Variation in Extreme Risk Protection Order Use Among Urban, Suburban, and Rural ZIP Codes in Maryland: A Descriptive Study.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a tool used to temporarily remove access to firearms from those who may pose a risk of violence to themselves or others. Little research on ERPOs has examined variation in use of the law between urban and rural jurisdictions. Data abstracted from Maryland ERPO casefiles between October 2018 and June 2020 were paired with ZIP code-level Rural Area Commuting Area codes and American Community Survey population data. Rate of ERPO use was tabulated for 3 urbanicity categories (urban, suburban, and rural). Chi-squared and 1-way ANOVA tests were used to determine between-urbanicity variation in respondent characteristics, precipitating threat, petitioner type, and court outcomes. Univariate logistic regression supplemented these analyses when a statistically significant difference was evident. The observed rate of ERPO use was 1% higher in rural areas and 66% higher in suburban areas than urban areas. Racial demographics of respondents appeared to reflect underlying distributions of race in each urbanicity category. The types of threats precipitating ERPOs were overall similar, although suicide attempts were more common in non-urban petitions and interpersonal violent threats were most common in urban petitions. Family members and minors were more frequent targets of violence in the events precipitating rural petitions compared with non-rural petitions. Law enforcement officers were over twice as likely to petition in rural areas than in suburban or urban areas. Interim hearings occurred more frequently in suburban and rural areas than urban areas (although this result was not statistically significant for rural petitions). ERPOs are used in urban, suburban, and rural areas to address largely similar forms of violence. While the rate of ERPO use is higher in less urban areas, civilians comprise a smaller proportion of rural petitioners than urban or suburban petitions. Implications for implementation practice and further research are discussed.