I just reread a Boston Phoenix article from a year ago, provocatively entitled “The Worst Homicide Squad in the Country.” (HT to Charley for digging it out.) It’s well worth reading to give yourself a sense of how the city has gotten into the situation it now finds itself. One has the sense from the article that leadership from the Mayor’s Office and the BPD Commissioner’s Office has been distinctly lacking for a long time.
Particularly depressing was this graphic, which shows the change in homicide rates in the 40 largest US cities over two four-year periods, 2001-2004 and 1997-2000.
When your city is leading that list – in the company of New Orleans, LA, New York, DC, and Detroit, among others – you know you’ve got trouble.
Please share widely!
Particularly depressing was this graphic, which compares homicide rates in the 40 largest US cities in two four-year periods, 2001-2004 and 1997-2000.
<
p>
No, that’s not what that chart means. For one thing, a negative murder rate is pretty strange. What that chart actually measures is In the past four years (2001-â04), Boston has seen a 53 percent rise in homicides over the previous four-year period (1997-2000)
<
p>
It’s the change in the murder rate over a four year period, as compared to the previous four year period.
<
p>
Now, I agree that the rash of murders recently and in the past few years is a big problem. But this statistic stinks of choosing the numbers to support your argument. Four year period, huh? Why? If you did 3+3 instead of 4+4, or 5+5 instead of 4+4, I’d bet you’d see a major change in that chart w.r.t. Boston. Why? IIRC, the years they chose were four statistically good years, followed by four statistically bad ones, thereby maximizing the swing. Choose a different range, you’ll get noticibly different results.
<
p>
More to the point, it’s the number of murders per 100,000 people that’s worth worrying about, not the change. The change is useful to analyize any changes in enforcement, patrol, programs, etc., but comparing the percentage change across cities makes little sense — it’s like watching one car pass another on the highway and declare that it’s winning.
I found it hard to articulate exactly what that graphic was showing, and apparently I didn’t entirely succeed. I’ve updated the description.
here’s the chart StomV wants from NYTimes. just click on the bar chart in lower left corner of the article.
<
p>
boston’s overall murder rate over past several years similar to NYC and SF. many other cities far worse. (2000 thru 2005, no 2006 yet).
<
p>
however, boston’s rate spiked in 2004 and 2005 (and obviously now in 2006), while NYC kept inching down.
<
p>
leadership. ray kelly and mike bloomberg versus kathleen o’toole* and tom menino. unfortunately this currently stacks up as mussina and rivera against matt clement and julian tavarez.
<
p>
*if menino lands a curt schilling as new BPD chief, we’ll see the murder rate go down. if he hires another chump, we’ll see it go up. the only thing that seems unlikely is status quo.
<
p>
I know it’s too wide – sorry about that. I compressed it a bit but thought that any more would make it unreadable. An interesting comparison – and still one that doesn’t make Boston look all that great.
Was she included in the chart? That might account for some of the spike.
Doesn’t seem to be on the chart. And NY, DC and Detroit are in the minus part, so not so sure about what you mean by “in compeny.”
[eom]
Those cities are doing better on getting their murder rates down than we are – some had slower increases (NOLA), others had actual decreases. Pathetic.