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).

Keywords

homicide intimate partner violence guns economic disadvantage

Approximately half of all female homicide victims in the United States over the past decade were killed in connection to intimate partner violence (IPV; Fox & Fridel, 2017; Petrosky et al., 2017). This is true for female victims across all racial and ethnic groups, highlighting that intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a widespread public health concern (Petrosky et al., 2017). As such, identifying the prevalence and potential causes and correlates puts us one step closer to identifying promising prevention strategies, which may differ across racial and ethnic groups and require more tailored solutions. Overall, the IPH victimization rate has decreased considerably since the 1970s, coinciding with an expansion in laws against domestic violence, significant improvement in gender equality (especially in the labor market and educational spheres), and changes in living arrangements and family dynamics (Stöckl et al., 2013). Despite nationwide declines in IPHs since the 1970s, the biggest reductions in IPH have been seen among male victims (Reckdenwald & Parker, 2010), while declines in the killing of female intimate partners was less pronounced and began decades later (Reckdenwald & Parker, 2012).

Ethnicity is an important part of the story of social change and IPH (Sabina & Swatt, 2015; Sabri, Campbell, & Messing, 2021; Sabri, Nnawulezi, et al., 2018). A recent study of female homicide victims in Massachusetts found that Hispanic women were more likely to be killed in the context of IPV than non-Hispanic women (Azziz-Baumgartner, McKeown, Melvin, Dang, & Reed, 2011), and using National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) data covering 18 states, Petrosky and her colleagues (2017) found that 61% of adult Hispanic female homicide victims were killed in relation to IPV, compared to 44% of non-Hispanic victims. Other scholars have found similar patterns comparing IPH victimization rates for foreign born women compared to native born women (i.e., higher rates for foreign born women; Sabri, Campbell, & Messing, 2021).

The Hispanic and Latino population has increased substantially since the 1990s (Sampson, 2008; Urban Institute, 2002; Wadsworth, 2010) and make up an estimated 17% of the total U.S. population. This is significantly higher in certain areas of the country, including the south-west region. For example, Latinos made up approximately 49% of the total population in New Mexico in 2018 (U.S. Census, 2018). Given continued growth in the U.S. Hispanic population via both natural birth and immigration, monitoring and understanding trends in the killing of Hispanic intimate partners is an important ongoing public health necessity. Unfortunately, our understanding of the similarities and differences in the etiology of Hispanic compared to non-Hispanic IPH victimization has been hampered by a long tradition of investigating homicide as a single construct (Caman, Kristiansson, Granath, & Sturup, 2017; Taylor & Jasinski, 2011), even though researchers established that predictors of homicide are not the same across homicide categories or across ethnicity (Ioannou & Hammond, 2015; Pampel & Williams, 2000; K. F. Parker, 2001).

The current study builds upon an influential body of work examining structural and societal correlates of IPH (e.g., Dawson, Bunge, & Balde, 2009; Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 1999, 2003; Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013; Pampel & Williams, 2000; Reckdenwald & Parker, 2010, 2012) and IPV (Voith, 2017; Xie, Heimer, & Lauritsen, 2012; Xie, Lauritsen, & Heimer, 2012). We extend the existing literature by offering an examination of the leading explanations of overall IPH, including economic disadvantage, gender equality, family dynamics, and rurality, but consider their robust or differing effects across race- and ethnic-specific subsamples. In addition, we offer the first examination of legal firearm availability and homicide deaths of Hispanic and non-Hispanic partners. Although the presence of a gun is a robust and significant risk factor for femicide in abusive relationships, little is known about the role of legal firearm availability and the risk of IPH. Some recent studies have been conducted to understand how guns are acquired by those that commit violent crime, but the results are often derived from small samples and studies tend to focus on how guns are obtained illegally. We assess the extent to which the rate of federally licensed firearm dealers is directly associated with total and race- and ethnic-specific county-level IPH.

Theories and Correlates of IPH

Exposure Reduction and Backlash

Two main theoretical perspectives guide much of the literature on IPH: exposure reduction and backlash hypotheses. The exposure reduction hypothesis proposes that a reduction in the time intimate partners spend together reduces the risk for violence escalation and homicide. This can be achieved through a variety of mechanisms including divorce, entry into the labor force, rising income and greater education. As an example, Dugan and colleagues (1999) found that increased gender equality (measured via ratios of women’s to men’s educational attainment, labor market participation, and earnings) decreased the likelihood of men being murdered by their female partners, because better educated and financially independent women were better situated to exit violent relationships without resorting to killing. Conversely, the backlash perspective posits that such a challenge to the abusive male partner’s power or control can increase the risk of retaliatory violence (Whaley & Messner, 2002). As women gained more ground relative to men in the labor market, Kimmel (1995) posited that some men may face difficulty in defining themselves as “real men,” meanwhile watching the landscape of courtship, dating and sexual access change.

