More statistical fury
Officials at the UK Statistics Authority continue to seethe at the way in which Gordon Brown's closest advisors issued a "fact sheet" on knife crime through the Home Office last month.
You may recall how the authority's chairman, Sir Michael Scholar, wrote a stinking letter to the permanent secretary at Number Ten in which he described the premature release of "unchecked statistics" as "corrosive of public trust" and "incompatible with the high standards which we are all seeking to establish".
Today, the UKSA's Monitoring and Assessment Team has broadened its criticism of the press notice.
Sir Michael was exercised by the way Downing Street ignored the personal pleas of the Chief Statistician to delay publication of hospital statistics on A&E admissions for stab wounds because they hadn't been properly checked.
But it is now clear that almost every bit of data in the release has got the statistics watchdog hopping with indignation [pdf].
The Authority's job is to check that ministers abide by their statutory requirements under the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Basically, they must ensure that politicians don't play fast and loose with official numbers.
Their conclusion is that Number Ten and the Home Office drove a coach and horses through the regulations.
Annex A of their release is entitled "List of practices from the Code with which the 11 December release of knife crime statistics appears to be inconsistent". There then follows a long and detailed list of how the press release broke the rules.
Annex B continues in the same vein: a devastating demolition job in forensic style. The authority's monitors accuse the government of releasing statistics that are "unclear", "selective or inappropriate" and lacking in context. Some of the conclusions drawn are "unsafe" and in one case the claims are "unsubstantiated".
The analysis chimes with my own impressions at the time. It is not that the figures themselves are necessarily wrong - rather that numbers were being mangled and manipulated to make the case that the government's knife crime campaign was having a rapid impact.
For example, the UKSA's report notes: "Youth violence is reported as being 30% lower in Halloween week than in the previous year. 'Halloween week' is not a recognised period for statistical comparisons. And no evidence is given about the reasons for this change - it could be because of the weather or other external factors."
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has already apologised for being "too quick off the mark with the publication of one number in relation to the progress that had been made with tackling knife crime".
However, the criticism is not that they were too enthusiastic in trumpeting success, but that they quite deliberately ignored the entreaties of statisticians in order to make a political point.
Conservative leader David Cameron has described the episode as "an appalling way to behave", but the Tories are not immune from using unsubstantiated numbers to make their case.
Just after Christmas, shadow Home Office minister James Brokenshire claimed that under Labour, knife crime "has soared". His evidence was figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act on crimes initially recorded by police as homicides caused by sharp instruments.
Four points:
- Homicides by sharp instruments include items such as glass bottles, so how can we be sure that we are talking about knives?
- The figure obtained from police forces amounted to 277 such homicides compared with 258 the previous year which, while tragic in itself, does not seem to amount to a new epidemic.
- The figures were not ready for publication because statisticians routinely wait until police and courts have confirmed that the incidents were indeed homicides. This process often sees a reduction in the headline figure.
- Overall, homicide has increased under Labour, as it did under the previous Conservative administration. However, there is some evidence that murder rates may have fallen from a peak in 2001 (unaffected by Shipman or the July 7th London bombings).
For an historical perspective, see my posts from last month: Map of the Week - Murder UK and The history of homicide.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hope you aren't attacked for bias, Mark.
The information you present is very interesting because it says a lot about the information climate we live in. The belief of government and opposition is that whoever gets a set of figures out first will be the one who is believed. Both sides are selective in what they tell the public; indeed they are probably selective in what data they seek in the first place.
The trouble is that closely analysed statistics are not presented in the most exciting way by statisticians and rarely make great headlines as they often have many caveats.
Complain about this comment
Excellent post Mark well done!
All too often in this day and age we find that numerically illierate people who have elevated themselves into positions of decision making, then beat down and abuse the trusted outputs from more rational types of people who are disparingly referred to as "the people that do the data".
This is not just political but also true in business. It appears that the modern era of MBA's, with all ts caboodle of Jungian pschology, EI, AI and associated humanist baggage is really just another way of putting the less rational in charge of the more rational. It does seem that the modern executive is more likely to suceed with a degree in English Literature than a degree in Maths. The debacle of the current financial situation suggests a return to more rationalist fundamentals is overdue.
As for politicians; can any of them add up - other than Vince Cable?
As for the bulk of journalists; how long did it take them to spot the 10p tax con or that 2.5% VAT cut did not mean £2.50 in the pound?
Complain about this comment
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics" - Benjamin Disreali as attributed (possibly inaccurately) by Mark Twain
Actually, there are liars, damned liars and politicians. Or perhaps the politicians are ignorant. In either case, the public need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of using numbers to guide the formulation and evaluation of public policy.
