Scholarlink

Background <p>Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) temporarily restrict firearm access from those at risk of harming themselves and/or others. This case series describes when and how ERPOs have been used for people experiencing homelessness.</p> Methods <p>We examined ERPO court case files previously abstracted in California (n = 37, 1/1/2016–6/30/2020) and Colorado (n = 12, 1/1/2020–12/31/2022) involving housing insecurity among respondents. We determined whether the respondent was experiencing homelessness (i.e., sleeping in a public place, shelter, vehicle, motel, or temporarily “couch surfing” with a friend). For each such case, we created narrative summaries and conducted thematic analysis.</p> Results <p>We identified 25 ERPO respondents experiencing homelessness in California and 11 in Colorado; 83% (n = 30) were male, 44% (n = 16) were white, 25% (n = 9) were Black, and 22% (n = 8) were Hispanic. Domestic violence was mentioned in 44% (n = 16) of cases and a similar percentage (42%) mentioned suicide; 25% of cases involved threats of mass violence.</p> <p>ERPOs were often filed in response to violence that occurred while respondents were losing their housing; reasons for impending homelessness included financial hardship, eviction, and loss of relationships. Other respondents experienced homelessness prior to the ERPO; threats of violence were intertwined with challenges of housing instability, loss of employment, family estrangement, untreated mental illness, and substance misuse. Serving ERPOs to people experiencing homelessness was challenging.</p> Conclusions <p>ERPO respondents who were experiencing homelessness were in crisis and at high risk of violence. Courts and law enforcement agencies should consider how to improve serving ERPOs, recovering firearms, and providing services to homeless respondents.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Using extreme risk protection orders to prevent violence among people experiencing homelessness in California and Colorado: a case series

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月2日

查看全文
  • Ari Davis,
  • Rose Kim,
  • Lisa B. Geller,
  • Christopher E. Knoepke,
  • Leslie Barnard,
  • Garen J. Wintemute,
  • Veronica A. Pear

摘要

Background

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) temporarily restrict firearm access from those at risk of harming themselves and/or others. This case series describes when and how ERPOs have been used for people experiencing homelessness.

Methods

We examined ERPO court case files previously abstracted in California (n = 37, 1/1/2016–6/30/2020) and Colorado (n = 12, 1/1/2020–12/31/2022) involving housing insecurity among respondents. We determined whether the respondent was experiencing homelessness (i.e., sleeping in a public place, shelter, vehicle, motel, or temporarily “couch surfing” with a friend). For each such case, we created narrative summaries and conducted thematic analysis.

Results

We identified 25 ERPO respondents experiencing homelessness in California and 11 in Colorado; 83% (n = 30) were male, 44% (n = 16) were white, 25% (n = 9) were Black, and 22% (n = 8) were Hispanic. Domestic violence was mentioned in 44% (n = 16) of cases and a similar percentage (42%) mentioned suicide; 25% of cases involved threats of mass violence.

ERPOs were often filed in response to violence that occurred while respondents were losing their housing; reasons for impending homelessness included financial hardship, eviction, and loss of relationships. Other respondents experienced homelessness prior to the ERPO; threats of violence were intertwined with challenges of housing instability, loss of employment, family estrangement, untreated mental illness, and substance misuse. Serving ERPOs to people experiencing homelessness was challenging.

Conclusions

ERPO respondents who were experiencing homelessness were in crisis and at high risk of violence. Courts and law enforcement agencies should consider how to improve serving ERPOs, recovering firearms, and providing services to homeless respondents.