State’s Attorney’s Office Shares Misleading Crime Data
Originally Posted: March 13, 2023
Yesterday, the St. Mary's County State's Attorney's Office shared the post pictured below. The information is somewhat misleading on its face. Here is an explanation of what’s really going on here.
The SA pulled crime information from the Maryland Department of State Police Crime Records Division. I looked up the last available report, which is from 2020 and can be viewed here: https://mdsp.maryland.gov/.../Crime%20In%20Maryland...
This report tracks crime over a five year period from 2016-2020, and computes a 5 year average crime rate for various categories.
Sterling says murder is up 250%. That number compares the 2 murders in 2016 to the 7 in 2020. Using the five year average of 3 murders per year, the murder rate is up only 133%. Comparing 2019 (1 murder) vs. 2020 (7 murders), murder is up 600%. This is why percentages don’t tell the whole story.
Sterling says rape is up 20%. However, rape dropped by 17% when comparing 2019 (29 rapes) to 2020 (24 rapes) and decreased in 2019 when compared to the high in 2018 of 36 rapes. Decrease in rape using the 5 year average number vs. 2020 is 14.28%
Sterling says Auto Theft is up 24.6%. When comparing the 5 year average number of 71 (which is the same for 2019) vs. 2020, auto theft is up 21%. Though, 2020 did see the highest auto theft number from the five years of 2016-2020.
The report linked above also covers other categories, which I’ve listed below along with their percentages:
Robbery is down 17% from 2019, and 13.6% over the 5 year average
Aggravated Assault is down 5.8% over 2019, and 4.57% over 5 year average
Breaking and Entering is down 25% over 2019, and 34.81% over 5 year average
Larceny/Theft is down 19% over 2019, and 16% over 5 year average
Arson is down 45% over 2019, and 64.7% over 5 year average
Domestic Violence is up 4.44% over 2019, and up 14.86% over 5 year average
Carjacking saw 2 crimes in 2020, but zero each year prior to that.
Let’s move on to the budget. Sterling asks voters to support $1,597,172 for her office, which is just 0.5% of the budget. This is not the full picture.
On January 24th, the Commissioners approved four new positions for the SA Office, two paralegals and two senior legal assistants for a total recurring cost of $303,000. They also approved the purchase of a new prosecution tracking software, a one-time cost $227,950, with a recurring cost of $48,550 annually.
On March 7th, Sterling presented her budget to the Commissioners with an increase of $1,585,856, made up of essential cost changes (ECC) including new positions, vehicles, funds for extradition, expert witnesses, and Project Graduation. The baseline budget request amount (which does not include the additional ECCs) is $5,324,856. That amount, plus the additional $1.5M requested would make the total SA budget $6,910,712, or an increase of 30% over last year. When you add in the previously approved 4 new positions and new software, this year’s budget is actually a 40% increase over last year. Here is a breakdown of the budget for the past 5 years:
FY23 $5,313,541, or 1.64% of the county’s overall budget
FY22 $4,892,567, or 1.69% of the county’s overall budget
FY21 $4,505,144, or 1.78% of the county’s overall budget
FY20 $4,233,700, or 1.67% of the county’s overall budget
FY19 $3,596,324, or 1.59% of the county’s overall budget
The SA’s requested FY24 budget of $6,910,712, would be 2.2% of the overall county budget. The five year average budget percentage going to the SA office is 1.67%.
When viewed from a larger perspective, it is easier to see why the Commissioners did not automatically approve the entire budget request from the State’s Attorney office.
Also worth noting is that as of this week, there is $4,766,869 in unallocated revenue funds. Total requests from the various county departments is $6,649,283. Other departments with requests include the Sheriff, Land Use and Growth Management, Dept of Public Works, and all other county departments.
There is currently $3,410,252 in unused Commissioner fund balance. However, these funds are not meant for recurring costs–those like added positions, increased salaries etc. So that limits what that $3.4M can be used for.
Let’s also not forget that the Board of Education had their request underfunded, as did the Sheriff, as did the Library–all three of which were asked to go back and look at their own budgets to prioritize and see what could be cut. This is a normal part of the budget process. The Library wasn’t given any additional funding requested and the Sheriff cut $1,848,315 from their initial budget request. The State’s Attorney Office cut $202,251 from their initial budget request.
I’ll be the first to criticize a decision the Commissioners have made–that is no secret. But I also understand the budget process and how easily information can be represented to support a particular goal.
I hope you’ve found this post an informative explanation of the entire process at play here.