While these competing hypotheses (exposure reduction and backlash) have been applied to research on IPH (Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 2003; Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Reckdenwald & Parker, 2010), there has been a lack of research considering the applicability of these perspectives across ethnicity (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007). But, there are reasons to expect differences across groups, as highlighted in current intersectional research (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Parker & Hefner, 2015; Potter, 2015) and other studies documenting structural barriers for women and people of color (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; I. Browne, 2000; I. Browne & Askew, 2005; Massey & Denton, 1998; Wilson, 2003). As an example, if Hispanic male-female relations stem from traditional gender roles and patriarchal culture, as research suggests (e.g., Galanti, 2003), ongoing patterns of male dominance and control may more easily turn lethal than in non-Hispanic relationships. However, changing patterns of gender equality in the United States, including increased access to labor market and educational opportunities for women, may mean there are fewer economic reasons binding U.S.-born Hispanic women to abusive relationships (Campbell et al., 2007).

These competing theories also help to explain inconsistent findings regarding the impact of divorce on family violence. Scholars have documented that divorce may provide a safety net for familial violence, in that it offers a nonviolent means of conflict resolution and a means of escape before abuse turns lethal (Gillis, 1996), both for the abuser and for the abused. According to the exposure reduction hypothesis, the increase in divorce rates may help explain the decline in IPH observed since the 1970s (Puzone, Saltzman, Kresnow, Thompson, & Mercy, 2000). The exposure reduction hypothesis is well-supported in the literature, particularly as a contributor to a lower incidence of males killed by their female partners (A. Browne & Williams, 1989; Dugan et al., 1999; Reckdenwald & Parker, 2012). Disaggregating IPH victimization trends by gender, Reckdenwald and Parker (2012) found that changes in percent divorced were negatively associated with changes in male-victim IPH from 1990 to 2000, but it was not associated with changes in female-victim IPH over the same time frame.

Instead of serving as a protective effect, divorce may conversely act as a stimulus for lethal violence by threatening the power and control of the abuser (Dugan et al., 2003; Gillis, 1996). Xie, Heimer, and Lauritsen (2012) found a positive effect for percent divorced/separated on IPV against women over time, consistent with this backlash hypothesis. Studies of marriage, sex, and divorce among Hispanic families often note the cultural commitment to “familism” and the role of religion and gender norms in keeping marriages intact (Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2016), potentially encouraging and prolonging patterns of domestic abuse and possibly putting female Hispanic victims of IPV at greater risk for lethal violence. But whether divorce rates among Hispanic couples predict Hispanic IPH in the same way that divorce rates have been associated with total homicide and violence rates remains untested.

Structural Disadvantage

The importance of social context and economic disadvantage is strongly documented across empirical studies of homicide broadly defined (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006; McCall, Parker, & MacDonald, 2008; K. F. Parker & McCall, 1999; Pratt & Cullen, 2005; Stansfield & Parker, 2013), and IPH in particular (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2003; Diem & Pizarro, 2010; Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Xie et al., 2012a). Scholars have articulated several reasons why structural disadvantage may increase rates of IPV and IPH in communities, including the impact on social support networks and resources, law enforcement relations, and changing routine activities and opportunities for victimization. One explanation includes a lack of both formal and informal social support (Browning, 2002) and social control, as suggested by social disorganization theory. Relatedly, more economically disadvantaged areas may have fewer job opportunities, lower wages, and less access to health clinics, limiting the resources to leave an abusive relationship or seek help. In addition, scholars have argued that limited trust in law enforcement, as a result of perceived discrimination and injustice, particularly in disadvantaged and predominantly minority areas, may decrease the willingness of victims to seek help by reporting their abuse (Diem & Pizarro, 2010). Others posit that economic disadvantage, specifically, increases IPHs because it alters the routine activities of victims and offenders. For example, Xie, Heimer, and Lauritsen (2012) argue that during times of economic hardship, individuals are more likely to stay home, thus increasing the opportunities for IPV to occur. Although economic disadvantage is one of the strongest predictors of total homicides, empirical support for its role is less pronounced when considering its impact on IPH, with some arguing IPH is more situational as well as due to different motivating factors (Browning, 2002; Flewelling & Williams, 1999). IPH is also considered to be more private in nature and possibly less impacted by informal social controls in the community and a decreased willingness to seek help from neighbors or authorities. However, the impact of disadvantage on Hispanic IPH and whether this differs from non-Hispanic IPH remains unclear.

Firearm Availability

A recent study by Steidley, Ramey, and Shrider (2017) suggested that institutions, such as firearm dealers and bars, may also affect crime rates by shaping perceptions of disorder and disorganization in a community. In explaining a positive association between gun shop presence and violent crime, the authors suggest that if an institution signals disorder, it could negatively impact community control efforts, leading to higher rates of violent crime, in line with broken windows theory (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). We suggest that federally licensed firearm dealers within close proximity may also have a more direct effect on violence in the home, reflecting a higher possibility of impulsive purchases that allow a person to purchase a gun shortly after, or during, an altercation. And the significance of this could be profound.

