To the members of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date/JJq/�3CA ✓ CC ✓
CM_iL"��CM(3)L
June 29, 2023
To:
From:
Via:
Council Memorandum
{city of
Carlsbad
Memo ID# 2023066
Re:
Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council Sheila Cobian, Legislative and Constituent Services Director Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager�
San Diego County Gun Violence Redudr6n Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report {Districts - All)
This memorandum provides the San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report (Attachment A).
Background/Discussion
On April 5, 2022, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors directed San Diego County staff to contract for a regional gun violence community needs assessment. Attachment A represents the final report and will be presented at the July 18, 2023, San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting.
San Diego County also developed a supplemental information document (Attachment B) to provide additional information on suicide and homicide deaths in San Diego County to put the firearm-related death data into context.
Next Steps
San Diego County staff will be releasing the report publicly this week and will have it available on the project website at: https://engage.sandiegocounty.gov/gvrp.
Attachment: A. San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report (Due to the size of Attachment A, a hardcopy is on file In the Office of the City Council, as reference)
B. Gun Violence Community Needs Assessment Supplemental Information cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Cindie McMahon, City Attorney
Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Michael Calderwood, Fire Chief
Mickey Williams, Police Chief
City Manager's Office
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2821 t
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Community Needs Assessment
Comprehensive Report
Prepared by
2023
Attachment A
-=EHARC
HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH FOR COMMUNITIES
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 Fact Sheet: San Diego County Gun Violence ................................ ................................ .............................. 4 Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 Public Health Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 10 Social-Ecological Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 12 Prevention Approaches ....................................................................................................................13 Project Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 Methods and Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Secondary Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 Data Sources .....................................................................................................................................15 Professional and Community Surveys ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 Listening Sessions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 22 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 24 Results: Secondary Data ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 25 Gun Ownership, Safety, and Perceptions ................................ ................................ ........................... 27 Ownership of Firearms .....................................................................................................................27 Safety with Firearms .........................................................................................................................27 Perceptions of Victimhood and Worry .............................................................................................28 Defensive Gun Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 29 Defensive Gun Use by Year ...............................................................................................................31 Death by Firearms ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Deaths by Firearms by Year per 100,000 People ..............................................................................33 Manner of Death by Firearms ..........................................................................................................34 Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People .............................................................36 Demographics of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People .......................................................42 Firearm-Related Injuries ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 48 Hospitalization ..................................................................................................................................48 Emergency Department Visits ..........................................................................................................51 Emergency Medical Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 54 Incidents by Year per 100,000 People ..............................................................................................54 Incidents by Geography per 100,000 People ...................................................................................58 Incidents by Demographics per 100,000 People ..............................................................................60 Suspected Crimes Involving Firearms ................................ ................................ ................................ . 62 Cases by Year per 100,000 People ....................................................................................................62 Highest Charge ................................................................................................................................. 63 Geography of Suspected Crimes with Firearms per 100,000 People ...............................................64 Suspected Crime with Firearms Demographics per 100,000 People ...............................................66 K-12 School Shootings ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 70 Mass Shootings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 71 Gun Violence in the Media ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 72
Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 73 Results: Professional Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 76 Demographics of Professionals ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 76 Backgrounds of Professionals ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 79 Professionals’ Services Related to Gun Violence ................................ ................................ ................. 81 Professional Needs................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 84 Perceptions of Gun Violence – Professionals ................................ ................................ ...................... 88 Perceived Causes and Solutions – Professionals ..............................................................................90 Barriers to Reducing Gun Violence ...................................................................................................93 Community Needs – Professionals ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 94 Resources Available - Professionals ..................................................................................................96 Gun Violence Experience – Professionals ................................ ................................ ........................... 97 Final Comments - Professionals ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 99 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 99 Results: Community Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 101 Demographics of Community Members ................................ ................................ ........................... 101 Gun Violence Experiences ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 106 Impact and Severity ....................................................................................................................... 106 Knows Others Injured or Killed ...................................................................................................... 108 Firearm Ownership ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 109 Firearm Self-Defense ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 110 Perceptions of Gun Violence – Community Sample ................................ ................................ ........... 112 Concerns and Safety – Community Members ............................................................................... 112 Perceived Causes and Solutions – Community Members ............................................................. 115 Community Needs – Community Members ................................ ................................ ....................... 116 Resources Available – Community Members ................................................................................ 118 Final Comments – Community Members ................................ ................................ .......................... 118 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 119 Results: Listening Sessions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 120 Public Listening Session Comments ................................ ................................ ................................ ..120 The Problem .................................................................................................................................. 121 Causes ............................................................................................................................................ 124 Solutions ........................................................................................................................................ 126 Youth Listening Session Comments ................................ ................................ ................................ ...129 Personally Affected by Gun Violence ............................................................................................. 129 Need to Talk About/Engage the Issue ........................................................................................... 129 Being Desensitized to Gun Violence .............................................................................................. 130 Effects on Mental Health ............................................................................................................... 130 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 130 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 132 Awareness and Advocacy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 132 Background .................................................................................................................................... 132 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 134 Community Engagement and Collaboration ................................ ................................ ..................... 135
Background .................................................................................................................................... 135 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 135 Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Practice ................................ ................................ ......... 135 Background .................................................................................................................................... 135 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 136 Planning and Evaluation ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 137 Background .................................................................................................................................... 137 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 137 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 138 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 139 Appendix A: Professional Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 140 Appendix B: Community Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 148 Appendix C: General Listening Session Questions ................................ ................................ .................. 156 Appendix D: Code of Civil Discourse ................................ ................................ ................................ .......157 Appendix E: Youth Listening Session Questions ................................ ................................ ...................... 158 Appendix F: Post-Listening Session Mini Survey ................................ ................................ ..................... 159 Appendix G: Mini Survey Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 160 Appendix H: Public Listening Session Themes: Defining the Problem of Gun Violence ............................ 169 Appendix I: Public Listening Session Themes: Causes of Gun Violence ................................ .................... 170 Appendix J: Public Listening Session Themes: Solutions to Gun Violence ................................ ................ 171 Appendix K: Public Listening Session Themes: Other Themes ................................ ................................ .172 Appendix L: Youth Listening Session Themes ................................ ................................ ......................... 173 Appendix M: Mini Survey Participant Residence by Zip Code ................................ ................................ .174 Appendix N: Community Survey Responses for Solutions ................................ ................................ .......175 Appendix O: Community Survey Responses for Other Resources/Programs/Services ............................. 181 Appendix P: Community Survey Responses for “Causes” ................................ ................................ ........ 187 Appendix Q: Community Survey Responses for “Other Comments” ................................ ....................... 189 Appendix R: Literature Review References ................................ ................................ ............................. 194 Appendix S: Community Survey: Organizations to Address Gun Violence ................................ ............... 200
Acknowledgments
This report was made possible by invaluable partnerships with local community leaders and organizations.
The Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group volunteered their time and expertise, and a range of organizations also dedicated their time to this project. Together, these groups have helped to ensure an informative product pertaining to gun violence in the County of San Diego.
Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group
Advisory Group community members are listed below, in alphabetical order by last name.
Melissa Bartolome
Chesley (Chess) Blevins
Jennifer Bransford-Koons
Amanda Brown
Dr. Robert Lee Brown
Sergio Gonzalez
Melissa Hernandez
Annie Lyles
Rick Lopez
Brian Nevins
Janie Regier
Gina Roberts
Carie Rodgers
Jesus Sandoval
Ira Sharp
Josh Smith
Rachel Solov
Pualani Vazquez
Entities Assisting in Identifying/Providing of Data
Other community leaders/organizations also assisted in the development of this report. Some of these people were also on the A dvisory Group. These community leaders/organizations are listed below in alphabetical order by the organization and by last name.
ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information
System)
Caroline Stevens, MPP
County of San Diego - Health and Human Services
(HHSA)
Isabel Corcos, Ph.D., MPH
Christopher O'Malley, MPH, CPH
County of San Diego - Emergency Medical
Services
Josh Smith, Ph.D., MPH
County of San Diego - Public Safety Group
Guy Nelson – Executive Office
Jennifer Effie – Medical Examiner Data
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Assistant Sheriff Brian Nevins
Listening Session Hosts
Each listening session was hosted by a member of the Advisory Group. We are grateful for their time and assistance: Sergio Gonzalez, Annie Lyles, Carrie Rodgers, Ira Sharp, Pastor Jesus Sandoval, Rachel Solov, and Pualani Vazquez. We are also grateful to A rianna Alvarado and Abraham Jarvis, high school fellows from the Aaron Price Fellows Program, who hosted one of the listening sessions. We also extend our gratitude to Edmond Perkins, staff member of the Aaron Price Fellows Program.
The two youth listening sessions were made possible by the Aaron Price Fellows Program and the County’s Live Well San Diego Youth Sector. Thanks to Annie Lyles and Skylar Weatherford for helping spearhead each of these sessions. We also thank Kingston Tran, Sofia Gilmore, and Caitlynn Hauw.
Listening Session Venues and Support
We are grateful to the facilities that offered their space for the listening sessions: the Jackie Robinson Family YMCA, the Civic Center Branch Library in Chula Vista, One Safe Place, the Ronald Reagan Community Center, and the San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts.
A grief support specialist or therapist was present at the in-person public listening sessions. We thank each for offering their services: Sergio Gonzalez, Dr. Debbie Zenga (of Palomar Health), and Tammy Carter.
We had live Spanish-language interpretation available at the public listening session (in person and virtual).
We are grateful for Hanna Interpreting Services and the interpreters: Frida Blum, Danny Inoa, and Janet Green.
Lastly, we acknowledge the residents of San Diego County who volunteered their time to provide their thoughts at the listening sessions as well as those residents who participated in the professional and community surveys. Without these residents, th is gun violence community needs assessment would not have been possible.
Fact Sheet: San Diego County Gun Violence
Deaths, Injuries, and Suspected Crimes
Population Impacts
Community Perspectives
1,310
Deaths by firearm in San
Diego County from 2017
through 2022 (suicide
and homicide)
7 in 10
7 in 10 (70.9%) firearm-
related deaths in San
Diego County are suicide
About 3 in 10 (28.9%) are
homicide
6.6 San Diego County rate of
firearm-related deaths
per 100,000
California rate: 8.0
National rate: 13.7
56.3%
Firearm-related homicide
rate increase from 2017
through 2022
Suicide rate decreased by
18.0%
1,367
Firearm-related injuries in San Diego
County from 2016 through 2020
19.0%
Firearm-related injury
hospitalization rate increase from
2016 through 2020
64.0%
Firearm-related crime rate increase
from 2017 through 2021
Mostly assault and robbery
10X
Firearm homicide rate
for Black residents is 9.9
times greater than for
White residents
2.5X
Firearm homicide rate
for Hispanic residents is
2.5 times greater than
for White residents
2X
Firearm suicide rate for
White residents is 2.2
times greater than for
Black residents
6X
Firearm suicide rate for
White residents is 5.9
times greater than for
Hispanic residents
Firearm-related homicide rate
is highest among ages 25-44
Firearm-related suicide rate
is highest among ages 65+
60.8%
Percentage of community
survey respondents that
were “very” or “somewhat
concerned” about gun
violence in their
community
Most Needed Services
Domestic Violence Support Services
Mental Health Counseling
Gang Prevention Programs
Afterschool Youth Programs
Mentorship Programs
19.7%
Percentage of professional
survey respondents that
felt “very” or “somewhat
unsafe” discussing guns
with clients/patients
[ _____ ][ ___ ]
_) __
Executive Summary
This gun violence reduction needs assessment provide s an overview of gun violence in San Diego County and outlines possible solutions to prevent violence and mitigate impacts. The needs assessment draws from existing data sources as well as the first-hand experiences and beliefs of residents provided via countywide community and professional surveys and a series of community listening sessions. These results poi nt to the conclusion that everyone has a role to play in the prevention of gun violence; that addressing systemic and historic inequities is central to addressing gun violence; and that prevention and intervention strategies should be tailored to specific populations.
From 2017 through 2022, there have been 1,310 deaths by firearms in San Diego County, often either due to homicide or suicide. About 28.9% of firearm-related deaths have been homicides, and 70.9% have been suicides. This proportion is higher than the state firearm-related suicide percentage of 50.5%. However, the San Diego County firearm-related death rate (6.6) is below the state rate (8.0). Further, from 2016 through 2020, there have been 1,367 firearm-related injuries. These injuries are recorded as either hospitalizations (indicating more serious injuries, often due to assault) or emergency department visits (indicating less serious injuries, often due to accidents). About half of firearm-related injuries are treated by hospitalization and half by emergency department visits.
These data also show trends over time, with each examined over a five-year period with data from the most recently available years. The periods examined were 2017 -2021 (deaths), 2016-2020 (injuries), and 2017- 2021 (suspected crimes). The firearm-related homicide rate has increased by 56.3%, while the suicide rate has decreased by 18.0%. The firearm-related hospitalization rate has increased by 19.0%, while the rate of firearm-related emergency department visits has increased by 4.5%. The rate of firearm-related suspected crimes (often assault or robbery) has increased by 64.0%. While injury rates reflect little of the COVID -19 pandemic’s impact, death and crime rates reflect one full year of data following the COVID -19 outbreak.
These rates show a modest decline in firearm- related suicides and a major rise in firearm-related alleged crimes, serious injuries, and homicides.
This assessment shows that gun violence impacts people of all ages, genders, and racial/ethnic backgrounds in all regions of the county, yet gun violence does not impact people equally. Some populations and communities are disproportionately impacted. For example, the firearm- related homicide rate for Black residents (9.9 per 100,000) is nearly 10 times greater than the firearm -related homicide rate for White residents (1.0) and is two and a half times greater for Hispanic residents (2.5) than that for White residents (1.0). In contrast, the firearm-related suicide rate for White residents (8.2) is over two times greater than that for Black residents (3.8) and nearly six times greater than that for Hispanic residents (1.4). In addition, homicide rates are highest among those ages 25-44 (4.0), while suicide rates are highest among those ages 65 and older (11.3). Males (3.3) have a firearm-related homicide rate that is over four times greater than that for females (0.8) and a firearm-related suicide rate (8.4) that is over eight times greater than that for females (1.0). These demographic trends are similar for firearm -related injuries and suspected crimes.
While secondary data were not available on socio- economic status ( e.g., education or income), existing
studies and listening session data suggest that victims of gun violence are often from communities with histories of economic exclusion and social marginalization. While individual and psychological causes may be identified (such as family trauma or mental illness), these are likely only immediate (and not root) causes.
Rather, gun violence is a symptom of wider social dynamics, whereby some populations have limited access to social support or material resources. Overall, younger Black and Hispanic males are more likely be victims of firearm-related homicide and injury , while older White males are more likely to be victims of firearm- related suicide.
In addition to demographic patterns , firearm -related deaths, injuries, and suspected crimes are also concentrated by geography. Th e cities with the highest firearm- related homicide rates are Lemon Grove (6.0 per 100,000), National City (3.5), and Vista (3.1), and the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm-related homicide rates are Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8). The cities with the highest firearm- related suicide rates are Lemon Grove (13.6), El Cajon (10.0), and La Mesa (7.7) , and the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm-related suicide rates are Ramona (22.5), Valley Center (20.9), and Lakeside (17.5). The cities with the highest rates of firearm-related suspected crimes are Lemon Grove (333.6), El Cajon (242.3), and National City 235.9), and the unincorporated communities with the highest rates of firearm -related suspected crime s are Spring Valley (588.4), Ramona (307.1), and Lakeside (279.6) . Although listening session data indicated a high prevalence of gun violence in some neighborhoods (e.g., Southeast San Diego), the available statistical data were only available by city (and not neighborhood or Census tract) . Thus, the data offer only a general geographic snapshot, possibly missing geographic concentrations at smaller scales. The data nonethe less show that violence related to firearms is concentrated in North County (Vista, Valley Center, and Ramona) and the southeastern part of the county (Spring Valley, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Lakeside, La Mesa, and National City).
Public opinions about gun violence vary widely, and it is an issue that is of concern or directly impacts a large portion of those surveyed. The community survey drew responses from 1,242 residents. About one- fifth (17.9%) of surveyed community members know someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. Although most survey participants (66.5%) reported feeling “very safe” or “somewhat safe” in their communities, 60.8% nonetheless are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about gun violence. Residents were invited to take the survey (rather than being randomly selected), thus resulting in survey samples that likely represent a subset of the population most interested in or affected by firearms and firearm-related violence. This also result ed in an oversampling of residents who identified as White, non-Hispanic, well-educated, and above the poverty level. Listening sessions similarly attracted individuals most engaged in the topic of firearms, such as proponents of the Second Am endment, proponents of gun control, and those involved in gang/community violence prevention. Many of those who attended listening sessions advocated for focusing on all types of violence rather than “gun violence.” These comments were often phrased in reference to preserving gun rights and calls to focus on structural or root causes of violence. Attendees also emphasized the issues of gang violence, community violence, and the needs of underserved youth , such as the need for greater familial /social support and educational/economic opportunities. Commonly mentioned solutions, across the surveys and listening sessions, included mental
health counseling, enforcing existing laws, funding community -based organizations, domestic violence support services, and youth mentorship and other youth-focused programs.
Through an analysis of these data and conversations with County and community partners, as well as informed by a review of the literature, a series of recommendations was developed. These recommendations are organized under four strategic areas of focus: awareness and advocacy, community engagement and collaboration, community healing and trauma -informed practice , and planning and evaluation. These recommendations are listed below under each of the four areas of focus.
Awareness and Advocacy
Building public awareness of effective violence prevention strategies and connecting individuals to culturally tailored resources are key to reducing gun violence.
1. Increase awareness of violence prevention strategies and resources among those at highest risk by developing and sharing educational content specific to suicide prevention , domestic/intimate partner violence, and community violence.
2. Partner with agencies to promote gun lock distribution programs that offer gun locks at no cost to the public.
3. Provide gun safety awareness training for County staff who perform home visits and conduct community outreach to share information on safe storage laws, navigating through unsafe scenarios, and educating clients on gun safety practices and violence prevention strategies.
4. Support programs that allow individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and voluntarily transfer their firearm.
5. Promote implementation of a standardized, evidence-based suicide screening tool for use by healthcare providers to screen patients for suicide risk regardless of whether the patient is seeking care for psychiatric symptoms.
Community Engagement and Collaboration
Community engagement, collaboration, and stakeholder coordination must be at the heart of an effective strategy to reduce gun violence.
1. Coordinate and support an ongoing Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group to engage residents in gun violence reduction efforts.
2. Facilitate collaboration across agencies, organizations, and sec tors to promote connection, build capacity, and share resources , including the coordination of networking events/roundtables for community organizations and developing an online communication and collaboration platform for those working to reduce gun violence in San Diego County.
Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Practice
The prevalence of trauma in communities experiencing high incidents of gun violence as well as the impacts of untreated trauma and re-traumatization must be acknowledged, and trauma-informed practices should be employed to build community capacity for self-healing.
1. Explore opportunities to enhance and implement community-centered approaches to community gun violence prevention in neighborhoods facing high risk factors for gun violence.
2. Establish a partnership between trauma hospitals , law enforcement, and community- based organizations to connect firearm injury patients and their families to support services that may include m ental health support, financial assistance, and other services need ed to support their recovery.
Planning and Evaluation
Planning and evaluation are key components of any successful strategy to identify and demonstrate commitment to outcomes, show progress or need for course correction, and ensure transparency.
1. Plan for longevity, sustainability, and an enduring commitment to gun violence reduction by establishing and adequately resourcing a central office or unit within the County structure to lead and guide gun violence reduction efforts and by working with local communities to develop strategic plans to address gun violence.
2. Identify and monitor meaningful metrics to ensure accountability which should include the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation framework , the sharing of local data with stakeholders, and the coordination of townhall or listening sessions to evaluate residents’ perception of success.
3. Develop a long-term strategy to address the funding of violence prevention and intervention efforts in the region, to include identifying, promoting, and applying for grants in support of programs and services in communities most impacted by gun violence.
These recommendations include actionable steps to reduce gun violence and assist with healing those who have already been affected by it. Some recommendations provide opportunity to enhance or expand existing efforts in San Diego County while others may require investment in new areas of focus. These recommendations are explained further in the Recommendations section and are a starting point for the County to pursue long-term assessment and advancement of gun violence reduction. Although suicide and assault by firearm are significant challenges, there remain s substantial public interest, across various communities, in resolving these issues, and multiple opportunities exist for the County to be both a leader and partner in the reduction of gun violence.
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Community Needs Assessment
Comprehensive Report
2023
Introduction
Gun violence includes both the use of a firearm and the threat of using a firearm. According to the American Public Health Association, gun violence is a complex phenomenon rooted in our culture and also a leading cause of premature death in the United States. 1 This type of violence can be fatal or non -fatal, intentional or unintentional, defensive, or the result of legal intervention (e.g., police involved).2 There are not only direct and immediate consequences of gun violence (such as injury and death) but also indirect and long - term consequences, such as mental health issues, chronic physical ailments, intergenerational trauma, and a eroded sense of safety in the community.3 Across the United States in 2020, there were more than 45,000 firearm-related deaths (about 124 people dying each day); more than half of these firearm -related deaths were suicides, and more than 40% were homicides.4 There is much to be explored on the causes of gun violence and the methods for gun violence prevention,5 and data is one such avenue for obtaining a richer understanding of this complex social issue.
Studying gun violence can inform discussions around policy, safety/secur ity, and awareness and, importantly, can lead to actions and interventions that create a safer, healthier, and more vibrant community for everyone. To guide this study in the collection, analysis, and application of data, a public health approach was adopted.
Public Health Approach
The focus of public health is the health, safety, and well-being of entire populations. A unique aspect of the approach is that it strives to provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people. 6 It also focuses on the root causes of violence and guides a coordinated approach for violence prevention that engages diverse sectors.
Public health draws on a science base that is multi -disciplinary. It relies on knowledge from a broad range of disciplines including medicine, epidemiology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, criminology, education, and economics. The public health approach also emphasizes input from diverse sectors including health, education, social services, justice, policy, and the p rivate sector. Collective action on the part of these key collaborators can help in addressing problems such as gun violence.
1 Gun Violence (n.d.). American Public Health Association. https://www.apha.org/topics -and-issues/gun-violence 2 Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention. (2022). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html 3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Firearm Violence Prevention. (2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/index.html 6 “The Public Health Approach to Violence Prevention.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/publichealthapproach.html
The public health approach follows four steps, as illustrated below.
Figure 1. Public Health Approach to Violence
Step 1: Define the Problem: Data are presented to quantify firearm violence prevalent in the county. • Find out how many people are affected by violence.
• Find out who is experiencing violence.
• Find out when and where the violence happens.
• Find out how often it occurs.
Step 2: Identify Risk and Protective Factors: Address population-level risk factors that lead to gun violence and protective factors that reduce gun violence.
• Find out what factors put people at risk for violence. • Find out what factors protect people from violence.
Step 3: Develop and Test Prevention Strategies: Report recommendations propose population-level upstream and downstream strategies to help those impacted the most by firearm violence. • Use the information from Step 1 & 2 to focus efforts. • Identify effective prevention strategies and programs; if none are available, use the best evidence available in creating your own.
• Implement and determine whether the strategy, program, or policy is effective. • Share your findings with others.
Step 4: Assure Widespread Adoption of Effective Strategi es: This step ensures effective implementation of prevention strategies at multiple levels; from individual to neighborhood to community to countywide. • Disseminate the strategy, program, or policy broadly. • Support effective implementation with training and technical assistance.
Using a public health approach, this assessment aimed to identify the populations most impacted by gun violence, identify gaps and opportunities to prevent gun violence and care for those impacted by such violence, and identify prevention strategies and programs . The next step will be to implement recommended strategies and evaluate their effectiveness.
• ~ u @O @ u
Define and
fl
Identify Risk
fl
Develop and
fl
Assure
Monitor the and Protect ive Test Prevention Widespread
Problem Factors Strategies Adoption
Social-Ecological Model
While the public health approach provides the foundation for the project, a social -ecological framework aids in the development and alignment of prevention strategies for maximum impact. The social-ecological framework helps guide policy makers to map out strategies at multiple levels and across sectors that mutually reinforce each other. The social-ecological model shows the interplay of factors between four levels of society: individual, interpersonal, community, and societal. This range of factors can put people at risk or protect them from experiencing or perpetrating violence. Action should be taken across all levels to prevent violence. 7
Figure 2. Social-Ecological Model for Addressing Gun Violence
INDIVIDUAL: The first level identifies biological and personal history factors that increase the likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Factors may include age, education, income, sub stance use, and history of abuse. Prevention strategies at this level promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that prevent violence. Examples include conflict resolution and life skills training.
