On "The Annual Misuse of Hate Crime Statistics"

Via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish:

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog has identified the dangers of using UCR data (in this case, on hate crime statistics) to generate year-to-year comparisons or establish annual trends:

Every year around this time, the FBI publishes its statutorily-mandated annual report on hate crime statistics. Like clockwork, every year that report gets misused no matter what the FBI does to discourage that misuse (previous examples of misuse here). This year is no exception, as several prominent liberal sites have picked up on the lede that this year’s report shows a “sharp increase” in anti-gay hate crime while also noting that race-based hate crimes barely decreased at all.

The problem is that these particular FBI statistics are virtually useless for evaluating year-to-year trends – always have been, always will be. This year, the FBI itself went out of its way to warn against such readings, stating “our Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program doesn’t report trends in hate crime stats—yearly increases or decreases often occur because the number of agencies who report to us varies from year to year."...

The point here is that it is extraordinarily difficult – if not impossible – to draw any kind of conclusions about trends in hate crime on the basis of the FBI’s annual reports, unless there are truly massive swings in a data set or unless a trend continues for a number of years without any plausible explanation related to changes in law enforcement priorities or state-level hate crimes legislation.

Because of the severe limitations of this annual report, I am indeed skeptical whether it has any value whatsoever. At a minimum, however, interpretations of the data in these reports need to be limited to assessments of where law enforcement priorities lie and of what forms of hate crimes are, relatively speaking, the most common.

I am reminded of Rick Rosenfeld's excellent observations about the misuse of crime statistics more generally. Discuss!

Sex Offenders and Social Networking: Show me the Research!

NOTE: I also posted this on our cyberbullying blog.

As anticipated, the Final Report released yesterday by Berkman Center's Internet Safety Technical Task Force summarizing the state of knowledge concerning child safety online has come under fire by some state Attorneys General and others with an interest in advancing public fear about the risks inherent in online social networking. In my view, much of the criticism is misguided and in some cases even inflammatory.

As I pointed out in my post yesterday, Sameer and I were on the Research Advisory Board and involved in assisting with the review of much of the research that was featured in the Final Report. Our primary area of expertise is cyberbullying, and the Report rightly acknowledged this to be one of the chief threats posed to adolescents who utilize technology. That does not mean, however, that other risks do not exist.

As expected, one of the primary criticisms of the Report is that it seems to underplay the apparent risks to children with respect to contact with sexual predators. The state Attorneys General have a very specific perspective in that they unfortunately have to confront these types of cases on a regular basis and therefore perceive it to be a pervasive problem. But that is akin to me saying that cyberbullying is a universal problem just because the vast majority of folks who contact me have been victimized by a cyberbully. As a researcher, I have to step back and take an objective assessment of the problem by conducting thoughtful and methodologically sound empirical research. While the research concerning cyberbullying is growing and improving, we just do not have any reputable research that can adequately elucidate the problem of sexual predators contacting and victimizing adolescents on social networking web sites.

In fact, we really have no idea how many sexual “predators” are online or any particular web site. The information released last year pointed to nearly 29,000 registered sex offenders that were removed from MySpace. First of all, as everyone knows, these numbers only include the ones who used their real names or registered email addresses (only the “dumb ones” as Kentucky AG Jack Conway noted). Second, just because someone is a registered sex offender, doesn’t mean that person is a “predator.” A number of people have been added to the registry for engaging in consensual sex – not necessarily predatory assaultive acts. But this isn’t the point. The point is that we just don’t know the extent to which sexual predators are a problem on social networking web sites. We don’t have the research.

How many registered sex offenders visit public malls or city parks every day? How many of those offenders observe or interact with our children? We have no idea. Clearly we don’t want them there, though. Should we then legislate that malls and municipalities be responsible for identifying these individuals and finding a way to keep them out? The obvious challenges associated with this demand are equally as applicable when trying to keep “bad people” off of social networking web sites and away from online youth.

The fact that registered sex offenders are on social networking web sites is not the issue in my view. The reality is that there is no viable way to keep them off. They can lie about their names and the social networking sites would have no way to identify them. Companies are working on identity verification software and hardware, but we aren’t there yet. And even if we were, I’m skeptical that this would be a foolproof remedy as all technological “solutions” are susceptible to circumvention.