The availability of guns can increase the risk of an incident of domestic violence turning lethal. Given that female partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm at home than by any other means (Campbell et al., 2007; Frye, Hosein, Waltermaurer, Blaney, & Wilt, 2005), access to firearms in the home is a critical part of the fight against IPH (Paulozzi, Saltzman, Thompson, & Holmgreen, 2001; Wintemute, Wright, & Drake, 2003). In fact, statistics show that in instances of partner violence, a woman is eight times more likely to be killed when there is a gun in the home (Jeltsen, 2013). Although studies have documented that a firearm is the most common weapon used in IPH in the United States, macro-level research on IPH often fails to capture the concentration of firearm availability at the community level. This includes various legal ways a perpetrator can acquire a gun, such as the concentration of or access to licensed firearm dealers and policies limiting the ability of a person with a history of domestic violence from legally purchasing or possessing a gun.

Current Study

In a recent review of risk factors for domestic violence, Aldarondo and Castro-Fernandez (2011) highlighted the need for more research sensitive to differences across ethnic groups. Research has also well-established ethnic differences in several of our predictors of interest, including labor market experiences, access to social and economic resources and support, such as domestic violence services, and divorce. Furthermore, K. F. Parker and Hefner (2015) advocated for an intersectional framework in the macro-level investigation of homicide offending to more fully understand the unique experiences of different groups and to consider how resources, opportunities, and support are not equally distributed across race and gender lines. Guided by this intersectional framework, and predominant theories and correlates in the IPV and IPH literature, we compare and contrast predictors across four samples: (a) all IPH victims in a county, (b) Hispanic IPH victims (of any race), and (c) non-Hispanic White IPH victims, and (d) non-Hispanic Black IPH victims.

Data and Method

Data and Sample

IPH data were acquired from the National Violent Death Registry System (NVDRS), an incident-based reporting system by the CDC that contains records related to victims, suspects, and the victim-suspect relationship in a homicide. As reported elsewhere (Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Sabri et al., 2021), NVDRS compiles data from several sources including death certificates, medical examiner records, and law enforcement reports. Critical to this analysis, victim ethnicity is recorded far more accurately and consistently than other incident-based sources of homicide data, such as the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) victim data (Sabina & Swatt, 2015; Steffensmeier, Feldmeyer, Harris, & Ulmer, 2011).

Although the NVDRS makes sense for our analysis given its more consistent reporting of victim ethnicity, we recognize a tradeoff is that we are unable to analyze a national sample of counties—a benefit of the SHR. The current study relies on data from the 16 states for which data were complete and compiled each year by the NVDRS for the years 2010 to 2016 (i.e., Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin). These criteria generated 4,120 records based on the years 2010 to 2016 in which a victim’s murder was considered to be IPV related (perpetrated by a current or ex-spouse, or a current or ex-girlfriend/boyfriend) and victim ethnicity was recorded. These cases were then aggregated to the county-level for analysis. Our dependent variables are the counts of overall, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black IPH victimization summed over the years 2010 to 2016.

Independent Variables

County-level estimates for several population, economic, and housing variables were obtained from the American Community Survey’s (ACS) 5-year estimate, 2011 to 2015, unless stated otherwise. These data were extracted from the National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). The NHGIS provides population, housing, and economic data for geographic units in the United States from 1790 to the present. Where possible, total and race- and ethnic-specific estimates were created for each variable.

Legal Firearm Dealer Availability

While earlier studies captured firearm availability via the percentage of suicides carried out with a firearm (Azrael, Cook, & Miller, 2004; R. N. Parker et al., 2011), we follow recent studies in using the rate of federal firearm licensees that includes the number of licensed importers, pawnshops, and sellers of firearms per 100,000 residents (e.g., Steidley et al., 2017). This measure of firearm availability was logged to reduce skewness. These data were obtained from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) January 2015 Listing of Federal Firearms Licensees.

Economic Disadvantage

We constructed a weighted economic disadvantage scale by conducting principal components factor analysis of five different indicators of disadvantage conventionally used in previous research (e.g., Chamberlain & Hipp, 2015; K. F. Parker, Mancik, & Stansfield, 2017) and theoretically related to the perpetration of IPV: the percentage of families in poverty, the percentage of family households headed by a female, the percentage of households who received public assistance, the percentage of people without health insurance, and the percentage of the population over the age of 25 without a 4-year college education. Although less often used in traditional disadvantage indexes, lacking health insurance has become increasingly linked to economic deprivation since the Great Recession starting in 2008 (Dhongde & Haveman, 2017), particularly among rural samples (Lavelle, Lorenz, & Wickrama, 2012) and Hispanic immigrants (Gelatt, 2016). Acceptable factors were generated for the total population, Hispanic population, and non-Hispanic White and Black populations. The related Eigenvalues were 2.92, 1.70, 2.54, and 1.42, respectively.

Divorce

In accordance with theories that divorce could reduce the opportunity of IPV inside the home, but also increase the risk for retaliation from aggrieved spouses, we included a measure of divorce calculated via the percentage of men over the age of 15 who are divorced. The rate of divorce was also calculated for race- and ethnic-specific groups.