INTERPERSONAL: The second level examines close relationships that may increase the risk of experiencing violence as a victim or perpetrator. A person’s closest social circle — peers, partners, and family members — influence their behavior and shape their experience. Prevention strategies here focus on communication, parenting practices, and other bonds and connections. Examples include parenting and family-focused prevention programs, mentoring, and peer programs.
7 “Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html Societal
Community
Interpersonal
Individual
COMMUNITY: The third level explores local settings and aims to identify characteristics associated with becoming victims or perpetrators of violence. Settings include neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces.
Prevention strategies at this level impact the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of settings. Examples include reducing social isolation; enhancing economic and housing opportunities; and improving the processes, policies, and settings in schools and workplaces.
SOCIETAL: The fourth level looks at broad societal factors that help create a level of acceptance or intolerance for violence. It also includes the health, economic, educational, and social policies that help to maintain economic or social inequalities between groups in society. Prevention strategies at this level impact these factors. Examples include strategies to change so cial norms that support violence as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts, state and federal policies that offer economic and other supports to families, and policies that support early childhood education to help pave the way for children to achieve lifelong opportunity and well-being.
Prevention Approaches
In addition to the soci al-ecological model outlined above, strategies to reduce gun violence also focus on differing levels of prevention.8 Comprehensive efforts involve working upstream and downstream on three levels:
• PRIMARY PREVENTION : Stopping violence before it starts . Strategies that, for example, create healthy relationships and environments that reduce risks and increase buffers. • SECONDARY PREVENTION: Immediate responses to violence. Services like emergency and medical care address short-term consequences.
• TERTIARY PREVENTION : Long-term responses to violence. These approaches address trauma or disability resulting from violence and help victims recover physically and emotionally.
Project Background
On October 19, 2021, the County of San Diego (County) Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer to develop options for community- based gun violence reduction and disruption programs that adopt best practices for fostering safety and equitable outcomes, address harm and trauma by providing healing and accountability, and center and elevate the voices of those directly impacted by violence. In response to the Board’s direction, the County’s Public Safety Group convened a Gun Violence Reduction Working Group, comprised of representatives from community-based organizations and County departments, to develop recommendations for Board consideration. On April 5, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved the Working Group’s recommendation to conduct a contractor -led, regional gun violence community needs assessment.
8 “Violence Prevention Fundamentals.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/sites/vetoviolence.cdc.gov/files/pdf/ViolencePreventionFundamentals.pdf
The purpose of this gun violence community needs assessment is to better understand the impact gun violence is having on local communities and to identify opportunities to enhance gun violence reduction activities.
The County contracted with HARC, Inc. (Health Assessment and Research for Communities) to conduct the gun violence community needs assessment. HARC is a nonprofit research and evaluation organization based in Riverside County. HARC was selected through a competitive process by the County Public Safety Group Executive Office. HARC conducts studies that address the social determinants of health and works to improve the lives of community members through data. HARC has been conducting program evaluations and community needs assessments for over a dozen years and specializes in quantitatively and qualitatively measuring a variety of outputs and outcomes.
An important component of the community needs assessment is ongoing communication and collaboration with a Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group, which was formed in September 2022. HARC selected Advisory Group members who represent diverse backgrounds, experiences, and expertise after an open application period. Advisory Group members provided input and feedback related to the development and implementation of the community needs assessment, including the community engagement strategy, survey development, planning and outreach for community listening sessions, and recommendations for secondary data sources. Several Advisory Group members volunteered to serve on a ”Best Practices” Working Group to help identify and revise the report’s recommendations.
This report first presents results from an analysis of secondary data, which is existing data either shared by organizations or accessed via the internet. Next, primary data is presented from two surveys (a professional and community survey) that were distributed to those who live or work in San Diego County as well as a series of community listening sessions. The report then presents a series of recommendations for reducing gun violence in San Diego County . Recommendations presented are based on the available data, “best practices” identified in the research literature, and discussions with Advisory Group members, County officials, and community partners.
Methods and Limitations
Information on research methods is provided for each phase of the needs assessment (i.e., secondary data, professional survey, community survey, listening sessions , and recommendations). Limitations for various data sources are also noted. These limitations call for some caution when drawing conclusions from data.
Secondary Data
The Advisory Group was invaluable in helping to determine the applicable topics and datasets to include for a better understanding of gun violence in San Diego County . There will always be many unique perspectives, concepts/areas of exploration, and datasets to include on a topic as complex gun violence.
Lastly, the data sources obtained for this report were non -partisan; that is, the data presented are often part of routine, procedural data collections (e.g., crimes committed, deaths in the county, hospitalizations, etc.), whereas others were part of population surveys or non -partisan, independent research and data collection agencies.
This report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence across the San Diego region.
Most of these data will be available by demographics (i.e., age, sex, race , etc.) as well as by city or unincorporated area. Data sources typically will include data for the last several years (i.e., in some cases, 2017 through 2022; in some cases, 2016 through 2020; etc.). The most recent available data was used for each source. Secondary data r esults include analyses of topics including A) San Diego County gun ownership, safety with firearms, perceptions of victimhood and worry ; B) defensive gun use; C) death by firearms; D) firearm-related injuries,
9 including emergency department visits and hospitalizations; E) crimes involving firearms; G) school shootings; H) mass shootings; and I) gun violence in the media.
Data Sources
This report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence across San Diego County. Most of these da ta are available by demographics (i.e., age, sex, race), city, and, when possible, specific unincorporated areas, which helps characterize what communities are most affected. Data sources typically include data for the last several years (i.e., in some cases, 2017 through 2022; in some cases, 2016 through 2020; etc.).
In many cases, SANDAG population data were utilized to calculate rates per 100,000 for defensive gun usage, deaths, injuries, emergency medical services, and crimes . Not all data sources span the same timeframe (e.g., injury data spans 2016 -2020, whereas death data spans 2017 -2021). Many analyses also included breakdowns by city and unincorporated community. It is important to note that city population data are from SANDAG, and that dataset does not parse out unincorporated communities. To include rates on unincorporated communities, population estimates were drawn from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Because the calculation of rates drew from differe nt data sources for population
9 A limitation of these data is that they may not contain U.S. veterans or active duty military members” rather than just “U.S. veterans. This is because if a veteran experienced a firearm -related injury and went to a military hospital, then that data would be reflected at a federal level, rather than a county level. Attempts were made to acquire federal data, but none were received.
estimates for cities (SANDAG) and unincorporated communities (U.S. Census), comparisons between city and unincorporated community rates should be approached with caution. Further, u nincorporated communities with small populat ions might have extremely high rates per 100,000, but these high rates might be due to the small population size rather than a pattern of high event occurrence. To exclude these likely unreliable results, only unincorporated communities with populations similar in size to incorporated cities were included. That is, unincorporated communities with populations under 4,000 (the approximate size of Del Mar, the smallest of the incorporated cities) were excluded. 10 See the figure below for a listing of each gun violence topic and the corresponding data source that was utilized for data analysis.
Figure 3. Data Sources for Gun Violence Topics
10 These excluded unincorporated communities (with average 2017-2021 populations under 4,000) were Borrego Springs, Boulevard, Campo, Descanso, Julian, Pala, Pine Valley, Potrero, and Rancho Santa Fe. • County of San Diego - Health and Human Services (HHSA) • County of San Diego - Emergency Medical Services
• County of San Diego - Medical Examiner Data
Death, Hopsitalization,
Emergency Department Visits,
Emergency Medical Services
• ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System)Crimes • California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)Population Health • Gun Violence ArchiveDefensive Gun Usage, Media
Analyses
• SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments)Local Contextual Data • Center for Homeland Defense and Security
• The Violence ProjectSchool and Mass Shootings
State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal -ViDa) Cal-ViDa is a query tool under the Center for Health Statistics and Informatics for the California Department of Public Health. These data can be used to pull causes of death by various demographic and geogra phic characteristics. The “place of death” was used for this report. To learn more about Cal -ViDa, visit this link:
https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/
ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System)
ARJIS is a joint powers authority tasked with sharing information among relevant agencies in San Diego and Imperial counties. These data provide firearm-related criminal cases and arrests (including on suspects and victims) as rep orted by city police departments as well as other law enforcement agencies ( San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor Police, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department).
ARJIS provided their criminal justice data pertaining to criminal cases and arrests regarding firearms for the region. These data are provided by San Diego County member agencies (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, and San Diego Police Departments as well as the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor Police, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, which cover the unincorporated areas of the county in addition to contract services within the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista). The data are available from 2017 through 2022 and include topics such as the highest charge of the incident/ arrest, crime case category, location, and demographics of the suspects and demographics of the victims.
A limitation is that the data present reported incidents and arrests, rather than convictions. Thus, demographic data is available on alleged suspects, not convicted criminals.
To learn more about ARJIS, visit this link: https://www.arjis.org/SitePages/Home.aspx
California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
CHIS is a large, comprehensive health-related survey, completed via phone call or internet, and is intended to be generally representative of the State of California or individual Counties. Publicly available data on county-wide gun violence for 2021 was p ulled for this report. This is the first year for which CHIS has collected gun data. These County -wide data help to describe gun ownership, gun safety, and perceptions of gun violence. These data can be explored more at the following website:
https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx
Center for Homeland Defense and Security
The K-12 school shooting dataset is from a California research center (Center for Homeland Defense and Security) and contains information about the number of incidents, situational context, incident outcome, location of shooting at the school, and relation of the shooter to the school. School shootings from 1970 through 2022 are available. These data can be explored at the following website: http://www.chds.us/ssdb/
County of San Diego - Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) HHSA has data on death and healthcare usage (emergency department visits, hospitalizations, etc.) as a result of firearms. Hospitalization data includes detailed patient-level information on all people hospitalized at a licensed hospital within San Diego C ounty. Some HHSA data are publicly available (e.g., total injury counts by city) for firearm -related injuries. HARC requested additional information about the intent (assault, accident, self-harm) and firearm information (handgun, rifle, etc.). These data were requested for 2016 through 2020. These data can be explored more at the following website:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa.html
A limitation of these data is that they may not contain U.S. veterans. This is because if a veteran experienced a firearm-related injury, and went to a military hospital, then that data would be reflected at a federal level, rather than a county level. These data did not contain data from military or other federal facilities. An additional limitation with these data is that cases (say for a certain age group or a certain geography) can be suppressed when there are fewer than 11 cases (in 2020) and fewer than five cases in other years (2019 and later). This suppression means that we cannot always determine the precise number of cases for certain groups (e.g., age 65 and older).
County of San Diego - Emergency Medical Services
The County of San Diego provided e mergency medical services data pertaining to firearm- related injuries and deaths as recorded by paramedics. Emergency Medical Services data include patient-level information on all people in San Diego County who called 9 -1-1 for a medical emergency. These data will include information for when medics and ambulances were dispatched to a location in which a firearm was involved in an injury/death. The demographics and geography of cases, in addition to the incident’s degree of seriousness (mild/moderate/acute), body-injury location, multi-victim occurrences, and hospital they were transported to were all requested.
A limitation with these data is that there may be duplication in some circumstances. That is, at times, both an ambulance and a separate firetruc k unit from a separate area will respond to the same call, and thus, both record the incident separately.
County of San Diego - Medical Examiner Data
The San Diego County Medical Examiner investigates all deaths in the county for which a cause of death is not immediately known. The County of San Diego provided vital records data to HARC that contained demographics and geographic information for deaths occurring by firearms. The manner of death was also provided (suicide, homicide, accident, undetermined), as well as firearm caliber. Data are from 2017 through 2022.
For Medical Examiner data, only cases were included that had a geography in San Diego County. This would exclude, for example, a death caused by a shooting outside the county. Cases were also excluded that had an unknown geography. Cases might have an unknown geography for various reasons. For example, an individual may have been transported to the hospital by bystanders, and the information as to where the
injury occurred would not have been provided. Or, in the case of a remote gunshot wound, where years later someone succumbed to their injuries, information may also not be available. There may also be cases where the individual was found deceased at a non-hospital location (e.g., a parking lot, sidewalk), but it was not clear that the incident occurred at that same location. Cases with an unknown geography could have occurred in the county, and thus the actual death count could be higher that reported here. However, this likely does not impact overall reported trends, because the number of cases with an unknown geography is relatively small (30 cases over 6 years, out of a total of 1,340 cases).
Gun Violence Archive
The Gun Violence Archive is an independent research and data collection organization. This organization collects data regarding gun violence as it pertains to unintentional shootings, defensive use, injuries, and deaths. This public online archive l ists firearm-involved injuries and deaths by date and city. These data were pulled to examine defensive use, as well as characterize media portrayals of gun violence. Data may be found at: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
A limitation here is that this organization pulls data from law enforcement, media, government , and commercial sources daily, which means there are underreported defensive gun use scenarios, and police encounters in which a firearm was legally used are not counted as a defensive gun usage event.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments)
SANDAG is a large, one -county Metr opolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that plans and programs transportation projects. SANDAG also provides a number of services, one of which includes maintaining information from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data have been requested from the County Healt h and Human Services Agency, as the agency frequently works with these data. These are population data and will help to calculate population rates when possible. Population data for age, race, gender, and city are available from this source. A limitation here is that unincorporated communities are aggregated together in this dataset and cannot be parsed individually.
The Violence Project
The Violence Project Database is a collection of more than 100 pieces of information on 172 mass shooting events from 1966 through 2022. The data may be found at: https://www.theviolenceproject.org
A limitation encountered with these data is that a shooting event that occurred in San Diego County was missing.
Professional and Community Surveys
HARC and the Advisory Grou p collaboratively designed two surveys . One survey was designed for professionals who work in San Diego County with populations impacted by gun violence and another meant broadly for all residents living in San Diego County. The Advisory Group helped to identify topics and questions for the two surveys. The surveys were designed to generally measure perceptions of gun violence such as concerns, safety, causes and solutions, as well as experiences with gun violence and anticipated needs/programs/services to address gun violence. Both surveys were disseminated online, although a few residents participated by completing paper copies of the community survey.
The professional survey was made available in English, and the community survey was made available in English and eight threshold languages : Spanish, Filipino, simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Persian (Farsi or Dari), Arabic, and Somali. The community survey was incentivized with a chance to win one of five $50 Visa gift cards. The c ommunity survey was also prefaced with a list of services/organizations to help community members should they need them.
The surveys launched on January 17, 2023 and concluded on February 27, 2023. The surveys were shared through numerous offices and contacts through the County, a listserv of all listening session attendees and anyone who signed up for project updates, contacts and members served by organizations represented by Advisory Group members, and local media stories.
After the surveys closed, the results were downloaded and cleaned. Quantitative data was analyzed using the program SPSS, and qualitative data was analyzed using the program MAXQDA.
A limitation of the community survey is that the survey used a convenience sampling method (rather than random sampling), producing results that are likely not representative of the general population.
Community survey results had participants who were more likely to be White , non -Hispanic, and well- educated, and less likely to live below the poverty line than the county’s general population (as determined by U.S. Census data). Community survey results also had participants who were more likely to have a gun in the home than the county’s general population (as determined by CHIS data). Similar to the listening session data, the community survey data could be interpreted as providing a snapshot of the opinions and experiences of those most closely engaged with and impacted by the issue of gun violence.
Listening Sessions
The listening sessions were organized to solicit wide input from county residents. There were a series of public listening sessions and two youth listening sessions. Each public listening session was two hours in length. A list of nine questions w ere used to guide discussions (see Appendix D). These questions were broad to allow ample flexibility for people to share their perspective. Each listening session began with an overview of the project. Following this was a review the National Conflict Resolution Center’s Code of Civil Discourse (see Appendix E ) to encourage all attendees to share their views respectfully and to foster an atmosphere where all would feel comfortable sharing. At sessions that had numerous attendees, the public was asked to limit their comments to three minutes (and attendees could make multiple comments). A total of seven public listening sessions were hosted by the County and two additional youth -specific
sessions were held in conjunction with planned events hosted by youth-serving organizations. These seven public listening sessions took place between November 16, 2022, and December 15, 2022 . Two sessions were virtual (conducted on Zoom), and five sessions were in-person. The five in-person sessions were held at the following venues: the Jackie Robinson Family YMCA in San Diego, Remnant Church in San Diego, the Civic Center Branch Library in Chula Vista, One Safe Place in San Marcos, and the Ronald Reagan Community Center in El Cajon.
Advisory Group members helped to select the venues, and each session had one Advisory Group member serve as a host, helping to encourage attendance and welcome attendees. The ses sions were promoted through the County’s networks as well as those of the Advisory Group. Members of the public were invited to request language interpretation (if needed) in eight threshold languages. 11 Spanish language
interpretation was available at all sessions whether or not it was requested.
In addition to the seven public listening sessions hosted by the County, project researchers received invitations to host discussions at two pre -planned student events that took place in late December 2022 and early January 2023. These were then organized as youth listening sessions. The first youth session was held with members of the Aaron Price Fellows Program in San Diego. The second youth session was organized by the Live Well San Diego Youth Sector (a County program) at the San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts. These youth sessions were 30 to 45 minutes long, and a shortened list of questions was used (see Appendix M).
All listening sessions were organized similarly with an introduction by the host, standard remarks on the project’s background, and a series of prepared questions. Nonetheless, each session was different due to the varied venues, number of attendees, and c ommunities represented at the events. Some sessions had small numbers of attendees with individuals finding many commonalities that may have promoted sharing and building off each other’s comments. Two sessions had large numbers of attendees with a clear majority representing advocacy for gun rights.
Facilitators announced at each session that attendees could provide comments privately by scheduling a one-on-one phone or video call. One private Zoom call was conducted, and some submitted comments by email. All listening sessions were audio recorded, and recordings were transcribed. Project researchers explained to attendees that the sessions would be recorded during the introductions of each session. All comments reported have been anonymized (i.e., with no names or other identifying information). In addition to the recording of public comments, attendees of the listening sessions (excluding the two youth listening sessions) were invited to complete a brief, eight- question survey (see Appendix G ). This sur vey captured basic information such as demographics (age, race, gender) and residence (zip code). The “mini survey” also allowed attendees to write-in their suggestions and opinions.
The transcripts of the listening session recordings were analyzed in the software program MAXQDA.
Comments were tagged with “codes” for each point that was raised (e.g., “Youth mentorship” or “Safe storage”). Rather than coding for simple frequencies of mentioned keywords, codes were assigned to the
11 Spanish, Somali, Persian (Farsi or Dari), Arabic, Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
meanings of the text, requiring passages to always be placed in the context of an attendee’s comment and the session’s wider dialogue. These codes were then grouped together into dominant “themes.” These themes were reviewed and revised. The most frequently raised themes were then selected as representative of the listening sessions.
The mini survey results were cleaned and analyzed quantitatively to produce frequencies. The results for the open-ended questions on the mini survey were analyzed to identify and group common themes. The mini survey results are presented in Appendix N.
A limitation of the listening session data is that it did not solicit participation from a random sample of residents, and thus is not necessarily representative of the county ’s general population. Rather, the listening sessions drew individuals who are closely engaged with or have been impacted by issues pertaining to firearms, such as those involved in gun rights advocacy or violence prevention. Another limitation is that the listening sessions might not have been accessible to some residents, given the po ssible economic burdens of taking time off work (if one worked in the evenings), securing childcare, or driving to a listening session.
Recommendations
A review of the literature on gun violence reduction was conducted to identity “best practices” to gui de recommendations. Further, the results of the listening sessions and surveys were reviewed to identify possible recommendation s. In addition, conversations were held with community partners and County agencies to better understand needs and opportunities for improvement.12 These discussions were most critical to the formation of recommendations. Possible recommendations were then discussed with Advisory Group members who volunteered to serve on a “Best Practices” Working Group.
For the literature review, a preliminary list of reports and peer-reviewed articles was compiled by searching keywords on Google Scholar (e.g., “gun violence reduction”), reviewing the online resources of prominent firearm research centers (see the table below), a nd consulting with members of the Advisory Group (who recommended specific studies). For a list of the reviewed studies, see Appendix R. Attention was placed on intervention programs and approaches with evidence of being effective.
12 These included the County’s Office of Violence Prevention (primarily tasked with add ressing domestic violence), the Suicide Prevention Council, the Sheriff’s Department Vista Station, the Sheriff Department’s RESPECT Project, the County’s Child Welfare Services, representatives from One Safe Place (with the District Attorney’s Office), an d Vista Community Clinic.
Table 1. Research Centers and Resources
Organization name Website
Harvard Injury Control Research Center https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/ University of Michigan Institute for Firearm
Injury Prevention
https://firearminjury.umich.edu/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence
Prevention and Policy
https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-
and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-
violence-prevention-and-policy/
The Trace: Investigating Gun Violence in
America
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/01/gun-
violence-intervention-research/
RAND Corporation: Gun Policy in America https://www.rand.org/research/gun- policy.html
University of San Diego: Violence, Inequality
and Power Lab (VIP Lab)
https://www.sandiego.edu/peace/institute-
for-peace-justice/violence-inequality-power-
lab/
UC Davis Violence Prevention Research
Program
https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/index.
html
Northwell Health Center for Gun Violence
Prevention
https://www.northwell.edu/center-for-gun-
violence-prevention
Rutgers New Jersey Gun Violence Research
Center
https://gunviolenceresearchcenter.rutgers.ed
u/
Massachusetts General Hospital Center for
Gun Violence Prevention
https://www.massgeneral.org/gun-violence-
prevention
National Gun Violence Research Center https://www.gunresearch.org/ Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Center for
Violence Prevention
https://nnscommunities.org/
Violence Policy Center https://vpc.org/
CDC Firearm Violence Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/fire arms/index.html
National Network for Safe Communities at
John Jay College
https://nnscommunities.org/
California Partnership for Safe Communities https://thecapartnership.org/ Crime and Justice Policy Lab at the University
of Pennsylvania
https://crimejusticelab.org/
Conclusion
Data were collected from a variety of sources, including eight secondary data sources, professional and community surveys, and the listening sessions. While effort was made to collect data on a variety of gun violence topics, there remain at least two topics that are left unexplored in this report. First, data was not gathered on the effects of gun violence on tribal nations or by tribal members. Tribal membership was not included in the data sets, and crime statistics were not available for tribal law enforcement agencies. This might be a topic of future research, given that San Diego County is home to 18 federally-recognized tribal nations. Second, data was not gathered on officer -involved shootings. Although the listening session data captured this as a concern (see the Listening Session section) , information on this topic was not available in the secondary data sets, and the community survey did not list officer -involved shootings as a separate category of gun violence. This might be a topic of future research, given the concern surrounding this issue in underserved communities impacted by gun violence. The methods used in this study, as well opportunities to improve the methods, may be adopted and continued by the County for regular data monitoring and for making such data available to the public.
Results: Secondary Data
As previously mentioned, t his report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence across the San Diego region. When possible, each topic is described generally; that is, the count of occurrence and then any pertinent details (e.g., firearm caliber, intent, etc.) for San Diego County .
Furthermore, when possible, this information is then presented as a rate per 100,000 at certain levels of analysis to keep the findings within context. These analyses were performed for defensive gun use, firearm- related deaths , firearm -related injuries , including emergency department visits and hospitalization discharges, emergency medical services events, and crimes involving firearms. The aforementioned topics are presented yearly as a rate per 100,000 across the entire county, as an average rate per 100,000 over a period of time, by geography as a rate per 100,000 , and as a rate per 100,000 by available demographics (i.e., race, gender, and age). Lastly, these rates may sometimes have a low rounding error out to the tenth place.
The table below includes highlights of the results of this report. The average count over a five-year period, the percentage, and then the rate per 100,000 (based on the average count and average population size) is provided. Race is presented in the table on the following page because this demographic is slightly different from each data source.