I teach research statistics at University level, and the level of innumeracy and ignorance of statistics that I find among our students is appalling. From my perspective secondary education is failing the students in teaching statistics. From what I can gather the average student can calculate an average, most but not all can calculate a proportion, most can compose a chart, but none has any idea how to evaluate the quality of data or the analysis used to summarise them. We need to do better.
It also makes me wonder how many journalists have had training in statistics....
Complain about this comment
Statistics is about looking for patterns, and just like pointing and telling someone that there is a sailboat in that weird geometrical tangle of a picture in the shop window, people will nod and agree when someone tells them there is a single headline number in that jumble of data - just so they don't feel left out.
Whilst politicians are best known for trying to lead people around by their leashes, the media - and especially the dumbed down BBC - have a lot to answer for too.
Complain about this comment
If the tories get stats wrong it may embarass them later - they are only the opposition.
When labour get stats wrong it can bankrupt the country - they are the government!
Given this difference, I don't see you have any reason to mention the tories in your piece, let alone try to draw parallels. I assume it was just to give you an excuse to give the impression 'they are all at it', while ignoring the possible consequences (embarassment vs national collapse)...
The even ignores the fact that the leading members of labour government have done a host of things that they specifically said they objected to - are they liars? or did they mis-read their moral compass that week?
Why not a bulleted list of all the reasons Brown gave for setting up the Stats Authority in the first place - and maybe get Brown and Smith to explain why those reasons no longer stand?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
your points about the homicide statistics are spot on! The initially reported figure is almost always reduced, so you cannot compare those currently on police books with the final audited figure that will enter the history books.
Home Office statisticians have always made this clear, and table 1.01 in the last Homicde statistics bulletin (2006-07) ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]) contains two columns, one for number of offences initially recorded as a homicide, and one for the number currently recorded (e.g. a more final figure). The difference in 2006-7 was 23, which was the lowest difference between these two figures ever recorded. We might assume therefore that the difference this year will be higher when the new 2007-8 stats are published (later this month I think) but even if it were as little as 23 offences, this would still be enough to turn James Brokenshire's figure from a "soaring" increase into a real reduction.
Something to celebrate, maybe?
Complain about this comment
Mark
"The Authority's job is to check that ministers abide by their statutory requirements under the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Basically, they must ensure that politicians don't play fast and loose with official numbers". (My italics)
Is it therefore an offence to play 'fast and loose with official numbers' and, if so, why is the Home Office not prosecuted?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Posting #5 sums it up nicely for me.
Labour are in power. Misleading the public in this way is unacceptable and exposes the government's arrogance.
The credibility of Labour, especially under ex-chancellor Gordon Brown, is lower than the waistband on the trousers worn by my teenager.
Complain about this comment
How refreshing to read a BBC reporter openly report a story which critisises the Goverment.
Complain about this comment
It is indeed good that the bbc spends a few seconds each month to criticize the government.
However I heard Smith's "apology" and it was very badly handled with the usual but, but.
"It is not that the figures themselves are necessarily wrong" - this is not true as the figures were manipulated to give false impressions and results.
The major factor (that came up today) and not mentioned in your article (wonder why?) is who knew of this manipulation of figures - Smith? - Brown? - and who approved its release?
Complain about this comment
Of course #5 might have a point saying that abusing statistics is more serious when it is the government than when it is the opposition.
I look forward to the time when Cameron et al are in government and they then move away from their present habit and use only carefully validated statistics. But the point is, if they have been caught out distorting statistics in opposition, will their stats be trusted more when they are in governmemnt? Mark was trying to show some consistency of reasoning.
'The real truth' - you are entitled to your opinions, but don't dress them up as truth.
Complain about this comment
I don't get the reasoning behind the complaint that its crime figures on knives as opposed to sharp implements ie glass.
A crime is a crime. The victim is not thinking " thank god its a bottle not a knife"
Labour is still spinning.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton - well done on a balanced viewpoint.
How completely refreshing to see an entry like this - can't quite believe my eyes, but long may your impartiality remain.
#5 well said that man.
Complain about this comment
#12 kcband8
Fair point, but in this case, why was it given to us as 'homicides by knife' and not 'homicides by sharp instrument'?
#5 (and others) again I agree, the consequences of bad use of statistics is worse when used by the government. But on the otherhand, if the opposition are self-rightously banging on about it, and giving the implication that they're so much better, then it's right and proper to point out that they're just as bad.
Complain about this comment
Given that I've been less than complimentary in the past regarding your obsession with statistics in your blog, Mark, I have to give credit where it's due for you giving a balanced viewpoint.