Rurality

In light of recent studies indicating the higher incidence of IPH in rural counties (e g., Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017), and also a more consequential effect of legal gun availability in urban areas (Steidley et al., 2017), we included a dummy variable indicating whether a county is urban (0) or rural (1). We use the Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes as developed by the Office of Rural Health Policy to designate rural counties. To assess whether rurality moderates the relationship between legal gun availability and IPH, we also include an interaction term between rurality and the firearm dealer rate.

Other Controls

We also control for other possible confounding variables often associated with IPH (Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Whaley & Messner, 2002; Zeoli et al., 2017): the county’s nonintimate homicide rate, also obtained from the CDC’s NVDRS data for the time period 2010-2016 and converted to a rate per 10,000, which was also log transformed to reduce skewness; the ratio of female to male labor force participation; the ratio of females to males in a county; and a dichotomous measure indicating whether there is a domestic violence shelter in the county, obtained from domestic violence service directories for each state provided by domesticshleters.org. In addition, two variables were selected as proxies for the potential difficulty faced by foreign-born victims: the percentage of the population who are not citizens of the United States, and the percentage of the population that is linguistically isolated—that is, the percentage who speak English “not well” or “not at all.” These measures were highly correlated (r = .88) given that newly arrived migrants are more likely to retain language loyalty in the home (Telles & Ortiz, 2008). Our measure of recent immigration was created by summing z-scores of these two variables.

Finally, in accordance with recent studies highlighting the importance of policy changes and gun restrictions for domestic violence offenders (Gillespie & Reckdenwald, 2017; Zeoli, Frattaroli, Roskam, & Herrera, 2019; Zeoli et al., 2017), we created dichotomous measures indicating whether a county was in a state that had a mandatory arrest policy for incidents of IPV, a law restricting the possession of a gun for domestic violence offenders (Domestic Violence Restraining Order; DVRO gun laws), and a law requiring background checks for all legal private gun sales. These measures were created by exploring current statutes for each of the 16 states utilized in this study. Given high intercorrelation between these three state-level policy measures, we combined them into a policy index by summing the number of policies in each state (ranging from 0 to a maximum of 3).

Analysis

As our data have a hierarchical structure, with counties nested within states, and our dependent variables are count measures with overdispersion, multilevel negative binomial models were used to model our data. A negative binomial model fit our data well, as it often does even when there are a large number of zeros present as in homicide data (Allison, 2009). Although prior studies of IPH have utilized zero-inflated negative binomial models, a Vuong test comparing our full model estimating total IPH incidents using a negative binomial model versus a zero-inflated negative binomial model was insignificant (z = .85), indicating negative binomial models were appropriate for this analysis. Analyses were performed in Stata 15 and included a count dependent variable offset by the total, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White and Black populations, in their respective models.

After the creation of all composite measures described above, bivariate correlations were examined, and no bivariate independent variable correlation exceeded .19, suggesting minimal concerns with multicollinearity (Field, 2005). In addition, we tested for spatial autocorrelation in homicides using GeoDa, suspecting that the incident of IPH in one county may be associated with the incidence of IPH in an adjacent county. However, we found no presence of IPH clustering, thus a spatial lag is not included in the models.

The next step was to estimate a full model with the total number of IPHs (occurring from 2010 to 2016) as the dependent variable (Table 2, Model 1). To examine potential similarities and differences across race and ethnicity, models were then estimated separately for the IPHs perpetrated against Hispanic (Table 2, model 2), non-Hispanic White (Table 2, model 3), and non-Hispanic Black (Table 2, model 4) victims using race- and ethnic-specific measures of economic disadvantage, divorce, labor force and sex ratios, in addition to the other (overall) predictors of IPH. In each model, we also explored the possibility that interaction effects existed between legal gun dealer availability and other leading macro-level explanations of IPH. Only the interaction between legal gun dealer availability and rural locations was significant and displayed in our final models.

Results

Table 1 displays summary statistics for all measures used in the analysis. Between 2010 and 2016, counties in our study had an average of 3.05 homicides related to partner violence. A little under half of all counties in the sample are rural. Ethnic variation also exists in many of the economic and social predictors. As an example, a significantly higher percentage of Hispanic families (25%) live below the poverty line compared to non-Hispanic families (12%). However, the Hispanic divorce rates are lower than both the non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black divorce rates.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics for All Measures Used (Means and Standard Deviations Reported).

Variable	Total		Hispanic^a		NonH White^a		NonH Black^a
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Level 1: County-Level
Intimate Partner Homicide (Count)	3.049	6.498	0.318	1.136	1.861	3.351	1.188	4.301
Population (lg)	10.382	1.361	7.310	1.928	10.092	1.390	7.293	2.445
Labor Force Ratio	0.884	0.168	1.155	6.680	0.852	0.107	1.857	7.781
Sex Ratio	1.008	0.089	0.932	0.723	1.006	0.093	0.932	0.751
Divorce	11.722	2.324	7.046	7.682	11.429	3.004	10.609	11.026
Economic Disadvantage	0.000	0.944	0.000	0.795	0.000	0.939	0.000	0.799
Licensed Gun Dealer Rate (lg)	3.559	0.908
Recent Immigration	0.000	1.942
Non-Intimate Homicide Rate (lg)	1.586	1.956
Rural County	49.1%
Shelter Presence	84.5%
Level 2: State-Level
Mandatory Arrest	62.50%
DVRO Gun Law	50%
Background Checks	31.25%

Note. DVRO = Domestic Violence Restraining Order; NonH = non-Hispanic.

