Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 12

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of Mayor O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 22, 2006
Jayne Miller continues her intrepid reporting with an interview with former O'Malley Commissioner Kevin Clark in this piece. It turns out, when Clark took office he started an audit of O'Malley's crime statistics. You see, O'Malley was trumpeting that Baltimore was leading the nation in violent crime reduction by 26 percent since 1991, but the number of calls to 911 were actually increasing. This seemed strange to the observant Commissioner so he started a limited audit.
According to Miller's report, auditors found that 20 percent of the rapes police had declared to be unfounded were rapes that actually occurred. Also, 15 percent of the robbery reports police declared to be unfounded were reports of robbery that actually occurred. The audit found that the crime reporting system allowed "almost anyone with access to make a change to a crime code" and did not provide an paper trail of who changed the code.
Based on these findings, the astute Commissioner Clark felt that other crimes should be audited, also. After he reported the limited audit results to Mayor O'Malley, he encountered resistance from O'Malley's Director of Operations for CitiStat and from O'Malley's Deputy Mayor. He was then shut down from pursuing the broader audit. Clark says that the O'Malley's Deputy Mayor "clearly said they weren't going to go any further because the mayor had already been out front and had told everyone nationally that Baltimore was leading the nation in the reduction of violent crime . . . and if suddenly we were to have an audit that showed the numbers were going to take some type of change, it would kind of leave him out to political scrutiny."
Miller reports that Mayor O'Malley responded by saying "Kevin Clark is not telling the truth. He never raised his concerns while in office" and that Clark was a disgruntled employee. It seems apparent, however, that Miller sought Clark out, not the other way around. Clark does not have an axe to grind and can back up his statements with the actual limited audit that he conducted.

WBAL radio reports that current O'Malley Commissioner Hamm says "bring it on." Hamm says he supports an audit of the city's crime statistics as part of a larger statewide audit of crime figures that includes those from every county in the state. As mentioned before, it is very important to have an audit of the crime statistics of the whole State, especially, Kent County (pop. 19,197), Somerset County (pop. 24, 747), Caroline County (pop. 29,772), Garrett County (pop. 29,846), Dorchester County (pop. 30, 674), Talbot County (pop. 33,812), and Queen Anne's County (pop. 40,563).
WBAL radio also reports that Hamm insists the city's crime statistics, showing a drop in crime since 1999, are accurate.

WJZ-TV reports that O'Malley's Commissioner Hamm appeared before the Baltimore City Council this afternoon at a meeting to address his performance and recent concerns about the city's crime statistics. At the meeting, a 2005 progress report was scrutinized that shows what Hamm calls "the lowest crime on record since before 1970--a 50% reduction in crime since 1995 and 32,00 fewer victims during the last seven years." Does anyone really believe that Baltimore has the lowest crime since before 1970???!?

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 11

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 21, 2006
WJZ-TV reports (by Derek Valcourt) that "on Monday, councilman Kenneth Harris will introduce a new bill calling for an independant audit of city crime statistics." So now, that will be three independent audits of Baltimore City's crime statistics. How close do you think they will be to O'Malley's claim of over 98% accuracy?
The report also mentions the Governor's appearance on the Ed Norris Show. The Governor is quoted as staying "It's a legitimate area of inquiry . . . I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I don't know what occured concerning the inflation of crime statistics, the charge anyway made."

WBAL radio publishes a Commentary (by Ron Smith)on the subject, entitled "Crime Statistics: Who Are We To Believe?" Apparently, callers to the radio station have identified themselves as former Baltimore police officers and have recounted pressures and procedures that seem designed to minimize the reporting of serious crimes.

Still no word from the Sun on the false (faked?) homicide numbers.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 9

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 19, 2006
Baltimore Sun Columnist Laura Vozzella makes light of the issue in her column. She quotes Baltimore Councilman Ken Harris who said, "It's like a small snowball that's turned into a snowman that's walking around this city. . . . It's a snowman, and it's walking around here, over the citizens of Baltimore, and saying, 'OK, I'm alive here.' I'm saying, 'Let's get rid of the snowman. Let's melt the snowman, turn him into water and let it dry up. And that will be the end of the snowman.'" She also referenced the previously reported inconsistent positions of Sheila Dixon on whether to have an independent audit. Still, no substantive investigative reporting.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 7

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 17, 2006
The Sun once again acts as O'Malley's mouthpiece in an article by Doug Donovan, entitled "Mayor's camp fighting back." This article also focuses on the political back and forth, adding little substance to the story. (Gee, I wonder if they ever thought to try to interview some crime victims or officers on the street.) Apparently, O'Malley's campaign sent an email to his supporters linking Duncan with the Governor because he dared criticize O'Malley. Reminder- despite the Sun's attempt to politicize the issue, this story took life from a state National Victimization Study of 2004 as well as a reports from "several criminologists" who said that O'Malley's crime data was misleading (See February 11th recap). Notably, the Sun reports, O'Malley repeated his questioned claim of a "37.4 percent violent crime reduction between 1999 and 2004." This is the same claim that is based on statistics that "several criminologists" - not politicians - called worthless. It's like comparing apples with oranges and remarking that the apple is better because is has a better quality redness to it.