A better approach would be to teach the users of those sites (and visitors of malls and parks) how to be safe and responsible so that they are able to protect themselves from anyone with ill intent. Parents need to talk with their children about Internet safety and responsibility and follow-up to make sure they are abiding by appropriate standards. Educators need to teach students about these things as well so that youth receive a consistent message from the meaningful adults in their lives. Law enforcement officials need to be proactive in identifying and arresting people who are engaged in illegal behavior while online. Finally, researchers need to more thoroughly study this and other problems associated with teens and technology so that informed decisions can be made about effective policies and practices. We are all in this together.

What's In A Name?

Back when I was a new graduate student, I was tasked with preparing a data file for analysis. It contained every juvenile arrest in a particular not-to-be-named state for 10 years. In order to match juveniles across years and study rearrest, we had their names and birth dates. I even had a hard copy printed on the lovely continuous-feed printer paper you see on the left.

One of my favorite hobbies back then was to skim the names and look for, let's just say, "outliers". Some of the names I remember of these young delinquents seemed fated for a life of crime. Because I can't print their actual names (Hello, IRB! I know you're watching!) and also because I can't remember them exactly, here's a few close approximations¹:

• Jesse James Jones
• Krystle Carrington Smith
• Alexis Carrington Smith (twins)
• Orangejello Browning
• Lemonjello Browning (again, twins)

So, you get the drift.

Today while browsing the Smoking Gun, I discovered a story about this man.

Name your children carefully, people.

(P.S. On a totally different topic, I'm watching 30 Rock while I type this. Best quote: "Stop patriciding!")

¹ Any similarities to actual names of real people is purely coincidence. Don't sue me.

Just Ask

There have been a lot of CJ events this week, but I thought I would post two links that I found most interesting.

The first is a nice piece about women and assertiveness. I think that this article applies well to our field. I know of countless examples where women were less likely to negotiate for raises or for departmental perks. As always, be reasonable and willing to negotiate, but ask. Trust me, I know how difficult it can be. I don't know why this is, but I often feel guilty for making money (or getting a raise). The bottom line is that, given you have done the work, your kids need shoes and your roof is about to need to be replaced- - you could use the cash (even if it is $500 a year).

Just as important, students and faculty are often, in general, reluctant to ask for data. So many times I hear 'they won't give me that data' (but they haven't asked). I had an experience like this a while back. I wanted to get some sensitive data for a project I was working on. CJ agencies are often reluctant to give out data, but I called up the agency, explained my project, and asked for the data. No one had ever asked for these data before, and it turns out that they had actually been concerned with my research question, but were too busy to complete the project themselves. It turned out to be a win-win situation. JUST DO IT.

Second, there are a series of articles - see here and here
on corrections in Michigan published by the Detroit News. The pictures and discussion are great. You know you are a nerd when a snowy prison yard brings back great memories and makes you sentimental for your old home.

"1-in-100" Report

I'm sure you all saw this yesterday:

A new report from the Pew Center on the States indicates that one in 100 Americans is behind bars (in jail or prison) -- the highest incarceration rate in our nation's history.

You can check out the full report, published by the Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project, here. A New York Times article about the report's findings can be found here.

Zotero!

Thanks to Dr. Cranky for sharing the information about Zotero, the "next generation research tool". In case you missed the info, shared in a comment on Velma's recent post about EndNote, Zotero is an online/offline reference tool that combines elements of EndNote, word processing programs, web searches, etc. I just installed it and watched the online tour and demo. I have to say that, if it lives up to its description, Zotero might just be the greatest thing since...well, you know...

Commentary on the State of Our Discipline?

Okay, I'll be the first to admit I'm cranky...it is who I am, learn to love me anyway.

I received my Nov 2007 issue of Criminology today. While thumbing through the articles, I noted an interesting piece on "Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty Cases." My comment here is in no way meant to take away from the authors or their research.

Here's my issue...The study is based on data used by Baldus, Woodworth & Pulaski (1990). This is a prominent study used extensively by the Supreme Court in McClesky vs Kemp (which basically said establishing general bias in capital cases is not grounds for appellate action...appellants have to establish bias in the handling of their particular case).

Now you may think "okay, 17 year old data, not ideal but not unheard of in our discipline." True, until you note that the Baldus data are based on 1066 cases from Georgia from 1973-1977. The latter is what really gets me.

Again, I'm not slamming the authors. I just wonder what it says about our discipline when one of our flagship outlets publishes a study that is based on 28-34 year old data (from one state)? Given the finite volume of material that can appear in this outlet, should we focus on more contemporary concerns.

