LA Crime Stats: Can You Trust the Spin Doctors?

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 3

RETHINKING LA - LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and Police Chief Beck have taken the city’s 2011 crime stats on the road, holding them aloft and touting the fact that the crime in Los Angeles continues to decline and is currently as low as it was in the 50’s.

As Villaraigosa and Beck take a victory lap around the city in anticipation of the upcoming budget hearings, Beck humbly acknowledged that LA’s decade of annual crime rate reductions is a combination of police doing their job well and the “informal social standards’ set by communities, a soft analysis that begs the question “Says who?”

Villaraigosa’s exclamation that “The numbers are mind-boggling!” only serves to stir the embers of an old unresolved debate over the factors that play a role in crime rates.

The larger overarching issue is one of simple data collection and analysis within LA’s City Hall.

The City of LA is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, and yet we allow City Hall to run itself without the accountability that comes from solid statistical analysis, conducted by professionals who challenge assumptions of causality.

If this seems like a harsh charge to level at the Mayor while he’s still conducting his press tour, consider the fact that the FBI is currently examining, revising and reevaluating its crime definitions, data collection, and statistical analysis.

If the FBI’s ego will allow for introspective analysis and evaluation, surely Los Angeles can ask a few hard questions about the pencils it uses to collect data, the procedures it uses to compile data, the innovative strategies it uses to analyze the data, and the actions it takes based on that data.

If this process seems routine and self guiding, consider the experience of Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In 2006 the CEO announced to the world that they were on the edge of developing “one of the most important compounds of our generation,” one that would “redefine cardiovascular treatment.”

Two days later the same CEO made a sudden reversal, announcing the termination of clinical trials due to the fact that the drug appeared to be killing people.

Pfizer’s value dropped by $21 billion in just week.

Pfizer’s experience is a clear demonstration of the fallacy of causation, the assumption that the presence of two or more factors implies that one causes the others.

It also demonstrates that even the most skilled professionals operating with vast resources can master the information but still fail to understand the relevant factors or identify any cause and effect relationships.

Trusting the professionals isn’t always the best way to go, as was demonstrated in a study conducted by a cardiologist named Lee Goldman.

Using only four factors, Goldman developed a decision tree that evaluates the likelihood of heart attacks better than trained cardiologists in Chicago’s Cook County Hospital emergency room. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, offers other examples of the difficulty professionals encounter as they collect information but struggle with decisions over what to discard and what to keep.
ca
While Villaraigosa’s befuddlement is understandable, it is hardly acceptable, especially in light of the stakes.

Even more disturbing is the City of LA’s habit of collecting data as if it was simply fodder for the assumption machine, obligatory elements that were part of an old civic process recipe that continues to churn out the same results.

The City of LA has long held the title of the Capital of Homelessness, yet when it comes to collecting data, it’s a volunteer driven process that clearly lacks the commitment that it deserves.

Contrast this with the work of University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Dennis Culhane who has used incisive data collection and analysis to identify effective and efficient tools for eradicating homelessness.

Professor Culhane was featured in the 2005 Genius Edition of Esquire magazine as one of the brightest minds in our country for his work developing and promoting long term solutions to habitual homelessness.

As Culhane works with other large cities, Los Angeles continues to use volunteers to collect homelessness data. Critics contend that this scenario allows for overcounts by those angling for HUD funds and undercounts by politicians who are protecting neighborhood reputations.

The City of LA has also long held the title of the Capital of Busted Streets, yet when it comes to qualifying for funds and allocating resources, again, it’s a volunteer driven process.

When voters approved Measure R, the half cent sales tax that would fund regional transportation improvements over the next decade, few realized that the $40 billion initiative would rely on traffic mode analysis performed by volunteers with a vested interest in the outcome.

The City of Los Angeles deserves better than a mind-boggled Mayor in charge of a team that continues to collect data without being held responsible for determining cause and effect.

Rick Cole, while Mayor of Pasadena, used hard data to determine the value of a parking space, its ability to generate revenue that could be invested in the immediate neighborhood, and its role in the regeneration of the local economy.

LA, on the other hand, continues to allow debates over everything from public safety to parking to potholes to be driven by emotion and fueled by fear. Then it gets put through the cost-recovery spin cycle so that it turns into a revenue opportunity for the Mayor who can only express honest befuddlement at he looks at the city adrift.

