At the Washington Post early Tuesday morning, Michelle Ye Hee Lee vetted a statement frequently made by former Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat and possible 2016 presidential contender, about reductions in crime on his watch.
Ms. Lee must have been in a hermetically sealed cave during the previous two days, because her sole justification for conducting the fact check was the protesting taking place against "the police-custody death of Freddie Gray," despite the fact that Baltimore's "mass riots" began Saturday night.
It seems safe to say that the riots indicate that much of the good O'Malley says he accomplished has been undone by his successors.
Ms. Lee's critique of O'Malley's claim essentially amounts to the following: "Yeah, he's right, but he shouldn't say so, because the FBI says you shouldn't use its data to compare municipal safety records." That is really thin gruel.
O'Malley's core claim is that from 1999 to 2009, "Baltimore went on to achieve the biggest reduction in Part 1 crime in any major city in America."
Excerpts from Ms. Lee's WaPo writeup (links are in original; bolds are mine):
As O’Malley weighs a 2016 presidential run, his critics are raising questions about his record on policing strategies. This is a timely topic, as Baltimore residents take to the streets to protest the police-custody death of Freddie Gray. Gray, 25, died on April, 19, 2015, a week after was arrested. Police say he suffered injuries to his spine. His death has become the latest symbol in the ongoing national debate over policing strategies.
The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on O’Malley’s policing tactics. But it is worth exploring his statement about his record. Are his figures accurate? What is the context of those figures, especially in comparison to rates in other jurisdictions?
... O’Malley is referring to 1999-2009 data from the FBI, which tracks crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. Part 1 crimes are serious crimes that are likely to be reported to police, and are divided into violent and property crimes. These crimes include criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson and motor vehicle theft.
O’Malley usually clarifies that he is referring to Part 1 (i.e., overall) crimes.
... FBI data confirm his calculation. The overall crime rate (the number of crimes per 100,000 people) fell by 48 percent during that decade, more than any other large police agency in the country. Specifically for violent crimes, the Baltimore City Police Department saw the third highest drop (behind Los Angeles and New York City) during the period.
... But the city’s homicide rate was still ranked second highest out of cities with more than 500,000 residents.
... The FBI cautions against making comparisons with its data, in a warning published annually with its crime statistics. The agency cautions the media, tourism agencies and others in the public from using reported crime figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings “lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions,” as there are many variables that factor into the unique geographic and demographic situation in a city or state.
The FBI document Lee referenced says that users of its data attempting comparisons between locales should consider the following:
... the makeup of a locale’s population. The transience of the population, its racial and ethnic makeup, its composition by age and gender, educational levels, and prevalent family structures are all key factors in assessing and comprehending the crime issue.
But at any given point in time, if what you're concerned about is how safe you're going to be living or working in a given locale, why should you care about any of these items (the trends in some of them could be relevant, but the FBI doesn't talk about that)? What you really care about are the statistical odds of you and your loved ones staying alive and unharmed, and having your belongings remain safe.
The FBI document does make one potentially valid comparative point:
... one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its LEA (law enforcement agencies — Ed.) through proactive efforts identifies more offenses.
That's fine, but the O'Malley administration's zero-tolerance policing posture at the time and the high number of reported arrests — the Post notes "108,447 people arrested in a city of roughly 600,000 residents" in 2005 — clearly indicate that under-reporting of crime was not taking place. If anything, considering the likelihood that some cities were under-reporting, Baltimore's record during the time frame in question might be even better than what O'Malley is claiming.
Michelle Ye Hee Lee's conclusion:
... At The Fact Checker, we often are critical of politicians bragging about successes during their term — such as job gains and drops in crime — that can result from numerous factors out of their control. Such claims usually result in Two Pinocchios. But O’Malley uses a specific measurement of FBI data, and his claim about Part 1 crime rates from 1999-2009 check out. It is to his credit that he references this wonky measurement most of the time in his statements, when most politicians would be tempted to drop that caveat.
But we also take the FBI’s warnings against comparing raw crime rates seriously. O’Malley’s policies as mayor may have contributed to the decline in crime rates, but there are many variables at play. As evidence of that, Baltimore’s crime rate trend mirrored other major cities at that time; his statement does not provide that perspective.
One Pinocchio.
"One Pinocchio" is supposed to mean: "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods."
O'Malley may have considerable problems and shortcomings as a presidential contender. On the current topic, his brag about safety igores the fact that the city's crime rate was still unacceptably high at the end of the time period involved, and amounts to boasting about how "my city is a very dangerous place, but it's still less dangerous than yours."
But Ms. Lee's conclusion in this matter is simply wrong based on the paper's own standards. The former mayor is not shading the facts; is very specific in his statement; is omitting nothing; and is, as noted above, possibly understating his claim.
Rather than desperately fishing for reasons to give a long-shot challenger to Hillary Clinton a single Pinocchio, the Post needs to back up the truck and dump four Pinocchios at a time on all of the "whoppers" Mrs. Clinton continues to disseminate. Going back to April 1, I only see two such attempts (here, with three Pinocchios, and here, with just one). There could easily be far more, with far harsher evaluations.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
