Baltimore Homicide Rate Update

Update (7/25/09): The data in this post is now fairly out of date. I think the discussion in this post is still relevant and worth reading, so I do recommend that you keep reading. If you're looking for the most recent data, check out here.

----

As any resident of Baltimore City knows, there are a lot of murders in this town. I remember when I first discovered Murder Ink in the City Paper years ago and first tried to comprehend the tremendous number of murders in this city. Hundreds per year! And for every murder there are how many attempted murders / shootings each year? It's just plain madness.

I was excited as anyone as 2008 progressed and it started to look like Baltimore was having an out-of-trend year for murders. Despite a few very violent months (March, June, November and December were particularly bad last year), Baltimore ended 2008 with the lowest murder tally in two decades. Baltimore's per capita murder rate is still shockingly high as there are far fewer city residents today than 20 years ago, but last year was a marked departure from the rest of the decade (as I detailed in a post in January). In that post I noted that we shouldn't necessarily lose hope just because November and December had been pretty violent and January opened with 14 murders in 9 days.

Three months later I am happy to have been proven more or less correct. One of those 14 murders was determined to be justified as self-defense and the finally 22 days of January saw only 8 murders (not awesome, but not bad either). Since January I've been keeping track of murderous events and plotting them on some charts. A couple weeks ago I figured out how to make some nice Flash graphs of the data and put them up on a static website. In this post I publish some data as of 3/27/09, but the charts on my 2009 Baltimore Murder Charts site are updated approximately weekly.

According to my records, 228 murderous acts occurred in 2008. The official homicide tally was 234, but there were 6 people who died of injuries sustained in prior-year incidents. Since I'm interested in how deadly the city is right now, I don't track those numbers (although the FBI and others do). I have the opportunity to go back and edit my data, so if someone dies in 2009 from 2008 injuries, I'm going to back and count that on the date the incident occurred instead of the when the death occurred.

Anyway, the main reason I wanted to track murders this year was to be able to produce a "Trailing 12 Months Murders" chart. I think it's pretty informative and gives a good feel for whether or not murder rates have increased or not. For example, based on a very violent January, there is a perception that Baltimore is not going to be able to maintain last year's reduced murder rate. What I think has been under reported is that February 2009 had only 15 murders, the same number as February 2008.


As you can see from the Trailing 12 Months (TTM) Murders chart above, we're really not seeing any leap in violence this year. In fact, if you use a 30-day moving window to smooth out data a little, it's varied between 233.4 and 236.5. Above the 2008 total, but it certainly shows no sign of reverting to the bad old pre-2008 days of 250+ murders/year.

I think that it's important to consider some of these other graphs, just this week I heard a story on WYPR called "Murders Spike in Baltimore's Northeast District". They state that "Baltimore's homicide rate is nearly 25 percent higher then at this time last year." At the time of the story there were 47 murders in the city. Based on my records, at that time last year there were 40 or 41 murders (depending on exactly when the story was produced). By my count, that's (at most) 7/40 = 17.5% increase. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I wouldn't exactly round 17.5% to 25%. I think I'd round it to either "nearly 20 percent" or "just over 15%". I guess the point of the story is that there have been more murders in the Northeastern District than normal. Still, I don't see why WYPR would want to talk up the homicide rate in Baltimore. They do note in the story that "Like other districts, the Northeast has seen a decline in robberies, burglaries and assaults from the same time last year."

So basically what the numbers show is that crime is down in Baltimore, except for some isolated, noisy statistics like murders in a certain district. Why not just be happy that murders are pretty much within the noise of last year's number - which was the lowest in two decades?? I guess I just don't understand WYPR's angle. 2009 is just not that much worse than 2008, especially if you take a look at these charts:

I look at the data I've got on murders this year and here's what I see:

• After a bump in early January, the murder rate has been lower than last year for 2.5 months. (We were +10 on 1/9/09 compared to +5 on 3/27/09)
• If you look at how many murders occurred in the 4th quarter of 2008 the 1st quarter of 2009 looks great.
• I think we'll briefly be even with last year on cumulative murders in the first couple days in April, but probably run above 2008 until at least June.
• I see no reason to believe we won't finish the year at more or less the same total as last year -> I think we may have seen Baltimore's homicide rate reset from the 250-270 range to something in the 220-240 range.

You know, it might be just about time to end completely doom and gloom picture of Baltimore's crime rate that has become true by definition. It's bad, it's a serious problem that requires enormous improvement, and it disproportionately affects the African-American community. But it has improved in recent years. We may have to start giving the Baltimore Police Department a little credit and the fact that the city is working better with Federal law enforcement probably helps. There are also a lot of community-based organizations that have contributed to the progress that has been made. We're clearly not there yet, but I don't think that we should continue to view crime in Baltimore as inevitable and uncontrollable.

