|
Citation
|
Hatchimonji JS, Bakillah E, Hynes AM, Torres CM, Sanchez SE, Seamon MJ, Scantling DR. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023; ePub(ePub): ePub. |
|
Abstract
|
BACKGROUND: Recent political movements have raised questions about the effectiveness of police funding, but the impact of law enforcement budgets on firearm violence is unknown. We hypothesized that department funding and measures of police activity would be associated with decreased shootings and firearm homicides (FH) in two major cities with different police funding patterns.
METHODS: We collected data from these sources: district attorney's offices, police departments, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting program, the Centers for Disease Control, the Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, and the American Community Survey. Data included demographics, police department budgets, number of officers, homicide clearance rates, firearms recovered, shootings, and FH, 2015-2020. Totals were normalized to population and number of shootings. We used panel linear regression to measure associations between policing variables, shootings and FH while adjusting for covariates.
RESULTS: FH significantly increased in Philadelphia. In Boston the trend was less clear, though there was an increase in 2020. Police budget normalized to shootings trended towards a decrease in Philadelphia and an increase in Boston. The number of firearms recovered annually appeared to increase in Boston but peaked mid-study in Philadelphia. In multivariable analyses, police budget was associated with neither shootings nor FH. However, increased firearm recovery was associated with lower shooting (β = -.0004, p = 0.022) and FH (β = -.00005, p = 0.004) rates.
CONCLUSION: Philadelphia and Boston demonstrated differences in police funding, 2015-2020. While budget is not associated with shootings or FH, firearm recovery is, suggesting that removal of firearms from circulation remains key. The impact this has on vulnerable populations requires further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cross-sectional.
Language: en |