Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 1
Today, we begin a review of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's Use of False/Misleading Crime Statistics. But first, a quote: In response to reporter Jayne Miller's question of "On a scale of one to 10 -- . . . 10 being the best -- how would you characterize the accuracy of the city's crime reporting since 2000?"
Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."
February 11, 2006
Baltimore Sun reports "Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. is funding a study to determine whether Baltimore City and four Maryland counties are correctly reporting crime statistics." The Sun's story emphasizes criticisms of the study, but buried in the middle of the story is the reason why the State is initiating the study. "The National Victimization Study of 2004 indicated inaccurate reporting of certain violent crimes. . . . [The State Crime Control and Prevention Office] is funding this study to help ensure that victims report violent crimes and that local jurisdictions accurately track reports of violent crime." (emphasis added). (Reporter Andrew Green wrote the Sun story).
Baltimore Sun also reports that 'several criminologists' say that O'Malley's crime reduction claims are false or misleading. Specifically, the Sun reports that 'the "nearly 40 percent" claim of violent crime reduction prominently featured in his campaign literature, is an inflated assessment based on an inaccurate calculation of statistics.' Essentially, the article reports that the criminologists say that the year O'Malley took office, he counted crime one way, increasing the statistics, but for each year after, he counted crime a different way, so the comparison is meaningless.
The article explains how the change in the calculation affected the statistics. The 1999 review changing the calculation boosted total crime by 14.5 percent and violent crimes by 22 percent. The biggest change involved assaults (Before audit - 7,138 aggravated assaults; After audit - 10,452, a 46 percent increase. The city had never before exceeded 10,000 aggravated assaults.) After these changes, O'Malley reported statistics using a different calculation claiming a 40% reduction in violent crime. Using the unchanged numbers, violent crime fell 23.5 percent from 1999 (assuming that police report (or don't report) crimes now the way they did in 1999 - See story reported February 13th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). Martin - It's the lies that are your problem, not your inability to conquer Baltimore's crime problem.
The article also used the inaccurate report of the number of homicides for 2005 (see story reported February 14th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). The article also notes the beginning of Democratic politicians turning against him: "City elected officials including Del. Jill P. Carter and City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. say the mayor should counter criticism by inviting an independent audit." (Reporter Doug Donovan wrote the Sun story).
WJZ-TV had a short story on the criminologists questioning O'Malley's crime statistics and WBAL radio had a similar story.
Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."
February 11, 2006
Baltimore Sun reports "Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. is funding a study to determine whether Baltimore City and four Maryland counties are correctly reporting crime statistics." The Sun's story emphasizes criticisms of the study, but buried in the middle of the story is the reason why the State is initiating the study. "The National Victimization Study of 2004 indicated inaccurate reporting of certain violent crimes. . . . [The State Crime Control and Prevention Office] is funding this study to help ensure that victims report violent crimes and that local jurisdictions accurately track reports of violent crime." (emphasis added). (Reporter Andrew Green wrote the Sun story).
Baltimore Sun also reports that 'several criminologists' say that O'Malley's crime reduction claims are false or misleading. Specifically, the Sun reports that 'the "nearly 40 percent" claim of violent crime reduction prominently featured in his campaign literature, is an inflated assessment based on an inaccurate calculation of statistics.' Essentially, the article reports that the criminologists say that the year O'Malley took office, he counted crime one way, increasing the statistics, but for each year after, he counted crime a different way, so the comparison is meaningless.
The article explains how the change in the calculation affected the statistics. The 1999 review changing the calculation boosted total crime by 14.5 percent and violent crimes by 22 percent. The biggest change involved assaults (Before audit - 7,138 aggravated assaults; After audit - 10,452, a 46 percent increase. The city had never before exceeded 10,000 aggravated assaults.) After these changes, O'Malley reported statistics using a different calculation claiming a 40% reduction in violent crime. Using the unchanged numbers, violent crime fell 23.5 percent from 1999 (assuming that police report (or don't report) crimes now the way they did in 1999 - See story reported February 13th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). Martin - It's the lies that are your problem, not your inability to conquer Baltimore's crime problem.
The article also used the inaccurate report of the number of homicides for 2005 (see story reported February 14th by Jayne Miller, WBAL TV). The article also notes the beginning of Democratic politicians turning against him: "City elected officials including Del. Jill P. Carter and City Councilman Kenneth N. Harris Sr. say the mayor should counter criticism by inviting an independent audit." (Reporter Doug Donovan wrote the Sun story).
WJZ-TV had a short story on the criminologists questioning O'Malley's crime statistics and WBAL radio had a similar story.
posted by InsiderOut at 11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home