UC Davis Admits Inflating Campus Sex Crime Statistics

[The Straight Story]

DAVIS, CA - University of California Davis officials admitted Thursday that the school made a major error in reporting the number of forcible sex offenses committed on campus. But in an unusual twist, the number of reported cases were actually over-represented.

"It's not uncommon for campuses nationally who have programs like ours on their campuses to have higher reporting numbers," victims advocate Marisa Messier with the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program said.

University leaders placed blame on the previous director of the campus violence prevention program Jennifer Beeman for inflating the numbers.

"In retrospect, not having a second pair of eyes look over the statistics that the director reported was clearly an error," UCD assistant executive vice chancellor Robert Loessberg-Zahl said.

Beeman's original numbers showed 48 forcible sex offenses in 2005, 68 in 2006 and 69 in 2007.

But, a review of those numbers found some startling discrepancies: the real numbers were about half of what was initially reported by Beeman, with 21 forcible sex offenses in 2005; 23 in 2006; and 33 in 2007.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=67977&catid=2

[JonQ]

1. Why did they do that?

Seems odd.

[Titanothere]

2. Probably to make the advocacy office seem more important

and to try and overstate the problem so that it fits in line with their ideology. Unfortunately some people tend to want a problem to seem worse than it is, because on some level or another they're getting something out of it. I'd rather stick with the facts myself, I can't stand always having to question and second guess statistics. My personal favorite is the number of kidnapped children each year. The news wants you to think there's bands of maurading gypsies looking to steal your kid every time he steps outside, when in truth most of those kidnappings are related to child custody issues i.e. mom or dad ran off with the kids. The former sells more advertising and I'm guess for UC Davis probably brings in more funding $. Just a guess.

[redqueen]

4. Welcome to DU. (nt)

[JonQ]

10. That makes sense

I'm guessing continued funding and employment had something to do with it as well.

[redqueen]

3. I hate articles like this. Not nearly enough information...

UC Davis student Erica O'Donnell said that while she did not believe it was the right decision for Beeman to inflate the numbers, she did understand why.

"I think it's better to be over-reported than under-reported. I think it's really important, especiallly as a female, you should be aware of what's going on around campus," O'Donnell said.

What did she do?

Was it a math error?

Did she count incidents that shouldn't have been included?

:wtf:

It's easy to assume she just did it to make her job seem more important, given her fraudulent expenses. But still... would a little more info kill them? Ugh.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. The article says that Beeman decided to inflate the numbers. It wasn't a math error.

Given the incentives, I'm surprised that any reliable statistics are collected. Accurate ones don't grab headlines.

Further the "error" wasn't "about half". The actual rate was about 40% of what she reported. Or, looked at another way, she overstated the actual assault rate by nearly a factor of three.

None of this would have come to light if the administrators hadn't caught her stealing grant funds for personal use.

Still, people rush to her defense.

[redqueen]

7. Are you referring to the comment after the student's quote?

Which implies that they're referring to the student's choice of words, and not the facts of the matter?

I agree with you about statistics... but let's talk about writing standards for a moment. Fucking hell.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I didn't find the writing all that ambiguous.

First the headline:
"UC Davis Admits Inflating Campus Sex Crime Statistics"

Then;
"University leaders placed blame on the previous director of the campus violence prevention program Jennifer Beeman for inflating the numbers."

And:
"Regardless of whether or not Beeman's decision was justified, (fraud is a debatable decision?) the discrepency puts UC Davis in a difficult position."

Math errors rarely cause someone to miscount 23 things as 68 things.

[redqueen]

9. Statistics errors can do a lot worse than that.

Like I said, including categories of complaints that shouldn't have been included would do it. If I had to guess, that's what I'd pick.

As for your opinion that it's not ambiguous... I don't even know what to say. *sigh*

If she decided to include things that shouldn't have been included, then yeah, that would be the decision. The vagueness of their 'reporting' speaks for itself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Here's UC Davis' revised report

http://police.ucdavis.edu/clery/currentCleryStatistics.htm

There is nothing at all in this story or the supporting information to suggest that the misrepresentation was an honest mistake.

There's plenty of motive. Her lies secured her department millions in federal grants. The grants were used to finance her travel and to "reimburse" her for travel to conferences she didn't even attend.

Had she not stolen the grant money that her fraud secured for the university, everyone would be happy and her statistics would take their place in the amorphous universe of conventional wisdom.

[redqueen]

12. But why not just say it?

And why not say how she did it? Did she just make up numbers? Did she include things that shouldn't have been included?

I understand... you think the article was satisfactorily written. You're satisfied with the information it provided. I am not. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Aargh.