Table 1. Firearm-Related Average Annual Counts, Percentages, and Rates Category
Deaths
(2017-2021)
Hospitalizations
(2016-2020)
Emergency
Department (ED)
Visits
(2016-2020)
Crimes
(2017-2021)
n % Rate n % Rate n % Rate n % Rate
San Diego
County 221 - 6.6 140 - 4.2 134 - 4.0 3,767 - 113.4
Gender
Female 29 13.1% 1.8 14 10.0% 0.8 19 14.2% 1.1 350 10.3% 21.2 Male 192 86.9% 11.4 126 90.0% 7.5 115 85.8% 6.9 3,054 89.7% 182.4 Age
0-14 2 0.8% 0.3 - - - - - - - - -
15-24 29 13.3% 6.0 50 - 10.0 42 - 8.6 - - -
25-44 71 32.0% 8.2 60 - 6.9 60 - 6.9 - - -
46-64 59 26.8% 7.3 20 - 2.5 22 - 2.7 - - -
65+ 60 27.0% 12.0 - - - - - - - - -
Note: n refers to the average count of cases (e.g., the average number of deaths from 2017 through 2021). Rate is a rate per 100,000 and is based on the average n as well as the average population size. 0-14 and 65+ for hospitalizations and ED visits are not reported due to suppressions/empty cases in the data source. Thus, percentages are not reported either. Crime demographics are the demographics of suspects. Age is not reported for crimes due to uncertainty in age data.
Table 2. Death, Hospitalization, ED Visits, and Crimes – Firearm-Related – Race/Ethnicity Only Category and Year n % Rate
Race/Ethnicity - Deaths (2017-2021)
Asian 6 3.3% 1.6
Black 11 6.0% 7.0
Hispanic 26 14.1% 2.3
Multiracial 6 3.3% 5.2
Native American 2 1.1% 10.7
Other 1 0.5% 9.1
White 132 71.7% 8.6
Race/Ethnicity - Hospitalizations (2016-
2020)
Black 32 24.4% 20.1
Hispanic 63 48.1% 5.6
White 29 22.1% 1.9
Race/ Ethnicity - ED Visits (2016-2020)
Black 26 20.6% 16.4
Hispanic 51 40.5% 4.6
White 37 29.4% 2.4
Race/ Ethnicity - Crimes (2017-2021)
Asian 90 2.7% 25.5
Black 986 30.0% 624.9
Hispanic 1,380 42.0% 122.1
Native American 23 0.7% 155.9
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
24 0.7% 165.4
Other 46 1.4% 420.8
White 736 22.4% 48.1
Note: n refers to the average count of cases (e.g., the average number of deaths from 2017 through 2021). Rate refers to the rate per 100,000 people and is based on the average n as well as the average population size. For hospitalizations and ED visits, data for all years were not available for the categories Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Other/American Indian/Alaskan Native/multiracial. Crime demographics are the demographics of suspects.
Gun Ownership, Safety, and Perceptions
This section of data originates from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research under the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS). 13 The survey is a random sample of individuals across the State of California and provides a representative, detailed picture of a variety of topics. In 2021, the CHIS included top ics related to gun ownership, safety, and perception of gun violence. This information is presented to illustrate firearm ownership in the San Diego region, as well as feelings of safety regarding firearms and perceptions of firearm victimhood and worry.
Ownership of Firearms
In the CHIS survey, adults were asked, “How many firearms are kept in or around your home?” As illustrated in the figure below, about 15.8% (about 383,000 adults) of adults in San Diego County reported keeping firearms in the home. This rate is similar to the State of California (17.6%). Conversely, most adults (84.2%, about 2.042 million) in San Diego County do not keep firearms in their homes.
Figure 4. Firearms Kept in the Home
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Safety with Firearms
According to the CHIS survey, a mong adults with at least one firearm in the home in San Diego County , about 7.7% (about 29,000 adults) kept their gun loaded and unlocked, whereas most (92.3%, about 354,000 adults) reported that they do not keep their gun loaded and unlocked. 14 These firearm safety rates are
approximately similar for San Diego County and the State of California, as illustrated on the following page.
13 UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. California Health Interview Survey. https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx
14 To review the phrasing of the question asked in the CHIS survey, see https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/design/Documents/2021%20Questionnaires%20and%20Topics%20List/August%202021%20 Updated/8.24%20Documents/CHIS%202021%20CAWI%20v1.32%2024AUG2021%20Adult%20Questionnaire.pdf
17.6%
15.8%
82.4%
84.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
California
San Diego County
Firearms kept in house Firearms are not kept in house■ ■
Figure 5. Firearm in Home Kept Loaded and Unlocked - Adults with at Least One Firearm in Home
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Perceptions of Victimhood and Worry
In the CHIS survey, adults were asked, “How worried are you about being the victim of gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, over a third (38. 7%, or about 938,000 adults) are either very worried or somewhat worried about being the victim of gun violence. Conversely, the majority of adults (61.3% or about 1.486 million adults) are either not too worried or not at all worried. These rates are approximately similar to the State of California.
Figure 6. Worried About Being the Victim of Gun Violence
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
7.7%
7.7%
92.3%
92.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
California
San Diego County
Yes No
12.9%
10.8%
30.2%
27.9%
36.0%
38.1%
20.8%
23.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
California
San Diego County
Very worried Somewhat worried Not too worried Not at all worried ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
Additionally, in the CHIS survey, adolescents (ages 12 to 17) were asked if they ever worry about being shot.
As illustrated in the figure below, over a quarter (26.6% or 72,000 adolescents) of San Diego County adolescents stated, “Yes,” they have been worried about being shot. This rate is slightly lower than the rate for the State of California (38.4%). The majority (73.4% or about 198,000 adolescents) of San Diego County adolescents have not been worried about being shot.
Figure 7. Worry About Being Shot – Ages 12-17 Only
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Defensive Gun Use
This section of data includes verified incidents of defensive gun use, as collected by the Gun Violence Archive. This organization
15 is an independent research and data collection organization that collects data regarding gun violence as it pertains to unintentional shootings, defensive use, injuries, and deaths.
Defensive gun use includes incidents in which homeowners stop a home invasion, store clerks stop a robbery, or someone stops an assault or rape.
These data should be interpreted with caution, as this organization pulls data from law enforcement, media, government, and commercial sources , which means there are likely underreported defensive gun use scenarios. In addition, police encounters in which a firearm was legally used are not counted as a defensive gun usage event.
According to the Gun Violence Archive , there were 33 defensive gun usage incidents from 201 4 through October 2022 in San Diego County. The year with the highest number of defensive gun usage incidents was 2014 (8 incidents). Across these 33 events of defensive gun usage, 16 people were killed, and 17 were injured.
The Gun Violence Archive does not include further details about the defensive gun usage events. Thus, HARC read through the available 33 defensive gun use cases and qualitatively analyzed these data. This
15 Gun Violence Archive. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
38.4%
26.6%
61.6%
73.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
California
San Diego County
Yes No■ ■
process involved grouping the data into themes. As illustrated in the figure below, the most common characteristics of defensive gun use include defense in a home invasion, defense in a robbery, and then general self -defense. Also, note that these data are limited in providing a comprehensive picture of defensive gun use. For example, only a few cases were cited as “officer killed suspect,” however, officers typically use their firearm in defense, and those data are not represented here.
Figure 8. Characteristics of Defensive Gun Use Cases
Note: Data are from the Gun Violence Archive. n = 33 cases.
Defense over kidnapping
2.9%
N/A - Original News
Source Unavailable
5.9%
Unclear
8.8%
Defense over car theft
8.8%
Officer killed suspect
11.8%
Other self-defense
17.6%
Defense in robbery
20.6%
Defense in home invasion
23.5% J
J
J
[ __
J
Defensive Gun Use by Year
The figure below includes an annual breakdown of defensive gun use events and then the calculated defensive gun use event rate per 100,000 across San Diego County from 2017 to 2021. As illustrated below, the defensive gun use event rate per 100,000 is low, with rates not reaching a whole number in any of the years. Most recently, looking at 2021, the defensive gun use event rate was 0.12 people per 100,000 in San Diego County. These data were averaged across the five -year period to get a sense of defensive gun use rates. For instance, the number of defensive gun use events over these five years and population size were also averaged. The result yields an average defensive gun use event rate of 0.13 people per 100,000 over these five years.
Figure 9. Defensive Gun Use Events and Rate per 100,000 by Year for San Diego County
Note: Defensive gun use data are from the Gun Violence Archive. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Defensive Gun Use cannot be broken down by city as the Gun Violence Archive does not specify if the event is “City” or “County,” meaning “San Diego” could be a city or county designation.
3 6
5 3
4 4
0.09 0.18
0.15 0.09
0.12 0.13
0 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.1
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
0.2 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Defensive Gun Use Rate per 100,000
Number of Defensive Gun Use Events
Number of Defensive Gun Use Events Defensive Gun Use Rate per 100,000 -
Death by Firearms
This section of data is from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. The data source includes information about people who died as a result of a firearm. These data help to describe how many people die from firearms, as well as the event geography, details such as firearm caliber, the manner of death (assault, suicide, accident), and then various demographics.
Data from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office are analyzed in a specific way. These data are filtered to only include cases in which it is known that the event occurred within San Diego County .
Specifically, these are firearm- related events resulting in death (e.g., a person was shot in the City of San Diego and later died as a result of the shooting). Thus, geographies that are outside of San Diego County (e.g., a person was shot in Sacramento, or a person was shot in Los Angeles, etc., but died in San Diego County) are removed from subsequent pages. Furthermore, cases with an unknown geography (as the event could have occurred anywhere) were also removed.
This filtering of the data will result in some different estimates for death by firearms when comparing to different sources. For instance, the County of San Diego Department of the Medical Examiner 2021 Annual Report
16 shows that 88 people died from firearm -related homicides in 2021, whereas the present report shows 83 people died; this difference is due to the removal of unknown geographies and removal of events that occurred outside of San Diego County.
16 Annual Report Executive Summary (2021). County of San Diego Department of the Medical Examiner.
Deaths by Firearms by Year per 100,000 People
From 2017 through 2022, there have been 1,310 deaths by firearms. 17 The year with the highest number of deaths by firearms was 2018 (228 deaths), but not much higher than other years.18 As illustrated below, the firearm-related death rate per 100,000 was 6.6 people per 100,000 in 2017 compared to 6.7 people per 100,000 in 2021, thus indicating that firearm-related death rates have not changed substantially over the years. T he number of deaths over five years and population size were averaged. The result yields an average firearm death rate of 6.6 people per 100, 000. For comparison, the State of California 19 average (from 2017-2021) firearm-related death rate per 100,000 was 8.0, which is just slightly above San Diego County’s average.
Figure 10. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Among firearm- related deaths from 2017 through 2022, 253 (or 19.3%) firearm -related deaths were indicated as being veterans. Among these veterans, 93.3% (or 236 veterans) died by suicide with a firearm, whereas 6.3% (or 16 veterans) died by homicide, and for 0.4% (or one veteran) the intent was undetermined.
17 Cases with unknown geography or for which the firearm death occurred outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this count.
18 Figure 8 provides the nu mbers of deaths by firearm and firearm -related death rate s per 100,000. To calculate the rate per 100,000, population data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was used. However, the most recently available SANDAG population data is for 2021, as of this writing. Thus, the rate per 100,000 could not be calculated for firearm deaths in 2022. The number of firearm deaths in 2022 was 207. 19 State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal- ViDa), Death Query, https://cal -vida.cdph.ca.gov/.
Population data used to calculate rates are from the United States Census Bureau. 218
228
218 216 223 221
6.6 6.9
6.5 6.5 6.7 6.6
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 0
50 100
150
200
250
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000
Firearm-Related Deaths
Number of Deaths by Firearms Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000 -
Deaths by Firearms: Homicides and Suicides by Year per 100,000 People The figure below includes firearm -related deaths and death rates per 100,000 people, with suicides compared to homicides. As illustrated below, the suicide death count and rate are substantially greater than the homicide death count and rate. Specifically, the average (from 2017-2021) firearm-related suicide rate per 100,000 was 4.7, whereas the homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000. Thus, the firearm-related death rate is primarily due to suicide. See the figure below for additional details by year.20
Figure 11. Firearm-Related Deaths by Year – Homicides Compared to Suicides
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Regarding firearm-related death data
21 for the State of California, the average (from 2017 -2021) firearm- related suicide rate per 100,000 was 4.0, whereas the homicide rate was 3.8 per 100,000. The State of California firearm-related suicide rate is approximately similar to San Diego County’s rate of 4.7, whereas the State of California’s firearm-related homicide rate is slightly higher than San Diego County’s rate of 1.9.
Manner of Death by Firearms
Among the 1,310 firearm -related deaths between 2017 to 2022, the majority were suicides (70 .9%), whereas 28.9% were homicides.22 Only 0.1% of firearm-related deaths were accidental, and another 0.2%
20 As noted above, the death rates for 2022 could not be calculated. For 2022, the number of firearm-related homicides was 66, and the number of firearm-related suicides was 141.
21 State of California, Department of Publi c Health, California Vital Data (Cal- ViDa), Death Query, https://cal -vida.cdph.ca.gov/.
Population data used to calculate rates are from the United States Census Bureau. 22 Cases with unknown geography or for which the firearm death occurred outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this count.
166 172 166
147
136
157
52 56 52
69 83
62 5.0 5.2 5.0
4.4 4.1
4.7 1.6
1.7 1.6
2.1 2.5
1.9 -0.5
0.5 1.5
2.5 3.5
4.5 5.5
0 50
100
150
200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000
Firearm-Related Deaths
Number of Suicides by Firearms Number of Homicides by Firearms Firearm-Related Suicide Rate per 100,000 Firearm-Related Homicide Rate per 100,000-....... -
were undetermined. Regarding firearm-related death data (2017 through 2022) 23 for the State of California, about 50.5% of firearm -related deaths are suicide whereas 48.3% are homicide. Clearly, the percentage of firearm -related suicides is substantially higher for San Diego County (70.9%) compared to the State of California (50.5%).
Figure 12. Manner of Death by Firearms in San Diego County – 2017 Through 2022
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office.
It is important to note here that, for 2017-2021, the most common suicide method was firearm (37 .0%), followed by asphyxia due to hanging or suffocation (32.3%), and drugs (11.8%).24
According to a report done by the County of San Diego Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team, 25 the most
common method of domestic violen ce homicide in San Diego County (from 1997-2018) was a shooting (comprising 45% of domestic violence homicides). This finding echoes a similar concern in the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s data. Among the 1,310 firearm -related deaths from 2017 through 2022, about 5.1% (or 54 people) were identified as having a possible domestic violence cause of death (i.e., result of violence from an intimate relationship/partner/spouse/ex -spouse, etc. ). A total of 70.4% of these domestic violence firearm-related deaths were homicides.
23 State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal-ViDa), Death Query, https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/. 24 Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021; percentages include only those suicides where both the death and the incident/event causing death occurred within the county 25 Domestic Violence Homicide In San Diego County: A 22 Year Overview. (2019). County of San Diego Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team.
https://www.sdcda.org/Content/helping/December%202019%20DVFRT%20Bulletin%20(Final%20f or%20Release).pdf
0.1%
0.2%
28.9%
70.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Accident
Undetermined
Homicide
Suicide
Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related deaths and the average rates per 100,000 over five years (201 7 through 2021) by city . Averages by unincorporated community are detailed on the next page.
As illustrated below, the cities with the highest average firearm-related death rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (19.6), El Cajon (12.9), La Mesa (10.0), and Vista (9.8).
Note that the City of San Diego has the highest number of firearm-related deaths, but when this number is converted to a rate per 100,000 people, the city’s firearm -related death rate is not the highest. Note also that Del Mar appears to have a high rate; however, this is due to the population size of the community.
There are just a few thousand residents living there, and even one death will substantially increase the rate.
Figure 13. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
7 9.8
0.6 0.4
13.4 3.8
9.4 2.2
6 5.2
3.2 12.4
3.4 86
4.8 4
0.2 10
6.1 3.6
2.6 9.3
12.9 6.1
6.2 7.9
10.0 19.6
5.1 7.0
6.9 6.1
5.0 7.0
1.4 9.8
0 5
10 15
20 25
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-related Deaths
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm Death Rate per 100,000 J J J ■
■ ■
The figure below includes the average number of fire arm-related deaths and average rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm -related death rates per 100,000 are Ramona (25.3), Valley Center (24.7), Lakeside (19.3), and Alpine (18.5).
Figure 14. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
2.8 1.0
0.2 3.6
0.6 4.2
5.4 4.0
2.6 18.5
7.7 4.6
11.2 10.5
19.3 25.3
12.6 24.7
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley
Valley
Center
Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-related Deaths
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths (Suicide and Homicide Compared) per 100,000 People The following section explores the manner of death (i.e., suicide and homicide) by geography. As illustrated here, the suicide rate (Figure 1 5 and 1 6) is substantially higher across all cities and unincorporated communities compared to the homicide rate (Figure 1 7 and 18). The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related suicides and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average suicide rates per 100,000 people are Lemon Grove (13.6) and El Cajon (10.0).
Figure 15. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
6.0 6.0
0.6 0.2
10.4 3.4
7.8 1.6
4.6 3.6
1.0 9.8
3.0 54.2
4.2 4.0
0.2 6.8
5.2 2.2
2.6 4.7
10.0 5.5
5.2 5.8
7.7 13.6
1.6 5.5
6.1 3.8
4.4 7.0
1.4 6.6
0 5
10 15
20 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Suicides
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate J J J JJ.J
■ ■
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related suicides and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the highest average suicide rates per 100,000 are Ramona (22.5) and Valley Center (20.9).
Figure 16. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
2.2 0.6
0.2 3.2
0.6 3.8
4.8 2.6
2.2 14.6
4.6 4.6
9.9 10.5
17.5 22.5
8.2 20.9
0 5
10 15
20 25
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley
Valley
Center
Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Suicides
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate• •
The figure below includes the average number of firearm -related homicides and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average homicide rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (6.0), National City (3.5), and Vista (3.1). Del Mar appears to have a high average homicide rate; however, as previously described, Del Mar has a small population, and just one death will substantially increase the rate.
Figure 17. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
1.0 3.4
0.0 0.2
3.0 0.0
1.6 0.6
1.4 1.6
2.2 2.6
0.0 31.4
0.6 0.0
0.0 3.2
0.9 1.3
0.0 4.7
2.9 0.0
1.1 2.2
2.3 6.0
3.5 1.5
0.0 2.2
0.6 0.0
0.0 3.1
0 5
10 15
20 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Homicides
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate -- ... I .1 J
■ ■
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related homicides and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the highest average homicide rate per 100,000 are Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8).
Note that, for both cities and unincorporated communities, homicide rates do not vary dramatically across the San Diego County region.
Figure 18. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
0.6 0.4
0.0 0.4
0.0 0.4
0.6 1.4
0.4 4.0
3.1 0.0
1.2 0.0
1.8 2.8
4.4 3.8
0 5
10 15
20 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley
Valley
Center
Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Homicides
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate _J_1 -- --- _. _J _J
■ ■
Demographics of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related death rates over five years (2017 through 2021) by race/ethnicity. Firearm- related death rates are highest among Native American (13.3 per 100,000), Black (13.1 per 100,000), those who identif y with another race (12.8 per 100,000), and White (9.2 per 100,000) residents. Over the five years, among the average annual firearm deaths, 63.8% were White residents, 18.2% were Hispanic residents, and 9.3% were Black residents. While the death rate is highest among Native Americans, this should be interpreted cautiously because the high rate might be due to the low population size.
Figure 19. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
7 20.6
40.2 8.6 2 1.4
140.8
2.0 13.1
3.6 7.7
13.3 12.8
9.2 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 0
50 100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White
Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Deaths
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
The average firearm-related death rate for males is 11.4 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 1.8 per 100,000 for females. Over the five years, among the average annual firearm deaths, 86.9% were male, and 13.1% were female.
Figure 20. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
29.0 191.6
1.8 11.4
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
0 50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Death Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Deaths
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
The death rate per 100,000 people tends to increase with age. Specifically, the average firearm -related death rate for those 65 and older is 12.0 per 100,000, compared to those ages 45 -64, which is 7.3 per 100,000, and those ages 25-44, which is 8.2 per 100,000. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 21. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
1.8 29.4
70.6 59.2 59.6
0.3 6.0
8.2 7.3
12.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 0
50 100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Deaths
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Demographics of Firearm-Related Homicides and Suicides per 100,000 People Firearm-related death rates are compared by homicide (Figure 22) and suicide (Figure 23). As illustrated in the figures below, firearm -related homicide rates per 100,000 are highest among Black residents (9.9), Native American residents (8.0), and those who identify with another race (7.3). Suicide rates per 100,000 tend to be higher among White (8.2), those who identify with another race (7.2), and Native American residents (6.7). Altogether, note that the higher rates among those who are Native American and those who identify with another race may be due to smaller population sizes for these groups.
Figure 22. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
Figure 23. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
3.0 15.6 28.0
4.4 1.2 0.8
15.80.9 9.9
2.5 4.0
8.0 7.3
1.0 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
0 50
100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White
Average Firearm-Related Homicide
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-
Related Homicides
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
4.2 6.0 16.2 4.4 1.0 0.8
125.8
1.2 3.8
1.4 4.0
6.7 7.3
8.2 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
0 50
100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White
Average Firearm-Related Suicides Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Suicides
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate _J
■ ■
■ ■
Once again, the firearm -related homicide rates by gender (Figure 24) are substantially lower than the firearm-related suicide rates by gender (Figure 25). Regardless, firearm- related homicide rates among males (3.3) and firearm-related suicide rates among males (8.4) per 100,000 are higher compared to females (0.8 and 1.0, respectively).
Figure 24. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Figure 25. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
13.0 55.8
0.8 3.3
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Homicides
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Homicides
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
17.0 141.4
1.0 8.4
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Suicides Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Suicides
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate ■ ■
■ ■
As illustrated below, firearm-related homicides (Figure 26) and suicides (Figure 27) vary by age group. That is, the highest firearm -related homicide rate per 100,000 is among ages 25 -44 (4.0). Conversely, when looking at suicide, the highest firearm -related suicide rate per 100,000 is among those ages 65 and older (11.3). Looking further into age groups, those ages 65 and older are more likely to have died from suicide (35.2%) compared to homicide (5.8%), whereas younger age groups such as 25 -44 are more likely to have died from homicide (49.7%) compared to suicide (25.6%). Those ages 45-64 were also more likely to have died from suicide (30.5%) compared to homicide (19.0%).
Figure 26. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office . Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Figure 27. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s O ffice. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
2.5 16.4
34.2 13.0 4.00.4
3.3 4.0
1.6 0.8
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 0
50 100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Average Firearm-Related Homicides Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Homicides
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
1.5 14.2
39.4 48.2 56.0
0.2 2.9
4.6 5.9
11.3 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
0 50
100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Average Firearm-Related Suicides Rate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Suicides
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate ■ ■
■ ■
Firearm-Related Injuries
The data presented in this section are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
The dataset includes information about San Diego County residents who were hospitalized or made an emergency department visit as a result of firearm-related injuries. These data help to describe how many county residents have be en injured by firearms, as well as their city or residence and demographic information. Note that hospitalization and emergency department discharges cannot be combined for a “total.” In some cases, there may be overlap (i.e., a patient is discharged from the emergency department and then admitted to the hospital).
Hospitalization
Hospitalization by Year per 100,000 Residents
From 2016 through 2020, there were 699 firearm-related hospitalizations, which may or may not have resulted in death . As illustrated below, the firearm -related hospitalization rate was 5.0 per 100,000 residents in 2020 for San Diego County. These rates have not changed substantially over time, going from
4.2 per 100,000 residents in 2016 to 5.0 per 100,000 residents in 2020. The number of firearm-related hospitalizations over these five years and population size were averaged. The result yields an average firearm-related hospitalization rate of 4.2 residents per 100,000 over these five years.
Figure 28. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
137
126 127
144
165
140
4.2 3.8 3.8
4.3 5.0
4.2 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
0 50
100
150
200
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of 2016-
2020
Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per
100,000
Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations
Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000 -
Injury by Intent
Across the 6 99 firearm-related hospitalizations, more than half (51.6%) were due to assault, and 35.3% were due to accidents. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 29. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations by Intent in San Diego County – 2016 Through 2020
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
Resident Demographics – Hospitalizations per 100,000 Residents The figure below includes the average firearm -related hospitalization rate over five years (2016 through 2020) by race/ethnicity. The average firearm -related hospitalization rate s are highest a mong Black residents in San Diego County (20.1 per 100,000).
Figure 30. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. Data for all years were not available for the categories Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Other/American Indian/Alaskan Native/multiracial.
