Librarians beware city crime ranking book
AP Photo/The Chicago Sun-Times, Scott Stewart
People have been profiting off the misery of others since the dawn of human history.
Some would argue that efforts to do so not only are the province of drug dealers and credit card companies but also affect noble professions. Lawyers and tax accountants come to mind. One might point the finger at journalists as well, and there’s some justice in that.
But today, in what’s become an annual ritual, we turn our attention to the practices of a book publisher.
For several years, a publishing company has been peddling warmed-over FBI crime data assembled in book form and labeled “city crime ratings.” Each year, the offerings roll out on the sensationalist wave of “America’s most dangerous cities!” And each year, critics ranging from politicians to tourism officials to criminologists to the FBI itself cry foul.
They argue, in essence, that the listings amount to pseudo-scientific junk cynically packaged in the trappings of official law enforcement data to make a fast buck.
They are right.
The principal complaint is that there is no meaningful way to compare the incidence of crime from city to city, much less any meaningful way to make useful judgments about what city is more dangerous than another.
St. Louis, for example, is a geographically compact, heavily urbanized city in which some areas have a high incidence crime. Parts of Kansas City share these characteristics. But Kansas City covers a much larger geographic area and includes more neighborhoods that are suburban in nature and less prone to crime and disorder.
In the just-released edition, St. Louis’ “crime score” (itself a made-up measurement) is more than twice that of Kansas City. Does that mean that St. Louis is twice as dangerous or that a person in Kansas City is half as likely to become a crime victim? Hardly. The whole concept is nonsensical.
The most that can be said is that the incidence of crime in parts of St. Louis is comparable to that in parts of Kansas City. And even that says nothing about what people really want to know, which is whether someone is more or less likely than another to become a victim of crime. That information depends much more on other variables, such as the person’s age, gender, lifestyle and economic status.
Too many media outlets, of course, find all this irresistible — it’s a list! — and haven’t seemed very interested in the pesky details. Thus, these annual rankings tend to garner national publicity.
The late Mr. Blackwell’s annual worst-dressed list used to hurt celebrities’ feelings. The specious crime lists can hurt a community’s reputation, as St. Louis learned in 2006 when the city topped the so-called rankings just as the national spotlight focused on the city during the World Series.
Hucksterism of this kind can’t be suppressed and, of course, shouldn’t be. These publishers have a constitutional right to cut, paste and publish FBI crime data into meaningless form and puff it up as if it were valuable.
But critics have a right to call them out. Earlier this week, one critic — the U. S. Conference of Mayors — called the rankings “a disservice to the public.”
For the record, “City Crime Rankings 2008-2009; Crime in Metropolitan America” is published by CQ Press, Washington, D.C., and priced at $55 in paperback. At that price, its most likely buyers are librarians.
Fine. Librarians, who tend to be very savvy professionals, should keep in mind two things: All the data in the book are government statistics available online for free, and the way the book uses numbers renders them worthless.
Instead of attacking the messenger, urban mayors and their allies at the Post-Dispatch should focus on solutions to violent crime. Murder is so common in parts of St. Louis that it only warrants a one paragraph story on this, our region’s premier news site. And the city has been kind enough to spread the joy: Ferguson just had its first murder since I moved here, as a man from the city was gunned down in front of a strip mall. I’ll dare to guess that the killers were also from the city.
For years, liberals at the Post-Dispatch and other newspapers have advocated “solutions” such as “midnight basketball” recreational programs, job training, gun buybacks, and of course disarming law abiding citizens. These have all failed. So if we’re going to recommend that librarians avoid costly publications which traffic in fictions about urban crime, they could save a lot more than $55 a year by canceling their subscription to the Post-Dispatch. And should they also choose to cancel the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other such purveyors of fiction, the savings would mount into the thousands. And think of how many trees it would save!
Maybe instead of complaining about the rankings, the City should actually do something about crime in STL. Other cities have reduced crime. Why can’t STL? Probably because the leaders and this paer are in denial and lack political will to be proactive against the people in the areas of the city that are now exporting their crime throughout the city and burbs. To argue STL does not have a crime problem is a denial that is a crime in itself.
Dittos to both posts.