Meanwhile, Long Beach can analyze the value of a single parking space, its anticipated revenue, the appropriateness of its location and its relationship with the local economy, all from City Hall.

While the ongoing decline in LA’s crime rate is a cause for celebration, the fact that we don’t know why things are improving is cause for alarm. If community policing is a big factor in the ongoing reduction in crime rates, why is LAPD militarizing the old Rampart station instead of building a new community center?

The ongoing budget crisis in the City of LA demands that hard questions be asked of all department heads and of all departments, yet without reliable data and analysis, the people of LA are deprived of an essential and effective oversight tool.

Now is the time for the City of LA to prioritize data collection and analysis in all that it does, from public safety to public works to public policy, and to do what counts while counting what matters.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

CityWatchLA - Make Parks, Not War!

CityWatch, Sept 4, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 71

Los Angeles' Mayor Villaraigosa is the Captain of a ship adrift, battered and tossed by the budget crisis, unemployment, home foreclosures, homelessness, traffic congestion, air pollution, land use struggles, transit controversy and a host of other issues, all sized proportionately for the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the World.

As Villaraigosa stands on the bridge and looks at the rocks, he also watches as members of his senior staff row to shore, demonstrating with their rapid exits their confidence, or lack thereof, in the direction Los Angeles is headed.

Scrambling to muster a team, he has raised more than a few eyebrows with his appointments to fill those empty uniforms and we can only hope that those who answer the call have maps with them and that they stay long enough chart a course that moves Los Angeles in the right direction. Stepping up as Chief of Staff comes the Rev. Jeff Carr, fresh from his successful tour of duty as the "Gang Czar" responsible for "Summer Night Lights," a program designed to confront the problem of gangs and inner city crime, not by declaring war, but by providing evening access to parks and by providing activities to bring people together and to create community.

Novel concept! Got the attention of the White House. For 16 neighborhoods in Los Angeles, the two year old program offered "skaters, taggers, rockers, homies, jocks, ballers and, of course, their families" the opportunity to enjoy each others company, supported by "summer squad" park staff along with gang-intervention workers.

The program is not without controversy and the actual impact of the program is being debated.

The Mayor's office is claiming a 17 percent drop in "violent gang-related crime" and an 86 percent "reduction in gang-related homicides" in "communities surrounding SNL parks."

Critics point out that "the final Gang crime statistics, which may or may not give some idea of the success of Summer Night Lights, won't be tallied until AFTER the program ends on September 5."

As the debate settles out, it's refreshing to note that under Carr's leadership, the City of Los Angeles stands a fair chance of moving forward under the banner of "Make Parks, Not War!"

If the Chief of Staff can take that same mission inside City Hall, we may stand a chance of weathering the storm!

Imagine if you will, the warring departments within the City of Los Angeles coming together in a campaign centered around parks. It makes sense!

Think of parks as Water Reclamation opportunities and you've got the Department of Water & Power working with Rec & Parks.

Think of all of the DWP property that could be utilized for parks, from the huge swaths of land under the transmission lines to the small pocket parks at the switching stations. Landscape and maintain the property with bio-basins for retention and infiltration and we're well on our way to reclaiming water and providing green space, all at the same time.

Think of parks as Public Safety strategies and you've got the Police Department working with General Services.

Imagine all of the city property that typically sits in a default "off-limits" state, vulnerable to crime while the people of Los Angeles scramble to find public space. Involving the community and putting eyes on the street is an effective technique for reducing in crime and for creating an enhanced sense of community.

Think of parks as Air Pollution mitigation and you've got the Ports and Harbor Authorities partnering with the local communities in solutions that resonate, cleaning the air and creating community, providing for healthy bodies and healthier neighborhoods.

Think of parks as Emergency Preparedness strategies and you've got the Fire Department working with Rec & Parks.

Imagine the people in a community engaged and connected so that in the event of an emergency and an evacuation, they're already acquainted and prepared and know the drill.

Think of parks as Sustainable Community tipping points, starting places for a real conversation of sustainability and how it resonates environmentally, economically, educationally and socially.

Imagine people (re)thinking their communities and land use and mobility from the perspective of a sustainable and intentional lifestyle and how it all started with a park!