3.0%
10.0%
51.6%
35.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Undetermined
Self-Harm
Assault
Accident
29.2 31.6
63 1.9
20.1 5.6
0 5
10 15
20 25
0 50
100
150
200
250
White Black Hispanic
Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Hospitalizations
Average Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000■ I
-I
■ I
■
The average firearm-related hospitalization rate for males is 7.5 per 100,000 , whereas the rate is 0.8 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 31. Average Number of Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related hospitalization rates over five years (2016 through 2020) by age. Note that ages 0 to 14 , and 65 and older , were removed from this analysis due to suppressions/empty cases in the data. As illustrated below, the average firearm-related hospitalization rate was highest among ages 15 to 24 (10.0 per 100,000 residents).
Figure 32. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Age Group
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
13.8 125.8
0.8 7.5
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 0
50 100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related
Hospitalization Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Hospitalizations
Average Number of Hospitalizations Average Hospitalization Rate per 100,000
49.6 60.2
20.2 10.0
6.9 2.5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 0
50 100
150
200
250
15-24 25-44 45-64
Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Hospitalizations
Average Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000 ■ ■
■ ■
Emergency Department Visits
Emergency Department Visits by Year per 100,000 Residents From 2016 through 2020, there were 668 firearm-related emergency department visits in San Diego County (i.e., emergency department visits that were followed by discharge from the emergency department). As illustrated below, the firearm -related emergency department visit rate per 100,000 residents was 4.0 in 2020. These rates do not appear to be substantially changing over time, ranging from 4.4 per 100,000 residents in 2016 to 4.6 per 100,000 residents in 2020. The average firearm-related emergency department visit rate was 4.0 per 100,000 residents over five years.
Figure 33. Firearm-Related Emergency Department Visits in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
146
116
130 124
152
134
4.4 3.5
3.9 3.7
4.6 4.0
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 4.5
5 0
50 100
150
200
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of 2016-
2020
Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000
Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits
Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000 -
Injury by Intent
There were 668 firearm-related emergency department visits; more than two-thirds (69.3%) were due to accidents, and less than a quarter were due to assaults (23.4%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 34. Firearm-Related Emergency Room Visits by Intent in San Diego County – 2016 Through 2020
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
Resident Demographics –Emergency Department Visits per 100,000 Residents The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related Emergency Department Visits rates over five years (2016 through 2020) by race/ethnicity. The average firearm-related emergency department visit rates are highest among residents who identify as Black or Hispanic.
Figure 35. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. Data unavailable for other race/ethnicities.
1.8%
5.5%
23.4%
69.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Undetermined
Self-Harm
Assault
Accident
37.2 25.8
51.4 2.4
16.4 4.6
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
0 50
100
150
200
250
White Black Hispanic
Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000■ I
I
I
■
The average firearm -related emergency department visit rate for males is 6.9 per 100,000 , whereas the rate is 1.1 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 36. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
The figure below includes the average number of firearm -related emergency department visits rates over five years (2016 through 2020) by age. Note that ages 0 to 14 , and 65 and older, were removed from this analysis due to suppressions/empty cases in the data. The average firearm-related emergency department visit rate is highest among ages 15 to 24 (8.6 per 100,000).
Figure 37. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Age Group
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
18.6 115.0
1.1 6.9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 0
50 100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related ED VisitsRate
per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED
Visits
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000
42.4 60
21.8 8.6
6.9 2.7
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0
50 100
150
200
250
15-24 25-44 45-64
Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Vvisits
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000 ■ ■
■ ■
Emergency Medical Services
The data presented in this section is from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services Office.
The data source includes information for when medics and ambulances were dispatched to a location in which a firearm was involved in the injury/death. These data help to understand how often emergency medical services need to respond to gun violence injury/death occurrences throughout San Diego County.
A limitation to keep in mind with these data is that there may be duplication in some circumstances. That is, at times, both an ambulance and a separate firetruck unit from a separate area will respond to the same call, and thus, both record the incident separately.
Incidents by Year per 100,000 People
The datasets provided to HARC include the years 2018 through September 2022. Across these dates, there were a total of 1,250 incidents in which emergency medical services responded to a firearm event.
However, there were some cases in which the incident occurred outside of San Diego County, such as Imperial and Riverside County. When removing these incidents that were recorded as being outside of San Diego County, a total of 1,225 incidents remained from 2018 through September 2022. The year with the highest number of emergency medical services involving a firearm-related event was 2021 (329 incidents).
As illustrated below, the emergency medical services event rate per 100,000 people has increased by about
67.8% from 2018 to 2021, with 5.9 per 100,000 in 2018 compared to 9.9 per 100,000 in 2021. The average emergency medical services event rate is 7.8 per 100,000 people over these four years.
Figure 38. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
197
226
287
329
260
5.9 6.8
8.6 9.9
7.8 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2018-
2021
Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services
Events Rate per 100,000
Number of Firearm-Related Emergency
Medical Services Events
Number of Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events Rate per 100,000-
The level of severity of firearm-related incidents was also available in the dataset. As illustrated in the figure below, over a third (39.2%) were acute/critical. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 39. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events – Severity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services ( n = 1,188). “Unknown” was originally coded as “Null”; however, it is reported as “Unknown” here.
0.1%
0.3%
0.8%
10.3%
24.1%
25.3%
39.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Not Applicable
Deceased
Unknown
Dead without Resuscitation Efforts
Mild/Lower Acuity
Moderrate/Emergent
Acute/Critical
I
I
I
I
I
I
In previous sections, cases with an event geography that was outside of San Diego County were removed.
However, in this section, cases outside of San Diego County were included to illustrate which hospitals residents are being transported to. As illustrated in the figure below, over a quarter of residents go to the University of California, San Diego Medical Center (25.7% ), and another quarter go to Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego (25.3%). Other hospitals include Sharp Memorial Hospital (15.0%) and Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (6.8%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 40. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events by Hospital Destination
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. n = 1,087 cases. “Unknown” was originally coded as “Null”; however, it is reported as “Unknown” here.
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
1.2%
6.6%
6.8%
13.2%
15.0%
25.3%
25.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Not Applicable
Nelson/Hahn Pavilion - Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Medical Examiner
Vibra Hospital of San Diego
Sharp Coronado
AIR AMB LZ
Kaiser Permanente, San Diego Medical Center
Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital
Kindred Hospital, San Diego
Paradise Valley
FS43
Yuma Regional
Landing Zone
Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas
Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
Desert Regional Medical Center
Naval Medical Center, San Diego
Mission Community Hospital (Orange County)
Destination Other Than a Hospital
El Centro Regional Medical Center
Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista
Pioneers Memorial Hospital
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
Other Not Listed
Tri-City Medical Center
Rady Children's Hospital
Palomar Medical Center
Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla
Unknown
Sharp Memorial Hospital
Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego
University of California, San Diego Medical Center
■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
To place the reporting of hospital destinations in a geographic context, below is a map of the San Diego County trauma “catchment areas.” The county has six trauma centers, 26 which are designated hospitals offering a specified level of trauma care. The specific hospital that an injured patient is transported to depends on the geographic area (catchment area) in which they were injured. Illustrated below are the catchment areas that correspond to each of the six trauma centers.
Figure 41. San Diego County Trauma Center Catchment Areas
Each color corresponds to a different catchment area for each trauma center. Source: Scripps Mercy Trauma. https://www.mercytrauma.org/history
26 These are Scripps Mercy Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital, UCSD Medical Center, Palomar Medical Center, Rady Children's Hospital, and Sharp Memorial Hospital.
Temecu la
Oce& J v, t
" Carls
<; Mar
Enc,
Solen
Del
Scripps Memorial Hospital
IA
m
"
.,
Palomar Med ical Center
1d1
,.
.,
,,
rp Memo rial Hosi:iital
y Children 's Hospita l
L 1fa
UCSD Medical Center ScriJ?&s Merc y f'iospital
San D.
( d
V
V
u
GJ
Incidents by Geography per 100,000 People
The figure below details the average number of firearm- related emergency medical services events and rates per 100,000 over four years (2018 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average firearm- related emergency medical se rvices event rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (20.8) and National City (20.0).
Note that, as with other variables, Del Mar appears to have a high rate; however, this is due to the city’s small population size.
Figure 42. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 by City 2018 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
5.0 31.5
2.0 0.8
13.0 4.0
3.0 3.3
9.0 5.5
12.5 12.0
1.0 108.3
2.0 4.0
6.8 4.4
11.6 9.0
17.5 12.5
6.4 2.0
11.7 15.1
20.8 20.0
6.8 2.0
7.6 2.1
7.0 6.6
0 5
10 15
20 25
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Average Emergency Medical Services Event
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Emergency Medical
Services Events
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate per 100,000 J .. _.JJ
■ ■
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related emergency medical services events and rates per 100,000 over four years (2018 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm-related emergency medical services event rates per 100,000 are Valley Center (35.0), Ramona (22.4), and Spring Valley (20.3).
Figure 43. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2018 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from U.S. Census American Community Survey.
0.5 1.0
2.0 0.8
3.8 4.8
6.5 3.8
3.3 7.8
6.2 13.3
17.3 22.4
20.3 35.0
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
Alpine Bonita Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley Valley Center
Average Emergency Medical Services Event
Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Emergency Medical
Services Events
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate per 100,000■ ■
Incidents by Demographics per 100,000 People
The figure below includes the average number of emergency medical services event rates ove r four years (2018 through 2021) by race/ethnicity. The average emergency medical services event rates are highest among those who identify as some “other race” (170.8 per 100,000) and Black or African American (31.6 per 100,000).
Figure 44. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 - 2018-2021 by Race
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
2.0 5.3
50.0 88.3
0.5 1.5
12.8 73.5
13.3 1.5
31.6 7.8 0.4
10.3 170.8
4.8 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
0 50
100
150
200
250
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Black or
African
American
Hispanic or
Latino
Multiracial Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other Race White
Average Firearm-Related Emergency Medical
Services Event Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Emergency
Medical Services Events
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate■ ■
The table below includes the average number of emergency medical services event rates over four years (2018 through 2021) by gender. The average emergency medical services event rates are higher among males (13.9 per 100,000) compared to females (2.0 per 100,000).
Figure 45. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 - 2018-2021 by Gender
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the emergency medical services data.
HARC briefly examined the “narratives” reported by medical personnel, and the descriptions did not always match the recorded age. Thus, the analysis of age was not conducted here.
32.5 232.8
2.0 13.9
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 0
50 100
150
200
250
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Emergency Medical
Services Event Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related
Emergency Medical Services Events
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate■ ■
Suspected Crimes Involving Firearms
The data in this section are from ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System) which is a joint powers authority tasked with sharing information among relevant agencies in San Diego and Imperial counties. These data describe criminal justice data, including firearm -related criminal arrests and cases of suspected crimes, as reported by city police departments (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, and San Diego) as well as other law enforcement agencies (San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor Police, and the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, which cover the unincorporated areas of the county and contract services in the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista). These data help to describe crimes involving firearms in San Diego County.
Cases by Year per 100,000 People
From 2017 through 2022, the ARJIS dataset consisted of 23,542 individuals suspec ted of involvement in a crime related to firearms. 27 These 23,542 people condense down to 10,960 shared events involving firearms. For this section of data, the analysis is conducted across all 23,542 individuals. For simplicity, we refer to these data points as “cases” or “crimes.” Slightly more than a quarter of these cases (27.0% or 6,358 suspects) involved just one suspect. Howeve r, the remaining 73.0% (17,184 suspects) involved multiple suspects.
As illustrated below, the firearm crime rate per 100,000 people has increased by 64.0% from 2017 to 2021.
The 2021 firearm crime rate was 156.5 per 100,000 people in San Diego County compared to 95.4 per 100,000 people in 2017. The average firearm crime rate is 113.4 per 100,000 people over these five years.
Figure 46. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
27 Cases with unknown geographies or cases outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this count. 3,152 3,029 3,101
4,365
5,190
3,767
95.4 91.2 93.0
131.0
156.5
113.4
0.0 20.0
40.0 60.0
80.0 100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000
Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Firearm-Related Crime Rate -
Highest Charge
A variety of charges may be made for a suspected crime, and thus the highest charge is made available. The majority of these crimes were felonies (94.8%), whereas only 5.2% were a misdemeanor, and four cases (less than one-tenth of a percent) were “other” highest charges.
The type of crime was available for 19,278 of these crimes. Among these suspected crimes, a plurality was assault (43.4%), and a third was robbery (35.4%). Some were also narcotics (8.3%) and homicides (3.0%).
Some crime types involving firearms are not common (i.e., sex crimes, rape, embezzlement, child and family, arson, and other non -criminal) with less than one percentage point. See the figure below for additional crime types involving firearms.
Figure 47. Suspected Crime Types Involving Firearms in San Diego County
Note: Crime data are from ARJIS.
0.005%
0.016%
0.016%
0.041%
0.067%
0.083%
0.244%
0.571%
0.622%
0.794%
1.1%
1.6%
2.0%
2.8%
3.0%
8.3%
35.4%
43.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Other Non-Criminal
Child And Family
Rape
Malicious Mischief
Larceny
Forgery
Burglary
Homicide
Robbery
-----•
■
■
I
Geography of Suspected Crimes with Firearms per 100,000 People The figure below details the average number of firearm -related suspected crimes and rate s per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average firearm -related suspected crime rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (333.6), El Cajon (242.3), and National City (235.9).
Figure 48. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
69 387
2 3
251
30 172
51 105
88 147
230
44 1,316
79 32
5 525
146
60.7 142.9
10.6 74.8
242.3
48.5 113.4
182.3
175.2
333.6
235.9
130.1
88.9 93.1
82.4 56.3
34.7 103.9
142.2
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate • I J J J_1
■ ■
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related suspected crimes and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm-related suspected crime rates per 100,000 are Spring Valley (588.4), Ramona (307.1), and Lakeside (279.6).
Figure 49. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
34.8 7.0
2.2 45.2
11.0 60.8
65.6 186.4
24.4 230.4
54.2 50.7
140.2
193.2
279.6
307.1
588.4
231.4
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley
Valley
Center
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate■ ■
Suspected Crime with Firearms Demographics per 100,000 People Suspects
The figure below includes the average firearm-related suspected crime rates over five years (2017 through 2021) by race/ethnicity among suspects. The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for suspects are highest among Black residents (624.9 per 100,000). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 50. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race.”
90 986.2
1380.2
23.4 24.0 46.2
736.4
25.5 624.9
122.1 155.9 165.4
420.8
48.1 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Asian Black Hispanic Native
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000 _J_J
• •
The average firearm-related suspected crime rate for suspects among males is 182.4 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 21.2 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 51. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the ARJIS data. Looking at the ages of suspects, there are a fair number of suspects aged zero and a fair number aged 120. Thus, the analysis of age was not conducted here.
349.8
3,053.8
21.2 182.4
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000■ ■
Victim
The figure below includes the average firearm-related suspected crime rates over five years (2017 through 2021) by race/ethnicity among victims. The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for victims are highest among residents who identify with the “other” race (2,548.7 per 100,000), followed by Black residents (259 per 100,000).
Figure 52. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race.”
147.6
408.8
1153.8
19.8 22.8
279.8
867.6
41.9 259.0
102.1 131.9 157.1
2,548.70
56.6 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Asian Black Hispanic Native
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000 --
• •
As illustrated in the figure below, the average firearm-related suspected crime rate for victims among males is 119.2 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 50.7 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 53. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the ARJIS data on victims. Looking at the ages of victims, there are a fair number of victims aged zero and a fair number aged 120. Thus, the analysis of age was not conducted here.
834.0
1,996.4
50.7 119.2
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Female Male
Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per
100,000
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000■ ■
K-12 School Shootings
The data presented here are from the Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Security, Homeland Security Advanced Thinking Program. 28 This program is a national database compiling various sources (i.e. , peer-reviewed studies, government reports, mainstream media, nonprofits, private websites, blogs, and crowd-sourced lists) pertaining to K-12 school shootings.
There were a total of eight K-12 school shootings in this database that occurred within San Diego County , although there was one additional K-12 school shooting that was missing from the database, and information about this event was pulled from the San Diego Union -Tribune.29 Furthermore, this section does not include details pertaining to higher education shootings, of which, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune,30 only one has occurred.
Altogether, there have been a total of nine K -12 school shootings in San Diego County during the past 23 years (from 1979 to 2022). Five of these K-12 shootings were in the City of San Diego, and one each was in Carlsbad, El Cajon, Santee, and La Mesa. Among these nine shootings, four people died, and 30 were wounded. Each school and the time of occurrence are provided in the table below, along with a summary.
Table 3. K-12 School Shooting Details - San Diego County Time of
Occurrence
(Year/Month/Day)
School Summary of Event
1979-01-29 Grover Cleveland
Elementary School
The shooter barricaded herself in the house across
the street and shot at random students
2000-12-01 Junipero Serra High
School Accidental discharge and shot self in showing off gun 2001-03-02 Hoover High School A student shot himself in a parking lot, distraught about a breakup
2001-03-05 Santana High School Shooting spree
2001-03-22 Granite Hills High School Planned attack, School Resource Officer at school shot at the shooter and detained him
2010-10-08 Kelly Elementary School Fired shot at school playground, struck by a driver who saw shooting occurring
2019-07-19 Monroe Clark Middle
School A teenager fired BBs at a school building and then fled 2021-04-12 San Diego High School Hostage standoff inside a dumpster near the football field
2022-05-30 Helix High School An adult man shot in a school parking lot
28 CHDS School Shooting Safety Compendium. Center for Homeland Defense and Security. https://www.chds.us/ssdb/ 29 Davis, K., & Monteagudo, M. (2012). Timeline: San Diego’s school shootings. The San Diego Union -Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-timeline-san-diegos-school-shootings-2012dec14-story.html 30 Ibid.
Mass Shootings
Data presented in this section includes details of two mass shooting events made available by The Violence Project.31 A mass shooting has varying definitions, and thus, the definition used in this database is: “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murd ered with firearms —not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”32
According to this database, a total of two mass shootings have occurre d in San Diego County since 1984.
One of these was in San Ysidro in 1984, and the other was in El Cajon in 1993. Across these two mass shooting events, a total of 25 people were killed, and 21 were injured.
Table 4. Mass Shooting Details - San Diego County
Time of Occurrence
(Year/Month/Day) Location People Killed People Injured
1984-July-18 San Ysidro 21 19
1993-October-14 El Cajon 4 2
31 Peterson, J., & Densley, J. (2022). The Violence Project database of mass shootings in the United States (Version 5). https://www.theviolenceproject.org
32 Ibid.
Gun Violence in the Media
From 2017 through 2021, there were a total of 270 unduplicated news media stories describing a total of 299 gun violence deaths in San Diego County . Among these cases in the news media, the majority were homicides (88.3%), whereas 10.7% were suicides – these findings are nearly the inverse of data on death by intent according to the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office data (28.9% were homicides and
70.9% were suicides; 2017-2022).
The media reports of gun-related deaths consisted of 1.0% accidental deaths, while the Medical Examiner’s Office data consisted of 0.1% of firearm-related accidental deaths.
Figure 54. Media Reports of Manner of Death Compared to Firearms Compared Medical Examiner’s Office Data
Note: Public Safety Group data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office (2017-2022) and media reports are from the Gun Violence Archive (2017-2021).
The table below details the rate of gun -related deaths by city, as reported in both the media and in the Medical Examiner’s data per 100,000 people. Additionally, the data are ranked from highest (1) rate to lowest (16) rate. For the most part, media stories were run at a rate in proportion to the rate that is reported in the Medical Examiner’s data, especially for the top five highest ranked.
One minor discrepancy worth noting is that National City is ranked second in the rate of firearm -related deaths in media stories per 100,000 people, while Medical Examiner’s data suggests that National City has one of the lower rates of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people.
0.0%
1.0%
10.7%
88.3%
0.2%
0.1%
70.9%
28.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Undetermined
Accident
Suicide
Homicide
Medical Examiner - Public Safety Group Media Reports
I
I
I
I
I
■ ■
Table 5. Firearm-Related Deaths in Media Reports vs. Medical Examiner’s data per 100,000 by City 2017 through 2021
City
Rate of Firearm-Related
Deaths in Media Stories
per 100,000 People
Rank
Rate of Firearm-Related
Deaths in Medical
Examiner’s Data per
100,000 People
Rank
Lemon Grove 6.0 1 16.6 1
National City 3.2 2 2.6 13
El Cajon 3.1 3 10.8 2
La Mesa 3.0 4 7.7 4
Imperial Beach 2.9 5 6.5 5
Vista 2.7 6 9.2 3
San Diego 2.4 7 4.8 11
Oceanside 1.9 8 6.3 6
Chula Vista 1.6 9 2.4 15
Escondido 1.5 10 5.6 8
Carlsbad 1.4 11 5.6 8
Poway 1.2 12 6.1 7
Coronado 0.9 13 2.6 13
San Marcos 0.8 14 4.8 11
Encinitas 0.6 15 5.1 10
Solana Beach 0.0 16 1.4 16
Note: Death data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner ’s Office. Population data are from SANDAG, and media reports are from the Gun Violence Archive.
Summary
Data from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office reveal that the majority of firearm-related deaths in San Diego County are suicides (70.9%), followed by homicides ( 28.9%). This high percentage of suicide deaths might be a surprise to the general public, given that suicides are underreported in local media while homicides are overreported, as illustrated in our media analysis.
The cities with the highest homicide rate s per 100,000 people are Lemon Grove (6.0), National City (3.5), and Vista (3.1), and the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm -related homicide rates are Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8). Firearm-related homicide rates for Black residents are 9.9 times greater than firearm -related homicide rates for White residents, and the homicide rate for multiracial residents is 4.0 times greater than that for White residents. Further, the homicide rate for Hispanic residents is 2 .5 times greater than that for White residents. In contrast, firearm -related suicide rate for White residents is 5.9 times greater than for Black and 2.2 times greater than for Hispanic residents.
Further, males have a firearm- related homicide rate that is 4.1 times greater than females and a firearm- related suicide rate that is 8.4 times greater than females.
The cities with the highest suicides rate per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (13.6), El Cajon (10.0), and La Mesa (7.7), and the unincorporated communitie s with the highest firearm -related suicide rates are Ramona (22.5), Valley Center (20.9), and Lakeside (17.5). Suicide rates are highest among those ages 65 and older,
while homicide rates are highest among those ages 25 -44. In addition, those ages 65 and older are more likely to have died from suicide (35.2%) compared to homicide (5.8%), whereas those ages 25-44 are more likely to have died from homicide (49.7%) compared to suicide (25.6%). Thus, those impacted by firearm - related suicide tend to be White males 65 years or older, and those impacted by homicide tend to be Black, Hispanic, and multiracial males ages 25-44.
In addition, a mong all firearm-related deaths, 253 (or 19.3%) firearm -related deaths were indicated as being veterans. Among these vetera ns, 93.3% (o r 236 veterans) died by suicide with a firearm, whereas
6.3% (or 16 veterans) died by homicide, and for just 0.4% (or one veteran) the intent was undetermined.
Regarding injuries from firearms, most hospitalizations are for assaults (51.6%), whereas most emergency department visits are for accidents (69.3%). The average firearm-related hospitalization rates per 100,000 are highest among Black residents (20.1). Males (7.5 per 100,000) and those ages 15-24 (10.0 per 100,000) also see the highest hospitalization rates due to firearm-related injuries.
Much like with hospitalizations, the average firearm-related emergency department visit rates are highest among Black residents (16.4 per 100,000). Males (6.9 per 100,000) and those ages 15 to 24 (8.6 per 100,000) also have the highest firearm-related emergency department visit rates.
Emergency medical services data showed that the cities with the highest average rates per 100,000 people for when emergency medical services were dispatched f or a firearm-related injury or death are Lemon Grove (20.8) and National City (20.0) . The unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm- related emergency medical services event rates per 100,000 are Valley Center (35.0), Ramona (22.4), and Spring Valley (20.3) . Rates per 100,000 are highest among males (13.9) and those who identify as some “other race” (170.8) and those who identify as Black (31.6).
From 2017 to 2021, the firearm-related suspected crime rate per 100,000 people increased 64.0%. The majority of these reported crimes were felonies (94.8%), with 43.4% being assaults and 35.4% being robberies. From 2017-2021, the cities with the highest average firearm-related suspected crime rates per 100,000 people are Lemon Grove ( 333.6), El Cajon ( 242.3), and National City ( 235.9), and the unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm -related suspected crime rates are Spring Valley (588.4), Ramona (307.1), and Lakeside (279.6). The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for suspects are highest among males (182.4 per 100,000) and those who identify as Black (624.9 per 100,000) and another race (420.8 per 100,000). The average firearm- related suspected crime rates for victims are highest among males (119.2 per 100,000) and those who identify with another race (2,548.7 per 100,000) and those who identify as Black (259 per 100,000). These data should be interpreted with caution, as they show suspected crimes and not convicted crimes.
