RAY GUILLORY ON ESCAMBIA'S POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND JOBS

One of the issues no one wants to talk about in Escambia County is poverty.  The amount of poverty in Escambia County affects a wide variety of public policy issues--funding and resources for the school district; the need for psychological health services for adults and children; the lack of health and dental care for many adults and children; hunger and the fact that 61,256 people were on the federal SNAP program in 2013; the availability of jobs paying a living wage; and, criminal behaviors.

In 2012, the Partnership for a Healthy Community, issued its third assessment on health outcomes (indicators) in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties.  On pdf page 7 the Partnership reported:  "The results are most problematic for Escambia County, which, among Florida's 67 counties, ranks 18th in total population, but 24th in per capita income, and 63rd in government expenditures for health services.  Overall, for Escambia County, slightly less than 34% of the 234 indicators compare favorably to peer [similar counties] and state rates, while 47% are unfavorable to both. Over 15% of the indicators compared unfavorably to peer, but favorable to the state. The remaining 5% were favorable to peer, but unfavorable to the state."

In February 2013, the Greater Pensacola Chamber of Commerce issued a report, Capturing Opportunity: The Greater Pensacola Area Economic Development Strategy 2013-2018, laying out on page 4 its vision for the future:  "But becoming a stand-out economic development performer requires more. The region must diversify through growth of administrative offices, tech companies, higher education, medical care, aircraft maintenance and repair, cyber security, and the active retiree population. Successful economic development affects every local resident. Full employment, economic security, home ownership, the ability to fund quality education, fire and police protection, roads and parks, the increased vibrancy of downtown Pensacola – in sum, a good quality of life – all require a growing economy, good jobs, and a growing tax base."

On page 6, the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce noted that jobs in the area were well behind the national average in terms of pay stating that "wages average 79% of the U.S. average for jobs in Escambia County and only 68% for jobs in Santa Rosa County."  The Pensacola Chamber of Commerce indicated that poverty rates were rising and the most vibrant part of the workforce, those aged 20-34 years of age, were projected to decline over the next twenty years as they took their skills and energy elsewhere.

The Pensacola Chamber of Commerce's report emphasized building new development sites and improving the work skills of residents.  Even with a government-business partnership for economic growth, there is the need for government to be a partner, the need for government to use tax dollars wisely, and to get the most bang for the buck from each tax dollar.  Republicans and Democrats ought to see that the only way to reduce poverty in Escambia County, is first to address the need, and then use all the resources we have in the county--our representatives in state government, local elected officials, and local businesses--to create and execute a strategic plan.

Ray Guillory is taking that first step in raising the issue of poverty and the need to address it.  Public-private partnerships to build infrastructure and improve lives has been ongoing since the eighteenth century.  Even the late Paul Weyrich and his director of cultural conservatism, William S. Lind, wrote in their book (page 110), The Next Conservatism, that the "next conservatism should accept this precedent.  Its agenda should include providing adequate national and local infrastructure.  Our economy cannot flourish without it."  On page 112, they argued that "Economic security requires that people be able to get good paying jobs, which means manufacturing jobs."  On page 120, Weyrich and Lind suggested a "family wage is a wage that pays a head of household enough to give his family a middle-class standard of living with his wife staying home to take care of their children."  One can disagree with their prescription for wives to stay at home, but even very strong conservatives understand the necessity of providing families--however you define this unit--with a "family wage" or a "living wage."  The idea that families should have a "family wage" that allows them to live a middle-class life is a radical departure from Republican Party orthodoxy that the free market should determine wages, and, if those wages are too low for families to survive, well, too bad.

Ray Guillory is the only candidate running who understands that the only way to get people out of poverty is to provide them a solid education, to have well-paying local jobs creating clean energy and clean products, and to have state and local governments providing the infrastructure to attract or locally create those companies that provide these jobs.  Running around screaming about small government and low taxes is not going to solve the problem of poverty in Escambia County.  And it really does not help when national, state, and local candidates claim or are quiet about how foreigners ("Others") are stealing our jobs, or, claiming that government spending is really spending for undesirable people.  No, the poor in Escambia County are white and Black.  Those 60,000 people in Escambia County receiving federal assistance to combat hunger are not all Black.  There are a lot of white adults and children going to bed hungry.  Efforts to divide the poor are really efforts to keep white and Black folks poor.  Only Ray Guillory understands that we have to lift everybody out of poverty and stop playing the age-old game of divide-and-conquer.

Ray Guillory, Democratic candidate for Florida House District 2, gave a powerpoint presentation on June 28, 2016, at the main library on Spring Street, before an audience drawn from the Panhandle Democratic African American Women's Caucus, part of the network of the DAAWC headed by Leslie Wimes.  Guillory emphasized that both Republicans and Democrats need to talk about poverty in Escambia County and funding services that a large part of the community--Republican and Democrat, white and Black and brown--need to improve lives and the quality of our communities.

