Killed by a Gun

The headlines in the case were sadly familiar. An angry adult armed with a gun used it to shoot and kill an unarmed black teenager he thought seemed “bad”—this time, because the teenager and his friends were sitting in a car listening to music the grownup didn’t like. In this outrageous Florida case, a middle-aged white man, Michael Dunn, was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and one count of shooting a gun into an occupied car. Jurors agreed he faced no threat after he was annoyed by loud music -- coming from a car he had deliberately chosen to park next to -- and then started an argument, pulled a gun on the car’s black teens, and fired three shots at the young men inside the car as they tried to drive away from him.

But the jury could not agree on the most serious charge of first-degree murder for shooting the first seven bullets at the stationary car and hitting 17-year-old Jordan Davis in his lung, liver, and aorta. Florida’s notorious “Stand Your Ground” law, which gives gun owners a license to kill if they feel threatened, was allegedly enough for three jurors to vote against conviction. At least one juror said she believed Michael Dunn did get away with murder: “There is no longer a Jordan Davis, and there is only one reason why that is. The boy was shot and killed for reasons that should not have happened.”

In an interview with Good Morning America Jordan’s mother, Lucia McBath, said she believed the jurors in her son’s case did the best they could with the laws they had, but also made it clear she believes our nation’s existing laws did not protect Jordan or millions of other victims of gun violence in America. When asked what justice for her son would look like she answered:

“Justice for Jordan will be, ultimately, really when we change the laws. Because that will be not just justice for Jordan, and justice for Trayvon, and justice for all the children at Sandy Hook, and justice for Aurora, and justice for Virginia Tech, and the Navy Yard -- it will be justice for everyone that has suffered because of these laws, and will continue to suffer. So once the laws are changed, that’s the ultimate justice for all.”

Researchers at Texas A&M University studied the impact of Stand Your Ground laws, like the one enacted in Florida in 2005, across the country and concluded in a 2012 study that “the laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault” but do “lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.” Evidence is also clear that these laws have a disparate racial impact. Researchers from the Urban Institute found that when White shooters kill Black victims, 34 percent of the homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3.3 percent are ruled justifiable when the situation is reversed.

Now researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research have released the results of a new study on the effectiveness of another crucial segment of our nation’s gun laws: those requiring background checks before purchasing a gun. For this study the scholars took a close look at the state of Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law. Before it was repealed this law required all handgun purchasers in Missouri to obtain a license verifying that they had passed a background check. The researchers wanted to know what happened when this requirement was taken away -- and they learned that repealing that law has led to a 16 percent increase in Missouri’s murder rate. The study showed between 2008 and 2012 there were an additional 55 to 63 murders in Missouri each year associated with the law’s repeal. During those same years, the national murder rate dropped by over 5 percent.

The research controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime. The spike in murders only occurred for murders committed with a gun and happened statewide, while bordering states showed no increase. The number of handguns recovered from scenes of crimes or from criminals quickly doubled after the repeal. In a press release, lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said: “This study provides compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence.” Co-author Jon Vernick, JD, MPH, deputy director for the Center for Gun Policy and Research, added:

“Because many perpetrators of homicide have backgrounds that would prohibit them from possessing firearms under federal law, they seek out private sellers to acquire their weapons. Requiring a background check on all gun sales is a commonsense approach to reducing gun violence that does not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Requiring a background check seems like common sense to most Americans -- and yet some lawmakers refuse to make it happen. Others, like those in Missouri, are actually moving backwards. The same press release noted:

“Only fifteen states require individuals purchasing handguns from unlicensed sellers to pass background checks, with ten of these states requiring all purchasers to acquire a permit-to-purchase license. A 2013 public opinion survey from Johns Hopkins found the majority of Americans (89 percent) and gun owners (84 percent) support requiring a background check system for all gun sales. The majority of Americans (77 percent) and gun owners (59 percent) also reported supporting requiring people to obtain a license from a local law-enforcement agency before buying a gun to verify their identity and ensure that they are not legally prohibited from having a gun.”

This latest Johns Hopkins study is another key step in finding out what works to reduce gun violence. The available evidence is clear: Stand Your Ground laws do not reduce gun violence. Background checks do -- just one part of a network of solutions that can help. We need a robust commitment to much more research on the epidemic public health threat of gun violence to identify all of them. And when we know what works, we need leaders who will listen to and act on the research and public opinion to preserve lives. We do not need any more suffering families. Jordan Davis’s father Ron said:

“All the other 17-year-olds out there -- they shouldn’t have to fear the adults with the guns that are running around here shooting them at will. If you throw popcorn in someone’s face, they want to shoot you because you threw popcorn in their face. That’s what we’ve come to. But we have to stop.”

We really do have to stop!