The varied data sources throughout this report help to paint a picture of gun violence across the San Diego region. There is nuance with some of the data sources in this report, and thus, each section should be read carefully. However, despite these nuances , this report helps shine a light on the prevalence and type s of gun violence throughout San Diego County.
Gun violence is a public health concern affecting many people from all walks of life and many areas/components of the community. For example, there is likely a significant safety risk with thousands of residents leaving their firearms unlocked and loaded. Despite what is reported in the media, most firearm- related deaths are suicide and are more common among those who are White or from older age groups.
While homicides occur less often, homicide rates are rising and are higher among younger age groups and people of color. Lastly, firearm-related crimes have also been increasing in San Diego County.
Results: Professional Survey
To gather the opinions of professionals who work with or for populations impacted by gun violence, a professional survey was created and disseminated through the county. Professionals had to answer three qualifying questions to participate in the survey: “Do you work in San Diego County?” “Are you 18 or older?” and “Do you provide professional services to people who are impacted by gun violence, or do you professionally support gun violence reduction efforts? (This can include a variety of p rofessions, such as law enforcement, medical care, counseling, social work, research, education, etc.)? ” A total of 206 professionals met all three criteria to participate in the survey. All surveys were completed in English.
Demographics of Professionals
The average age of professionals was 47, with the youngest being 23 and the oldest being 75. Survey participants were evenly distributed across most age groups, as illustrated below.
Figure 55. Age of Professionals
Note: n = 164.
More than half (55.6%) of professionals were female, whereas the remaining were male (42.4%), did not identify with the gender categories (1.5%), or were transgender (0.5%).
Figure 56. Gender of Professionals
Note: n = 198.
9.1%
23.8%
20.7% 23.2% 22.0%
1.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
1.5%
55.6%
42.4%
0.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Do not identify as female,
male, or transgender
Female Male Transgender
-
Professionals were asked, “Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latina?” The majority (83.0%) were not Hispanic.
Figure 57. Ethnicity of Professionals
Note: n = 196.
Professionals were also asked, “ Which one of these groups would you say best represents your race? For the purposes of this survey, Hispanic is not a race.” As illustrated below, about two thirds (63.8%) were White; the remaining race categories had less than 10% representation each.
Figure 58. Race of Professionals
Note: n = 196.
Other responses for race included American (n = 3), Mexican/Latino/a (n = 3), Middle Eastern (n = 1), and South African (n = 1).
Professionals also provided their ZIP codes. A total of 180 ZIP codes were provided, and these are mapped below. Generally, between 1.0% and 4.0% of the available 180 ZIP codes were represented so there was no significant overrepresentation among the ZIP codes identified. These ZIP codes are included in the map below, with just a few ZIP codes labeled.
No, Not Hispanic
83.2%
Yes, Hispanic
16.8%
1.5% 5.1% 5.6% 9.2%
0.5%
63.8%
5.6% 8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian/Asian
American
Black/African
American
Multiracial/two
or more races
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
White Other Choose not to
answer
- - - - -
Figure 59. ZIP Code of Professionals
Note: n = 180.
Professionals were asked, “Last year, what was your total household income?” Most professionals were in households with an income of $100,000 or more (64.2%), as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 60. Household Income Categories of Professionals
Note: n = 159.
0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 2.5% 3.8%
9.4%
18.2%
28.3%
18.9% 17.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$14,999
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
ZIP
□ No Data
- 3.0%-4.0%
- 2.0%-2.9%
- 1.0%-1.9%
- Less than 1.0%
----- - __ . _ I
Professionals were also asked, “ What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? ” The professionals surveyed were highly educated. More than half (52.5%) have a postgraduate or professional degree, and another third (34.8%) are college graduates.
Figure 61. Educational Attainment of Professionals
Note: n = 198.
Backgrounds of Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Are you employed by the County of San Diego?” Among the 204 who responded, the majority were not (75.0%) employed with the County of San Diego, leaving 25.0% employed with the County.
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%
10.6%
34.8%
52.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8th grade or less Some high school
(grades 9-11)
Grade 12 or GED
certificate (high
school graduate)
Technical school
graduate
Some college College graduate Postgraduate or
professional
degree
-
Professionals were also asked, “What is your primary profession/vocation?” and could only select one option. The top three professions include K -12 teacher (15.5%), local or state law enforcement officer (15.0%), and nurses (14.6%), either registered nurses or licensed vocational nurses.
Figure 62. Primary Profession/Vocation of Professionals
Note: n = 206.
“Other” responses for profession were categorized by industry and include d education professional ( n = 11), healthcare professional (n = 2), legal professional (n = 1), and mental health clinician (n =1).
7.8%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.9%
2.9%
3.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.9%
5.3%
5.8%
7.8%
14.6%
15.0%
15.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Other
U.S. military service member
College or university instructor
Firearm dealer
Provider of religious services
Security guard
Researcher
Victim advocate
Federal law enforcement officer
Firearm safety instructor
Paramedic/EMT
Social worker
Legal professional
Community advocate/organizer
Mental health therapist
Government administrator/employee/service provider
Physician
Non-profit/community-based organization employee
Nurse (RN or LVN)
Local or state law enforcement officer
K-12 teacher
-------• •
Professionals were asked, “For how many years have you been serving people or populations impacted by gun violence?” The average number of years serving people impacted by gun violence was 17.9, with a minimum of one year and a maximum of 50 years. Most commonly, professionals have been serving populations affected by gun violence for 1-9 years (28.7%), 10-19 years (28.7%), and 20-29 years (21.3%).
Figure 63. Years Serving People/Populations Affected by Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 202.
Professionals’ Services Related to Gun Violence
Professionals were asked, “Do you provide direct services to people impacted by gun violence? ” The majority (70.0%) of professionals do provide these services, whereas 30.0% do not provide these services.
Figure 64. Provides Direct Services Related to Gun Violence
Note: n = 203.
28.7% 28.7%
21.3%
14.9%
5.9%
0.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
No
30.0%
Yes
70.0%
-
Professionals who do provide direct services related to gun violence were further asked, “What type of gun violence does your work engage with?” and could select all that apply. As illustrated below, services related to community violence (84.5%) and domestic violence (74.6%) were the most common. Although suicide (66.9%) and accidental harm (54.2%) were also common.
Figure 65. Types of Gun Violence Professionals Engage With
Note: n = 142.
“Other” responses for type of work were grouped into broader categories and included school violence ( n = 3), healthcare (n = 2), law enforcement (n = 2), supporting gun violence victims (n = 2). There was also one reference for each of the following: educatio n, homelessness, people with disabilities, community, recovering addicts, and youth.
54.2%
84.5%
74.6%
66.9%
11.3%
2.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Accidental harm Community violence
(e.g., gang violence,
street violence, etc.)
Domestic violence Suicide Other N/A (Not applicable)
• -
Professionals who provide direct services were asked, “On average, how many people (who are impacted by gun violence) do you as an individual serve each month?” The average number of people served each month was 12, with a minimum of one, and a maximum of 250. As illustrated in the figure below, most (71.2%) professionals serve between one to nine people each month.
Figure 66. Number of People Served Each Month – On Average
Note: n = 132.
Professionals were also asked, “Some professions seek to serve as many clients as possible. If you are serving fewer people than you’d like to, what is the reason? ” Reasons for serving fewer people than preferred included little need/minimal gun violence in my area ( n = 4), understaffed ( n = 3), and it being hard to reach those with the need (n = 2). There was also one reference for each of the following: education, fear of retaliation, funding, healthcare access, quality of service, and visibility on larger resource platforms.
71.2%
13.6%
7.6%
1.5% 0.0%
6.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
1111
-
Professional Needs
Professionals were asked about their professional needs: “Which of the following do you as a professional need to better serve people impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, many needs were identified among professionals. Some of the top needs (i.e., “This is greatly needed”) include referrals to give for mental health treatment (64.5%), training on how to de-escalate conflicts (62.5%), and guidance on how to identify those who are at risk of committing violence (57.9%).
Other greatly needed areas included referral for social services (52.8%), long -term funding to support programs (52.8%), and guidance on how to identify those who might be victims of violence (50.8%).
Figure 67. Needs of Professions for Serving People Impacted by Gun Violence
Note: “Referrals I can give for mental health treatment ” n = 200; “Training on how to de-escalate conflicts” n = 200; “Guidance on how to identify those who are at risk of committing violence ” n = 197; “Referrals I can give for social services (employment, housing, childcare, etc.)” n = 197; “Long-term (five-year or longer) funding to support programs and services” n = 197; “Guidance on how to identify those who might be victims of violence ” n = 197; “Other professional training or education on gun violence reduction” n = 197; “Gun safety training ” n = 198; “A phone number or hotline I can call for advice if I’m concerned about a patient or client” n = 197; “More time to spend with patients or clients” n = 191; “More opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals on this issue” n = 199; and “A grant writer to help obtain funding” n = 190.
Some of the previous questions led to follow-up questions:
• “You said that more opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals is needed.
What might that look like?”
35.3%
39.7%
39.8%
43.7%
47.0%
49.7%
50.8%
52.8%
52.8%
57.9%
62.5%
64.5%
31.1%
34.7%
30.9%
28.4%
33.8%
34.0%
29.4%
22.8%
32.5%
23.9%
27.5%
27.0%
33.7%
25.6%
29.3%
27.9%
19.2%
16.2%
19.8%
24.4%
14.7%
18.3%
10.0%
8.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A grant writer to help obtain funding
More opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals on this issue
More time to spend with patients or clients
A phone number or hotline I can call for advice if I’m concerned about a patient or client
Gun safety training
Other professional training or education on gun violence reduction Guidance on how to identify those who might be victims of violence Long-term (five-year or longer) funding to support programs and services
Referrals I can give for social services (employment, housing, childcare, etc.)
Guidance on how to identify those who are at risk of committing violence
Training on how to de-escalate conflicts
Referrals I can give for mental health treatment
This is vital. This is greatly needed.
This is important but not essential. This is somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary. This is not needed.
■
■
■
• “You said that professional training or education on gun violence reduction is needed. What kind of training or education would be helpful?”
• “What other resources, services, or programs ar e needed to help you or your organization better serve people impacted by gun violence?”
Professionals were asked, “You said that more opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals is needed. What might that look like? ” As illustrated be low, the most common responses included convenings/regular meetings (n = 12), gun or violence training/professional development (n = 11), collaboration between different agencies (n = 8), education (n = 7), forum/town hall (n = 7), comprehensive list of resources/providers (n = 6), conferences (n = 5), events for networking (n = 6), community convenings (n = 4), connecting with similar professionals/agencies (n = 3).
Figure 68. Professional Networking Needs
Note: n = 98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Connecting with similar professionals/agencies
Conferences
Comprehensive list of resources/providers
Education
Collaboration between different agencies
Forum/town hall/community convenings
Gun or violence training/professional development
Convenings/regular meetings/networking events
-
Professionals were also asked, “You said that professional training or education on gun violence reduction is needed. What kind of training or education would be helpful? ” As illustrated below, t he training o r education specified included de-escalation training (n = 16), gun safety training (n = 15), identifying those at-risk for violence ( n = 11), education for the community (n = 10), education for professionals such as teachers and social workers (n = 9), youth education (n = 7), gun violence prevention (n = 5), mental health support for victims and providers (n = 4), and self-defense (n = 4).
Figure 69. Professional Training or Education Needs
Note: n = 109
Other responses included active school shooter training ( n = 3), police training ( n = 3), workplace safety training (n = 3), identifying those at risk of being victims (n = 2), training on gun violence restraining orders (n = 2), and trauma-informed responses (n = 2). There was also one mention for each for unpacking White supremacy and violence reduction training.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Self-defense
Mental health support for victims/providers
Gun violence prevention training
Youth education
Education for teachers/social workers/other professionals Education for the community
Identifying those at risk for violence
Gun safety training
De-escalation training
i I
-i I
-
Professionals were also asked, “What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help you or your organization better serve people impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated below, responses included resources for victims of abuse and violence ( n = 12), funding (n = 11), enforcement of laws/gun laws (n = 10), gun safety/de-escalation training ( n = 10), education/awareness for parents, youth, and all (n = 9), school safety protective measures (n = 9), youth mental health care (n = 8), and engagement (n = 4).
Figure 70. Professional Resource Needs
Note: n = 118
Other responses included data ( n = 3), greater police presence ( n = 3), improved relationship between police and the community (n = 3), uplifting communities in general (n = 3), gun safety training at schools (n = 2), staff time to reduce/prevent violence (n = 2), and support for children who want to report threats of violence (n = 2). There was one mention for each of the following: faster processing of carry permits, free gun locks, gang intervention training, substance use treatment, suicide prevention, and wraparound resources for youth and families.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Engagement
Youth mental health care
School safety measures
Education/awareness for parents/youth/all
Gun safety/de-escalation training
Enforcement of laws/gun laws
Funding
Resources for victims of abuse/violence
All professionals were asked, “How comfortable do you feel asking patients/clients about guns (for example, if there is a gun in the home or if they safely store their gun)?” As illustrated in the figure below, a plurality of professionals are very comfortable (47.8%) in asking their clients about guns; however, a fair amount are also somewhat uncomfortable (7.4%) or very uncomfortable (12.3%).
Figure 71. Comfort in Asking Clients About Guns
Note: n = 203.
Professionals were also asked, “ Have you ever used a firearm in self -defense (to protect yourself or someone else) in a professional capacity or while on the job?” A total of 19.2% have had to use their firearm in self-defense in a professional capacity.
Figure 72. Ever Used a Firearm in Self-Defense in a Professional Capacity
Note: n = 203.
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Professionals
Professionals were asked a variety of questions to understand their perceptions of gun violence. These questions were prefaced with the following statement: “These next questions will ask about your thoughts and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence includes any violence caused by firearms, including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm.” Professionals were asked, “When thinking about gun violence, how safe do you feel where you work (for example, in a hospital, at a sc hool, in a community which you serve, etc.)?” About a third (30.5%) feel very safe , and about another third
47.8%
15.8% 10.8% 7.4% 12.3% 5.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very comfortable Somewhat
comfortable
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable
Somewhat
uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable N/A (I don't provide
direct services to
clients/patients)
No
80.8%
Yes
19.2%
- - - - -
(31.0%) feel somewhat safe at their work, when thinking about gun violence. However, some also feel somewhat unsafe (18.2%) or very unsafe (7.4%).
Figure 73. Feelings of Safety at Work
Note: n = 203.
Professionals who said “very unsafe” or “somewhat unsafe” were further asked, “You said you feel very or somewhat unsafe where you work. What is the reason for this?” and could select all that apply. Most often, professionals were worried about someone they serve having a gun (72.5%) or there being a mass shooting at their workplace (68.6%). More than half (52.9%) also stated fear of retaliatory shootings. “Other” reasons professionals feel unsafe included one mention for each of the following: dealing with crime and criminals as part of their job, “gun violence is everywhere,” and working in a gun-free work zone.
Figure 69. Reasons for Feeling Unsafe at Workplace
Note: n = 51.
30.5%
31.0%
12.8%
18.2%
7.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
72.5% 68.6%
52.9%
37.3%
9.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I’m afraid that someone
I serve might have a gun
I’m afraid of mass
shootings at my
workplace
I’m afraid of retaliatory
shootings at my
workplace
The neighborhood
where I work feels
unsafe
Other
-
Professionals were also asked, “How likely do you think that you will be a victim of gun violence in the future?” As illustrated below, 25.2% said “somewhat likely,” and only 2.0% said “very likely.” One third (33.7%) said “neither likely nor unlikely,” and 21.3% said “very unlikely.”
Figure 74. Perceived Likelihood of Being a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 202.
Those who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” were further asked, “You said that you think you could possibly be the victim of gun violence in the future. What type of gun violence? ” The vast majority of professional who feel they could be a victim of gun violence indicated that it was likely to be community violence (92.7%), as illustrated below.
Figure 75. Type of Gun Violence - Perceived Likelihood of Being a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 55.
The most common “other” response to this question was targeted violence due to their profession (i.e., law enforcement, healthcare, education, etc.), with a total of 11 responses . Other responses with one mention each included the following: active shooter, church shooting, criminal activity, mass shooting, and police violence.
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Professionals
Professionals were asked, “What do you think are the main causes of gun violence?” and could write in their response, which were qualitatively analyzed to identify common, recurring themes. As illustrated
2.0%
25.2%
33.7%
17.8% 21.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very likely Somewhat likely Neither likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely
9.1%
92.7%
9.1% 9.1%
27.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Accidental harm Community violence (for
example, street
violence, school
shootings, etc.)
Domestic violence Suicide Other
- - -
below, professionals tended to state that mental health problems (n = 58) and access to guns ( n = 51) are the main causes of gun violence. Professionals also identified crime/criminals/gang violence ( n = 28), gun laws not being strict enough (n = 26), and emotions like anger, frustration, and fear (n = 24).
Figure 76. Perceived Main Causes of Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 180 and references n = 302.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No gun safety awareness
Housing costs
Lack of respect/value for life
Inequality
Family/parenting
Racism
Social media/media
Lack of resources/opportunities
Domestic violence
Trauma
Cultural attitudes
lack of education
Drugs/alcohol
Poverty, lower income levels, economic factors
Emotions such as anger, frustration, fear
Gun laws not strict enough
Crime/criminals/gang violence
Access to guns
Mental health problems ..
..
..
---
-
--■
Professionals were asked, “What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction? This could include short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, or anything else” and could write in their response. As illustrated in the figure below, professionals frequently pointed to needing more gun regulation/control (n = 51) as well as strict enforcement/penalties for people using firearms in an unlawful manner (n = 49). Professionals also identified the need to focus on mental health more (n = 28) and to also teach/promote gun safety/training (n = 23).
Figure 77. Perceived Solutions to Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 175 and references n = 229. There was also just one reference for each of the following: Change negative perceptions of defensive gun usage, increase number of police officers, housing, metal detectors, more proactive law enforcement, need more professionals carrying firearms, restorative justice, and shutting down the NRA.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Keep families together
Violence Interrupters Programs
Address Racism
Increase concealed carry
Learn descalation
Remove "gun free zones"
Need research on illegal firearms
Individual accountability
Nothing/I don't know
Secure the border
Buy-back programs
Gang intervention
Don't infringe on responsible gun owners
Address poverty and employment
Educate on gun violence
Teach/promote gun safety/training
Focus on mental health
Strict enforcement/penalties
Need more gun regulation/control
--------
Barriers to Reducing Gun Violence
Professionals were asked, “What are some of the main challenges or barriers faced by you as a professional or your organization to reducing gun violence?” and could write in their response. The most common response by professionals was the lack of enforcement/penalties for unlawful usage of firearms ( n = 17).
Others also explain ed that more g un regulation/control is needed (n = 10); there are too many negative views around guns, gun laws, and gun owners (n = 9); and gun violence is too polarized (n = 8).
Figure 78. Main Challenges Faced in Reducing Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 161 and references n = 127. There was also one reference for each of the following: Addressing myths/misinformation about gun violence, cannot do much, defending oneself, difficulty in getting concealed carry, fear of punishment for reportin g, focusing on rights, gang interve ntion, general - change is needed, gun free zones, illegal gun possession, lack of funding for community-based programs, lack of funding for education, lack of funding for mental health, lack of real concern, lack of respect towards law enforcement, lack of support from stakeholders, need more intervention programs, need to learn who is most likely to commit violence, no training for active shooters, not wanting gun regulation, other important things to address, poor parenting, proper reporting of gun violence by the media, we don't serve students very well, and being worried about guns being taken away.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Not enough time with patients
Substance use
NRA
Woke Culture
Confusing gun laws
Positive cultural attitudes towards gun violence
Poverty
Need more focus on mental health
Lack of onsite security
Liberal views
Politicians are an issue
Lack of funding - General
Need metal detectors
Not enough staffing
Lack of safety/training
Lack of education/knowledge
Gun violence is too polarized
Negative views around guns, gun laws, gun owners
More gun regulation/control is needed
Lack of enforcement/penalties
'
---'
-'
-
Community Needs – Professionals
To assess community needs, professionals were asked, “Below is a list of different services that are intended to reduce gun violence. What services, programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, professionals indicated a variety of services are greatly needed. Among the top service s needed for communities , as identified by professionals, are gang prevention (73.0%), afterschool or youth programs (72.8%), and mentorship programs (70.1%). Others also stated that GVRO s (gun violence restraining orders) for those with mental health crises (66.2%) and those at risk of committing violence (65.5%) were greatly needed.
Figure 79. Programs Most Needed to Help Local Communities Impacted by Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: Mental hea lth counseling n = 199; Suicide prevention programs n = 195; Domestic violence support center/services n = 198; Substance use counseling or treatment n = 199; Gun violence survivor support groups/services n = 194; General gun safety training n = 195; Gun safety training in schools (for students ) n = 193; Help with economic security (employment, housing, childcare, etc.) n = 195; Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure (such as better street lighting, more parks, etc .) n = 195; Gang prevention programs (alternatives to joining gangs) n = 196; Afterschool or youth programs n = 195; Mentorship programs n = 197; Street outreach programs n = 195; Increased law enforcement n = 194; GVRO for those with mental health crises n = 198; and GVRO for those at risk of committing violence n = 197.
After seeing the list of potential programs, professionals were then asked, “What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence?” and could write in their response. As illustrated below, professionals most often stated that there is a need to have strict
50.8%
52.8%
53.1%
53.8%
57.2%
61.0%
64.6%
65.5%
66.2%
70.1%
72.8%
73.0%
28.0%
32.3%
36.1%
24.6%
27.8%
30.8%
29.2%
15.7%
16.7%
24.9%
23.6%
23.0%
21.2%
14.9%
10.8%
21.5%
14.9%
8.2%
6.2%
18.8%
17.2%
5.1%
3.6%
4.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gun safety training in schools (for students)
Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure
Gun violence survivor support groups/services
Help with economic security
Increased law enforcement
Street outreach programs
General gun safety training
GVRO for those at risk of committing violence
GVRO for those with mental health crises
Mentorship programs
Afterschool or youth programs
Gang prevention programs
This is greatly needed This is somewhat needed This is not needed■ ■ ■
enforcement/penalties for unlawful gun usage (n = 9), a need for more gun regulation/control (n = 7), and the need for more mental health services/access (n = 6). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 80. Other Resources Needed to Impact Gun Violence
Note: n = 79 and references n = 82. Some (n = 8) were also unsure or didn’t know, and then there was one reference for each of the following: 5150 follow -up; active shooter training ; better police training ; domestic violence services ; focus on individual problems, not guns; GVROs are unnecessary; interventions in neighborhoods; onsite and armed security; preventative services, private organizations should provide services, not government ; restraining order education ; share more about gun violence ; support grassroots organizations; traditional values; trauma-informed care; and victim advocacy programs.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Education in school about gun violence
Train judges in gun violence
Arm lawful residents
Funding for more programs
Revisit existing laws
General - education
Community meetings
Mentorship
Employment opportunities
All programs already listed
Teach/promote gun safety/training
Law enforcement
Afterschool/youth/student programs
More mental health services/access
More gun regulation/control
Strict enforcement/penalties
..
Resources Available - Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are working on gun violence reduction in the County?” These organizations are presented alphabetically in the table below.
Table 6. Resources Available
Organization/Program Number of References
#NotMeSD 3
BeSafe 1
Brady Campaign 1
California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) 2
Community Assistance Support Team (CAST) 2
Community Wraparound 2
County Gun Violence Working Group 1
Diamond Safety Training 1
District or City Attorney 2
East County Community Foundation 1
Everytown Gun Safety 2
General - Gun Shops 3
Giffords Foundation 1
Gun Violence Prevention Coalition 1
Improving Criminal Justice Response (ICJR) 1
March for our Lives 1
Moms Against Gun Violence 1
Mom's Demand Action 5
National Rifle Association (NRA) 2
No Shots Fired 4
No/N/A/I Don’t Know 23
North County Education Compact 1
Open Heart Leaders 1
Other comments 2
Paving Great Futures 1
Project Aware 1
Restorative Justice Mediation Program 1
SAFE 1
San Diegan Against Gun Violence 1
San Diegans Gun Violence Prevention 7
San Diego Big Brothers Big Sisters 1
San Diego County Office of Education 1
San Diego Gun Owners 13
San Diego Police Department 4
Sandy Hook Promise 2
SAY (Social Advocates for Youth) San Diego 1
Scripps Workplace Violence Task Force 1
Organization/Program Number of References
Shaphat Outreach 4
Sharp Mesa Visa Hospital 1
Suicide Prevention Council 1
Tariq Khamisa Foundation 1
TEAM Enough 1
Union of Pan Asian Communities (UPAC) 1
Note: n = 77 and references n = 108.
