SFPD admits to messing up crime stats (Sacramento, Oakland: crime rate, statistics)

[rah]

Basically the SFPD has admitted that they've been separating domestic violence incidents from SF's aggravated assault total. According to the chief, this has been going on for many years, though no specific number is stated. It's assumed that around 1,200 aggravated assaults per year should be added to SF's total. The SF Chronicle never picked this up of course, despite the new Chief's goal of better media relations...the Examiner had an article though:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/San-...-79779762.html (broken link)

old violent crime stats for SF:

2005 - 2,639 assaults - 352.3/100k residents (798.9/100k residents violent crime total)
2006 - 2,435 assaults - 326.4/100k residents (875.6/100k)
2007 - 2,418 assaults - 329.5/100k residents (874.1/100k)
2008 - 2,372 assaults - 297.2/100k residents (845.1/100k)

revised violent crime stats for SF:

2005 - 3,839 assaults - 512.4/100k residents (959.1/100k residents violent crime total)
2006 - 3,635 assaults - 487.2/100k residents (1,036.4/100k)
2007 - 3,618 assaults - 493.1/100k residents (1,037.1/100k)
2008 - 3,572 assaults - 447.5/100k residents (995.3/100k)

To make things even more confusing, this link (http://sf-police.org/Modules/ShowDoc...cumentid=23996) from the SFPD website says there were 3,801 aggravated assaults in 2008...which is even higher still than the estimate given in that article, and which would raise SF's violent crime rate up to 1,024.1 in 2008, with the assault rate rising to 476.2/100k.

Anyways, what these new stats mean is that SF has recently had higher violent crime rates than places such as Jersey City, Las Vegas, Richmond, VA, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and Newark, multiple times in a row...which goes against what most people would guess, from my experience. SF even had a higher violent crime rate than New Orleans in 2008, going by the 1,024/100k number.

It also means that SF now has the distinction of having had the third highest violent crime rate in the Bay Area in 2005 and 2007, surpassing Vallejo and San Pablo, to be behind only Oakland and Richmond. It was 4th in 2006 and 2008, surpassing Vallejo, but staying a bit below San Pablo. With previous stats, SF had been 5th or lower for quite a while in terms of violent crime.

As far as Statewide, in 2008 SF is in the top three or four large cities on the west coast for Violent crime, behind Oakland and Stockton, surpassing Las Vegas, and either higher or slightly lower than Sacramento, depending on whether you use the 995/100k crime stat or the 1,024/100k violent crime stat for SF (Sacramento was at 996/100k for 2008).

What i'd really like to know is how far back this kind of stat screwing went, and how screwed with other stats are. They give no specific timeline or numbers of incidents, just "many years" and "about 1,200 additional assaults." This also gives a little more weight to the fact that the SFPD seems to screw with murder stats too. In any case it's yet another embarrassment for the department. They seem to keep piling on...

[sav858]

well at least murders are down A LOT. I can't believe SF had such a huge drop in murders, very impressive and almost unheard of for a large city to have such a huge drop in one year.

Homicides plummet inexplicably in S.F.

[rah]

Yeah, that is a definite good thing. A drop of over 50% like SF has had this year is amazing. I know some other cities have had similar huge drops in murders this year as well...Minneapolis comes to mind.

[jrb724]

If SF is using "creative accounting" for crime statistics, imagine how many other cities are probably doing the same. Statistics are nice, but they can manipulated too easily. It was a year or two when SF had 99 murders. I don't remember what technicality made the other murder/murders not included, but it helped them get under the century mark. Murders are down in Oakland to, although not nearly as big of a drop as in SF.

[rah]

^ true, i'm sure plenty of places do it (just as i'm sure plenty of places don't do it)...but i have a feeling SF has much more of a vested interest in keeping crime stats as low as possible than your average city, seeing as tourism is it's number one industry, and basically keeps the city afloat. The thing about the SFPD is that there are tons of problems in addition to the statistics thing...the SFPD is dysfunctional on a pretty high level, and has been for a while, much like the city government of SF.

[Oakland City]

Crime will continue to get lower, as the poor are pushed out of the city and Hunters Point is gentrified into SSOMA. Fillmore is well on it's way. Mission almost there.

[ssmaster]

this only happened because gascon is from out of town and was not promoted from within. i'm sure he has benn given the message sf is a tourist town and to start fudging the numbers again.

the homicide information on the sfpd crime map has been "temporarily" unavailable for at least 3 YEARS! FOR CHRISTS SAKE !! it's not like there is a shortage of programmers in the bay area to fix the website.

[esmith143]

I bet there's some kind of creative accounting behind the supposed drop in murders, too.

[bayarea-girl]

Find it hard to believe that SF surpassed New Orleans in crime. Aren't people there still walking around and using firearms in broad daylight?

Anyways, interesting thread. Thought SF was safer. Wonder hat section of town most crimes are being committed in SF?

[steel7]

Dont believe everything you read. The SFPD most likely "fudged" the stats.