The Sun also authored an opinion piece on the subject. After recapping the story, the Sun opines: "What gets lost in the numbers debate is this fact: Crime statistics are only an indicator of the prevalence of crime. Federal surveys show that less than 50 percent of crime victims contact the police. But accuracy in crime reporting is essential to assessing public safety and Mr. O'Malley's role in it. In the absence of an independent, nonpartisan audit of city crime stats, the mayor will be defending his record and critics will be attacking it. At the very least, Mr. O'Malley should offer evidence that the data accurately reflect reported crime in Baltimore."

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's Damned Statistics - Day 6

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 16, 2006
The Baltimore Sun (Andrew Green collaborates with Doug Donovan on this one) reports on the story with a political angle with a story entitled, Duncan Backs MD Crime Audit. Why does the Sun focus primarily on what the politicians think about this as opposed to doing some investigative reporting ala Jayne Miller at WBAL-TV?
In any case, the Sun rips quotes from the Washington Post piece and reports that mostly Washington-area legislators (but also two Baltimore based legislators) announced that they would introduce a bill requiring a state-wide audit of crime statistics. Instead of going along with the study already started by the Governor (which brought their attention to the issue), these legislators politicize the issue and announce one of their own. This now provides the political cover for the Sun to report that "officials from most of the five jurisdictions subject to [the Governor's] study have said they will not participate." Yes, it is so much better to include in the study the crime statistics in Kent County (pop. 19,197), Somerset County (pop. 24, 747), Caroline County (pop. 29,772), Garrett County (pop. 29,846), Dorchester County (pop. 30, 674), Talbot County (pop. 33,812), and Queen Anne's County (pop. 40,563). (Population figures from Year 2000 obtained here). What a waste of resources this Democrat study is and they are called the Governor's study politically motivated?!
The article lets the Governor respond to allegations that his study was politically motivated, ""Next I guess I'll get blamed for the WBAL reports the last couple of days." The Sun then describes the WBAL reports this way: "WBAL-TV has reported a handful of incidents of questionable crime reporting and quoted Baltimore Police Commissioner Leonard Hamm as saying that police officers are permitted to not report serious crimes, including shootings, if victims do not cooperate. "
The Baltimore Sun made no mention of the WBAL-TV report about the discrepancy in the homicide numbers! Why? Homicide numbers by the State Medical Examiner's Office are backed by medical science and cannot be refuted. Yet the Sun refuses to even reference this discrepancy reported by WBAL-TV. O'Malley certainly has not come up with an answer for it.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 5

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 15, 2006
Jayne Miller at WBAL-TV updates her investigation with this report. The report notes that O'Malley would not object to an independent audit. City Council President Sheila Dixon first agrees, then says "an audit is all about politics and there's no evidence the city's crime numbers are anything but accurate." Buried at the end of the report, is news that some city police officers have described to reporters pressure from commanders to underreport crime!

David Collins at WBAL-TV reports that "lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday calling for an audit of 911 calls, 311 calls and the state medical examiner's office." He quotes Montgomery County Sen. Jennie Forehand, "Anyone who is a victim of a crime really deserves to know that they will be treated with respect and the crime will be fully investigated and reported."

WJZ-TV reports that "Maryland lawmakers called for an audit Wednesday of Baltimore's crime statistics." One lawmaker, Delegate Jill Carter from Baltimore, said, ""The numbers of bodies in the Coroner's office are not matching up with the numbers of homicides and other deaths we are finding in the city."

Doug Donovan at the Sun authored an article about O'Malley's defense of his crime data. He writes that O'Malley says "Baltimore does more to internally verify and review its crime reports than most cities and that the process is so thorough as to make unnecessary a one-time annual audit as extensive as the one conducted six years ago." The article references Baltimore City Councilman Ken Harris's call for O'Malley to call for an independent audit "to put closure to the matter." The article says that O'Malley refused to call for an independent audit.

No word from the Sun about the discrepancy in O'Malley's homicide numbers.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 4

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 14, 2006
The most notable -- and shocking -- report yet. Again, Jayne Miller of WBAL TV files a report noting that the State Medical Examiner's Officer counted 275 homicides in Baltimore for 2005 (not including justifiable homicides and inmates murdered while in detention). No big deal, we had 274 in 2004. The shocking part - O'Malley's police department reported that Baltimore had 269 homicides for 2004. What gives?

[A City Paper reader was suspicious back in 2003 of 'fixing' the homicide numbers. Read Jack Stout, Jr.'s letter to the paper about an increase in the number of "suspicious deaths" that corresponded to a decrease in homicides under O'Malley's watch. He cites an example of "one situation [where] the State Fire Marshal's Office considered a death to be a homicide, but the city police department listed it as suspicious" and did not include it in the homicide totals.]

Miller reports that "Police commanders said three of those cases involve the timing of homicide rulings by medical examiners. They continue to check the medical examiners numbers for an explanation of the remaining difference."