Think of parks as educational facilities and a whole new relationship with the LAUSD blossoms, integrating rather than isolating, bringing down rather than building fences, creating partnerships that begin with simple access and linger as the community takes responsibility for education and for the educational facilities.

Think of parks so numerous that people actually walk to them, creating street life and contributing to the health of the community. Transportation and Planning now have a whole new application of access and mobility to incorporate into the Community Plans. They might even begin to work together!

Think of parks as a foundation element in street standards and Public Works has a whole new approach to laying down Green Streets, Safe Streets, Shared Streets, Complete Streets and Great Streets. To think, it all started with a park!

Granted, the City of Los Angeles is facing significant crises and building a Zen garden in my neighborhood is not going to balance the budget or put people to work. But with almost four dozen different departments in LA and enough Deputy Mayors to fill a couple of life rafts, I contend that if the Mayor is serious about citywide solutions that “require new creative thinking,” he start by positioning LA as a Great City of Great Parks.

That point of focus gives Chief of Staff Carr the opportunity to direct the full force of the city with a starting point, an end point and a "context specific" approach to working together.

If Chief of Staff Carr can get the Deputy Mayors and the General Managers of Los Angeles to all put their hands out, grab a piece of a park and to simply reposition themselves and their departments in the context of building more parks, I propose that Los Angeles would be well on its way to becoming a Great City, one park at a time.

Along the way, we'll solve a lot of problems, we'll create community and we'll become a proactive city!

As for me, I'm starting tomorrow, at the Park(ing) Day LA Workshop. We'll be building a park, on Santa Monica Blvd., in a curbside park(ing) space.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) Photo credit: LA Times. ◘


Park[ing] Day LA Workshop:
On September 5, 2009 @ 10 am, we will be hosting a Park[ing] Day LA Workshop.
The Greensters will be using bikes to transpo supplies to the location (9am load-in, 9:30 ride, 10am arrival) where we will install a simple and basic temporary park as a demonstration project.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
9:00 am to 10:00 am - Greensters transpo
10:00 am to 2:00 pm - Park[ing] Day LA Workshop
4590 Santa Monica Boulevard
South side of the street
Between Madison & Westmoreland
Los Angeles, CA 90029

Metro Struggles with Connectivity

The Bus Riders Union (BRU) has taken the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to task, claiming that the results of an “informal and unscientific” survey indicate that people pay too much and wait too long for Metro Bus service that earns a “D” in overall performance.

Art Leahy, Metro’s CEO, responded with the rarely used “we suck less than you claim” defense, offering up the Metro’s own survey as evidence that “on-time performance had improved from 65% in July 2008 to 72% in July 2009.”

The dueling surveys competition pits the BRU’s random sampling of 2,600 bus riders against the Metro’s systemwide survey of 15,800 but does little to clearly evaluate the performance of the Metro.

Leahy claims satisfaction rates of 85% while the BRU claims that 26% of the passengers gave the Metro an “F” for on-time service and that 75% gave the Metro a “C” for overcrowding.

The Metro comes out clean in this debate as Leahy asks to be graded on the curve, invoking the “we suck less than other big cities” defense, a distracting and effective ploy that typically leaves critics speechless as they absorb the fact that perhaps it is worse elsewhere.

Of course, this strategy only works if the critic has never, ever left Los Angeles and ridden the transit systems of other big cities. Having just spent several weeks Down Under, riding trains, trams, buses, ferries, monorails, pedicabs, bikes, and even cars, I am convinced that if the Metro were to be graded on the curve, compared to other transportation systems, it would receive a failing grade.

While Leahy and the BRU continue with the “she said/he said” debate, everyone including the LA Times passed on the opportunity to simply review the Metro’s survey results, compiled by an outside consulting firm. It doesn’t look good!

23% indicated that the bus being ridden during the survey had broken down in the last month. 72% indicated that they didn’t have access to a car. 80% indicated that they were commuting to work.

The majority of Metro passengers indicated that they ride 5+ days a week, that they have been riding for 5+ years, that they must make a transfer to complete their journey and that they are between the ages of 23 to 49.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that with a 23% failure rate, the Metro gets a passing grade from the polled passengers only because they have low expectations.

