Taking a different look at crime statistics
A new study released today attempts to use socioeconomic data to better compare big city homicide figures and determine whether a city’s crime is essentially better or worse than one would expect given poverty, median income, unemployment, race composition and female-headed households. In a nutshell, they're trying to determine which places may be overcoming demographic challenges through programs and policies, and which should be doing a heck of a lot better. Unfortunately for Baltimore, the study shows that we're basically right where the demographics suggest we should be.
Using data from 2008 and the first half of 2009, researchers from the Improving Crime Data program found that some cities, such as Detroit, Cleveland and Atlanta, end up falling down the list of deadliest cities, indicating those places have a lower homicide rate than would be expected based on its level of socioeconomic disadvantage. Detroit fell from No. 2 all the way to No. 53, indicating that, in other words, things in Detroit could have been a lot worse in 2008 given their demographics.
I’m not sure if that’s comforting for the city with the top homicide rate in the country, but one of the researchers, Robert Friedmann of Georgia State University, put a positive spin on it. "If you're a CEO flying out to Detroit considering whether to move your business there, the ranking shows you its not as bad as you initially thought," he said.
Other cities, such as San Jose, San Francisco, Albuquerque, N.M. and Colorado Springs, Col. shot up the list. Or in other words, according to the researchers, even though crime appears low, something isn’t going right in those cities. Friedmann told me San Francisco officials have been angered at the fact that each year their city soars in the rankings, an indication that they're dropping the ball given their favorable demographics.
There wasn’t much good news for Baltimore in the rankings. Along with St. Louis, the researchers determined our crime was about what would be expected - with both cities ranking at the top of either list. Baltimore fell from three to five between the unadjusted and adjusted lists in 2008, surpassed by Oakland, Calif. and Kansas City. In the first half of 2009, we fell from two to three, surpassed by...St. Louis.
It should be noted that the list featured 63 cities, with, from what I can tell, the main criteria being a population of at least 250,000 people. Cities that general FBI data showed were among the tops in murder rate, including New Orleans, La. (the top city), Birmingham, Ala., Jackson, Miss, Baton Rouge, La. and Flint, Mich. were not among those that were considered in this study. I wonder how including more cities in the analysis might have changed Baltimore’s ranking.
The study also fails to take into account some of the drivers of the socioeconomic data that they're studying, some of which has a lot to do with simply how a city's boundaries are drawn. For example, Los Angeles' city limits stretch far, gobbling up lots of more affluent areas that drive up the population and bring little crime with. Think Baltimore if it included Baltimore County. Baltimore and Washington DC, meanwhile, have tight boundaries drawn around the urban core.
Categories: Confronting crime, Crime elsewhere
Comments
Thanks for the link and essay.
I'm going to poke around in the report more but a first observation I suspect may be worth sharing is the linking of B'more with St Louis (and to a lesser extent Richmond).
Some may not be aware but that city is the only other city in the country approaching our population level with the political divide from the surrounding County that we er uhm enjoy.
Posted by: MrRational | January 28, 2010 4:06 PM
The number of bodies and wounded is no longer relevant huh?
"In a nutshell, they're trying to determine which places are overcoming demographic challenges and which should be doing a heck of a lot better."
This is clearly PROFILING! That hated policy when it comes to national and local security, but use it in a study to do something that sounds like more social engineering.
Profiling.
Posted by: Voters Ignorance | January 28, 2010 6:29 PM
"in other words, things in Detroit could have been a lot worse in 2008 given their demographics. "
What?? What the hell does that mean?
That the criminal types in Detroit are CAPABLE of killing more of each other?
This is a Profiling and racist study!
Posted by: Voters Ignorance | January 28, 2010 6:31 PM
All Maryland citizens need to contact and direct their Delegates to give us back our rights to bear arms, and then you will see a change.
Several weeks ago, an article listed as the city of Annapolis of having the lowest crime rate in 35 years. Well, due to the increased poling, crime is definitely not occurring in Annapolis, it’s where your Delegates travel and work! We all know that crime occurs more often in poorer neighborhoods. That is why a group of Maryland Delegates took away Maryland citizen’s rights to bear arms. Those Delegates deem the lives of people living in poorer neighborhoods worthless. We all need to think next time, before we vote!
Posted by: JohnQ4Public | January 29, 2010 10:13 AM
This is nothing short of a way for city governments to feel better about falling down on the job when it comes to public safety. "Well we had 250 murders last year, but it COULD have been a LOT WORSE, according to the study..."
Oh give me a break with this blatant propaganda. What's next? Jamie Hopkins is going to start writing things like "Well we only had 500 foreclosures this month so things are GREAT!"
While I applaud the ability to see the glass half full, I despise the inability to see the problems and actually fix them. I wonder how much taxpayer money was used for this study. I want a refund.
But the flip side of your first paragraph is true as well, as evidence by the San Francisco issue. The researchers say their homicide statistics may look nice, but should be even better. There's two sides to the coin with this study. -Justin
Posted by: Cathy Robinson | January 29, 2010 11:11 AM
The point of a study like this one isn't to cover up deaths or profile people. It's to provide a rough indication of best practice in criminal justice and crime prevention. If you can find a city that's economically and demographically similar to your own, but which has a lower homicide rate, chances are they're doing something right. Maybe learning from that example would be a good idea?
Posted by: Pasal2 | January 29, 2010 1:51 PM
Pasal2 (and others): Or note that cities with industries and other actual jobs for it's citizens tend to not have many issues with narcotic addiction and the variety of crime that causes and exacerbates. hmmm
This is the basis for the er, rationale that if we can't eliminate the economic harm that the loss of low skilled but decently paying industrial jobs (and at the root of nearly every other problem in America) that perhaps eliminating the social and legal harm of prohibition will largely eliminate the criminality *directly* associated to that. hmmm
Posted by: MrRational | January 29, 2010 3:33 PM