I do see value in the analysis and the insights it might provide...I just question how timely it is in 2007. At what point are data too old to merit consideration in a top-tier outlet when the objective is not a time-series analysis?

Am I missing something here? Am I just personifying my blog moniker? Is this just a thinly-veiled manifestation of my own feelings of envy given my track record in top-tier outlets?

I think I need a candy cane or something...

Silly Crime Statistics

I am sure that most have seen the new rankings of most violent cities. Detroit and St. Louis top the list once again. As we all know, crime statistics not the best way to make cross-city comparisons. Rick Rosenfeld regularly sends letters to the editor when these crime rankings are released. I posted this on my blog a while back, but it is worth repeating here.

Silly crime rankings versus real numbers

Some figures are a lot more meaningful than others.
Author: Richard Rosenfeld

Americans love to compare themselves to one another. We rank our automobiles, body fat, annual income and our children's standardized test scores. We also rank the crime rates of our communities.Morgan Quitno Press, a statistical analysis firm based in Lawrence, Kan., recently released its annual rankings of city crime. Residents and officials from cities with low ("safe") rankings greeted the news with pleasure; those with high ("dangerous") rankings attacked the rankings as unfair or faulty.

A recent Post-Dispatch editorial cautioned readers against taking such comparisons seriously. But the best response to the crime rankings is not to ignore them but to understand how they are made and what their limitations are. That way, when they appear again -- and they will -- residents will be able to accept or reject them on objective grounds, not simply because their city scored high or low. Here are fundamental questions to consider:*

On what crimes are the rankings based?
Do they mix different types of crimes? Are crimes that differ in seriousness given the same weight? Morgan Quitno ranked cities on a crime index containing offenses as diverse as murder, rape and motor vehicle theft. Although all are serious crimes, most people would rather have their car stolen than be the victim of a violent assault. Yet, Morgan Quitno gave each crime in its index the same weight. Crime comparisons should be based on crimes of equal seriousness.*

How thoroughly are the crimes measured?
Crime rankings are based on offenses reported to local police departments. The FBI then compiles this information in crime statistics for the nation, states, counties and cities. Some offenses, such as homicide, are extremely well reported. Others, such as rape and other assaults, are frequently not reported to the police and never make it into the crime statistics. Police departments also differ in the way they classify and record the crimes reported to them.Rankings, therefore, may be influenced by differences in crime reporting and recording practices that have nothing to do with the amount of crime residents actually experience. Crime rankings should not be based on offenses, such as rape and assault, that are subject to large differences in reporting and recording from city to city. Morgan Quitno's crime index includes both of these offenses.*

Do rankings account for variations among neighborhoods within cities?
All cities consist of a small number of high-crime areas and a much larger number of low-crime areas. Crime rates for different neighborhoods within a single city typically differ more than than differences between cities. Truly useful data would break out crime rates for the various areas of a given city. Such information may be available from local police departments, often on Web sites. Overall city crime rankings say nothing about where in a city crime is high or low.*

How has crime changed over time?
People intending to live or do business in a city need to know something about trends over time, not simply the level of crime at a single moment. Morgan Quitno ranked St. Louis among the nation's most "dangerous" cities in 2004, yet St. Louis' homicide rate has been cut in half over the previous 10 years. By definition, snapshot accounts say nothing about whether crime is going up or down.*

Can local police and city officials be held accountable?

Police and other local officials often complain that they are held accountable for crime, even though they have little control over the economic and social conditions that produce it. For the last several years, my colleagues and I have taken homicide rates for various cities and adjusted them for differences in poverty, unemployment, family disruption and other crime-producing conditions.The adjusted rankings show that homicide rates in some cities, St. Louis among them, are lower than one would expect, based on conditions of economic and social disadvantage. Other cities, meanwhile, have higher-than-expected rates.These figures do not let police or other officials off the hook. On the contrary, they provide a more meaningful comparison of city homicide levels and insight into the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs for which local officials absolutely should be held responsible.Rankings of crime rates should be based on well-measured crimes of equal seriousness and identify differences in crime within cities and over time that are produced by factors city officials can control. The Morgan Quitno crime rankings fails on all counts.---

Additional information on reading and using crime statistics is available at http://www.cjgsu.net/initiatives/HomRates-PR-2004-05-14.htm