Race- and ethnic-specific measures.

To explore the relationship between county dynamics and IPH, we first focus on Table 2, model 1, which presents our multilevel negative binomial model estimates for total IPH victimization. Consistent with several prior studies, higher economic disadvantage (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 1.143, p = .002), divorce (IRR = 1.072, p < .001), rural compared to urban counties (IRR = 3.099, p < .001), and the nonintimate homicide rate (IRR = 1.052, p < .001) are each significantly associated with more IPH. In addition, the higher the rate of licensed firearm dealers in a county (IRR = 1.184, p = .002), the higher the incidence of IPH. Importantly, however, the association between licensed firearm dealer availability and IPH is reduced in rural counties, as evidenced by the significant IRR < 1.00 for an interaction between gun availability and rural location. Counties in states with more laws aimed at deterring future partner violence (through mandatory arrests or limiting gun possession) also experience a significantly lower incidence of IPH.

Table 2.

Multilevel Negative Binomial Regression Models of Intimate Partner Homicide by Ethnicity.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	Total IPH		Hispanic		Non-Hispanic White		Non-Hispanic Black
	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE	IRR	SE
Level 1:
Licensed Gun Dealer Rate	1.184**	0.066	1.205*	0.106	1.270***	0.08	1.240**	0.089
Divorce^a	1.072***	0.016	1.051**	0.019	1.062***	0.017	1.039**	0.012
Labor Force Ratio^a	0.661	0.239	1.062	0.182	0.307*	0.157	0.975	0.063
Econ Disadvantage^a	1.143**	0.049	1.077	0.133	1.219***	0.057	1.175^†	0.097
Sex Ratio^a	2.381	1.279	1.903^†	0.663	0.633	0.356	1.327	0.354
Rural	3.099***	0.869	0.787	0.810	2.204*	0.846	3.244***	1.018
Rural × Gun	0.745***	0.059	1.073	0.298	0.799*	0.083	0.721**	0.071
Shelter Presence	0.902	0.061	1.194	0.278	0.877^†	0.067	1.131	0.109
Recent Immigration	−0.006	0.014	−0.036	0.03	0.034	0.014	0.015	0.015
Non-Intimate Homicide	1.052***	0.011	1.069*	0.028	1.006	0.015	1.033**	0.011
Level 2:
State Policies	0.834**	0.053	0.894*	0.047	0.880*	0.057	0.938	0.087
χ²		246.99		41.55		174.75		92.54

Note. IPH = intimate partner homicide; IRR = Incident rate ratio.

Indicates Ethnic and Race-Specific Measure.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Turning to subsequent models, we observe a consistent story across racial and ethnic groups in the role of divorce and licensed gun store availability. Higher rates of each measure are significantly associated with more Hispanic and non-Hispanic IPH victimization counts. Importantly, these effects are also similar in direction and magnitude as when predicting overall IPH, indicating their robust effects on IPH, more broadly. The interaction between rurality and gun availability, however, is also significant in models 3 and 4 (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black IPH). This indicates that the rate of licensed firearm dealers has a stronger effect in urban counties when examining non-Hispanic and total IPH, but not Hispanic IPH victimization. Results also revealed a positive relationship between divorce and IPH across race and ethnicity. Testing the equality of coefficients across models revealed that there was no significant difference in the association of divorce and IPH by race and ethnicity.

Some important differences also emerged across models. As an example, state policies aiming to deter future partner violence and homicide were associated with lower incidence of IPH perpetrated against Hispanic and non-Hispanic White victims but were not associated with non-Hispanic Black IPH victimization. Economic disadvantage was also positively and significantly associated with IPH of non-Hispanic White (p < .001) and non-Hispanic Black (p = .052) victims but was unrelated to the incidence of Hispanic IPH (p = .727).

Discussion and Conclusion

As the most severe outcome of IPV, studies of homicide by intimate partners are relevant for the discussion of IPV, more broadly. While IPV is often studied at the micro level, macro-level research of IPH can help in the prevention of violence against women, by focusing attention on groups in society who are at the highest risk of being killed. Furthermore, as policy makers seek solutions which can prevent IPV occurring in the first place, it is also important to understand the societal conditions within which it can flourish. Importantly, our study reveals two key areas of concern for all groups in our study: divorce and guns.

