Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
-
Firearm-related interpersonal violence is a leading cause of death and injury in cities across the United States, and understanding the movement of firearms from on-the-books sales to criminal end-user is critical to the formulation of gun violence prevention policy. In this study, we assemble a unique dataset that combines records for over 380,000 crime guns recovered by law enforcement in California (2010-2021), and more than 126,000 guns reported stolen, linked to in-state legal handgun transactions (1996-2021), to describe local and statewide crime gun trends and investigate several potentially important sources of guns to criminals, including privately manufactured firearms (PMFs), theft, and "dirty" dealers. We document a dramatic increase over the decade in firearms recovered shortly after purchase (7% were recovered within a year in 2010, up to 33% in 2021). ⋯ We document the rapid growth of PMFs over the past 2-3 years and find theft plays some, though possibly diminishing, role as a crime gun source. Finally, we find evidence that some retailers contribute disproportionately to the supply of crime guns, though there appear to be fewer problematic dealers now than there were a decade ago. Overall, our study points to temporal shifts in the dynamics of criminal firearms commerce as well as significant city variation in the channels by which criminals acquire crime guns.
-
A better understanding of the unique risks for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness could enable more effective intervention methods. The aim of this study was to quantify the risks of death and reinjury for unhoused compared to housed survivors of violent injuries. This retrospective study included a cohort of patients with known housing status presenting to the Boston Medical Center Emergency Department between 2009 and 2018 with a violent penetrating injury. ⋯ Housed and unhoused patients were equally likely to die within 3 years of their index injury; however, unhoused patients were at greater risk of dying by homicide (HR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.34-6.25, p = 0.006) or by a drug/alcohol overdose (HR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.17-6.94, p = 0.02). In addition to the already high risks that all survivors of violence have for recurrent injuries, unhoused survivors of violence are at even greater risk for violent reinjury and death and fatal drug/alcohol overdose. Securing stable housing for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and connecting them with addiction treatment, is essential for mitigating these risks.
-
This study investigates the impact of racial residential segregation on COVID-19 mortality during the first year of the US epidemic. Data comes from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's and the University of Wisconsin's joint county health rankings project. The observation includes a record of 8,670,781 individuals in 1488 counties. ⋯ We found that as racial residential segregation increased, mortality rates increased. Controlling for segregation, Blacks and Asians had a greater risk of mortality, while Hispanics and other racial groups had a lower risk of mortality, compared to Whites. The impact of racial residential segregation on COVID-19 mortality did not vary by racial group.
-
Review
Neighborhood-level Residential Isolation and Neighborhood Composition: Similar but Different.
Residential segregation has been considered as a potential cause of racial and/or ethnic disparities in health. Among the five dimensions of residential segregation, the isolation dimension has been conceived to play an essential role in disproportionately shaping the health of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly in urban or metropolitan areas. However, a noticeable amount of research studies has been using informal measures of neighborhood composition (i.e., proportions or percentages), which do not capture any of the five dimensions of residential segregation. ⋯ These were intended to provide intuitive and mutual understandings across academic disciples (e.g., city or urban planning, geography, public health, and sociology) and practitioners or professionals in multiple fields (e.g., community development workers, health service providers, policymakers, and social workers). Conceptual and methodological explanations with analytical discussions are also provided to differentiate and/or distinguish the two types of measures. While the concepts, methodologies, and research implications discussed herein are most relevant for research studies in urban or metropolitan areas of the United States, the general framework is also applicable to those of other industrialized counties.