Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate whether state-level gender inequity is associated with state-level intimate partner homicide rates (IPHR), male homicide rates, female homicide rates, firearm-related homicide rates, and overall homicide rates over the period of 2000–2017 in the United States. Using a cross-sectional design, we evaluated the association of state-level gender inequity with seven types of homicide victimization between 2000 and 2017 in the United States. We obtained annual state-specific overall, male and female IPHR, annual state-specific, male, female, and total homicide rates, and firearm homicide rates. We also created a gender inequity index at the state level that comprised health, labor, and empowerment dimensions. We used a negative binomial model to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to represent the percentage difference in homicide rate for each one standard deviation increase in gender inequality. After controlling for variables known to be correlated with homicide, we found that the average state-level gender inequity index was associated with all measures of homicide, including total homicide rates (IRR 1.05, confidence interval [95% CI] 1.03–1.08), total intimate partner homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03–1.16), female intimate partner homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15), male intimate partner homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), female homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03–1.12), male homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.10), and firearm homicide victimization rate (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11). Gender inequity is associated with rates of overall homicide, intimate partner homicide, female homicide, male homicide, and homicide with a firearm at the state level in the United States. Promoting gender equity at the state level may contribute to social changes that could help reduce homicide rates, including IPHR.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Azrael

, Cook

, Miller

. (2004). State and local prevalence of firearms ownership measurement, structure, and trends. J Quant Criminol. 20, 43–62.

Barber

, Hemenway

, Hochstadt

, Azrael

. (2002). Underestimates of unintentional firearm fatalities: Comparing Supplementary Homicide Report data with the National Vital Statistics System. Injury Prev. 8, 252–256. DOI: 10.1136/ip.8.3.252

Bronfenbrenner

. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 32, 513–531.

Caman

, Kristiansson

, Granath

, et al. (2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate partner homicides between 1990 and 2013. J Crim Justice. 49, 14–21.

CMDPDH. (2012). Femicide and impunity in Mexico: A context of structural and generalized violence. Retrieved from www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandCMDPDH_forthesession_Mexico_CEDAW52.pdf (accessed August 7, 2019).

Cooper

, Smith

. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–2008: Annual rates for 2009 and 2010. Retrieved from www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf (accessed August 7, 2019).

DeWees

, Parker

. (2003). The political economy of urban homicide: assessing the relative impact of gender inequality on sex-specific victimization. Violence Vict. 18, 35–54.

Diez

, Kurland

, Rothman

, et al. (2017). State Intimate Partner Violence-Related Firearm Laws and Intimate Partner Homicide Rates in the United States, 1991–2015. Ann Intern Med. 167, 536–543. doi: 10.7326/m16-2849

Dugan

, Nagin

, Rosenfeld

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

10.

Fox

. (2016). Multiply-imputed Supplementary Homicide Reports File, 1976–2015. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

11.

Fox

, Swatt

. (2009). Multiple imputation of the Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976–2005. J Quant Criminol. 25, 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9058-2

12.

Fox

, Fridel

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

13.

Garcia-Moreno

, Guedes

, Knerr

. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf;jsessionid=AECC2CE8B92C4EA8B3EF1FDC894DA559?sequence=1 (accessed August 7, 2019).

14.

Gressard

, Swahn

, Tharp

. (2015). A first look at gender inequality as a societal risk factor for dating violence. Am J Prev Med. 49, 448–457.

15.

Griffith

, Rose

. (2016). Technical Notes Calculating (HDR). Hum Dev Rep. 37, 14. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1731317

16.

Heirigs

, Moore

. (2018). Gender inequality and homicide: A cross-national examination. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice. 42, 273–285.

17.

Heise

, Ellsberg

, Gottemoeller

. (1999). Ending violence against women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11. Baltimore Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program. Retrieved from https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/2016-10/PopulationReports.pdf (accessed August 7, 2019).

18.

