January 16, 2004

STATISTICS AND STATISTICS.

By James Eugene*

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), otherwise known as the New York City's Police Union, has recently taken to sponsoring a billboard noting that its officers are number 1 in fighting crime, while ranking 145th in pay. Outrageous you say. Not really.

In my years in City government, I learned that an accurate statistic is not necessarily a good statistic. Context is everything.

For example, a City Council staffer once related to me a story surrounding the fact that the staffer once researched the source of statement that "103,000 New Yorkers were homeless." This statistic was quoted by a number of prominent organizations with reputations that ranged from poor to quite scholarly. Over months, as the staffer tracked the origin of the statistic in the staffer's spare time, the staffer was stunned that no one based the figure on independent research. Then the staffer found the original source of the figure: an extreme crack-pot advocacy group that admitted that it made the number up!

But the staffer had a post-script to the story. City based calculations showed that over the course of a year, over 75,000 New Yorkers used the single homeless shelter system and a similar number used the family shelter system (shelters being divided in such manner). And this did not include any street people who never used the system. Thus, approximately 150,000 New Yorkers used the homeless shelter system in a given year. (And just tonight, about 39,000 will be in the shelter system.) The true numbers being as scary, if not scarier, than the fabricated one.

So is the PBA's number fabricated? Let's assume not, just for the sake of argument. That still does not tell the whole story.

First, while the City's decrease in crime was occurring, the ranks of City police officers swelled to unprecedented levels, literally growing by a third. So the great improvement in crime reduction was not just caused by police officers working harder, but also by the sheer volume of new police officers. If the number of cops had remained constant while the crime rates dropped, then the Police Union could have reason to crow.

Second, drops in crime and the performance of the police officers must be viewed in light of a number of other factors. For example, crime dropped nationally as well, leading one to believe that new management techniques may have accounted for a significant part of the drop in crime. (New York City police management will talk all day to the uninitiated about the CompStat system, exciting to them and reporters… boring to the rest of us, although we like the result.) Another potential cause for the drop in crime includes the increase in the number of City business improvement districts, which often employ their own security forces (more eyes and ears… something criminals hate). Finally, the upturn in the economy might also be a cause for the drop in crime (a traditional helping factor).

Now the PBA has some counter-arguments, the most recent being the reduction in police officers during the Bloomberg Administration. And while these cuts have taken place and the economy has suffered, crime has continued to drop. (A very impressive fact, especially since the national figures have not been as kind.)

The PBA also likes to point to neighboring counties where police officers make substantially more than City police officers (in fact, City officers often seek to join the neighboring counties' forces after a few years of City experience). However, those counties are now trying to reign in those salaries, questioning the size of such salaries and engaging in battles with their own local unions. Moreover, the City's contract with the PBA is full of little goodies that would make the teachers' union green with envy.

Until someone comes up with an appropriate model to gauge the performance of police officers, the crime and salary statistics will be just that… statistics. Often out of context and without real meaning.

THE PREDICTABLE PAPERS.

As I read the New York Times and the New York Post, I am constantly stunned by their predictability.

For example, it is obvious the Times likes Mayor Billionaire, running stories that are generally favorable. However, each article is replete with negative factors. Methinks the Times wants the Billionaire to be reelected but has concluded that might not happen and as a result is the paper is hedging its bets with some seriously negative paragraphs in each article. Wimps.

Next, the Post. Do it now Post! Endorse W! Why should the editorial page wait when the rest of the paper already has? Not only that, but when a story comes out (in the Times no less) stating how the Bush people are viewing Howard Dean as the inevitable Democratic Presidential nominee and that they want to start attacking him, the Post basically has provided W with free attack ads in every story it writes about Dean. Is Karl Rove the paper's editor-in-chief? Is the Post produced by the Republican National Committee?

In the end, each paper scares me with the politics they play under the guise of journalism.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.