Crime in the City - Part 2

Yesterday we looked at the City’s recent report on crime and highlighted those facts that could be substantiated. Today I want to go through the report in more detail and point out the problems in the report. Elected officials depend on the accuracy and thoroughness of staff reports in order to make decisions. It’s vital that we get the best reports to help us in our decision making.

IGNORING MOST CRIMES

The City report only discusses Part 1 crimes yet Part 2 crimes are far more frequent. For example, in 2012 South OC cities had 1,534 Part 1 crimes but 6,523 Part 2 crimes. In 2011 the difference was 1,542 vs. 7,443. That’s a difference of 4 to 5 times as many Part 2 crimes as compared to part 1 crimes.

Part 2 crimes are not unimportant. They include –

· Assault

· Sex offenses

· Drug abuse

· Offenses against family and children

· Drunkenness

· Fraud

· Embezzlement

· Buying/receiving stolen property

· Weapons violations

Ignoring Part 2 crimes in a study of crime is unacceptable. The City says it focused on Part 1 because Part 2 crimes are difficult to compare across different agencies. While that’s true, we don’t need a cross agency comparison. It would have been valuable to include Part 2 crimes in this and any future analysis. Otherwise we have only a very partial picture.

IGNORING MOST RECENT DATA

The City report goes through 2014 and excludes 2015 most of the time, though not always. As it happens, 2015 was a banner year for crime, increasing 29% over the previous year. Why would you exclude the most recent data in an attempt to study crime trends? Why does the 10 year trend data go to 2014 instead of 2015? Could it be that by including 2015 the statistics don’t look so appealing? The City claims that 2014 data was not available yet from the FBI. But this report had not been mandated and there was no deadline. Waiting until the 2015 data was available would have made this report more valuable.

MIXING UP THE DATES

· The city crime rate data map (page 4) is for 2014

· The 10 year trend (page 5) goes from 2005 to 2014.

· The percentage gain chart (page 8) is for 2014 to 2015.

· The state, county, and local comparison (page 7) is for 2012 to 2014

· The analysis of preventable crimes is for 2015 (page 10)

· The prevention program info is for 2016 (page 11)

So the report flips around from 2005 to 2016, never landing on one consistent date. Just about every page offers a different date so that it’s impossible to get a single “slice in time” for any of these measures.

MIXING OCSD AND SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY

Sometimes the report discusses the 10 South OC cities (see pages 4 and 5) and sometimes it discusses all 13 cities controlled by OCSD, 10 of which are in South County (see Table 1, page 8). Why include the 3 North OC cities in a discussion of South OC cities?

With all the flopping around it’s hard to stay focused.

FAILING TO FOLLOW THROUGH

The report is constantly claiming an absence of data from which to draw conclusions. For example –

“…the issue of establishing a cause-effect relationship between the community and the number of reported crimes would require detailed offender profiles and the continued collection of that data over several years…”

Yet this data exists. It could be done. Why isn’t it? Later on they say -

“…as noted earlier, a more precise extrapolation of a direct cause-effect relationship would require substantial study.”

OK. But why isn’t this being done? Isn’t our safety worth the effort?

The report notes that UCI is working with OCSD to study the impact of Prop 47 on crime rates. OCSD would like to blame the increase on Prop 47 and so they have started to research this area. Apparently our safety alone isn’t sufficient concern to launch a study, but now that they can look for a scapegoat, the studies are beginning to happen.

Why can’t we get UCI involved in doing better research on this important area. I’m sure we could get students in Political Science and in Sociology/Criminology to provide free services in studying the problem of crime in Lake Forest.

FOCUS

Of all things, the report doesn’t focus in on the one salient fact – crime in Lake Forest is higher than crime for any of our immediate neighbors. This is not a one-year statistics, but has been true for the past several years. Even Mission Viejo which has more people, and hence should have a higher percentage of crime, has less crime. What ignore the elephant in the squad car?

In addition, the report notes that while Part 1 property crimes are steadily going down, Part 1 violent crimes have been stable. Though violent crimes are less numerous than property crimes, they are surely more devastating. Nationwide both property and violent crimes are down over this same period, so something is out of sync if our violent crime rate is stable. Why is the one new intervention planned by the City in the area of property crimes and not in the area of violent crimes?

SUMMARY

It’s great to get a report about a subject as important as public safety. And it’s great to see that OCSD did some original research (preventable property crimes). But IMO the report could have been much better and the choice of interventions is mis-directed. As important as it is to reduce property crimes, I’d prefer that efforts went against violent crimes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 4 pm to 6 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a Town Hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be in November at the Foothill Ranch Public Library.