The vast majority of the passengers polled have no choice. Where are all of the people who have a choice and why don't they choose to ride the Metro? The true test of a world-class transportation system is when it can actually get people out of their cars and provide them with competitive transportation options that truly work. Imagine people saying “I’ll take the Metro!" instead of "I have no choice!”

There are two problems here.

First, the Metro evaluates its performance based on an annual survey conducted by outside consultants in a manner that appears to have more of a validation function than real operational value.

This is hardly the behavior of an organization committed to excellence and it falls far short of qualifying as efficient communication or an effective management tool.

A real commitment to performance would start with the establishment of measurable standards and goals. It would include mechanisms for self-evaluation, for systemic evaluation and for public input. It would take place in real time, constantly updated and revised, and both the goals and the results would be made public.

Companies from Starbucks to Southwest to Apple to UPS to Trader Joe’s to Nordstrom are known for their exacting standards, their attention to detail and for their ability to set their own goals, evaluate their own performance and to successfully lead in their fields.

None of these companies succeeded by waiting for the year-end report and then debating with customers over their performance.

The Metro’s reliance on “pencil & clipboard” technology creates the illusion of efficiency but falls far short of demonstrating a serious commitment to any significant analysis of performance metrics. The handcount of passengers and wristwatch analysis of schedule needs to go the way of the rotary phone and the mimeograph machine.

Second, the Metro’s relationship with its passengers requires a mediator in order to facilitate communication.

The Metro maintains a crack team of clipboard wielding supervisors throughout the system, apparently recording something of importance as they sit in those air-conditioned and idling SUV’s, watching arrivals and departures, but they are not available to customers nor do they interact with customers. When approached, they offer up the 800 COMMUTE number with instructions to call the Metro.


The problem here is that the Metro only takes customer service calls from 8:00 am to 4:15 pm, Monday to Friday, hardly the hours when customers would need to call the Metro. Adding to the frustration is the fact that the Metro never invested in an answering machine, not even the old mini-cassette model! Forget about voice mail, feedback is simply not accepted after hours!

The Metro’s reliance on annual performance surveys creates the illusion of a relationship with the Metro’s real partners, its passengers, but they have no meaningful opportunity to offer feedback unless it's at the convenience of the Metro or at the annual survey or if they can find the email address on the Metro’s website.

If the Metro were serious about customer feedback, it would employ the full spectrum of social media tools. The Metro’s survey indicates that 68% of passengers were holding a cell phone as they completed the questionnaire with a pencil.

The average fast food restaurant gets feedback around the clock and all year long, immediately after the transaction, by asking patrons to call, text or tweet their comments.

Meanwhile, the Metro still gives out pencils. On an annual basis!

Imagine a Metro that connects with passengers, communicating via cell phone all schedule disruptions, arrival times, route changes. Imagine a Metro that gets feedback from passengers at bus stops and on buses who call, text, tweet, email, and communicate efficiently and effectively their concerns, issues, complaints and commendations.

These days, one can text the White House, order pizza, make reservations and even tweet God with a confession. (It must be tough to keep the sin under 140 characters!)

If the Metro is serious about getting graded on the curve, it needs to prepare for a failing grade.

MX, the newspaper that is distributed to transit passengers in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, reports on transit authority performance and they have real numbers to work with.

Brisbane, for example, received 6588 complaints in the past financial year. The 444 route from Bellbowrie received 163 complaints and the 375 to Windsor received 156. Meanwhile, there were 681 commendations.

Brisbane’s TransLink management has specific information on drivers who divert from their routes, fail to pick up passengers, smoke, use cell phones or are rude or aggressive, all based on real time communication from passengers.

The Lord Mayor of Brisbane went on record saying that TransLink does a fantastic job serving commuters but added “If people do have an issue with a driver - or any council employee – they can let me know and it will be dealt with.”

If the Metro’s CEO, Art Leahy, is serious about improving the Metro, from on-time performance to cleanliness to courtesy, he’ll echo the Lord Mayor and make himself available to the public saying “let me know and it will be dealt with.”

But most importantly, he will leave behind the dueling statistics and subjective surveys and he will establish the Metro as a world-class transportation system by providing Metro passengers the ability to communicate in real time and around the clock, by phone, by text, by tweet, and by email.