Horton

, Lipsitz

. (1999). Review of software to fit generalized estimating equation regression models. Am Stat. 53, 160–169. DOI: 10.2307/2685737

19.

Kim

, Watts

, Hargreaves

, et al. (2007). Understanding the impact of a microfinance-based intervention on women's empowerment and the reduction of intimate partner violence in South Africa. Am J Public Health. 9, 1794–1802.

20.

Krug

, Dahlberg

, Mercy

, et al. (2002). Violence: A global public health problem. In World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 1–56). (World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland). Retrieved from www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/introduction.pdf (accessed August 7, 2019).

21.

Langford

, Isaac

, Kabat

. (1998). Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: Examining case ascertainment and validity of the SHR. Homicide Stud. 2, 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767998002004002

22.

Liang

K-Y

, Zeger

. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 73, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/73.1.13

23.

Loftin

, McDowall

, Fetzer

. (2008). A comparison of SHR and Vital Statistics homicide estimates for U.S. cities. J Contemp Crim Justice. 24, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207312585

24.

Marvell

. (2001). The impact of banning juvenile firearm possession. J Law Econ. 44, 691–713. DOI: 10.1086/323314

25.

Pan

. (2001). Model selection in estimating equations. Biometrics,, 57, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.00529.x

26.

Pendergast

, Gange

, Newton

. (1996). A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. Int Stat Rev. 64, 89–118. DOI: 10.2307/1403425

27.

Popowicz

. (2018). Domestic violence and housing linked to homicides in south east Bronx. The Bronx Ink. Retrieved from http://bronxink.org/2018/10/15/28026-domestic-violence-and-housing-linked-to-homicides-in-the-south-east-bronx (accessed August 7, 2019).

28.

Puzone

, Saltzman

, Kresnow

M-J

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

29.

Puzzanchera

, Chamberlin

, Kang

. (2018). Easy access to the FBI's supplementary homicide reports: 1980–2016. Retrieved from www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr (accessed August 7, 2019).

30.

Regoeczi

, Banks

. (2014). The Nation's Two Measures of Homicide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department.

31.

Siegel

, Negussie

, Vanture

, Pleskunas

, Ross

, King

. (2014). The relationship between firearm ownership and stranger and non-stranger firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010. Am J Public Health. 104, 1912–1919. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302042

32.

Shields

, Ward

. (2009). Comparison of the National Violent Death Reporting System and Supplementary Homicide Report: Potential benefits of integration. Justice Res Policy. 10, 67–97.

33.

United States Department of Labor. (2019). Expanded State Employment Status Demographic Data. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/lau/ex14tables.htm (accessed June 14, 2019).

34.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC). (2019). The reach of NVDRS. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nvdrs/stateprofiles.html (accessed August 7, 2019).

35.

Vieraitis

, Britto

, Kovandzic

. (2007). The Impact of Women's Status and Gender Inequality on Female Homicide Victimization Rates. Evididence from U.S. Counties. Feminist Criminology. 2, 57–73. doi:10.1177/1557085106294187

36.

Vieraitis

, Williams

. (2002). Assessing the Impact of Gender Inequality on Female Homicide Victimization Across U.S. Cities: A Racially Disaggregated Analysis. Violence Against Women. 8, 35–63. doi:10.1177/10778010222182937

37.

Whaley

, Messner

. (2002). Gender equality and gendered homicides. Homicide Stud. 6, 188–210.

38.

Willie

, Kershaw

. (2019). An ecological analysis of gender inequality and intimate partner violence in the united states. Prev Med. 118, 257–263.

39.

Wirtz

, Poteat

, Malik

, et al. (2018). Gender-based violence against transgender people in the United States: A call for research and programming. Trauma Violence Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018757749

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.00 MB

The Relative Risk of Intimate Partner and Other Homicide Victimization by State-Level Gender Inequity in the United States,2000–2017

Abstract

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material