I think we have to hope that economy does bottom out in 2009 and that unemployment peaks in early 2010 (as I've heard predicted) and does not take too long to recover. Baltimore's made a lot of progress in this decade, I'm looking forward to that continuing once we get to the other side of this recession. I feel that's still the one wild card in all of this; how quickly can investment and economic activity in Baltimore recover? Can we maintain momentum and making Baltimore a nicer, safer, and more inclusive city? If that doesn't happen, if community programs start going bankrupt and can't find support, things could definitely take a turn for the worse.

Homeless Shelters for Muslim Women

This morning WYPR had a really interesting story about homeless shelters in Baltimore for Muslim women.  It sounds like a very under-served population, at least from the fact that they are always full and always have a waiting list.  I wanted to find out some more about the shelter (and the other two small shelters in Baltimore), but it seems like they don't have much of a web-presence.  I suppose that's not surprising considering that they have to sell food on the streets to make the monthly rent on their shelter.

I did find an older Washington Post article that mentions this shelter, an article from something called the Muslim Link from when the shelter opened in 2007, and a blog post that basically calls Muslims big whiners for feeling uncomfortable in Christian-run shelters.  The blog post does raise a valid question about the possible hypocrisy of a Muslim-based shelter.  Basically, the blogger's argument is that if the problem is that Christian-run shelters proselytize too much and make women of other faiths uncomfortable, the solution is not creating a different sort of faith-based shelter.  Well, that's the blogger's argument stated in a less frenzied and rational tone - overall they're very upset that a minority group wants to be treated differently.  Either way, I don't think it is very good criticism.

I would, instead, approach the problem as follows: you have devout Muslim women who feel that the policies and standards of most homeless shelters violate tenets of their faith.  These women have nowhere to go, they may not be legal residents, and there may be children involved.  I think that anyone can agree that the first priority should be to help these women get back on their feet, recover from the emotional trauma they've experienced, and become productive members of society.  Because, and here's the great part, anyone and everyone can become an American.  That's what's great about this place.  America is what you make it, literally.  Every generation we get to reinvent ourselves, every American has just as much right as any other American to contribute to the "American Culture."  

So these women are Americans who need help, I say you have to keep your eye on the ball here - help women get into a stable situation THEN you can worry about "freeing" them from what you judge to be an out-dated belief system and adopt fully "Western" values.  Don't get me wrong, I'm as big on blind religious faith being detrimental to society as the next east coast, liberal-leaning, over-educated blogger, but if these women only feel comfortable going to a shelter that is run by a mosque or Islamic organization, then I think we should encourage that.

Anyway, I'm thinking I might try to find a way to help out these shelters.  Yes, I know that Muslim organizations make a lot of people uncomfortable; worries about radicalization, trouble with integration into Western society, blah, blah, blah.  All the more reason for some mainstream American charities to get involved.  The more integrated into the larger charity structure these organizations are, the more transparent their leadership and financing must become.  Plus, I imagine that knowing that the shelter is supported by the larger society would make these women feel more accepted by society.  Or not.  I would still measure it a success if my donation helped a battered woman get out of an abusive situation.

Predatory Lending is for Schmucks

Today, one of my favorite shows on NPR thoroughly disappointed me. Typically I can count on Marketplace to be a bit of a haven, a place where you can get decent economic news on NPR. It's a pretty typical complaint, but for the most part, Morning Edition and All Things Considered have not met a net welfare reducing program they didn't like.

Announcer: "Economists argue that this program is unnecessary and will cost billions of tax dollars. However, if you ask an activist like Jim McSocialist, Chief Policy Officer of the non-partisan Union of Concerned Public Policy Majors:"

Dumbass Activist: "We're the richest country in the world and capitalism has clearly failed stupid people, so it's time to try something different. What we propose is a massive transfer of wealth."

Announcer: "Economists have a bunch of facts and figures that show this isn't a real problem, but we've got some anecdotal evidence to the contrary."

Uneducated Man/Woman on the Street: "I ain't got no education anna I gotta three kids anna I cain't affor no house."

Dumbass Activist: "The deck is just stacked against them. It's time that our lawmakers acted to reshuffle the deck."

Announcer: "Back by studies that show children living in houses outperform children living in gutters by 25% on standardized tests, activists are lobbying Congress this week to sign this bill into law."