The Hungry Child

We were homeless. 
My mom. My big sister and me.
We slept in the car. . .
We went to IHOP and we only got one pancake and we shared it.
That was our breakfast...
When I was tired of sitting in the car, I would talk to my mom. 
She would always say a prayer so we could have a better life. 
We should buy kids good food when they are homeless. 
We should help them out.

-- Jasmine, age 7

There are six people in our family.
But only five sit down to dinner.
That’s because my mom doesn’t eat.
She wants to make sure we have enough food.

-- Vanessa, age 6

Some children cheer when schools close for winter storms, but there are hungry children in America right now for whom another snow day this week meant another day without access to school breakfast or lunch. Despite criticism, some big-city mayors have kept schools open on snowy days this winter so their children would not go without food. These same children suffer over the weekends. While some schools have food pantries and send children home on the weekends with backpacks filled with food, it is still far, far from enough and only a drop in the bucket of need. Schools report students who arrive hungry on Monday morning or cry when they miss the bus or it’s late because that means they’ve missed breakfast.

The record 16.1 million children living in poverty, including more than 7 million living in extreme poverty, leaves millions of children suffering from hunger in our nation with the world’s largest GDP. In 2012 more than one in nine children in the United States lived in households where children were food insecure, meaning they lacked consistent access to adequate food; more than one in five children -- 15.9 million -- lived in households where either children or adults or both were food insecure. In some families, like Jasmine’s, hunger compounds other crises like homelessness, making them even worse. In many others hunger is almost hidden -- a quiet secret of parents struggling to recover from the recession and no longer able to stay afloat. Food pantries have reported that some of the same community members who were once regular donors helping to fill the shelves are now regular visitors in need of help themselves.

Black and Hispanic households with children were more than twice as likely as White households to have food insecure children, but White households comprised the largest group of households (43 percent) with food insecure children. In 2010 and 2011, three-quarters of households with food insecure children had one or more working adults, 80 percent of whom worked full-time. 

Children’s physical health and brain development depend on access to nutritious food, especially in the earliest years of life. Hunger and malnutrition have devastating consequences for children. Federal nutrition programs continue to be a critical support to ensure children’s daily nutritional needs are met: they put food on children’s plates, help build healthy minds and bodies, and help lift families out of poverty. A recent study found that needy children who received food assistance before age five were in better health as adults. Food programs are particularly crucial for younger children, as they are more likely to be in poor health, experience developmental delays, and be food insecure when their families’ food benefits are reduced or ended. These programs work. Yet they are not reaching every child in need.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which serve over 22 million children — more than one in four children in America — were cut in the recent farm bill by $8.6 billion over 10 years. An estimated 850,000 households, including 1.7 million people, will see a reduction on average of $90 a month in their food assistance. This cut comes on top of the substantial across-the-board benefit reduction that took effect in November 2013 and affected all SNAP households.  These cuts are morally offensive and economically indefensible, especially when so many non-needy farmers and others will continue to get agricultural welfare subsidies. SNAP is the only defense against the wolves of hunger for 1.2 million households with children who had no cash income other than SNAP in an average month in FY 2011; FY 2012 is expected to show an increase. It is shameful that Congress continues to treat poor Americans like second class citizens by cutting supports they desperately need.

Like SNAP, the school lunch, breakfast, and summer feeding programs, which provide meals to children in school and during the long hot summer months, are crucial and effective anti-poverty investments that help combat child hunger. They also play a vital role in ensuring children are fed and able to succeed in the classroom. In one study, children who were food insecure in kindergarten saw a 13 percent drop in their reading and math test scores by the third grade compared to their food-secure peers. In FY2012, more than 21 million children received free or reduced-price lunch through the National School Lunch Program and nearly 11 million children received free and reduced price breakfast. When school is out, though, it’s a different story.

The long summer break can be the worst time of all for our young as hunger does not take a summer vacation. The Children’s Defense Fund’s latest report shows only 10 percent of the number of children who relied on free or reduced-price lunch during the school year received meals through the Summer Food Service Program. Despite the fact that it is 100 percent federally-funded and has the potential to create local jobs for cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and others, too many states and communities drag their feet, create mindless bureaucratic hurdles, and make it as difficult as possible to get resources to serve meals to hungry children during the summer. I have never understood why and it should be stopped. Click here to see the 10 best and 10 worst states for child enrollment in Summer Food Service Programs.

It is crucial to start asking about and planning right now for summer feeding programs in your community to make sure there is no child hunger crisis in your area this summer. Encourage local congregations, organizations, community centers, parks and recreation departments, and others to open their doors and feed hungry children this summer. These entities are eligible to become summer feeding sponsors and sites. If you have a connection to a local service or civic program discuss this issue with them and encourage them to take advantage of the opportunity to help hungry children get food. Adults and older children can volunteer to help prepare or serve meals at local sites and learn how to serve others and get to know who their neighbors are. Visit the USDA’s website to learn more.

