County Variation in Intimate Partner Homicide: A Comparison of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Victims

Abstract

Over the past 5 years, intimate partner homicides have increased among Hispanic women, although ethnicity has rarely been brought into macro-level research on intimate partner homicide. These trends have occurred alongside many macro-level changes in the United States. Although both Hispanic and non-Hispanic women are most likely to die at the hands of a partner via a firearm, no study to date has examined the importance of licensed firearm dealer availability in addition to leading macro-level correlates of intimate partner homicide. Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System, the current study explores the role of licensed firearm dealer availability, economic disadvantage, and other features of counties to explore ethnic-specific variation in intimate partner homicides from 2010 to 2016. Results from multilevel negative binomial models revealed consistency in the estimated effects of the rate of licensed firearm dealers and divorce on partner homicides across all models, although the significant association of gun stores and intimate partner homicide was witnessed in urban counties for total and non-Hispanic (both Black and White) models only. Important variation also exists across racial and ethnic groups, including well-established correlates of overall intimate partner homicide (i.e., economic disadvantage, rurality, non-intimate homicide rate, and state policies).

Evaluating the Impact of Policy and Programming on Female-Victim Intimate Partner Homicide at the County Level in Florida

“…However, in the present analysis, the presence of DV center shelter services did not significantly relate to FVIPH rates. This finding is contextualized in the mixed shelter–IPH relationship findings in terms of statistical significance and relationship directionality (see Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Reckdenwald et al, 2018; Reckdenwald & Parker, 2012; Stansfield et al, 2019; Stout, 1989). One explanation could be that availability of services does not equate to access or usage (Reckdenwald & Parker, 2012).…”

“…For example, while not all IPV-related domestic violence firearm policies are associated with lethal IPV (Bridges et al, 2008), restraining order firearm laws (in their various forms) generally are associated with decreased lethal IPV rates (see Díez et al, 2017; Vigdor & Mercy, 2006; Zeoli et al, 2018; Zeoli & Webster, 2010). Stansfield et al (2019) and Stout (1989) found that policies, laws, and legislation generally exacted a protective association against lethal IPV. The ordinances found in the present research may have been too specific in scope to have a measurable impact.…”

“…IPH-related literature can be categorized based on geography, theory, and gender. For example, some IPH research is conducted at the state level (e.g., Zeoli et al, 2018); others at the city (e.g., Dugan et al, 2003) and county levels (e.g., Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Reckdenwald et al, 2018; Stansfield et al, 2019). Some research focuses on male and female victimization (see e.g., Campbell et al, 2019), while others focus strictly on female victimization (see e.g., Reckdenwald et al, 2018).…”

“…Applied to other empirical phenomena, in almost 50 cities across a 20-year period, Dugan et al (2003) looked at various domestic violence resources (e.g., warrantless arrest policies) in relation to IPH, finding that 65% and 35% of relationships between such variables provided support for exposure reduction and retaliation hypotheses, respectively. Furthermore, Stansfield et al’s (2019) county-level analysis found that an index of state-level policies (i.e., mandatory arrest, domestic violence restraining order firearm restriction, and firearm background checks) was associated with IPH. As the number of policies increased, decreases occurred in the mean expected rates of overall IPH (Stansfield et al, 2021).…”

“…Furthermore, Stansfield et al’s (2019) county-level analysis found that an index of state-level policies (i.e., mandatory arrest, domestic violence restraining order firearm restriction, and firearm background checks) was associated with IPH. As the number of policies increased, decreases occurred in the mean expected rates of overall IPH (Stansfield et al, 2021). Moreover, a 50-state study by Stout (1989) found that intimate femicide rates were lower in states with various legislative outcomes (e.g., warrantless arrest, civil, and temporary injunction relief), but not associated with an increasingly higher number of BIPs.…”