Once again, in regard specifially to crime statistics (and law and order generally), I would much prefer to see a return to the original Peelian Principles. The important one is number 9 ;)
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Complain about this comment
Is it significant that this item about politicians using misleading statistics has a 'Comment' option but the article about reporters only getting getting 24 hours to 'analyse' the school exam result statistics does not?
The production of league tables of school statistics is done by the media not the government and is very misleading in the way it portrays schools' performance.
The words glass houses and stones spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
'Peelian Principles' is an interesting one. It's always been a mystery to me where these came from. I'm a historian who specialises in policing, and I've never found them written down by Peel or by any of his subordinates in the creation of any of the police forces he was involved with. Last year, I saw an interesting article by a couple of American academics who had investigated this question. Their conclusion? That there are at least 4 different sets of 'Peelian Principles' in various books, but all of them appear to have been arrived at in the twentieth century.
Here's the reference: S.A. Lentz, R.H. Chaires, 'The invention of Peel's principles: A study of policing
‘textbook’ history' Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 69–79
Here's the article's abstract:
Beyond noting the importance of the Act for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis (1829) (hereafter referred to as the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829) to the origins of modern policing, law enforcement and policing textbooks commonly include a list identified as Peel's principles. In researching the origins of such lists and their principles, this study found that they are largely the invention of twentieth century textbook authors. From this understanding emerge several considerations for the future of textbook history and of Peel's principles. These include the ongoing importance of incorporating new scholarship and changing historical interpretation into texts. In such an endeavor, however, care should be taken not to impose twentieth or twenty-first century concepts on the past.
So – the list on the Wikipedia page (and all the other, different, lists) may be fine principles on which to run a police service, but they have nothing to so with Peel. The moral of this story is, always check your sources.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown must be ultimately responsible for allowing these unchecked figures to be issued.
Should the police therefore search his and his assistants offices and computers for other misleading facts or information.
Should Gordon Brown offer to resign for misleading his employer i.e. the electorate.
Complain about this comment
The only place for statisticians is a locked room beneath the surface of the earth where they can debate amongst themselves the purpose of their calculations...which should`nt take long...waste of time and money...
Complain about this comment
I once had a look at the Annual Abstract of Statistics - which, I think, is very important to Government. It seemed to be very advanced - rather full of d2y/dx2 tables and graphs, which, I think, are all about rates of change. I cannot recall any raw statistics or plain figures in it at all. I suspect that if the public were ever given a set of simple figures, unprocessed, we would feel as cross as Sir Michael, and for much the same reason.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
So is the Code of Practice (particularly promoting equality access to Official Statistics) a Good Thing? One that should be implemented and supported even if it makes life difficult for some ...
... unless journalists want to see some data early before publication (like with the School League Tables)
Complain about this comment
The thing that hit home this week to sum up this great country of ours was,
we cant afford a £350000 cyber knife for deriford hospital in plymouth,
BUT we can afford £500000 for a new logo for the Cornwall county council.
It is the uk and maybe thats why we are the laffing stock of the western world!
Jason plymouth
Complain about this comment
Government's collected the sad bad and mad and we vote and pay for them but we do not have to believe them because we are not that naive lazy maybe but more often bored to death and know that most not all MPs are in the job to fill their boots or line their pockets before they are court out. They have that many spin doctors now because they are run by big business and newspaper owners so knife crime is a big thing because then they can bring in new laws that restrict everyone when all it is is social control been going for years how would they get people to buy and read the Daily Mail. Now most people take no notice of what comes of the media unless they feel it is right in their water. MS Smith is a mouth piece who is in a job for the kudos and pay she is one of Gordon's willing lackies nothing changes in Parliament it is not allowed to many sad, bad, and mad get to much and have to all have to much power, all the Royals are good shots and know has to defend themselves do they get pulled over or the rich with their minders do they get stopped as they walk around the West End of London in gangs do you think their minds do not pack a piece.
The same yobs that are seen on knife crime shows would be heroes if they went into uniform as there is loads of adverts asking them to join up and have a fun life out in the world and if you kill a person from that land well its friendly knifing, but if you do it at home your a killer hypocrite it is what this small island does well that and pathological lying.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, but post #5 and all praising it are being incredibly short sighted.
What damage can they cause? Well, they can misrepresent, cherry pick and make stuff up to come up with highly popular policies that are based on lies and invention until they are elected by a landslide.
Then, of course, being government, they can continue this policy and "bankrupt the country", although of course everyone will be bewailing the fact the the figures no-one checked before they were elected actually match up.
Meanwhile of course, Labour can make stuff up safe in the knowledge that no one checks the opposition's figures and claims, until they are elected straight back in.
And so on.
Any party whether in power or with pretensions to power should have exactly the same degree of scrutiny, and Mark is bang on for mentioning it.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS