1.1-3.5) and suicidality (odds ratios = 2.9-4.4), even after adjusting for childhood correlates of gun access. Risk of adult criminality and suicidality among those with childhood gun access was greatest in male individuals, those living in urban areas, and children with a history of behavior problems. Even in these groups, however, most children did not display adult criminality or suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood gun access is prospectively associated with later adult criminality and suicidality in specific groups of children.

North Carolina Specialty Courts, Treatment Access, and the Substance Use Crisis: A Promising but Underfunded Model.

Treatment courts aim to reduce criminal recidivism by addressing the behavioral health care needs of persons with psychiatric or substance use disorders that contribute to their offending. Stable funding and access to behavioral health providers are crucial elements of success for the treatment court model. What happens when courts lose state funding and must rely on local initiatives and resources? In this study, a survey of North Carolina treatment court professionals identified resource gaps and unmet needs. The authors argue that continuing state investment could make treatment courts more viable and effective. Medicaid expansion is a potential new resource for these problem-solving courts.

Implementing Psychiatric Advance Directives: The Transmitter and Receiver Problem and the Neglected Right to Be Deemed Incapable.

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) can help adults with serious mental illnesses preserve their autonomy and avoid involuntary interventions during an incapacitating mental health crisis. A PAD is a legal document prepared while mentally competent and states the person's treatment preferences to be implemented during a future crisis, ideally with the advocacy of an authorized proxy decision maker. PADs have been available in the United States for more than three decades but have yet to be robustly implemented in practice. This Open Forum describes PADs metaphorically as a device for remote communication among the person with mental illness, a proxy decision maker, and health care providers. Barriers to PAD usage occur on both "transmitter" and "receiver" sides and must be addressed to advance PAD implementation.

Impact of psychiatric advance directive facilitation on mental health consumers: empowerment, treatment attitudes and the role of peer support specialists.

BACKGROUND: A psychiatric advance directive (PAD) is designed to prevent involuntary mental health interventions by enabling people with serious mental illnesses to plan ahead for their own treatment during a future incapacitating crisis. This study implemented PAD facilitation in assertive community treatment (ACT) teams. AIMS: We examined ACT clients' attitudes toward PAD facilitators, satisfaction with PAD facilitation, the short-term impact of PAD completion on subjective sense of empowerment and attitudes toward treatment, and whether the type of PAD facilitator made a difference. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to be offered PAD facilitation by a peer support specialist or non-peer ACT team clinician, and interviewed at baseline (n = 145) and post-facilitation 1-2-month follow-up (n = 116), to assess perceived consumer-directedness of PAD facilitation, empowerment and various treatment attitudes. Mean scores before and after the intervention were compared for PAD-completers, non-completers, and those who completed a PAD with a peer vs. non-peer. The effect of PAD completion was assessed using logistic and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: There was no evidence of bias against peer-facilitators. There was a modest positive impact of PAD facilitation on treatment attitudes and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: PAD facilitation by peer support specialists and others working in community mental health settings supports recovery.

Preventing Suicide Through Better Firearm Safety Policy in the United States.

The U.S. suicide rate continues to increase, despite federal investment in developing preventive behavioral health care interventions. Important determinants of suicide-social, economic, and circumstantial-have little or no connection to psychopathology. Firearm injuries account for over half of suicides, and firearm access is perhaps the most important modifiable determinant. Thus gun safety policy deserves special attention as a pathway to suicide prevention. This article summarizes arguments for several recommended statutory modifications to firearm restrictions at the state level. The policy challenge is to develop and implement evidence-based strategies to keep guns out of the hands of people at highest risk of suicide, without unduly infringing the rights of a large number of gun owners who are unlikely to harm anyone. Recommendations for states include expansion and refinement of legal criteria prohibiting firearm purchase, possession, or access to better align with suicide risk, including prohibition for persons with brief involuntary psychiatric holds or repeated alcohol-impaired driving convictions; enactment of extreme risk protection order laws, which allow temporary removal of firearms from persons who are behaving dangerously, and entering purchase prohibition data for these persons in the FBI's background-check database; and adoption of an innovative policy known as precommitment against suicide as well as voluntary self-enrollment in the FBI's background-check database.

Gun-Related and Other Violent Crime After Involuntary Commitment and Short-Term Emergency Holds.

This article presents a survival analysis of long-term risk of firearm-related and other violent crime in a large sample of adults with serious mental illness in Florida, comparing those who received a gun-disqualifying civil commitment after a short-term hold, those who were evaluated for commitment but were released or hospitalized voluntarily, and a third group with no holds or commitments. Among 77,048 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, or major depression, 42.7 percent were detained for psychiatric examination under Florida's Baker Act; of that detained group, 8.4 percent were involuntarily committed while the remainder were released within 72 hours or agreed to voluntary admission. Over a follow-up period averaging six to seven years, 7.5 percent of the sample were arrested for a violent offense not involving a gun, and 0.9 percent were arrested for a violent crime involving a gun. A short-term hold with or without commitment was associated with a significantly higher risk of future arrest for violent crime, although the study population had other violence risk factors unrelated to mental illness. Risk of gun-involved crime, specifically, was significantly higher in individuals following a short-term hold only, but not in those who were involuntarily committed and became ineligible to purchase or possess guns. Policy implications are discussed.

Correction to: The color of risk protection orders: gun violence, gun laws, and racial justice.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

The color of risk protection orders: gun violence, gun laws, and racial justice.

BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws give municipal police officers new authority, through a civil restraining order, to remove firearms from people who are deemed to pose an imminent risk of causing serious harm to others or themselves. Despite the expected public safety benefit of ERPOs, it is possible that implicit racial bias could infect ERPO petitions, the court processes that authorize and extend the gun removal orders, or the behavior of the police in serving and enforcing them. How might potential racial disparities in ERPO implementation qualify the evidence that this intervention saves lives? What should gun violence prevention researchers and stakeholders do to promote racial justice? MAIN TEXT: This commentary reflects upon an innovative and promising legal tool for gun violence prevention through the lens of racial justice concerns. Emerging research, guided by a public health paradigm, asks whether ERPOs save lives. But now is the time to pose other important questions as well. Preventing gun violence and mitigating the disproportionate impact of arrests and incarceration in communities of color are two important goals that may collide. The origin story of many U.S. firearm restrictions, and the continuing disparities in their enforcement and implementation, are intertwined with the legacy of systemic racial discrimination in policing and criminal justice in the United States. The public policy challenge of balancing risk and rights is increasingly fraught, especially as constituencies with a different interest in one or the other concern find themselves standing on opposite sides of a privilege chasm. CONCLUSION: Saving lives from gun violence matters, but ensuring that the lives saved are also respected--free from racial oppression, afforded equal justice--also matters. This commentary is a call to include racial disparities impact as an essential outcome of interest for ERPO studies specifically, but more broadly for all public health law research studies at the intersection of firearm injury prevention, law enforcement, and criminal justice.