(Updated w/link to audio)

So a little while ago I finished my interview on WNYC about crime across the country, and why it's up in Seattle and down everywhere else. Naturally, there was a lot I didn't get to say during my brief segment, so let me lay out the case for why the FBI's crime stats—which show a 22 percent increase in violent crime in Seattle—don't really mean that we're turning into Baltimore.

Please note that I'm a bit punchy from lack of sleep (I figured I'd stay up all night, rather than try to go to bed and get up at 4 AM) and twitchy from caffeine.

In the first six months of 2009, big cities like New York, Chicago, and LA all saw significant drops in crime—surprising, given the economy and all—while robberies, burglaries and violent crime rate rose in Seattle. If you take those numbers by themselves without context, it does kinda look like the sky is falling.

So, let's look at three big reasons why that might be:

---

1) It's the economy, stupid

At the state level, we’ve cut supervision for 10,000 “low-risk offenders” to save money, and also reduced staffing at the Department of Corrections. That's a lot of unsupervised criminals, low-risk or not.

2) There Just Aren't Enough Cops to Go Around

Here in Seattle, we’ve got a department that’s supposedly been understaffed for the last few years. 2008 stats show that Seattle has just one officer for every 500 residents. Meanwhile similarly sized cities like Atlanta had one officer for every 279 residents. Denver, Colorado, had one officer for every 354 residents. The national average for a officer-to-resident ratio about 270 to one.

3) It's all Greg Nickels/Gil Kerlikowske/John Diaz's fault.

It's probably fair to say that the city was slow to react to an increase in youth/gang violence, so there's that. But the bigger issue, I think, is the Neighborhood Policing Plan, designed to better integrate police officers into communities and allow them to better focus on their beats. The problem is the plan is half-finished. With the way the beats are divided up now, officers are covering a lot of turf. Hiring more cops would fill that out—and the city's working on that—but right now the outlying parts of some  beats sometimes get neglected. 3rd and Pine—which splits West Precinct's Mary 2 and King 1 sectors—is a good example of this, as is Othello Park, which sits at the edge of South Precinct's Sam 1 and Sam 2 sectors.

Alright, so now that you've made it through all of that, let's debunk those three points:

1) Washington isn't the only state dealing with cuts to DOC, so let's just discount that theory.

2) Maybe New Holly, Belltown, and 3rd and Pine could use a few more cops, but while more cops means more arrests, it doesn't necessarily mean better policing.Seattle had even fewer cops in 2007 when we had that record-low crime rate.

3) This needs to get fixed, pronto, but it's certainly not the only reason crime has spiked in Seattle.

Bam!

Alright, now let's take a look at why things aren’t actually that bad.

Although Seattle's violent crime rate rose—which is totally scary. I get that—we're still an incredibly safe city compared to other cities our size

In the first six months of 2009, Washington DC—which saw a drop in crime—had 3,736 violent crimes, including 66 murders and 1,591 aggravated assaults.

Atlanta had 3,023 violent crimes. They racked up 43 murders and 1,694 aggravated assaults.

Milwaukee: 3,056 violent crimes, 39 homicides, and 1,562 aggravated assaults.

Seattle had 1,927 violent crimes, including 8 homicides and 956 aggravated assaults.

It's certainly not good that crime is on the rise here, but the fact is that we're coming out of a supposed 40-year-low crime rate. We're a growing city, and while 2009's numbers—and the fact that they've trended upwards—may be a sign of things to come, it also just might be a self-correction.

Sure, it might seems scary now, but try to keep some perspective. Robberies, thefts and aggravated assaults might be up, but just remember: even in our darkest hour, we are still better than Milwaukee.