Gun Violence Experience – Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Have you experienced gun violence in the last five years in the course of carrying out your professional duties? (This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot while on the job.)” About one fifth (18.5%) have experienced gun violence while on the job.
Figure 81. Experienced Gun Violence While on the Job
Note: n = 200.
No
81.5%
Yes
18.5%
Those who said “Yes” were then asked, “What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five years while on the job? Select all that apply.” The most common type of gun violence experienced among professionals was someone threatening to shoot them (but did not show a gun) (67.6%). About a third (35.3%) of professionals indicated that someone threatened them by showing them a gun.
Figure 82. Type of Gun Violence - Experienced Gun Violence While on the Job
Note: n = 34.
Professionals were further asked, “What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed the gun violence against you? The person who committed the violence was…. ” Slightly more than half (55.6%) of professionals stated that the person was a customer, client, patient, or someone else professionally served. That said, a plurality of p rofessionals indicated “other.” Those that mentioned “other” wrote crime suspect (n = 7), law enforcement (n = 3), stranger (n = 3), legal case involvement (n = 2), protestor (n = 1), and consulting relationship (n = 1).
Figure 83. Relationship to Person Committing Gun Violence
Note: n = 36.
67.6%
35.3%
23.5%
8.8%
0.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Someone threatened to
shoot me (but did not
show a gun)
Someone threatened me
by showing me a gun
Someone threatened me
by pointing a gun at me
I was shot at (but I
wasn’t hit)
I was shot
55.6%
0.0% 2.8%
44.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A customer, client, patient, or
someone else I professionally
serve
A co-worker or colleague Someone I know personally Other -
Final Comments - Professionals
Professionals were asked “Do you have any other comments you would like to share?” at the end of the survey. As illustrated below, some indicated N/A/no comments ( n = 13), others offered gratitude for the survey (n = 8), and then others had doubts/concerns over the survey questions (n = 8). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 84. Final Comments – Professionals
Note: n = 57 and references n = 58. There was also one reference for each of the following: don't support "woke" policies, gang members do what they need to survive, guns are a part of life, gun laws do not work for criminals, look at gun violence at the block/street level, need more long -term change, need to hold people responsible for their decisions, share the results with the City Attorney’s Office, and tailored approach to different forms of gun violence.
Summary
A total of 206 professionals took the survey, a majority of whom were either K -12 teachers, local or state law enforcement officers, nurses, or non -profit/community-based organization employees. N early two thirds (61.5%) feel very safe or somewhat safe at their work in regard to gun violence; however, one fifth (25.6%) do not feel safe. Nearly half (47.8%) feel very comfortable or somewhat comfortable discussing guns with their clients/patients; however, about one fifth (19.7%) remain very uncomfortable or somewhat uncomfortable discussing guns. About one fifth (18.5%) also report having experienced gun violence while on the job (including being threatened or being shot at). Overall, gun violence either threatens the on -job safety of or has directly impacted about one quarter of surveyed professionals.
When asked what were the causes of gun violence, professionals most often mentioned mental health, gun access, criminal/gang violence, insufficient gun laws, and aggressive emotions. When asked what are possible solutions, professionals m ost often mentioned gun control, strict enforcement of gun laws, focusing on mental health, and gun safety training. Professionals thus portrayed gun violence through the lens of both proximate issues (e.g., access to guns) as well as systemic or structural challenges (e.g., mental health).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Less focus on guns
Recommendations of community organizations to work with Need for mental health resources
Need gun regulation/control
Less regulations/no new regulations
Doubts about survey questions
Thank you for the work/survey
N/A/no comments
I
-
I
-
Professional and community needs closely align with the identified causes and solutions. Professionals most often selected that they themselves need mental health treatment referrals, de -escalation training, identification of those at high risk, and social service s referrals. Regarding the most needed services or resources for community members, professionals most often selected gang prevention programs, afterschool or youth programs, mentorship programs, GVROs, and general gun safety training.
Results: Community Survey
A total of 1,242 residents living in San Diego County participated in the survey. The vast majority of surveys were completed in English (99.4%), and very few were completed in Spanish (0.4%), Filipino (0.1%), or Chinese (simplified) (0.1%).
Demographics of Community Members
The average age of community members was 52.3 years, with the youngest being 15, and the oldest being
89. Community members were often in their 60s (22.9%) or 50s (20.4%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 85. Age – Community Members
Note: n = 1,120.
Half of community members were female (50.0%), whereas the remaining were male (47.4%), did not identify with the gender categories (2.1%), or were transgender (0.6%).
Figure 86. Gender – Community Members
Note: n = 1,203.
0.6%
10.8% 11.8%
17.7%
20.4%
22.9%
15.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Teenager 18-29 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s+
50.0% 47.4%
0.6% 2.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male Transgender Do not identify as female,
male, or transgender
Community members were asked, “Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latina?” The majority (8 4.8%) were not Hispanic.
Figure 87. Ethnicity of Community Members
Note: n = 1,195.
Community members were also asked, “Which one of these group s would you say best represents your race? For the purposes of this survey, Hispanic is not a race.” As illustrated below, about two thirds (63.5%) were White. The remaining race categories had less than 10% representation each, and 14.8% chose not to answer.
Figure 88. Race of Community Members
Note: n = 1,199.
Other responses for race included the following: Hispanic/Mexican/Mexican -American/Latina ( n = 10), American (n = 7), Middle Eastern/Arab-American (n = 5), Caucasian (n = 3), and then one reference each for Filipino, Indigenous people of Mexico, mixed, multi- ethnic, non-racial American, Puerto Rican, South African, Swedish, and “Nunay.”
Community members also provided their ZIP codes. A total of 1,171 ZIP c odes were provided, and these are mapped below. Generally, between 1.0% and 4.0% of the available 1,171 ZIP codes were represented No
84.8%
Yes
15.2%
0.7% 5.8% 3.1%
14.8%
7.3% 0.9% 4.0%
63.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian/Asian
American
Black/African
American
Choose not to
answer
Multiracial/two
or more races
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White
- - ■ - -
so there was no significant overrepresentation among the ZIP codes identified. These ZIP codes are included in the map below, with just a few ZIP codes labeled.
Figure 89. ZIP Code of Community Members
Note: n = 1,171.
Community members were also asked, “What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? ” The sample of community members were highly educated. A plurality (41.0%) are college graduates, and close to a third (31.8%) have a postgraduate or professional degree.
ZIP
□ No Data
• 3.0% -4.0%
• 2.0% -2.9 %
• 1.0% -1.9%
• Less than 1.0%
Figure 90. Educational Attainment – Community Members
Note: n = 1,211.
Community members were asked what their total household income was in the last year. The average household income of community members was $136,589, with a minimum of $0 and a maximum of $1,000,000. Community members often resided in households making $100,000 to $149,999 (23.0.%), $200,000 or more (22.6%), or $150,000 to $199,999 (15.1%).
Figure 91. Household Income – Community Members
Note: n = 846.
Community members were also asked about their household size to determine FPL (federal poverty level).
There was an average of 3 people in the household. Using household size and household income, the majority of community members were living in 300% or more of FPL (76.0%). Only about 3.6% were living below the FPL, whereas another 8.8% were 101%-200% of FPL.
0.1% 0.7% 4.5%
19.3%
2.5%
41.0%
31.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8th grade or less Some high school
(grades 9-11)
Grade 12 or GED
certificate (high
school graduate)
Some college Technical school
graduate
College graduate Postgraduate or
professional
degree
1.5% 2.5% 3.7% 4.6%
12.5% 14.4%
23.0%
15.1%
22.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than
$10,000
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
- - ■ -
- - - - I I I I I
Figure 92. Federal Poverty Level – Community Members
Note: n = 822.
Comparison with U.S. Census data shows that community survey participants were demographically unrepresentative of the county population. Whereas 15.2% of survey participants were Hispanic and 63.5% were White, in the county as a whole, the population is 34.8% Hispanic and 49.5% White.33 Further, while
72.8% of survey participants have a college degree or higher, only 40.2% of the county’s general population has a college degree or higher. Similarly, while 3.6% of survey participants live below the federal poverty level, 10.6% of the county’s general population live below the poverty level. The community survey thus oversampled those who were non-Hispanic, White, well-educated, and living above the poverty level.
33 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/profile/San_Diego_County,_California?g=050XX00US06073
3.6% 8.8% 6.6% 5.0%
76.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-100% of poverty 101-200% of poverty 201-250% of poverty 251-300% of poverty >300% of poverty - - - -
Gun Violence Experiences
Impact and Severity
Community members were asked, “Have you, a family member, or a close friend experienced gun violence in the last five years? (This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot)” and could select all that apply. The majority of community members reported not experiencing and not having a family member or close friend experience gun violence (86.1%). Conversely, 7.6% had a close friend, 5.1% have a family member, and 3.1% has personally experienced gun violence in the last five years.
Figure 93. Experienced Gun Violence in the Last Five Years – Community Members
Note: n = 1,241.
Follow-up questions were given to the 3.1% who had personally experienced gun violence in the past five years:
• “What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five years? Select all that apply.” • “What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed the gun violence against you? The person who committed the violence was….”
86.1%
7.6% 5.1% 3.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No, no one. Yes, a close friend. Yes, someone in my family. Yes, I have personally experienced this.
As illustrated in the figure below, the two most common types of gun violence experienced were someone threatening by showing a gun (42.9%) and someone threatening to shoot (but did not show a gun) (40.0%).
Some community members were shot at (but not hit) (22.9%), whereas others were threatened with a gun being pointed at them (20.0%). No community members reported being shot.
Figure 94. Type of Gun Violence Experienced – Community Members
Note: n = 35.
The majority of community members who experienced gun violence reported that they had no relationship with the person who committed the violence (73.0%). For the “other” option, there were three responses indicating a relationship: “All gun violence affects me and my family,” “an ex of my ex,” and “student.”
Figure 95. Relationship to Person Who Committed Gun Violence
Note: n = 37.
The final follow-up question for community members who had an experience with gun violence in the last five years included the following: “Are there any comments that you would like to share about your experience with gun violence?” About a third (66.1%) said, “no” whereas 33.9% had additi onal comments to share about their experience with gun violence. Comments often provided short descriptions of the gun violence experienced. These included I wish I/they had a gun to defend myself/themself (n = 5), involvement by gangs (n = 4), suicide (n = 4), I/we are traumatized (n = 3), family was shot (n = 2), family was victim of mass shooting ( n = 2), slow police response ( n = 2), destructive social impact ( n = 2), self-defense of
42.9% 40.0%
22.9% 20.0%
0.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Someone threatened me
by showing me a gun
Someone threatened to
shoot me (but did not
show a gun)
I was shot at (but I
wasn’t hit)
Someone threatened me
by pointing a gun at me
I was shot
10.8%
0.0%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
5.4%
5.4%
8.1%
73.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
A family member
My classmate
My co-worker or colleague
My friend
My girlfriend/boyfriend
Myself
A customer, client, or patient
My neighbor
My spouse or partner
A stranger (no relationship)
---■
■
■
■
■
I
-
home/family (n = 2), killed by mentally ill person (n = 2), and killed by police (n = 2). There was one mention for each of the following: student threatened to shoot me, someone was killed, involvement by criminals, I was on duty (law enforcement), domestic violence murder , domestic violence gun threat, friend killed, family member killed, domestic violence murder-suicide, police responded quickly/made arrest, defended self with gun, I regularly witness gun violence, shot in crossfire, and killed in school shooting.
Knows Others Injured or Killed
Community members were also asked if they know anyone at all that has been impacted by gun violence , aside from themselves, family, and close friends. Specifically, community members were asked, “Have you personally known anyone at all who has been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years? This can include community violence, domestic violence, suicide, attempted suicide, or accidental harm.”
Among the 1,242 community members responding, about one-fifth (17.9%) of community members knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. These residents were further asked, “What was your relationship to the person or persons who was injured or killed? ” and could select all that apply.
Residents often reported that the person who was injured or killed was a friend (38.9%), another family member (17.2%), a colleague or co-worker (14.9%), or a neighbor (12.2%).
Figure 96. Relationship to Person Who Was Injured or Killed
Note: n = 221.
There were some community members who also said “other” (19.5%). These responses typically included other specifications (n = 14) such as people they had seen grow up, people around the county, best friend’s family members, colleague’s family members, etc. Some of the other responses also included friend/family friend (n = 13), acquaintance (n = 6), friend’s adult child/friend’s son (n = 3), patient (n = 3), and uncle (n = 2).
19.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.9%
1.4%
2.3%
2.7%
12.2%
14.9%
17.2%
38.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
My girlfriend/boyfriend
My parent
Myself
My child
My spouse or partner
My sibling
My classmate
My neighbor
My colleague or co-worker
Another family member
My friend
■ I
■ I
I
I
I
I
I
These residents who knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years were also asked, “What type of gun violence was this?” The type of gun violence was often intentional assault (43.4%) or suicide or attempted suicide (43.0%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 97. Type of Gun Violence Experienced by the Person Known
Note: n = 221.
A total of 7.7% of community members reported “other” for the type of gun violence experienced by the known person. Among these other responses, community members reported the type of gun violence was usually gang/drive-by shooting (n = 5), police shooting (n = 4), and undocumented immigrant shooting (n = 2). There was one reference each for someone with a mental disorder, someone under the influence, a mass shooting, and a school shooting.
Firearm Ownership
Community members were given the following prompt, “The next few questions are about gun ownership.
This survey is anonymous, and the responses will not contain identifying in formation. If you provide your contact for the gift card raffle, this information will be confidential with HARC researchers (it won’t be shared). Also, the responses from all surveys will be combined at the group level and will not be reported individually.”
Community members were then asked, “Is there a firearm in your home (such a handgun, shotgun, rifle, etc.)?” Among the 1,229 community members that responded, a total of 52.5% reported, yes, they have a firearm in the home.
The percentage of community survey participants with a gun in the home (52.5%) is higher than the percentage reported by the California Health Interview Survey (15.8%), which was a representative, random-sample survey of county residents. It can then be concluded that the community survey oversampled residents with a gun in the home.
Those who said, yes, there is a firearm in their home were further asked, “Why do you have a firearm in your home?” and could select all that apply. The majority of community members reported they have a firearm for self -defense/security (87.4%) or for recreation/sport (74.3%). Less common reasons included being given/inherited (27.4%) and for work (5.3%).
43.4% 43.0%
6.8% 5.4% 5.0% 7.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Intentional assault
by someone else
Suicide or
attempted suicide
Accidental I don't know Intentional assault
by a domestic
partner
Other
- - - -
Figure 98. Reasons for Having a Firearm
Note: n = 643.
A total of 9.8% reported some other reason. The reasons provided included the following: constitutional rights (n = 23), defense (n = 10), collection ( n = 5), law enforcement/previous work ( n = 3), belongs to partner/family (n = 3), firearms trainer (n = 3), competition/sport/hunting/recreation (n = 3), “none of your business” (n = 2), and a general statement that they purchased one (n = 2). There was one reference each for wanted one, had to buy a gun in order to get ammo, have a lot of firearms, inoperable firearm, inherited firearm, and tradition.
Community members were also asked, “Is the firearm in your home safely stored (such as in a safe or locked container)?” Most community members reported, yes, the firearm is safely s tored (94.3%). About 5.7% reported that their firearm is not safely stored.
Figure 99. Is the Firearm Safely Stored?
Note: n = 644.
Firearm Self-Defense
Community members were asked, “Have you ever used a firearm in self -defense (to protect yourself or someone else)?” Among the 1,236 that responded, a total of 9.5% said, yes, they’ve used a firearm in self- defense. Those who said, yes, they have used a firearm in self-defense, were asked a series of questions:
• “Who were you defending or protecting? Please select all that apply.”
87.4%
74.3%
27.4%
5.3% 9.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
It is for self-
defense/security (for
example, defending
yourself or your
property)
It is for recreation/sport
(for example, target
shooting or hunting)
It was given or inherited
from a family or friend
It is for work (for
example, for law
enforcement)
Other
No
5.7%
Yes
94.3%
- - -
• “Did you discharge the firearm or was it just presented?” • “Did you report this incident to law enforcement?”
• “What was the reason for self-defense with a firearm?”
Community members most often reported defending themselves (92.2%) with a firearm. Less common responses included a family member (33.6%), friend (18.1%), colleague (17.2%), or a stranger (17.2%). See the figure below for details.
Figure 100. Who Were You Defending/Protecting?
Note: n = 116.
A total of 5.2% also said, “other.” These other responses included military purposes (n = 3), law enforcement (n = 1), and livestock (n = 1).
Among community members who used a firearm in self -defense, the majority (80.2%) only presented the firearm. About 19.8% discharged the firearm.
Figure 101. Was the Firearm Discharged or Presented?
Note: n = 111.
92.2%
33.6%
18.1% 17.2% 17.2%
5.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Myself A family member A friend A colleague or co-
worker
A stranger Other
I discharged the firearm
19.8%
I only presented the
firearm
80.2%
• • • -
Among the community members who used a firearm in self-defense (presenting or discharging the firearm),
43.1% reported this incident to law enforcement. The majority (56.9%) have not reported self-defense with a firearm to law enforcement.
Figure 102. Was the Incident Reported to Law Enforcement?
Note: n = 116.
Lastly, those who said, yes, they have used a firearm in self-defense were asked, “What was the reason for self-defense with a firearm?” The responses included home invasion/attempted home invasion ( n = 25), being attacked/assaulted/attempted assault (n = 15), a criminal was loose/I felt threatened (n = 10), military combat (n = 9), robbery/attempted robbery (n = 6), the attacker was armed (n = 5), law enforcement duties (n = 5), knife attack ( n = 5), armed robbery/attempted armed robbery (n = 5), people being “aggressive”/surrounding me (n = 4), car jacking/attempted car jacking (n = 3), and dog attack (n = 2). There was one mention each for attacker shot at me, vandalism, attempted kidnapping, “self-defense,” mountain lion attack, felt threatened by Black Lives Matter protests, harassed by someone, explosive device at house, “de-escalation,” someone drove their car toward children , intervened in domestic dispute , and someone was stealing my property.
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Community Sample
Concerns and Safety – Community Members
Community members were given the following prompt, “These next questions will ask about your thoughts and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence includes any violence caused by firearms, including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm.”
No
56.9%
Yes
43.1%
Community members were then asked, “How concerned are you about gun violence in your community (where you live, work, worship, go to school, etc.)? ” About a third were “ very concerned” (33.3%) about gun violence in their community, and another quarter (27.5%) were “somewhat concerned.”
Figure 103. Level of Concern for Gun Violence in One’s Community
Note: n = 1,240.
Community members were also asked about their safety: “ When thinking about community gun violence (such as street violence or gang violence), how safe do you feel in your community?” Over a quarter (28.1%) reported feeling “very safe,” and another 38.4% reported feeling “somewhat safe.”
Figure 104. Level of Safety in One’s Own Community
Note: n = 1,240.
18.5% 20.7%
27.5% 33.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not concerned at all Not too concerned Somewhat concerned Very concerned
4.0%
13.5% 16.0%
38.4%
28.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very unsafe Somewhat unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat safe Very safe - - -
Community members were asked, “How likely do you think that you or someone you know would be a victim of gun violence in the future?” Responses to this question were approximately evenly distributed.
About 44.0% reported either “ very unlikely” or “somewhat unlikely,” whereas 33.6% reported either “somewhat likely” or “very likely.”
Figure 105. Likelihood of Becoming a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 1,238.
Community members who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” were asked the following: “You said that you think you or someone you know could possibly be the victim of gun violence in the future. What type of gun violence? ” The majority of community members reported community violence (82.9%) as a possibility of becoming a victim of gun violence.
Figure 106. Type of Gun Violence to Possibly Be a Victim Of
Note: n = 415.
A total of 9.4% of residents said “other.” These responses often included variations of community violence (n = 14), police violence/brutality ( n = 5), general gun violence (n = 5), all of the response options ( n = 4), hate violence (n = 2), domestic violence (n = 2), unknown/not sure (n = 2), criminal activity (n = 2), and one reference each for mass shootings, home invasion, robbery, illegal possession of firearms, and corrupt government.
26.4%
17.6% 22.4% 23.7%
9.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Neither likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat likely Very likely
82.9%
3.4% 2.4% 1.9%
9.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Community violence Domestic violence Accidental harm Suicide Other - -
- -
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Community Members
Community members were asked, “What do you think are the main causes of gun violence?“ There were many reasons provided for the causes of gun violence, including mental health issues (n = 231), easy access to guns (n = 214), criminals/criminal activity (n = 132), gangs (n = 122), drugs/substance abuse (n = 96), soft on crime (n = 83), poverty/economic inequality (n = 78), too many guns (n = 62), anger/hate/abusers (n = 56), soft gun laws (n = 38), illegal guns/ghost guns (n = 36), easy access to automatic/high powered weapons (n = 34), broken family structure (n = 33), gun culture/reverence (n = 32), need more laws/restrictions (n = 31), violence in media/games/movies (n = 30), need stronger registration/background checks (n = 29), need more/better mental health care (n = 29), and poor parenting (n = 29).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix Q.
Figure 107. Perceived Causes of Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 1,202.
Community members were asked, “ What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction? This could include short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, changes in your community, or anything else.” There were many solutions sugg ested for reducing gun violence, including background checks (n = 175), mental health care (n = 170), harsher punishment (n = 141), ban automatic/assault/military-grade weapons (n = 138), gun safety training (n = 117), limit gun ownership/access to guns (n = 111), gun control/gun laws (n = 102), more/support concealed carry weapons (CCW; n = 95), prosecute criminals (n = 87), education (n = 87), enforce existing laws (n = 76), support gun ownership/arm citizens (n = 75), imprison criminals/keep in jail (n = 68), more police/support the police (n = 63), economic justice/good jobs/housing (n = 56), ban guns (n = 44), require gun license (n 0 50 100 150 200 250
Poor parenting
Need more/better mental health care
Need stronger registration/background checks
Violence in media/games/movies
Need more laws/restrictions
Gun culture/reverence
Broken family structure
Easy access to automatic/high powered weapons
Illegal guns/ghost guns
Soft gun laws
Anger/hate/abusers
Too many guns
Poverty/economic inequality
Soft on crime
Drugs/substance abuse
Gangs
Criminals/criminal activity
Easy access to guns
Mental health issues
= 40), support parents/single parents/families (n = 38), gun buy backs (n = 38), and require gun insurance (n = 29).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix O.
Figure 108. Perceived Solutions to Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 1,198.
Community Needs – Community Members
Community members were asked about needed programs for impacted communities. They were given the following prompt and question: “ Below is a list of different services that are intended to reduce gun violence. What services, programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, many needs were identified among community members. Some of the top needs (i.e., “This is greatly needed”) include domestic violence support center/services (74.1%), mental health counseling (72.2%), and gang prevention programs (71.7%).
Substance use counseling or treatment (68.1%), general gun safety training (65.3%), afterschool or youth programs (63.7%), and suicide prevention programs (63.2%) were also greatly needed programs.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Require gun insurance
Support parents/single parents/families
Gun buy backs
Require gun licenses
Ban guns
Economic justice/good jobs/housing
More police/support the police
Imprison criminals/keep in jail
Support gun ownership/arm citizens
Enforce existing laws
Prosecute criminals
Education
Support/more CCW
Gun control/gun laws
Limit gun ownership/access to guns
Gun safety training
Ban automatic/assault/military-grade weapons
Harsher punishment
Mental health care
Background checks
I I
I
Figure 109. Programs Most Needed to Help Local Communities Impacted by Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: Domestic violence support center/services n = 1,210; Mental health counseling n = 1,214; Gang prevention programs n = 1,214; Substance use counseling or treatment n = 1,201; General gun safety training n = 1,206; Afterschool or youth programs n = 1,213; Suicide prevention programs n = 1,206; GVRO for those at risk of committing violence n = 1,211; GVRO for those with mental health crises n = 1,212; Mentorship programs n = 1,208; Increased law enforcement n = 1,209; Street outreach programs n = 1 ,207; Gun safety training in schools n = 1 ,203; Help with economic security n = 1 ,206; Gun violence survivor support groups/services n = 1,202; and Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure n = 1,209.