The WBAL report also says that O'Malley will not ask for an independent audit and that he had not seen the WBAL report on underreporting crimes. They then provided him with a transcript.

Also, WBAL reports that "police officers in different parts of the city have described to the 11 News I-Team pressure from commanders to underreport incidents or make no record at all. These officers did not want to be identified because of the positions they hold."

More reports of politicians questioning O'Malley's crime statistics. This article in the Sun focuses on the political catfight between Duncan and O'Malley and rehashes the previous stories on the subject. Not much substance here. (Article by Andrew A. Green and Jennifer Skalka). The Washington Post has a similar article with more quotes by Duncan, such as: "I am accusing him of misrepresenting the facts," and "Asking people to believe the numbers while they see the problems with their own eyes is not leadership." The article then references the audit O'Malley did when he first entered office that raised crime statistics. (Reported by John Wagner and Tim Craig).

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 3

An ongoing compilation of the coverage of O'Malley's use of false/misleading crime statistics.
"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 13, 2006
Jayne Miller of WBAL television files a hard-hitting investigative report on how the police choose not to report some crime. Miller tells the story with three examples that seem shocking. It makes you wonder if Mayor ComStat, with all his emphasis on governing by statistics, is pressuring the police department not to report crimes to keep the statistics low for his run for Governor.

Miller begins with the story of a woman who woke up one morning in September 2005 to find her window screen cut and her purse missing. She had left her window open and her purse sitting near the window on the kitchen counter. Stupid, true, but after she called her credit card companies, she called the police. The police responded and choose not to make a report of the Burglary/Theft. Instead, the officer told the woman to get a big dog. Burglary/Theft reported to the police, no crime report, no crime occurred according to O'Malley's system.

Miller continues with the story of a shooting in a Cherry Hill Shopping Center resulting in the victims being taken to Harbor Hospital. Miller reports that on an October 2005 afternoon, several motorists reported a gunfight in the shopping center. Moments later, Harbor Hospital ER staff make three calls to 911 to report that they have "a couple of victims of assault. . . one of them, for sure, is a gunshot victim." The police report to investigate. After requesting an incident number (which would record that a crime occurred), the officer calls back less than 90 seconds later, without explanation, and says the report was unfounded. No crime occurred according to O'Malley's crime reporting policies.

Miller interviews O'Malley's fourth hand-selected police commissioner (who has been on the job for about a year) about this incident. Commissioner Hamm says the officers were right to make no report of the shooting because the victims would not cooperate. No crime is reported because it cannot be proven it was a crime (as if the 911 calls don't show it was a crime). Even though it is unlawful to shoot a gun in Baltimore City, no crime occurred despite the fact the hospital staff say that someone suffered a gunshot wound.

A classic exchange ensues when Miller asks the Commissioner about the shooting non-incident:

What if one of these two guys died three days later?" Miller asked.

"What if they had died three days later? Then, we would have initiated an investigation. But they didn't," Hamm said.

"Do you know?" Miller asked.

"I beg your pardon?" Hamm replied.

"Do you know?" Miller asked.

"That they died?" Hamm replied. "Do you know?"

"I don't know, I'm asking you," Miller (the reporter) said.

"I don't know either, I don't know either," Hamm said.

Although you wouldn't think it was necessary, Miller consulted an expert regarding O'Malley's crime reporting policies. "Doug Ward, a retired Maryland State Police commander who spent years overseeing crime reporting by local departments, now teaches police leadership at Johns Hopkins University. ". . . it certainly raises a lot of questions in my mind," Ward said. "It's highly unusual to say it's unfounded when you have a victim in the hospital with an injury. Put it that way, it's highly unusual.""

Finally, Miller reports that one November evening in 2005, nearly a dozen 911 calls were made about a shooting where one witness heard 6 gunshots. "Police responded and located the intended target of the gunman: a man who wasn't hurt. The incident would seem to fit the definition of an aggravated assault. According to federal crime reporting guidelines, such an assault includes an unlawful attack accompanied by the use of a weapon for the purpose of inflicting severe injury. The guidelines make clear it is not necessary that injury result for an aggravated assault to occur. But in fact, Miller reported, police wrote no report at all of the . . . shooting. Instead, officers lumped it in with an armed robbery that had occurred earlier that night a couple of blocks away. . . . So, instead of two crimes that night in south Baltimore, just one was written up, and the report on the robbery makes no mention of the shooting."

WJZ-TV reports that "Duncan called for audits of crime statistics statewide, including his own county, in order to get a better idea of how serious crime is in local jurisdictions." (Reported by Pat Warren). WBAL radio had a similar report. WBAL radio also picked up Doug Donovan's story in the Sun from February 11th.

Lies, more lies, and the Baltimore Mayor's damned statistics - Day 2

"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?" Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley replies: "I would say we're somewhere north of a 9.8."

February 12, 2006
The Washington Post picks up on the story in a short piece on the misleading crime statistics entitled, "O'Malley Downplays Questions on Crime Statistics". They includes a great quote by O'Malley, "No one's ever come forward with reams of crime reports that were dropped in a dumpster or anything like that."

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.