Separation and divorce have often been identified as significant risk factors for IPH in previous research. Perhaps more urgently, our study shines a spotlight on licensed gun store availability, particularly in urban areas. The presence of legal gun stores does not equate to firearm ownership in the community, which has often been associated with an elevated risk of homicide (Hemenway & Miller, 2000). However, prior studies have also found evidence that the prevalence of gun stores can increase the risk of violent outcomes (Steidley et al., 2017; Wiebe et al., 2009), potentially by facilitating the ease with which a person can purchase a gun for preemptive protection (Griffiths & Chavez, 2004), or as an impulse reaction to an altercation. As home firearm ownership is likely already higher in rural areas (e.g., for hunting purposes), this may reduce the salience of licensed firearm stores in these contexts (Wiebe et al., 2009), especially given a number of other legal ways to obtain firearms, including from gun shows or private sales. In combination with our finding of the importance of state-level policies for reducing IPH across racial and ethnic groups, our study confirms the importance of limiting firearm access and sales to people who have a history of, or are currently under investigation for, domestic violence. This is especially critical for persons with a history of behavior known to increase the risk for lethal IPV, including threatening a partner’s life or using coercive tactics involving strangulation or other weapons (Campbell et al., 2007; Campbell, Messing, & Williams, 2018).

Our findings also suggest that area economic disadvantage is directly associated with county rates of total and non-Hispanic IPH, likely due to limited labor market opportunities and lower wages, contributing to financial strain and frustration, as well as limited coping resources, and access to health centers or other areas where women can seek help for abuse. However, economic disadvantage was not associated with Hispanic IPH. With respect to first generation Hispanics, in particular, scholars often note that economic disadvantage may be less problematic and create less strain or frustration, reducing the likelihood of violent coping mechanisms (Wadsworth & Kubrin, 2007). This may explain the nonassociation between Hispanic economic disadvantage and Hispanic IPH, in addition to greater support within Hispanic communities and families. This may also explain another surprising finding—Hispanic IPH was not higher in counties with a higher presence of a more linguistically isolated or noncitizen population. While both Hispanic and foreign-born persons have a higher risk of femicide (Sabri et al., 2021), it appears that counties with a larger percentage of recently arrived immigrants do not experience a higher prevalence of IPH.

While the macro-level factors are an important part of the framework within which intimate relationships and violence exists, there are numerous individual and relationship factors which also contribute to lethal violence between intimate partners, such as personal histories, emotions, strains, peers, cultural factors, and individual familiarity about options for communication and alternative methods of conflict resolution (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). A consideration of these additional factors is an important area for future inquiry. It is likely that the structural factors considered here are only part of the story of vulnerability among ethnic minority women. Scholars would do well to bring male and female cultural cues about violence into the research on IPV, more broadly.

Additional limitations include the use of the CDC’s NVDRS data, which again, is not nationally representative, but still provides the best data source for our research question. Relatedly, we consider Hispanics as a single ethnic group, and are not able to disaggregate our data to analyze differences among Hispanics based on country of origin, timing of arrival, or citizenship status. We note this as a direction that future researchers should pursue. Finally, our measure of gun availability only captures one potential method of legal gun availability. While our results underscore the importance of the role of legal firearm acquisition from stores, we cannot speak to the role of firearms obtained by illegal means or legal purchases from private sellers.

Despite the above limitations and directions for future work, these results underscore that preventing IPH also requires attention to important community and structural factors, including economic disadvantage, gun availability, and divorce. By reaffirming the importance of many of these well-known correlates of violence, this study hopes to spark greater thought among local policy makers about steps that can be taken at the local level to prevent violence in intimate relationships and reduce the risk of violent escalation that could result in homicide. Change at the local level in way of structural opportunity must be considered in tandem with larger legal changes aimed at reducing violence escalation between intimate partners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Richard Stansfield

Author Biographies

Richard Stansfield is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University–Camden. He has published widely on the topics of homicide, intimate partner violence, and family violence recidivism, in addition to research on risk assessment and recidivism.

Ashley Mancik is an assistant professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina. She is involved in several projects examining macrostructural forces that contribute to variation in homicide rates and homicide clearances over time.

Karen F. Parker is professor and chair of the department of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware. She has published widely on the influence of macro-level constructs on urban violence and homicide, particularly labor markets, racial segregation and concentrated disadvantage.

Mariel Delacruz is a graduate student of criminal justice at Rutgers University–Camden. She works and studies in the field of domestic violence prevention.

References

Aldarondo

Castro-Fernandez

(2011). Risk and protective factors for domestic violence perpetration. In White

J. W.

Koss

M. P.

Kazdin

A. E.

(Eds.), Violence against women and children: Mapping the terrain (Vol. 1, pp. 221-242). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Allison

P. D.

(2009). Fixed effects regression models. Los Angeles: Sage.

Azrael

Cook

P. J.

Miller

(2004). State and local prevalence of firearms ownership measurement, structure, and trends. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 43-62.

Azziz-Baumgartner

McKeown

Melvin

Dang

Reed

(2011). Rates of femicide in women of different races, ethnicities, and places of birth: Massachusetts, 1993-2007. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1077-1090. doi:10.1177/0886260510365856

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

DeMaris

Van Wyk

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207-235.

Blumstein

Wallman

(2006). The crime drop in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bonilla-Silva

(2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Browne

Williams

K. R.

(1989). Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides. Law & Society Review, 23, 75-94.

Browne

(2000). Opportunities Lost? Race, Industrial restructuring, and employment among young women heading households. Social Forces, 78, 907-929.