Whether we are #1 or #5, St. Louis is still a crime-ridden city. Where are the true leaders that will help diminish crime? Look at our aldermen/alderwomen. What have they done to help St. Louis? Look at our inner-city schools. What have they done to promote good citizenship? Look at our inner-city churches. They have the most vocal, “religious” women praising God on Sundays and other days throughout the week….but they raise gang-banging murderers. Look at our police force. They had (have?) cops that check out impounded cars like they are library books.
Sorry, I don’t care what the numbers are…St. Louis is still a screwed up, unsafe city that I wouldn’t want my kids to live in. Until all our leaders practice what they preach, we’ll never have a safe place to live.
Optimus, Kasoff and logicprevails must have overdone the dressing and gravy at Thanksgiving dinner, and now are letting everyone in on their indigestion.
Thanks to all for sharing.
Critics of the crime book consist of the broad law enforcement community, including academic criminologists and the FBI itself.
They don’t dispute the existence of crime. Nor do they lack commitment for reducing crime.
They correctly complain about rankings and comparisons, which are without meaningful basis in fact and provide a distorted picture of risks of crime victimization.
As a former journalist (ok, broadcast journalist), I think the “media” is mainly to blame for these things. On my first day on the job,back in the early 70’s, I arrived ready to uncover the next Watergate. I was a bit disappointed when I was sent to cover a retirement home ribbon cutting. Things picked up the next day, though, and I got to interview Col. Sanders at KFC! The news director, sensing my dismay put it bluntly, “Look kid, let me explain this business. We are interested in the first, the last, the oldest, the newest, the biggest, the smallest, in other words, some kind of hook to hang a story on in order to fill up the thirty minutes of the newscast everyday. Lists are nothing but a hook. They work great when we can all chant, “we’re number one”. Unless its the wrong list. The media loves these lists, good or bad because it gives it the chance to embarress politicians. The politicians then make more news by blaming the Chief of Police, the list makers and the media. If we all ignored these lists, we’d be better off. But, as long as there’s a Chamber of Commerce and thirty minutes of air to fill (or a paper to write), that’s probably not going to happen.
Eddie - Just because law enforcement objects to the list doesn’t mean that it is bad. And just because the list isn’t scientific doesn’t mean that it fails to serve a useful purpose. And whether you like it or not, you’re a lot safer living in Seattle than Detroit, a lot safer in Provo than New Orleans.
As somebody who reads the news from New Orleans, it is no wonder that they are #1. The Times-Picayune reported a couple of weeks ago that the DA dropped more than 500 pending cases because the police never gave them a report. Read about it here:
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/das_refusal_of_529_cases_alarm.html
Meanwhile, the same New Orleans city government which has proven itself unable to prevent mayhem in its streets is throwing a mountain of red tape at people seeking to recover firearms they confiscated in the wake of Katrina.
1. Download a Firearm Release form from the city website.
2. Provide a description of identifying characteristics, and a sales receipt for the purchase, of a firearm which was confiscated more than three years ago. Receipt lost in the flood? Tough luck.
3. Get the form notarized.
4. If the firearm was confiscated as the result of a “municipal citation” then you can’t get it back without a court order.
5. Prove your identity with a driver’s license or state ID. (Why is this ok here, but not for voting?)
6. Go through a background check to make sure you can legally own a firearm.
7. Sign a Release and Hold Harmless agreement indemnifying the city, have it notarized.
8. Sign an affidavit attesting to your ownership.
So in NOLA, getting back a gun which the city STOLE from you is more difficult than getting out of jail after committing a crime. But Mr. Roth would rather focus on the methodology of the list.
Eddie - nice attacks on the conservatives again. Too bad your comments can’t be deleted.
Eddie, please visit our fine neighborhoods north of Washington Avenue and do tell me how your experience was. I would like to ask that you do this at night to really get a good feel for how safe you feel. I will add you to the statistics that are being used for these ratings. Enjoy the ride!
Just one or two questions about this book.
1. Does it sort by city population? It would hardly do to compare the City of St Louis with a population of 347,181, to New York City with a population of 8,214,426.
2. Are they dealing with absolute numbers or relative rates?
Logic, you recommend “please visit our fine neighborhoods north of Washington Avenue”, are you actually familiar with these neighborhoods, or are you merely reciting your prejudice? I only ask as I know some pretty wonderful people doing good work in the neighborhood. (No, not the one’s you might know, but teaching nuns.)
‘
Ooopsie! Here’s another list the P-D Ed Board would like to see ignored:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-do-ten-cities-with-highest-poverty.html
===