After rating the above listed resources, community members were asked the open-ended question, “What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence? ” There were many resources mentioned, including more policing (n = 37), harsher punishment (n = 33), jail criminals (n = 30), gun training/safety training (n = 28), mental health care (n = 27), police reform/training (n = 27), gun buy backs (n = 21), support concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses (n = 21), faith/church programs ( n = 20), support/fund police ( n = 18), enforce existing laws ( n = 17), support mother/father/family (n = 16), economic security /opportunity (n = 14), youth support/programs (n = 14), support gun ownership/arm citizens (n = 13), gun safety training for kids (n = 12), and prosecute criminals (n = 12). Additionally, other responses included none/N/A (n = 37), I don't know/not sure (n = 14), and that the previously listed programs/services is a good start (n = 19).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix P.
44.7%
44.7%
47.0%
50.1%
50.7%
53.8%
54.9%
56.9%
57.2%
63.2%
63.7%
65.3%
68.1%
71.7%
72.2%
74.1%
39.0%
42.8%
28.6%
28.5%
41.3%
26.9%
37.3%
17.6%
16.8%
31.0%
31.4%
27.4%
27.5%
24.5%
21.9%
22.0%
16.3%
12.6%
24.4%
21.4%
8.0%
19.3%
7.9%
25.5%
26.0%
5.8%
4.9%
7.3%
4.4%
3.7%
5.8%
3.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure
Gun violence survivor support groups/services
Help with economic security
Gun safety training in schools
Street outreach programs
Increased law enforcement
Mentorship programs
GVRO for those with mental health crises
GVRO for those at risk of committing violence
Suicide prevention programs
Afterschool or youth programs
General gun safety training
Substance use counseling or treatment
Gang prevention programs
Mental health counseling
Domestic violence support center/services
This is vital. This is greatly needed.
This is important but not essential. This is somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary. This is not needed.
■
■
■
Figure 110. Other Resources to Help Communities Impacted by Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 656.
Resources Available – Community Members
Community members were asked, “Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are working on gun violence reduction in your community? If so, please mention the exact organization names.” The most common responses included San Diego County Gun Owners (n = 66), Moms Demand Action (n = 36), the National Rifle Association ( n = 17), the California Rifle and Pistol Assoc iation (n = 11), and San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention (n = 8). For a full list of responses, see Appendix T.
Final Comments – Community Members
At the end of the Community Survey, community members were asked, “Do you have any other comments you would like to share? ” There were 580 comments (95 of which were “no”/N/A). Comments varied widely, ranging from expressions of fears and hopes to suggestions for policy changes. The most common comments were that the problem isn't guns or "gun violence" (n = 44), thank you (n = 35), support 2nd Amendment/gun rights (n = 33), no new gun laws/gun control doesn't work (n = 32), support gun ownership/arm citizens (n = 22), don't demonize/blame guns or burden gun owners (n = 21), prosecute criminals (n = 14), enforce existing laws (n = 14), and address mental health (n = 12).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix R.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gun safety training for kids
Prosecute criminals
Support gun ownership/arm citizens
Economic support/security/opportunity
I don't know/not sure
Youth support/programs
Support mother/father/family
Enforce existing laws
Support/fund police
Above list is good start
Faith/church programs
Gun buy backs
Support concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses
Mental health care
Police reform/training
Gun training/safety training
Jail criminals
Harsher punishment
More policing
None/N/A
Figure 111. Final Comments – Community Members
Note: n = 580.
Summary
A total of 1,242 community members participated in the community survey. The survey oversampled those who identify as White (63.5%), non -Hispanic (84.8%), those with a college degree or higher (72.8%), and those living 300% or above the federal poverty level (76.0%). There was also an oversampling of those who have a firearm in the home (52.5%). The sample of community members thus tended to be more White, better educated, wealthier, and more likely to have a gun in the home than the county’s general population.
Most survey participants (66.5%) feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities in regard to gun violence. However, 60.8% nonetheless are very concerned or somewhat concerned about gun violence in their communities. Although gun violence has not directl y impacted the majority of survey participants, nearly one fifth (17.9%) of community members knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. In addition, 3.1% reported that they have personally experienced gun violence (including the threat of violence) in the last five years.
Community members identified a range of causes of gun violence, including mental health issues, easy access to guns, criminals/gangs, drug abuse, being “soft on crime,” and poverty/economic inequali ty.
Community members also identified a range of solutions, including background checks, mental health care, harsher punishment, weapons bans, and gun safety training.
Community members were asked what services, programs, or resources are most needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence. Among the top services needed are domestic violence support center/services, mental health counseling, gang prevention programs, and substance use counseling/treatment. Whereas in the professional survey mentorship and youth programs rated higher, in the community survey domestic violence support services and substance abuse treatment rated higher. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Address mental health
Prosecute criminals
Enforce existing laws
Don't blame/burden guns/gun owners
Support gun onwership/arm citizens
No new gun laws/gun control doesn't work
Support 2nd Amendment
Thank you
The problem isn't guns or "gun violence"
No/N/A
I I
Results: Listening Sessions
An important component of public efforts to r educe gun violence is the incorporation of public views into the analysis. Public views are more than reflections of simple beliefs or opinions; they reflect diverse types of life experiences and expertise. To account for and incorporate this local knowledge, this section presents the analysis of a series of “listening sessions” where residents provided public comments on the topic of gun violence.
This section contains qualitative data gathered from the listening sessions (in addition, quantitative data on the listening sessions are provided in Appendix H ). Public comments were organized into “themes,” and the most common themes are discussed and accompanied by illustrative quotes. Although the frequency of each theme is provided (for example, 17 mentions, or n = 17), these frequencies are not the sole indicator of a theme’s importance. To reflect both the weight and substance of a theme, direct quotations are provided throughout the narrative. These quotations are a key part of the data and reflect the p ower of people’s own words.
The listening sessions had a total of 322 attendees. Residents who attended the listening sessions expressed a diversity of views, often based on first-hand experience. Major themes included focusing on “all violence” (and not “gun violence”), focusing on root causes, and providing sustained investments in community - based organizations and social support systems, especially for underserved youth. The results are organized under the following categories: defining the problem, causes, solutions, and youth listening sessions.
Public Listening Session Comments
While listening sessions were structured by nine fixed questions (see Appendix D ), attendees were encouraged to make comment s on what concerned them most, whether or not it directly answered the question at hand. Thus, the comments did not neatly fall into the categories of all nine questions (as would happen in an interview or a focus group). As such, the comments are represented here under three broad categories: how the problem of gun violence is defined, what are the causes, and what are solutions. Rather than being reported session by session, comments are grouped together from all sessions.
The Problem
To define the problem of gun violence, there were several main themes, as illustrated below.
Figure 110. Defining the Problem of Gun Violence
Note: n = 111. Only dominant themes are represented.
The most common theme was that the focus should be on all types of violence rather than “gun violence” (n = 20). For some, this was mentioned only in passing, while for others it was the main substance of their comment. These comments often centered on the idea that a gun is an inert object, nothing more tha n a “tool,” and that the source of danger is not the weapon itself but those who wield it:
“[W]e need to define what … the problem is [of] gun violence in our community. The reason why is because the gun by itself, it won't harm anybody. It takes a finger to pull that trigger.” -County resident
This view was also sometimes accompanied by a call to focus on the underlying, root causes (rather than proximate causes) of violence:
“It's not just gun violence…. Almost anything can be a weapon. I think we need to look at this from a broader perspective of violence prevention… [to] really [address] those behavioral health, mental health conditions, and societal conditions. What are the underlying factors in society that trigger the violence?” -County resident
Another major theme was assertions that gun violence is a matter of concern ( n = 17). Various reasons were given for why gun violence is a “big problem”: for example, the loss of a loved one, the frequency of shootings in one’s neighborhood, or fear that gun violence is rising. Others emphasized that correct emphasis is placed when one focuses on “gun violence,” given that firearms have unique risks:
“I worked in suicide intervention and prevention and in intimate partner violence and sexual violence intervention and prevention…. I just keep thinking that in all of these types of violence, when you're 5 11
11 12
13 17
17 20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Domestic violence
Impacts on youth
Ghost guns
Feeling unsafe (in neighbood, at school, etc.)
Suicide
Community violence (including gang violence)
Gun violence is a big problem
Don't focus on "gun violence"
responding to somebody in a crisis situation, the presence of the gun is always the worst-case scenario….
When someone is suicidal or when someone is in an abusive relationship, the presence of the gun is always the most concerning piece.”
-County resident
Similarly, many attendees mentioned that they felt unsafe because of gun violence. This included comments about a general feeling of insecurity in public places such as schools and shopping centers (n = 5) as well as in one’s own neighborhood (n = 7). Several residents discussed how some youth feel they have no choice but to carry a gun out of a need to protect themselves:
“I've been mentoring for about five years. When I go back to my neighborhood, and I try to talk to some of the young people about putting the guns up…. A lot of them are ready to stop, but they just [rather] be caught with [the gun] than without because you could put your gun down and [then] just get killed…. It's hard to tell them, ‘Just put your guns up,’ because they'd rather be caught with it than without it because people are dying left and right.”
-Youth mentor
The problem of gun violence here is not simply a question of changing individual behavior (e.g., “giving up a gun”) but also changing the social and material world that compels youth to carry a gun in the first place.
Related to this was the theme of community violence (n = 6) and gang violence (n = 11). Attendees spoke of the pervasiveness of gangs:
“[In] my community, [gun violence] is major. You can't go a week without … hearing gunshots…. I live right down the street here, very local, grew up [in] southeast San Diego…. It's been a problem [since] I was a kid.
I grew up in a household where there [were] guns. My older brother was in gangs, and traditionally, I'm supposed to be in a gang too, so I know that for a fact that [there’re] cycles that can be broken.” -Southeast San Diego resident
While some spoke of gang violence in general (as an abstract concern), others spoke of it in personal terms, as an element of one’s social surroundings that had to be avoided or overcome:
“It's something that [is] affecting our community, it's affecting our families, it's affecting our children, and we need solutions. It needs to stop. Our children need to be allowed to live and grow up. I think it's always been a problem, but I feel like [it] definitely has increased…. [T]o be honest, it's devastating. We have to do something about it.”
-County resident
Impacts on youth was another major theme (n = 11), including comments on how common gun violence is among teens:
“I'm a former gang member myself. I've been working in our community [in gang violence intervention]…. I think even in North County, we need to put more emphasis on helping our community youth. Because if you look at the numbers, most of them are youth that are getting involved in things with guns.” -North County resident
Other attendees defined the problem in relation to un -serialized guns (“ghost guns”), which can be purchased outside of legal channels and constructed at home (n = 11). Attendees spoke of the ready accessibility of ghost guns:
“[I]n 2019, 2020, there was [a sharp rise in] sales [of] ghost guns. One of our own youths from here, at 17 years old, he was able to order a gun online…. [M]ost sales are happening online right now…. He has access to order it. He put it on YouTube just to show everyone how easy it was. He ordered it, he put it together. He says, ‘Here it is. I have it. I have it.’” -Youth mentor
Other attendees spoke of the need to prosecute “criminals” (n = 5). These comments characterized gun violence as a problem caused by “criminals” rather than “law -abiding citizens.” These comments included a call to not burden gun owners as well as the sentiment that new gun laws would be ineffective:
“It seems to me that the biggest problem that we have with guns is not law-abiding citizens who have guns legally, who train and practice to use them, who follow the law. It's people with guns that act in their criminal behavior. On top of that, …. [i]t seems like no matter how many laws are created, the criminals still keep doing what they're doing with the illegal guns that they have.” -County resident
Other attendees defined the problem by mentioning specific types of gun violence. In addition to community violence (as shown above), attendees emphasized the need to ad dress domestic and intimate partner violence (n = 5):
“With intimate partner violence, somebody knowing that there's a lethal weapon involved with the person who's controlling them and the presence and the danger that presents even … when someone is leaving an abusive relationship is just so escalated by the fact that they're leaving and so escalated by the fact that there's a gun.”
-County resident
Attendees also mentioned the need to address suicide (n = 13):
“Our suicide rate has been up. It's underreported…. The data will clearly show you that suicide [is up] because there's no hope. Hopelessness.”
-Southeastern San Diego resident
Other attendees mentioned a lack of trust with or not feeling safe around law enforcement (n = 4). These comments were concerned with either officer -involved shootings specifically or racial profiling and police misconduct in general:
“I've been driving since I was very young … and I have been harassed repeatedly by the police…. There’s been … cases where they would make up reasons [for] pulling me over…. I believe there is a big factor of police violence—and just alone police harassment—that does create that disconnect … between the police and these communities that they're in.”
-County resident
As these themes show, the problem of gun violence was not characterized as a monolithic issue but as an array of concerns. For a list of all themes, see Appendix I. Many resident objected to the focus on “gun violence” rather than all types of violence. Other r esidents de fined the problem as one of community violence that impacted youth and as a problem of domestic violence and suicide.
Causes
Residents often spoke at length about the causes of gun violence. These explanations varied widely, as illustrated below.
Figure 111. Causes of Gun Violence
Note: n = 53. Only dominant themes are represented.
4 4
4 4
8 12
17 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Popular culture
Drug abuse
Lack of law enforcement
Gun manufacturers
Easy access to illegal firearms
Family and social support
Mental health
The most commonly mentioned cause of gun violence was mental health ( n = 17). A few comments were general calls to address “mental health” as a cause of mass shootings, while other comments reflected first- hand experience (e.g., among one’s patients or community members). Some spoke to the immediate need for mental health care, especially for youth in underserved communities:
“[I]f we talk to the young people, and … they start to trust you enough to tell you what's going on with them, they will tell you how angry, or how upset, or how displeased they are with the situation that they live in, the situation that they're growing up in. I'm just thinking like, I hope that the plan from the County, from the government, from the community, is that we need to do triage just like we would do for any community that's been through war…. We need to do triage with our young people, in the schools, outside the schools. We need to figure out how to help them mentally, physically, and spiritually because there is a gap right now”
-Southeast San Diego resident
The above comment speaks to how mental health can be an indicator of not only individual but also social challenges. In this vein, attendees also spoke of gun violence’s communitywide psychological toll:
“From my experience as a mental health professional, I would like to emphasize the importance of intergenerational trauma. If we fail to adequately address this crisis, we are setting our future generations for ongoing deep trauma socially, individually as families and communities…. There’s a corollary—the social cost of dealing with a traumatized population.”
-County resident
Related to these comments on mental health, the next most mentioned cause of gun violence was lack of family or social support (n = 12). These comments were made in reference to impacts on youth—those who lack role models, personal guidance, or other resources. Some attendees spoke to the need for strong parental support. For example, one youth spoke of the hardship of growing up in a single-parent household:
“I remember being 11 [years old]…. I ditched school… I was doing things I wasn’t supposed to because my mom had to work. I didn’t have a dad…. I know I’m not the only one that grew up like that. I’m pretty sure that other juveniles are going through the same thing that I went through, and they’re being raised by gang members. They’re being raised by people with guns, people with drugs…. They look up to those people, so they want to be like those people. That’s what they do. That’s all they’ve got.” -Southeast San Diego youth
Another attendee emphasized that a lack of family support can result in youth violence:
“I work with a lot of kids and teens, and … time and time again, they resort to violence or to guns because of their peers they surround themselves with and as well because parents—mom, dad—both are missing [with] one [parent] working two, three jobs… By the time they get home, it’s hard to be the parent they’re trying to be.”
-County resident
Another commonly raised cause was easy access to illegal firearms (n = 8). Sometimes attendees mentioned ghost guns (see above) or concerns about illegal gun sales. One attendee spo ke about the prevalence of guns not only within one’s neighborhood but also one’s family:
“I believe that there's many different causes [of] gun violence.... [such as] how easy it is to have access to guns… I grew up … around guns and around family who are gang members…. [T]he one person who had access to guns in my house taught us how to shoot a gun, but told us you need to respect a gun and you need to respect people around you. This is for your protection or when you get older. I don't agree with that as I'm an adult, but that's what I was taught…. There's easy access to getting these guns, especially in certain neighborhoods.”
-Southeastern San Diego resident
Several other themes were raised as causes of gun violence, including popular culture (e.g., glorification of violence in music; n = 4), drug abuse (e.g., THC; n = 4), a lack of law enforcement (n = 4), and gun manufacturers (n = 4). For a list of all themes, see Appendix J.
Solutions
Given that many residents defined gun violence as a problem of community violence and the causes as a lack of social support for youth, residents discussed solutions that closely revolved around these topics.
However, as illustrated below, several other approaches were also discussed.
Figure 112. Solutions for Gun Violence
Note: n = 65. Only dominant themes are represented.
The most prominent solution proposed was adoption of social programs that either provide youth mentorship (n = 11) or other youth support (n = 11). For example, some attendees called for gang violence intervention programs, while others called for investments in schools and youth programs.
4 4
5 5
5 8
9 15
22 0 5 10 15 20 25
Safe storage
Family/parent support
Higher criminal penalties
Mental health support
GVROs
Gun safety education
Enforce gun laws/other laws
Fund community-based organizations
Youth mentorship/other youth programs
Some ex-gang members spoke about their experiences serving as youth mentors. At one listening session, attended by participants of a gang intervention program, several mentors spoke of their willingness to partner with local government in reaching more youth:
“I believe that all the mentors here are the solution. The reason why is because we lived it and survived it…. [T]he answer is right in front of you in these people that lived it. The thing is, we need help from the County or the city or whatever it is, to let them know that we're willing to be the solution and train people to be a solution in the future, that are people that want out [of gangs], that they can be mentors themselves, and then the solution will grow.”
-Youth mentor
Some attendees expressed both a ready willingness to partner with the County as well as doubt about whether their calls for partnership would be heard:
“I've been in the space of helping to prevent gun violence for the past decade plus…. [D]efinitely, I'm glad this is becoming an issue at the county level now, and there are solutions that have existed. There are community grassroot groups that have existed that have worked diligently on this issue and could solve this issue but have been extremely underfunded, not funded at all, or overlooked…. If we really want to put a dent and help solve this problem, we need to put our money where our mouth is as a county and really be honest about what our efforts are doing and not just box check…. We need to make it a line item in the county and city level to fund specific groups that are out there doing this work diligently and not ‘here's some [funds] now, hopefully you can succeed,’ but some long-term—minimum five years of funding. I'm here … and I'm willing to discuss this with whomever and point out where we can be effective…. I'm saying this because it personally impacts me. I am tired of burying loved ones…. Until we conquer the root issues that cause this, it will continue: Lack of resources, opportunities, a lack of proper education to impoverish communities.”
-Gun violence prevention professional
Attendees often emphasized the role of community-based efforts, especially youth programs:
“The better solution… would be to put money towards education of the youth, counseling of parents of the youth…. I think the County could take resources, rather than wasting time adopting new [gun] laws… and put those—the time and effort—toward working with people in the community, non-profits, churches, [etc.].”
-Retired teacher
As illustrated above, support for mentorship and youth programs was often tied to the next most mentioned solution: funding of these programs (n = 16). This key thread, woven through many comments, included explicit calls for funding community -based organizations. Some attendees mentioned specific groups while other attendees spoke of youth programs in general:
“I’m going to start with the punchline, and that is money. Money is needed in order to correct some of these deficiencies. When we talk about how the schools are performing or underperforming, how social
programs and programs for youth can't do what they have to do because they're just inundated with so many different victims of violence that they just can't help them all, and they can't help everybody with their wraparound services…. Those folks who came from very limited means [and below the poverty level]…. That's where some of that money needs to flow.” -North County resident
Several other themes emerged regarding proposed solutions. Several attendees spoke of the need to enforce existing laws (n = 9). These comments included expressions of support for law enforcement, the need to enforce existing gun laws (rather than pass new laws), and the need to more consistently or frequently prosecute alleged criminals. These comments were often framed as an alternative to passing new gun laws:
“I think the County, first of all, needs to get off the kick of thinking that we need more gun-related laws because California is already very highly regulated. Those laws could be even more effective if they would properly prosecute criminals who violate those laws.”
-County resident
The abo ve theme mirrors the theme of calling for more effective deterrence through higher criminal penalties (n = 5).
A related theme was an expression of support for gun rights (n = 14). These included comments supporting a constitutionally protected right to gun ownership. One comment well captured this attitude:
“I am coming to you as someone whose family has been personally impacted by gun violence, yet I am here today to voice my support for gun rights. I strongly believe in having the ability to protect myself and having the power to stop someone from enforcing their will on me.” -County resident
Other attendees proposed gun safety education (n = 8). These suggestions included education on safe gun storage, training on “how to own and operate a firearm,” and “[educating] children on what to do if they see a gun.”
Several other solutions were raised. These included mental health support ( n = 5), GVROs ( gun violence restraining orders; n = 5), support for families and parents ( n = 4), and safe storage (n = 4). For a list of all themes, see Appendix K.
Some attendees expressed skepticism about or critiques of the gun violence reduction study (n = 11). Some of these comments, as mentioned above, were critical of the focus on “gun violence” rath er than other types of violence. Other comments critiqued the study’s ultimate impact on the community, reflecting concern that no long -term changes would result. This included the argument that data are only useful if they lead to solutions:
“We had a disparity study in our community 20 years ago, and recently we had the same disparity studies that didn't change anything…. Racism is a [public] health issue, but they put no money behind the resolution. How do we trust that this [study] is going to garner what the community is coming out tonight to see a change in their disparity, a change in their resources?” -County resident
These critiques, whether of the premise or outcome of the study, often prefaced attendees’ remarks, reflecting a concern about whether their other comments would be meaningfully heard (i.e., understood and acted upon).
Other themes arose that did not fa ll under the above categories. For example, these themes included suggestions to improve listening sessions (n = 4) and openness to dialogue (n = 4). For a list of all such other themes, see Appendix L.
Youth Listening Session Comments
The youth listenin g sessions were structured by five questions. However, as with the public listening sessions, attendees were encouraged to make whatever comments they wished, whether or not they addressed the questions. These two sessions were relatively small (30 or fewe r in attendance), and thus were more conversational in structure than the public listening sessions. Sessions were also shorter in length (30-45 minutes). Thus, there were fewer comments to analyze than for the public listening sessions.
Four main themes arose from the youth sessions: being personally affected by gun violence, the need to talk about and engage the issue, being desensitized to gun violence, and effects on mental health.
Personally Affected by Gun Violence
Youth attendees spoke of gun violence as a pressing issue that has affected them personally (n = 10). Youth mentioned the presence of gun violence in their communities and the visible efforts of schools to prevent on-campus shootings (e.g., lockdowns and p olice searches). Gun violence was spoken of as a threat that seems almost always present. One youth attendee explained it as follows:
“Just last week there was a shooting threat at [my high school], and while it was found to be an unfounded threat, the danger still exists, and the week before on a path that so many kids walk home on, there was someone shot and killed. The danger that looms in students' minds weighs them down academically and emotionally, and there has to be something done about it.” -High school student
Need to Talk About/Engage the Issue
Another major theme was the need to talk about and engage the issue of gun violence (n = 10). Th is included expressions of support for spaces in school where students could discuss gun violence, both to address students’ emotional needs (e.g., coping with trauma) and to provide forums for students to deliberate on school and other policies. For example, one student spoke of the need for school staff who could tend to students or provide aftercare following an incident or threat. Another youth attendee spoke of the need to “have a seat at the table” and to “[be] taken seriously” by policy makers. Another attendee articulated this sentiment further:
“I just feel like a seat at the table is necessary in these conversations. Adults will claim, ‘Oh, it's my kid in there.’ That's like they're [playing] to [the] emotions of the crowd. It's us in there. Why are we mature enough to be prepped for the totally real idea of being gunned down in a school, but we're not mature enough to be able to talk about a subject [for which] our lives realistically lie in the balance?” -High school student
Being Desensitized to Gun Violence
Several students spoke of how youth become desensitized to gun violence (n = 5). Some students described lockdowns or shooting threats as being so common as to be routine. One youth attendee spoke of this disquieting normalization—verging on expectation—of gun violence:
“[D]uring lunch one day somebody lit off a firecracker, and I didn't see it. It was from behind me, and instinctually when it exploded, my first thought was like, ‘Oh, this is it. This is [a shooting].’ …[I]nstinctually, that's where my mind went. What really got me was that I was like, ‘That was normal.’… That whole rollercoaster of emotions just came and went, and I never thought of it again. It becomes one of those things where it's like what you almost expect when you go to school [i.e., gun violence]…. [T]he fact that you don't care really just messes with you.”