10.

Browne

Askew

(2005). Race, ethnicity, and wage inequality among women: What happened in the 1990s and early 21st century? American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1275-1292.

11.

Browning

C. R.

(2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 833-850.

12.

Burgess-Proctor

(2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1, 27-47.

13.

Caman

Kristiansson

Granath

Sturup

(2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate partner homicides between 1990 and 2013. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 14-21.

14.

Campbell

J. C.

Glass

Sharps

P. W.

Laughon

Bloom

(2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 246-269.

15.

Campbell

J. C.

Messing

J. T.

Williams

K. R.

(2018). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In Campbell

J. C.

Messing

J. T.

(Eds.), Assessing dangerousness (3rd ed., pp. 107-138). New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Chamberlain

A. W.

Hipp

J. R.

(2015). It’s all relative: Concentrated disadvantage within and across neighborhoods and communities, and the consequences for neighborhood crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 431-443.

17.

Dawson

Bunge

V. P.

Balde

(2009). National trends in intimate partner homicides: Explaining declines in Canada, 1976 to 2001. Violence Against Women, 15, 276-306.

18.

Dhongde

Haveman

(2017). Multi-dimensional deprivation in the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 133, 477-500.

19.

Diem

Pizarro

J. M.

(2010). Social structure and family homicides. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 521-532.

20.

Dugan

Nagin

D. S.

Rosenfeld

(1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3, 187-214.

21.

Dugan

Nagin

D. S.

Rosenfeld

(2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37, 169-198.

22.

Eriksson

Mazerolle

(2013). A general strain theory of intimate partner homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 462-470.

23.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: SAGE.

24.

Flewelling

R. L.

Williams

K. R.

(1999). Categorizing homicides: The use of disaggregated data in homicide research. In Smith

M. D.

Zahn

M. A.

(Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 96-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

Fox

J. A.

Fridel

E. E.

(2017). Gender differences in patterns and trends in U.S. homicide, 1976–2015. Violence and Gender, 4(2), 37-43.

26.

Frye

Hosein

Waltermaurer

Blaney

Wilt

(2005). Femicide in New York City: 1990 to 1999. Homicide Studies, 9, 204-228.

27.

Galanti

G. A.

(2003). The Hispanic family and male-female relationships: An overview. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 180-185.

28.

Gelatt

(2016). Immigration status and the healthcare access and health of children of immigrants. Social Science Quarterly, 97, 540-554.

29.

Gillespie

L. K.

Reckdenwald

(2017). Gender equality, place, and female-victim intimate partner homicide: A county-level analysis in North Carolina. Feminist Criminology, 12, 171-191.

30.

Gillis

A. R.

(1996). So long as they both shall live: Marital dissolution and the decline of Domestic homicide in France, 1852-1909. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1273-1305.

31.

Griffiths

Chavez

J. M.

(2004). Communities, street guns and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980-1995: Merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology, 42, 941-978.

32.

Hemenway

Miller

(2000). Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries. The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 49(6), 985-988.

33.

Ioannou

Hammond

(2015). The changing face of homicide research: The shift in empirical focus and emerging research trends. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 5, 157-162.

34.

Jeltsen

(2013, February 2). Laura Acevez, domestic abuse victim, failed by lax gun laws. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/domestic-abuse-guns_n_2625377.html

35.

Kelling

Wilson

J. Q.

(1982, March). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.

36.

Kimmel

(1995). Manhood in America. New York, NY: Free Press.

37.

Krug

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

38.

Lavelle

Lorenz

Wickrama

K. A. S.

(2012). What explains divorced women’s poorer health? The mediating role of health insurance and access to health care in a rural Iowan sample. Rural Sociology, 77, 601-625.

39.

Massey

Denton

(1998). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

40.

McCall

P. L.

Parker

K. F.

MacDonald

J. M.

(2008). The dynamic relationship between homicide rates and social, economic, and political factors from 1970 to 2000. Social Science Research, 37, 721-735.

41.

Pampel

F. C.

Williams

K. R.

(2000). Intimacy and homicide: Compensating for missing data in the SHR. Criminology, 38, 661-680.

42.

Parker

K. F.

(2001). A move toward specificity: Examining urban disadvantage and race-and relationship-specific homicide rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 89-110.

43.

Parker

K. F.

Hefner

M. K.

(2015). Intersections of race, gender, disadvantage, and violence: Applying intersectionality to the macro-level study of female homicide. Justice Quarterly, 32, 223-254.

44.

Parker

K. F.

Mancik

Stansfield

(2017). American crime drops: Investigating the breaks, dips and drops in temporal homicide. Social Science Research, 64, 154-170.

45.

Parker

K. F.

McCall

P. L.

(1999). Structural conditions and racial homicide patterns: A look at the multiple disadvantages in urban areas. Criminology, 37, 447-473.

46.

Parker

R. N.

Williams

K. R.

McCaffree

K. J.

Acensio

E. K.

Browne

Strom

K. J.

Barrick

(2011). Alcohol availability and youth homicide in the 91 largest US cities, 1984-2006. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 505-514.

