Use of data detailing America's Most Dangerous Cities is criminal

So, the 14th annual "City Crime Rankings," published by CQ Press appeared last week. This year, Detroit, St. Louis and Flint, Michigan were the big winners, receiving headline news in some of the most influential media (such as USA Today, The New York Times and MSN) as those places most riddled with crime, drugs, murder and a host of other dangerous vices in the USA.

The only problem is that this data is deeply flawed and taken completely out of context... according to the FBI (who compiles this research every year). www.Spinsucks.com does a masterful job of bringing to light this travesty in a recent post. It seems that the publisher of this annual list, CQ Press, paid little attention to the fact that this data is little more than controversial interpretations of information versus hard facts and statistics.

A number of highly credible quotes provide us with the real story. According to a statement on the FBI web site, "These rough rankings provide no insight in the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state or region. Consequently they lead to incomplete analysis and often create misleading perceptions..."

Michael Tonry, president of the American Society of Criminology said that the rankings "do groundless harm to many communities." I completely agree. The initial release of this yearly index obtained a groundswell of visibility and interest. Consumers everywhere want to know if their city or town has been added or removed from this dubious list. Others simply want to understand where to stay away from. Yet, very few will ever read or care about the newest revelation – that this annual ranking is bogus.

So, if you're the Mayor of Detroit, or someone in charge of economic development there, this glib and superficial survey has greatly damaged your city’s reputation and stymied lots of short and long term opportunities. Media such as CQ Press and others, who mindlessly decide to headline this information without proper due diligence, should be held accountable for their harmful actions. I'm thinking the only remedy is monetary combined with them being forced to seriously spread the gospel that they were wrong.

On the other hand, it would be interesting for someone to create a top 20 rankings of the most dangerous media outlets. Seems to me, it's pretty obvious from this blog who would lead the list.

Comments

[jimbo853OKG]

Yes, this "ranking" is a complete sham. It seems to be based on what Steven Colbert likes to call "truthiness." I have family that lives in Richmond, California (ranked No. 9). There is one particular housing complex with an awful track record for murder and violent crime, all driven by 2 rival gangs. That's what puts them on the charts consistently. But overall, it's a good place to live. So is Oakland, which I've visited many times.

There is one unintended positive consequence from the bad reputation that these reports create - you can buy a great home in one of these towns for a fraction of what you'd pay elsewhere. But just be prepared to sit on it for awhile if there are no real signs of upscale gentrification. Most people aren't so brave.

CQ is merely the opportunist here - they're nothing on their own. The real question is what will it take to stop these cities keep from being piled on by both traditional media and online WOM which almost mindlessly parrots this garbage? That's what I call a communications challenge.

[ed]

Thanks for the comment. There isn't a simple solution here. It will take a groundswell of visibility that illuminates this problem. These posting certainly help to make a tiny dent in the overall effort.

[Tom]

A similar survey was recently commissioned in the UK, this time by a TV show.

http://www.prweek.com/uk/home/article/766687/

The top pick isn't a huge surprise, but do people in these "down at heel areas" really need to be reminded of this? If anything, I would say it would just make things worse.

What is good about this article is how some communities hit back - the story of Hackney's resurgence (from being labeled "Worst" in 2005) is pretty inspiring.

[Concerned]

To begin, I highly disagree with this posting. The crime stats are a vital tool used by this nations police agencies to track and prevent crime. These reports are not intended to provide any insight as to why these crimes happened, motivation, etc. The crime(s) WERE COMMITTED.

As for the comment on Oakland, "But just be prepared to sit on it for awhile if there are no real signs of upscale gentrification. Most people aren't so brave." Need I say more?

There is a very valid reason to track this data, just as a corporation tracks data on growth, etc.

[bomberpete]

Concerned:

Yes, you need to say more. The way I read your comments, it's OK to use misguided fear to trash a community's reputation and honest efforts to revitalize itself?

Seeing postings like this make me understand why scare tactics are so effective.

[ed]

I agree.

I definitely agree that real stats are an important use by government (for the reasons you highlighted). But, these headlined, out of context phrases only serve to frighten the public.