There should be no hungry people—especially no hungry children—in any community in rich America. Jasmine, Vanessa, and millions of children like them deserve better.

Celebrating, Continuing, and Building on Chip's Success

We’re used to making a big fuss over children’s birthdays, but this week child advocates and families across the country are celebrating CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, on the fifth anniversary of its reauthorization. One family who lives in the working-class Germantown neighborhood of Philadelphia with their six-, four- and three-year-old children told us they celebrate and are grateful for CHIP every day. The husband is a talented freelance videographer and the wife cares for the children. CHIP has been a lifeline for the family, providing stability with health and dental coverage for the children. With CHIP coverage, she gets regular phone calls reminding her it’s time for appointments or letting her know a dental van is in the area. CHIP has opened doors to high quality child-appropriate providers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania Health System when needed and provided peace of mind for the hardworking father, whose income can vary wildly from month to month and year to year. CHIP has given him security knowing his children are getting the care they need without breaking the bank. The wife says, “The kids wouldn’t have had health insurance if it wasn’t for CHIP.”

There are more than eight million children with stories like this. To survive and thrive, all children need access to comprehensive, affordable health coverage that is easy to get and keep. Unmet health and mental health needs can result in children falling behind developmentally and having trouble catching up physically, emotionally, socially, and academically. And it can mean life or death for children from preventable disease and illness. Our hearts at the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) are so often broken with stories of children dying for lack of timely, affordable health care and CHIP plays a critical role in the American health care system in decreasing their numbers. It has strong bipartisan roots. It was created in 1997 when Democrats and Republicans, led by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), came together to create a system of health coverage for children whose families earned too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to be able to buy health coverage that today costs on average more than $16,000 a year for a family of four in the individual market. CHIP continues to provide crucial support for millions of working families: 92 percent of all children enrolled in CHIP had at least one parent employed during the last year. Since its creation CHIP has helped cut the number of uninsured children in half, to the lowest level on record, while improving child health outcomes and access to care.

Health coverage for CHIP children is more affordable for families than private insurance and its benefits are generally more comprehensive and child-appropriate than private insurance. CHIP’s benefits and provider networks are specifically designed to make sure children have access to child-appropriate services, providers, specialists, and facilities.

CHIP is an essential part of the health system for children. By preserving and strengthening CHIP and Medicaid and creating new coverage options for parents, access to health coverage is now available for 95 percent of all children in America. But eligibility and access to coverage do not guarantee enrollment. While 42 million children are enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid, more than 8 million in CHIP alone, more than 7 million children under 19 are still uninsured. Nearly 70 percent of these uninsured children are eligible for but not enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid. More than a third of the eligible but unenrolled children live in just three states—California, Florida, and Texas. The Children’s Defense Fund is making and all of us must make every effort to enroll every child to save child lives.

We know health-related problems can lead to poor academic performance and that uninsured children are more likely to perform poorly in school than children with coverage. CDF has partnered with AASA, The School Superintendents Association, to link uninsured children with health coverage by adding a question to school enrollment forms asking whether children have health coverage and helping connect uninsured students with coverage. One school administrator put it simply, “As superintendent, I care about the young people we serve. If they are ill and miss school, we miss opportunities to promote their learning.” School-based outreach is an important tool in connecting eligible children to CHIP and we urge every school official to take steps to make sure all their children are enrolled in health programs for which they are eligible.

CHIP has strong bipartisan support among Americans across the political spectrum and has been a bright spot in health coverage since its creation. Although CHIP is authorized through 2019, its funding is running out and will virtually disappear by October 2015 unless Congress takes immediate action. If funding is not continued, millions of children would lose health coverage and millions more would likely receive less comprehensive coverage at significantly higher cost. Either would be an enormous step backwards for children. Congress must act this year to keep CHIP funding for millions of families and prevent uncertainty and discontinuity for children, parents, or states about CHIP’s future.

When CHIP was reauthorized in February 2009, President Obama correctly said: “No child in America should be receiving her primary care in the emergency room in the middle of the night. No child should be falling behind in school because he can't hear the teacher or see the blackboard. I refuse to accept that millions of our kids fail to reach their potential because we fail to meet their basic needs. In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to tradeoffs or negotiations – health care for our children is one of those obligations.” I could not agree more. CHIP remains a critical piece in the puzzle of connecting millions of children to health coverage. We’ve made tremendous progress and must continue to move towards the finish line so that every child in our country has access to comprehensive, affordable, and easy to get and keep health coverage. Let’s celebrate CHIP’s track record of success the common sense way by acting now to ensure CHIP in states across the country can continue the good work.