47.

Paulozzi

J. J.

Saltzman

L. E.

Thompson

M. P.

Holmgreen

(2001). Surveillance for homicide among intimate partners—United States, 1981-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries, 50, 1-16.

48.

Petrosky

Blair

J. M.

Betz

C. J.

Fowler

K. A.

Jack

S. P.

Lyons

B. H.

(2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries, 66, 741-746.

49.

Potter

(2015). Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. London, England: Routledge.

50.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 373-450.

51.

Puzone

C. A.

Saltzman

L. E.

Kresnow

M. J.

Thompson

M. P.

Mercy

J. A.

(2000). National trends in intimate partner homicide: United States, 1976-1995. Violence Against Women, 6, 409-426.

52.

Reckdenwald

Parker

K. F.

(2010). Understanding gender-specific intimate partner homicide: A theoretical and domestic service-oriented approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 951-958.

53.

Reckdenwald

Parker

K. F.

(2012). Understanding the change in male and female intimate partner homicide over time: A policy-and theory-relevant investigation. Feminist Criminology, 7, 167-195.

54.

Sabina

Swatt

(2015). Summary report: Latino intimate partner homicide. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.

55.

Sabri

Campbell

J. C.

Messing

J. T.

(2021). Intimate partner homicides in the United States, 2003-2013: A comparison of immigrants and nonimmigrant victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4735-4757. doi:10.1177/0886260518792249

56.

Sabri

Nnawulezi

Njie-Carr

V. P.

Messing

Ward-Lasher

Alvarez

Campbell

J. C.

(2018). Multilevel risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence among African, Asian, and Latina immigrant and refugee women: Perceptions of effective safety planning interventions. Race and Social Problems, 10, 348-365.

57.

Sampson

R. J.

(2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7, 28-33.

58.

Stansfield

Parker

K. F.

(2013). Teasing out the effects of the local urban economy on race-specific male homicide rates over time. Social Science Research, 42, 633-649.

59.

Steffensmeier

Feldmeyer

Harris

C. T.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2011). Reassessing trends in black violent crime, 1980-2008: Sorting out the “Hispanic effect” in Uniform Crime Reports arrests, National Crime Victimization Survey offender estimates, and U.S. prisoner counts. Criminology, 49, 197-251.

60.

Steidley

Ramey

D. M.

Shrider

E. A.

(2017). Gun shops as local institutions: Federal firearms licensees, social disorganization, and neighborhood violent crime. Social Forces, 96, 265-298.

61.

Stöckl

Devries

Rotstein

Abrahams

Campbell

Watts

Moreno

C. G.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet, 382, 859-865.

62.

Taylor

Jasinski

J. L.

(2011). Femicide and the feminist perspective. Homicide Studies, 15, 341-362.

63.

Telles

E. M.

Ortiz

(2008). Generations of exclusion: Mexican-Americans, assimilation, and race. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

64.

Urban Institute. (2002). The dispersal of immigrants in the 1990s (Immigrant families and workers: Brief No. 2). New York, NY: Author.

65.

U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Quick facts: New Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/NM

66.

Voith

(2017). Understanding the relation between neighborhoods and intimate partner violence: An integrative review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 385-397.

67.

Wadsworth

(2010). Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 531-553.

68.

Wadsworth

Kubrin

C. E.

(2007). Hispanic suicide in U.S. metropolitan areas: Examining the effects of immigration, assimilation, affluence, and disadvantage. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1848-1885.

69.

Whaley

R. B.

Messner

S. F.

(2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Studies, 6, 188-210.

70.

Wiebe

D. J.

Krafty

R. T.

Koper

C. S.

Nance

M. L.

Elliott

M. R.

Branas

C. C.

(2009). Homicide and geographic access to gun dealers in the United States. BMC Public Health, 9, 199.

71.

Wilcox

W. B.

Wolfinger

(2016). Soul mates: Religion, sex, love, and marriage among African Americans and Latinos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

72.

Wilson

W. J.

(2003). Race, class and urban poverty: A rejoinder. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 26, 1096-1114.

73.

Wintemute

G. J.

Wright

M. A.

Drake

C. M.

(2003). Increased risk of intimate partner homicide among California women who purchased handguns. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41, 281-283.

74.

Xie

Heimer

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2012). Violence against women in U.S. metropolitan areas: Changes in women’s status and risk, 1980–2004. Criminology, 50, 105-143.

75.

Xie

Lauritsen

Heimer

(2012). Intimate partner violence in U.S. metropolitan areas: The contextual influences of police and social services. Criminology, 50, 961-992.

76.

Zeoli

A. M.

Frattaroli

Roskam

Herrera

A. K.

(2019). Removing firearms from those prohibited from possession by domestic violence restraining orders: A survey and analysis of state laws. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(1), 114-125.

77.

Zeoli

A. M.

McCourt

Buggs

Frattaroli

Lilley

Webster

D. W

. (2017). Analysis of the strength of legal firearms restrictions for perpetrators of domestic violence and their associations with intimate partner homicide. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187, 1449-1455.