Actually, it's not always that bad. Occasionally NPR does overcome every journalist's (apparent) natural fear of economics and do a story based on such wild ideas as "subsidies are a bad idea" or "trade makes everyone richer." Concepts that are somehow still hotly debated around this country.

Anyway...Marketplace. So today they did a story on "Predatory Lending," a trend that is sweeping the nation. (Not that predatory lending is sweeping the nation, news shows doing stories on predatory lending is spreading like wildfire). Unfortunately, they treated "Predatory Lending" like it is a thing that actually happens and that we must be vigilant to keep it bay. Very successful PR from "non-partisan" organizations has more or less convinced journalists everywhere that predatory lending exists.

I'm a bit of a skeptic. Call me crazy, but if you enter into a contract that you can not perform against, I call you an idiot, not a victim. Anti-predatory lending organizations have a great argument for this - the victims of predatory lending are uneducated or not financially literate enough to understand what they're signing. Once again, if you enter into a contract that you can not understand, I'll call you an idiot. Here's a simple idea, don't agree to things you don't understand. If you can't figure out the loan document, then don't take out the loan. The loan agent says you can afford it? Congratulations. I say you can totally jump across that shark tank. Based on the documentation I've seen of your athletic ability, you can totally do it. Go for it, your dream is attainable right now, no need to train for it, just jump!

I suppose what frustrates me about it is the assumption that contracts with dumb people are not as binding as contracts with everyone else. Somehow being uneducated or earning a low income means that you are not subject to the same rules as everyone else. You have to get special treatment, because if we don't hold your hand, you'll do something dumb.

So, I decided to find out a little about predatory lending from someone with a little less of an agenda than ACORN. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, predatory lending sounds a heck of a lot like plain, ol' fashioned loan fraud. Under their definition, I'm sure it exists. Mortgage brokers convincing people to overstate their incomes so that they can get a bigger fee? I'm sure it occurs.

If someone lied to you or broke a law, then it's loan fraud and they should be prosecuted. However, the idea that banks and institutions are trying to make loans that people can not afford and drive borrowers into bankruptcy seems a little ridiculous.

Finally, here's the real reason I published this post - an economist has put out an interesting paper examining payday lending and attempting to determine if it is a "predatory" practice. It's pretty approachable, I highly recommend you read it. I'll hit you with a highlight:

"Thus, higher prices are neither necessary or sufficient to conclude that a certain class of credit is predatory."

Interested? Check it out - Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending

Fun with the Democratic Process

So today has certainly been the most exciting mid-term election that I can remember. Then again, I don't have a very long memory, especially for things that I spend most of my time hating (like politics). It seems like O'Malley is going become governor. I'm still not sure how I feel about that. Without a doubt I'll be feeling lighter in my wallet, I can't imagine O'Malley passing up the opportunity to increase Maryland's tax burden. On the other hand, I can't really come up with anything I like about Ehrlich. I guess that if O'Malley does become governor, then something good could come of it: Sheila Dixon will become Baltimore City mayor. Not that I know anything about her, but she apparently she might support an ban on indoor smoking in Baltimore City. I really enjoy places where people don't smoke, so I think I would enjoy more of Baltimore City in that case.

Anyway, voting is always fun. The best part being that I can stop hearing about politics and political strategy all the damn time of WYPR. I really wish NPR would cover politics less and anything else instead. The worst part is that there's never any talk of the issues, it's all talk about how the political parties are using popular opinion on current issues to try to eke out some minuscule advantage over the other party.

You know what I think is a strange race? Maryland's 5th House District, where there is a Democratic candidate and a Green Party Candidate, but no Republican. I suppose you could write-in the Constitution Party candidate, but that seems even crazier than the Green Party. Apparently, the Republicans didn't bother because the incumbent is a 25-year incumbent, but I think it's kind of silly that the Green Party candidate is pulling 17% of the vote (with 57% of the precincts reporting).

On computerized voting: it worked pretty well for me. Obviously, I've grown up with technology, but it was really a piece of cake. So much for the news media giving us an accurate warning for technology leading to the collapse of society...looks like they're 0 for 2 if you count Y2K. I don't even want to count all the times they've warned us of the impending near-collapse of society due to identity theft, illegal music downloading, and social networking websites. Oh, and no children have started a nuclear war by accident yet either.

Support Public Radio

Today was the last day of the local NPR station's fall pledge drive. I've finally joined WYPR, I suppose it's the responsible thing to do since I listen so frequently. Also, the member card that will get you 2-for-1 meals at Baltimore restaurants didn't hurt.