-High school student
Effects on Mental Health
Youth attendees also discussed the effects of gun violence on students’ mental health (n = 5). Students mentioned the “great fear” of gun violence, the stigma attached to mental health challenges, and the need for schools to tend to student’s mental health. One youth attendee described a school program as an example of what should be replicated:
“We have a psychologist on campus to talk to students about grief and [other issues]. [In o]ur classrooms, we would sit in circles to … talk about our feelings…. When people tell me that, at their school, they block it out, [that] there's nobody to help them, it's really sad to me because I've never experienced that…. I feel every school should have a safe space no matter what.”
-High school student
For a list of other points raised in the youth listening session, see Appendix M.
Overall, youth attendees spoke of gun violence as a common and pressing concern, which manifests in school shooting threats and community violence. Youth spoke of feeling desensitized and other mental health impacts. Youth attendees also emphasized the need to engage each other and those in authority to raise awareness and to influence policy.
Summary
The topic of guns and gun violence elicits varying and sometimes conflicting views. Comments reflected not only diverse opinions but also diverse social backgrounds and experiences, including those from frontline health and behavioral health workers; stree t outreach workers and youth mentors; those with lived
experience, including former gang members and individuals who have lost loved ones to acts of violence; teachers and parents; youth; gun owners and firearm instructors; and those representing advocacy groups.
To gather these comments, seven public listening sessions (two virtual and five in person) and two youth listening sessions (in person) were held at locations throughout the county. The results from the listening sessions present a sketch of how th e problem of, causes of, and solutions to gun violence are understood and debated among county residents.
Upon an analysis of the listening session recording transcripts, several prominent themes arose. In regard to defining the problem of gun violence, the most prominent theme was a call to focus on all types of violence rather than “gun violence,” a critique often framed around concerns that the project was biased against or would burden gun owners. Another prominent theme was a focus on gangs and commu nity violence. Other common ways of defining the problem were its impacts on youth, feelings of insecurity in public, concerns about ghost guns, the need to prosecute criminals, a focus on domestic violence, and a focus on suicide. Overall, these themes ch aracterized gun violence as a pressing concern that especially affects youth and underserved communities.
Several themes were raised in regard to gun violence’s causes. Some residents stressed the role of mental health challenges, including trauma, whil e others emphasized the lack of family and other social support for children and adolescents. Others mentioned more proximate causes, including illegal access to guns, popular culture, drug abuse, a lack of law enforcement, and gun manufacturers. The greatest attention was placed on the need to address root causes, such as the lack of social support for underserved youth.
Of most concern for residents were solutions. The most commonly mentioned solution was support for youth mentorship and other youth programs. This was closely followed by calls for funding for community- based organizations. These were in addition to other solutions, such as enforcing existing laws, GVROs, gun safety education, and higher criminal penalties. Another prominent theme was expression of support for gun rights. Many comments focused on the chronic and pressing need to adequately fund on -the-ground, grassroots efforts addressing community violence.
The major youth listening session themes were how youth are personally affected by gun violence, the need for youth to engage in these debates, desensitization to gun violence, and the need to address the mental health impacts of gun violence.
As illustrated above, viewpoints ranging from support for gun rights to calls to fund community -based programs. Above all, the topic of guns and gun violence was understood and discussed by residents as a matter not only of laws and regulations but also of community resources and social relation s. Some attendees stressed domestic violence and suicide, whereas most framed the problem as one of community violence. Among the most common themes were gang intervention, mental health, family support, and youth mentorship. Perhaps the most significant overarching theme, tied to these and others, was the need for community-based social support for underserved youth.
Recommendations
The development of these recommendations involved three steps. First, the study’s data (secondary data, survey data, and l istening session data) were analyzed to identify the areas of greatest needs. Second, a review of the literature was conducted to identify evidence -based “best practices.” Third, conversations were held with County departments, community partners, and Advi sory Group members to advise the recommendations.
Recommendations are organized into strategic areas of focus and emphasize actions that can be undertaken, funded, or coordinated by the County. These recommendations are an array of responses, as there is no one policy or prac�ce that will “solve” the issue of gun violence. Rather, a coordinated, well- resourced, and mul�faceted public health approach is needed.
Addressing gun violence as a public health issue requires measures that are proven to make guns, those who use them, and the wider community safer. This includes addressing immediate or proximate causes of violence (such as promotion of gun locks, which reduce unintended harm from gun use) as well as deeper, root causes (such as adoption of gang prevention programs, which address underlying causes of violence).
These recommendations also seek to address individual, relational, community, and societal impacts, while also focusing on primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention st rategies are those designed to stop violence before it starts, such as programs that create healthy relationships and that increase protective factors. Secondary prevention strategies are those used during an immediate response to violence, such as street outreach and violence interrupter programs that de -escalate conflict. And tertiary prevention strategies are long -term responses to violence, including those that address trauma resulting from violence, such as hospital- based violence intervention programs and community wraparound services that provide mental health counseling and other support services.
These recommendations are not tactical in nature but rather general guidelines. Above all, recommendations stress the need to establish sustained partnerships with community-based organizations to incorporate diverse and sustained community input and to tailor interventions to conditions on -the- ground.
The recommendations are organized into four strategic areas of focus: awareness and adv ocacy, community engagement and collaboration, community healing and trauma- informed practice, and planning and evaluation.
Awareness and Advocacy
Background
Building public awareness of effective violence prevention strategies and connecting individuals to culturally tailored resources are key to reducing gun violence. Evidence shows that recognizing warning signs for risk factors related to violence, implemen ting strategies to keep individuals safe, and connecting people to support services can reduce violence. There are opportunities to offer universal prevention
education as well as education and resources that are tailored towards high-risk populations and those who live, work, and interact with populations most at risk for violence.
For suicide prevention, a key approach is reducing access to lethal means (such as a firearm, hanging, medication overdose, etc.). In San Diego County, during the five -year pe riod of 2017 -2021, the most common suicide method was firearm (37.0%), followed by asphyxia due to hanging or suffocation (32.3%), and drugs (11.8%).
34 Firearms are also the most lethal; suicide attempts with firearms result in death 89.6% of the time (com pared to 52.7% for hanging 35 and about 10.0% for drugs 36). Research shows that one of the best ways to prevent suicide is to provide a mechanism for lethal means reduc�on, which could mean using gun locks or allowing individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and voluntarily transfer their firearm for the dura�on of the crisis. Such mental health crises can be short in dura�on, and the majority of those who survive a suicide atempt do not go on to die by suicide.37
Lethal means reduc�on can also help address domestic violence survivors’ immediate and long-term safety.
Firearms are the most common means of domestic violence homicide in San Diego County (comprising 45% of domestic violence homicides).
38 Further, if an abuser has access to a gun, the likelihood that the victim would be killed increases by fivefold. 39 Prevention of such violence includes increasing awareness of support centers and other resources as well as measures to remove the risk of firearms (such as domestic violence restraining orders).
To reduce community violence, best available evidence shows that street outreach programs (also known as violence interrupter programs) can be effec�ve in media�ng conflicts, promo�ng norms of non-violence, and connec�ng youth to community support that builds buffers against violence. One such program in
34 Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021; percentages include only those suicides where both the death and the incident/event causing death occurred within the county 35 Conner A, Azrael D, & Miller M. (2019). Suicide case-fatality rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014: A nationwide population-based study. Annals of Internal Medicine.)
36 Bauchner, H., Rivara, F. P., Bonow, R. O., Bressler, N. M., Disis, M. L. N., Heckers, S., ... & Robinson, J. K. (2017). Death by gun violence—a public health crisis. JAMA psychiatry, 74(12), 1195-1196. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2657419 37 Harvard Injury Control Research Center. (n.d.). Means Matter. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ means-matter/ Cited in National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, Lethal Means Stakeholder Group. (2020). Lethal means & suicide prevention: A guide for community & industry leaders. Washington, DC:
Education Development Center. https://theactionalliance.org/sites/default/files/lethal_means_and_suicide_prevention - a_guide_for_community_and_industry_leaders_final_1.pdf
38 Domestic Violence Homicide In San Diego County: A 22 Year Overview. (2019). County of San Diego Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team.
https://www.sdcda.org/Content/helping/December%202019%20DVFRT%20Bulletin%20(Final%20for%20Release).pdf 39 Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, Block C, Campbell D, Curry MA… & Laughon K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089
Chicago was followed by a 19% decrease in shoo�ngs and a 31% decrease in homicides.40 Another program in Bal�more resulted in about a 52% decrease in firearm violence during the program’s opera�on.41
Recommenda�ons
1. Increase awareness of violence prevention strategies and resources for those at highest risk. a. Develop new or promote existing educational content to share suicide prevention strategies and resources with high-risk populations which may include gun owners, veterans, and older adults.
b. Develop new or promote existing educational content to share domestic/intimate partner violence prevention strategies, victim services resources , and information on protective/restraining orders.
c. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in southeastern and northern San Diego County, including community and governmental leaders, community- based and grassroots organizations, and non -profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities to enhance street outreach programs designed to change community norms about gun violence through dialogue, education, and mediation.
2. Partner with agencies to promote gun lock distribution programs that offer gun locks at no cost to the public.
3. Provide gun safety awareness training for County staff who perform home visits and community outreach to share information on safe storage laws, navigating through unsafe scenarios, and educating clients on gun safety practices and violence prevention strategies.
4. Support programs that allow individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and voluntarily transfer their firearm.
5. Promote implementation of a standardized, evidence -based suicide screening tool for use by healthcare providers to screen patients for suicide risk regardless of whether the patient is seeking care for psychiatric symptoms.
40 Henry, D., Knoblauch, S., and Sigurvinsdottir, R. Sept. 2014. “The Effective of Intensive CeaseFire Intervention on Crime in Four Chicago Police Beats: Quantitative Assessment.” https://cvg.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/McCormick_CreaseFire_Quantitative_Report_091114.pdf 41 Phalen, P., Bridgeford, E., Gant, L., Kivisto, A., Ray, B., and Fitzgerald, S. 2020. “Baltimore Ceasefire 365: Estimated impa ct of a recurring community-led ceasefire on gun violence.” American Journal of Public Health 110(4):554 -559. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305513
Community Engagement and Collabora�on
Background
Community engagement, collaboration, and stakeholder coordination must be at the heart of an effective strategy to reduce gun violence. Research shows that to facilitate engagement and collabora�on, a mul� - sector approach is needed to iden�fy, develop, evaluate, and monitor meaningful strategies to reduce gun violence across the spectrum, from preven�on and interven�on to long -term recovery. 42 Mul�-sector collabora�on would also support outcomes that no one sector can achieve alone and presents an opportunity for adop�ng the most strategic and efficient approach to achieving goals. 43 Partners may
include professionals from public health, healthcare, law enforcement, educa�on, behavioral health, community and public leadership, businesses, community- and faith-based organiza�ons, firearm owners, and advocacy groups. There must also be mechanisms in place for community input and leadership as communi�es must determine what outcomes are most important and what strategies are most acceptable.
Recommenda�ons
1. Coordinate and support an ongoing Gun Violence Reduction Community Advisory Group to engage residents in gun violence reduction efforts. The Advisory Group should include those with diverse perspectives, experiences, and expertise, with participation open to community youth leaders.
2. Facilitate collaboration across agencies, organizations, and sectors to promote connection, build capacity, and share resources.
a. Coordinate networking events/roundtables for community organizations working to reduce gun violence to increase connection and enhance resource and information sharing. b. Develop a centralized communication and collaboration platform , such as a website, for public agencies, community-based organizations, and other entities working to red uce gun violence in San Diego County. This could include a roster of resources, events, and local organizations.
Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Prac�ce
Background
The prevalence of trauma in communities experiencing a high incidence of gun violenc e as well as the impacts of untreated trauma and re-traumatization must be acknowledged, and trauma-informed practices should be employed to build community capacity for self -healing. Best available evidence shows that risk for violence for young people can be reduced through involvement in ac�vi�es that help young people grow
42 Bieler, S., Kijakazi, K., La Vigne N., Vinik, N., and Overton, S. April 2016. “Engaging Communities in Reducing Gun Violence: A Road Map for Safer Communities.” The Urban Institute, The Joyce Foundation, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/80061/2000760-Engaging-Communities-in-Reducing-Gun- Violence-A-Road-Map-for-Safer-Communities.pdf
43 “Violence Prevention Through Multisectoral Collaboration: An International Version of the Collaboration Multiplier Tool to Prevent Interpersonal Violence” (n.d.). The Prevention Institute. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default - source/documents/child-maltreatment/collaboration-multiplier-tool8592ec0e-de31-4231-89c7- 0dcfc3977cb2.pdf?sfvrsn=83d5a006_1&download=true
and through strong connec�ons to caring adults.44 Youth mentoring and a�erschool programs are two such ways to expose youth to posi�ve adult role models and to help youth learn acceptable and appropriate behaviors that are protec�ve against involvement in violence. These programs also some�mes include gang preven�on and rehabilita�on. One youth support program in the South Bronx, New York, (which also incorporated street outreach) resulted in a 63% reduc�on in shoo�ng vic�miza�ons (compared to a 17% reduc�on in the study’s control/comparison). Another program in East New York was followed by a 50% decreased in gun injury rates (compared to a 5% decrease in the control/comparison). 45 Another program
in Sacramento, California, (u�lizing both mentorship and street outreach) resulted in a 29% reduc�on in gun violence in the targeted neighborhood. 46 The effec�veness of such programs is likely well understood by those who work daily in violence preven�on. These kinds of programs (gang preven�on, a�erschool or youth, and mentorship programs) were the gun violence solu�ons rated most highly by surveyed professionals in San Diego County.
Hospital-community partnerships are also a promising prac�ce that help violence survivors and their families connect to needed services, including counseling, mentoring, and follow -up assistance, to overcome trauma and stop violence from reoccurring. Violence injury vic�ms are at higher risk of becoming perpetrators or being revic�mized.
47 Hospital-based programs can reduce revic�miza�on and rates of entry or re-entry into the criminal jus�ce system and thereby break interpersonal and intergenera�onal cycles of violence. One such program, which involved counseling violence injury pa�ents on their trauma, showed that only 1% of these pa�ents later returned to the hospital with similar injuries (compared with 32% before the program’s adop�on).
48 Recommenda�ons
1. Explore opportunities to enhance and implement community-centered approaches to gun violence prevention in neighborhoods facing high risk factors for gun violence. a. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in southeastern San Diego County including community and government leaders, community-based and grassroots organizations, and non-profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities to enhance youth-focused programs and services that address underlying root causes of violence and provide youth opportunities to thrive.
b. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in northern San Diego County including community and government leaders, community-based and grassroots
44 “A Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk Behaviors.” 2016. Na tional Center for Injury Prevention and Control. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv -technicalpackage.pdf 45 Delgado, S., Alsabahi, L, Wolff, K., Alexander, N., Cobar, P., and Butts, J. 2017. “The Effects of Cure Violence in the South Bronx and East New York, Brooklyn.” John Jay College of Criminal Justice. https://johnjayrec.nyc/2017/10/02/cvinsobronxeastny/
46 Corburn, J., Nidam, Y., & Fukutome-Lopez, A. (2022). The Art and Science of Urban Gun Violence Reduction: Evidence from the Advance Peace Program in Sacramento, California. Urban Science, 6(1), 6. https://www.mdpi.com/2413 - 8851/6/1/6/pdf?version=1644546789
47 National Criminal Justice Association. Oct 2021. An Overview: Community Violence Intervention Strategies. https://370377fc - 459c-47ec-b9a9-c25f410f7f94.filesusr.com/ugd/cda224_c5b96183fb614e9692f99513646abd0d.pdf 48 WBUR. 2021. “Documenting the Impacts of Hospital Interventions after Gun Injury.” https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/04/07/life-after-the-gunshot-trauma
organizations, and non-profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities to enhance youth-focused programs and services that address underlying root causes of violence and provide youth opportunities to thrive.
2. Establish a partnership between trauma hospitals , law enforcement, and community- based organizations to connect firearm- injury patients and their families to support services that may include mental health support, financial assistance, and other services needed to support their recovery.
Planning and Evalua�on
Background
Planning and eva luation are key components of any successful strategy to identify and demonstrate commitment to outcomes, show progress or need for course correction, and ensure transparency. To facilitate planning and evalua�on, many jurisdic�ons are centering gun violence reduc�on work in civilian- led Offices of Violence Preven�on. Centralizing this work provides the infrastructure and resources to ensure interven�ons are sustainable and are elevated as integral elements of public safety prac�ce. These offices focu s on building partnerships, engaging community stakeholders in decision -making, and suppor�ng a range of programs to reduce violence. In addi�on to centralizing preven�on and interven�on work, it is also cri�cal to con�nually assess whether implement ed strategies are a good fit within the community context and whether ac�vi�es are achieving intended outcomes. Sharing data across agencies and community-based organiza�ons is a cri�cal step alongside meaningful engagement with community stakeholders.
Perhaps the most important factor in ensuring sustainability of efforts is long- term and adequate funding, especially for community- based organizations that are critical to both provide and connect people to services.
Recommenda�ons
1. Plan for longevity, sustainability, and an enduring commitment to gun violence reduction. a. Provide the infrastructure and resources needed to create sustainable interven�ons and government-community partnerships related to violence preven�on and interven�on by iden�fying a central office or unit within the County structure to lead County gun violence reduc�on efforts.
b. In coordination with the Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group, work with County and community partners to identify representatives from communities experiencing the highest incidence of violence to establish a collaborative structure that facilitates the development of strategic plans to address gun violence in their communities. This might occur through public roundtables or workgroups, with the goal of fostering relationships between County staff and community leaders.
2. Identify and monitor meaningful metrics to ensure accountability. a. Establish a monitoring and evaluation framework for efforts implemented to reduce gun violence. This would include both evaluating the impact of County efforts and researching emerging practices of gun violence reduction from other contexts or jurisdictions. b. Share local data on gun violence in the County with stakeholders, the media, and the general public.
c. Coordinate town halls/listening sessions to evaluate residents’ perceptions of success of implemented gun violence reduction efforts. Results can be used to gauge the trajectory of violence reduction efforts.
3. Develop a long-term strategy to address the funding of violence prevention and intervention efforts and work collaboratively with County departments, cities, and community stakeholders to identify, promote, and apply for grant funds to support programs and services in San Diego County.
Summary
These recommendations fall within the wider framework of the public health approach, while addressing each level of the social-ecological model (individual, relational, community, and societal) and the violence prevention model (primary, secondary, and tertiary). These recommendations are to be take n as general guidelines, to be adapted to on -the-ground conditions and implemented alongside community partners.
While some recommendations are more immediate, the overall timeframe for recommendations is mid- to long-term. To maintain long-term progress, it is necessary to establish dedicated capacity (such as a central unit to lead gun violence reduction efforts), regularly monitor and evaluate data, increase and maintain community engagement, and secure adequate program funding. Such a framework both seeks immediate interventions and aspires to long- term solutions to root causes. These recommendations are a starting point for the County to pursue long -term assessment and advancement of gun violence reduction throughout the region. Although suicide and ass ault by firearm are significant challenges, there remains substantial public interest, across various communities, in resolving these issues, and multiple opportunities exist for the County to be both a leader and partner in the reduction of harm resulting from gun use.
Conclusion
This gun violence reduction needs assessment has provided an overview of gun violence in San Diego County and has explored possible solutions to prevent violence and mitigate impacts. The needs assessment has drawn from existing data sources as well as the first-hand experiences and beliefs provided via the community and professional surveys and listening sessions. These result s point to the conclusion that everyone has a role to play in the prevention of gun violence; that addressing systemic and historic inequities is central to addressing gun violence; and that prevention and intervention strategies should be tailored to specific populations.
Gun violence impacts people of all ages, genders, and racial/ethnic backgrounds in every area of the county, yet gun violence does not impact people equally. S ome populations and communities are disproportionately impacted . Veterans are more likely to die of firearm- related suicide than homicide.
Older White males are more likely to be victims of firearm-related suicide, while younger Black and Hispanic males are more likely be victims of firearm-related homicide and injury.
Public opinions about gun violence vary widely, yet it remains an issue that is of concern or directly impacts a large portion of those surveyed. About one-fifth (17.9%) of community members knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. Although most survey participants (66.5%) feel “very safe” or “somewhat safe” in their communities in regard to gun violence, 60.8% nonetheless are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about gun violence. Many of those who attended listening sessions advocated for focusing on all types of violence rather than “gun violence .” These comments were often phrased in reference to preserving gun rights and calls to focus on structural or root causes. Attendees also emphasized the issues of gang/community violence and the needs of underserved youth, such as the need for greater familial/social support and educational/economic opportunities. Commonly mentioned solutions, across the surveys and listening sessions, included mental health counseling, enforcing existing laws, funding community-based organizations, domestic violence support services, and youth mentorship and other youth programs.
Through an analysis of these data and conversations with County staff and community partners, a series of recommendations has been developed. These recommendations focus on actionable items appropriate to the County’s jurisdiction as well as opportunities to build on existing efforts. These recommendations focus on four broad categories: advocacy and awareness, community engagement and collaboration, community healing and trauma -informed practice , and planning and evaluation . These recommendations include suggestions such as developing and distributing targeted educational materials (such as for suicide prevention); regularly collecting, evaluating, and sharing local data on gun violence with the pu blic; adopting and enhancing screening tools to identify at- risk individuals so early interventions can be provided; and establishing partnerships in communities most impacted by gun violence to identify new and existing opportunities to enhance youth-focused programs and services, among other proposals. While gun violence is a multifaceted problem demanding a variety of approaches, there are nonetheless opportunities for the County to initiate new work and build on current efforts, especially those guided by groups on-the- ground working toward solutions.
Appendix A: Professional Survey
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Professional Survey
The County of San Diego and HARC (a research nonprofit) are working together to conduct a community needs assessment about gun violence reduction. By “gun violence” we mean any type of violence (or threat of violence) involving a firearm. This includes community violence (for example, street violence, gang violence, etc.), domestic violence, suicide, or accidental harm.
This survey is designed for professionals (for example, physicians, police officers, counselors, outreach specialists, researchers, educators, etc.) who work with or for people impacted by gun violence. We are interested in learning how communities have been affected by gun violence and potential solutions to overcoming gun violence.
If you are not a professional (as described above), you may take a different survey designed for members of the general public (San Diego County residents only) here.
Data from survey results will be included in a report to the County Board of Supervisors and will advise future actions and investment in gun violence reduction efforts.
This survey is completely anonymous. Responses will not contain identifying information, and all survey responses will be combined at the group level and will not be reported individually.
The survey is expected to take no more than 20 minutes, but take as long as you need. Your answers can be saved and completed at another time.
Feel free to skip any question if you feel it does not apply to you.
If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact HARC at [email protected] .
[i.] Do you work in the County of San Diego?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
[ii] Are you 18 or older?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
[iii] Do you provide professional services to people who are impacted by gun violence, or do you professionally support gun violence reduction efforts? (This can include a variety of professions, such as law enforcement, medical care, counseling, social work, research, education, etc.)? o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
[1.] What is your primary profession/vocation? [a] Yes, I have personally experienced this. o Local or state law enforcement officer (e.g., municipal police department, County Sheriff, CA Highway Patrol, etc.)
o Federal law enforcement officer (e.g., Border Patrol, FBI, etc.) o Security guard
o U.S. military service member
o K-12 teacher
o College or university instructor
o Researcher
o Social worker
o Mental health therapist
o Physician
o Nurse (RN or LVN)
o Paramedic/EMT
o Non-profit/community-based organization employee
o Community advocate/organizer
o Government administrator/employee/service provider
o Legal professional (e.g., judge, attorney)
o Victim advocate
o Firearm safety instructor
o Firearm dealer
o Provider of religious services (e.g., pastor, priest, rabbi, imam) o Other (Please specify): ____
[2.] Are you employed by the County of San Diego?
o Yes
o No
[3.] For how many years have you been serving people or populations impacted by gun violence? (Drop-down menu)
[4.] Do you provide direct services to people impacted by gun violence? o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[If “Yes” above for Question 4…]
[5.] What type of gun violence does your work engage with? Select all that apply. o Community violence (e.g., gang violence, street violence, etc.) o Domestic violence
o Suicide
o Accidental harm