Small government and low taxes is fine.  But, is children going to bed hungry acceptable?  Is it acceptable that many children receive their only two meals of the day at school?  Is it acceptable that we expect children to learn at school when their families may be struggling to pay the light bill?  Is it acceptable that children in some neighborhoods can play where streets have sidewalks and overhead lights, while other children have to walk along roads with no sidewalks and no streetlights?  Is it acceptable that single mothers or fathers want to work but child care costs make work prohibitively expensive?  Is it acceptable that Escambia County does not have enough resources to provide health care, dental care, and mental health care?  Is it acceptable that the bulk of the jobs created inside Escambia County are low-wage jobs that do not provide a living wage for a family of four?  Is it acceptable that large employers come to Escambia County bringing thousands of jobs with them but hire very few residents of Escambia County?  Is it acceptable that these large employers receive millions of dollars in tax breaks or subsidies, but have no requirement to hire a percentage of Escambia County residents?

These are all troubling questions.  The potential answer, that most voters either do not care or think that not caring is acceptable is even more troubling.  Presented below is Ray Guillory's presentation as it was filmed and his slides.

Ray Guillory,candidate, Florida House District 2

MCCORVEY VOTES IN DISTRICT 4 NOT DISTRICT 3

UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016):  According to the Supervisor of Elections office for Escambia County, on May 20, 2016, Elvin McCorvey changed his voter registration address from 1708 E Scott Street, which is in District 4 (see below), to 201 W Scott Street, which is in District 3.  So, he was elected to represent District 3, somehow registered to vote or found himself registered to vote in District 4, realized his error, and changed his voter registration one month before the closing qualifying deadline.  Is this not unusual?  Does this not call into question his eligibility to represent District 3?  How about all the votes he took on the ECUA Board while living in District 4?  Are those votes legal?  End Update.

UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016, 1451H):  Here is the official response from the Supervisor of Elections for Escambia County:

"According to our records:
Prior to May 29, 2013, Mr. McCorvey was registered to vote at 1770 E Baars Street, Pensacola.
On May 29, 2013, he updated his registration to 1708 E. Scott Street, Pensacola.
On May 20, 2016, he updated his registration to 201 West Scott Street, Pensacola."

In other words, he was registered to vote in District 3 before May 29, 2013.  Then, on May 29, 2013--after he had won re-election to ECUA Board District 3--he registered to vote in District 4, since 1708 E Scott Street is in District 4 (see below).  Then, while still registered to vote in District 4, he filed paperwork with the SOE appointing himself and his ex-wife as deputy treasurer and treasurer, respectively.  While still registered to vote in District 4, he filed candidacy papers with the SOE (see below) to run for re-election in District 3.  And none of this unusual in Escambia County politics. End Update.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: 

According to Florida Statute, Title IX, Chapter 101, Section 101.045(1), "A person is not permitted to vote in any election precinct or district other than the one in which the person has his or her legal residence and in which the person is registered."

According to Chapter 104, Section 104.011(1) on "Election Code Violations, Penalties," "A person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or affirmation, or willfully procures another person to swear or affirm falsely to an oath or affirmation, in connection with or arising out of voting or elections commits a felony of the third degree."

Elvin McCorvey is attempting to be elected to his sixth term as District 3 representative for the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Board.

According to candidate information through the EscambiaVotes.com website, his "contact information" is listed as "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola.

When McCorvey appointed his ex-wife, Joyce McCorvey as his Campaign Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."  When McCorvey appointed himself as Deputy Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."  And, when McCorvey filed his first Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."

The registered voters at "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola are Willie F. McCorvey and Margie P. McCorvey.  It is not known what relationship they are to Elvin McCorvey.  They are also registered as taxpayers at that address.  There is no Elvin McCorvey associated with this address in terms of voter registration or property taxes.  This is simply his mail drop for his campaign.

So where exactly is Elvin McCorvey registered to vote?

McCorvey is actually registered to vote in Escambia County at 1708 E Scott Street in Pensacola.  He shares that address with a woman named Modeste M. McCorvey.

According to the voter registration data, that address, 1708 E Scott Street, is actually in County District 4 and School District 4.  In fact, if you query "1708 E Scott Street" on myescambiavotes.com to find your precinct, that is Precinct 41.  According to an official map, Precinct 41 is in District 4.  And, in the Democratic National Committee Vote Builder for Florida, McCorvey resides at 1708 E Scott Street with a Modeste McCorvey.  They both vote at the Bayview Senior Resource Center and they reside in Commission District 4 and School District 4.

In short, while McCorvey is running for ECUA District 3, he resides in and is registered to vote in District 4.  This would make him ineligible to vote in District 3 and to run for office in District 3.

NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS

UPDATE:  This article is in error.  I submitted a public records request for call incidences coded 19-0.  While Chief Deputy Haines certainly complied with that request, he took great sadistic pleasure in not informing me that in October 2015 the ECSO had added the codes 19-2 and 19-3 to reflect whether or not the vehicle was locked or unlocked.  I have submitted a public records request for more data regarding these new incident codes.

If the 19-2 and 19-3 data would have supported Sheriff Morgan's spending of $130,000 during an election year, one would think that Chief Deputy Haines would have provided that data.  That strategic option would have shown political sophistication and finesse.  That would have shown loyalty to his boss's mission--to get re-elected and gracefully silence one critique.  But, Chief Deputy Haines had to secure a small psychic victory for himself.  He had to secure some kind of notch in his belt.  Better to humiliate me in public than to inform the public.  With malice aforethought he withheld crucial data simply because I had not specifically asked for incident codes I did not know existed.  Got it.  Lesson learned.  But, he revealed his true nature.

Chief Deputy Haines is a petty, vindictive, manipulative, small bureaucratic tyrant.  This is how he runs the day-to-day operations of the ECSO.  This is the internal face of the ECSO that Chief Deputy Haines tries so hard to hide from the public.  He does not want the public to know how he runs the ECSO.  He does not want to be held accountable.  Game on, indeed, Chief Deputy.

OLD ARTICLE

In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs.  From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%.  This data is indisputable.

But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes.  So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.

Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations.  The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.

The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports.  This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire.  They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes."  The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded.  The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle."  There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles.  Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code.  Deputies also code what happened on these calls.  The codes of interest are:  A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."

With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.

This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016.  The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages.  The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here).  While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.

But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016.  Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.

Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards:  "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."

Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended.  Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel.  Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015.  No.  Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.

In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.

The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices.  And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique.  In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.

Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016.  In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.

The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola.  In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%.  In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.

Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):

2015:  MAY  126;  JUN  156;  JUL  177;  AUG  151;  SEP  213;  OCT  110;  NOV  64;  DEC  35.
2016:  JAN  24;  FEB  26;  MAR  24;  APR  46; and up to May 19,  18.

Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%.  Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%.  And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%.  Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February.  From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents.  Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.

Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries.  Thus, the billboards were necessary."

But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015.  The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016.  Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear.  A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars.  But, that is just good community policing.  If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.

But, those explanations are not satisfying.  On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries.  While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars.  On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.

Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.

Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%.  Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash.  While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO.  But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data.  There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.

I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort.  The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO.  This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page.  The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain.  I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary.  But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.

NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS

In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs.  From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%.  This data is indisputable.

But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes.  So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.

Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations.  The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.

The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports.  This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire.  They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.

The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes."  The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded.  The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle."  There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles.  Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code.  Deputies also code what happened on these calls.  The codes of interest are:  A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."

With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.

This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016.  The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages.  The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here).  While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.

But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016.  Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.

Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards:  "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."

Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended.  Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel.  Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015.  No.  Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.

In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.

The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices.  And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique.  In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.

Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016.  In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.

The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola.  In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%.  In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.

Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):

2015:  MAY  126;  JUN  156;  JUL  177;  AUG  151;  SEP  213;  OCT  110;  NOV  64;  DEC  35.
2016:  JAN  24;  FEB  26;  MAR  24;  APR  46; and up to May 19,  18.

Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%.  Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%.  And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%.  Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February.  From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents.  Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.

Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries.  Thus, the billboards were necessary."

But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015.  The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016.  Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear.  A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars.  But, that is just good community policing.  If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.

But, those explanations are not satisfying.  On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries.  While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars.  On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.

Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.

Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%.  Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash.  While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO.  But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data.  There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.

I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort.  The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO.  This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page.  The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain.  I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary.  But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.

MORGAN MISUSED LETF FUNDS FOR BILLBOARDS?

Trying to pin Chief Deputy Haines and Sheriff Morgan down is like the proverbial problem of nailing jello to the wall.  You interpret their billboard signs to read that it is about vehicle thefts and they come back and state on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page that it is really about car burglaries.  Go to the FDLE website and burglaries are aggregated at a level that is useless.  All burglaries are lumped together, from homes, cars, businesses, and other.  When you finally get to the disaggregated Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data it is not car burglaries but "Largency from Motor Vehicles" that is apparently the relevant reportable index crime.  And, when I asked for the analytical products that drove the decision to spend money on the billboards, I received the disaggregated FDLE UCR data.

So, let us examine the UCR data reported by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for "Larceny from Motor Vehicles."  This appears to be the only relevant crime data germane to the problem.

For calendar year 2012, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle declined -7.7% between calendar year 2011 (2,119) and 2012 (1,956).

For calendar year 2013, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +20.4%, going from 1,956 larcenies to 2,355 larcenies in 2013.

For calendar year 2014, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle decreased -28%, falling from 2,355 in 2013 to 1,654 in 2014.

For calendar year 2015, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +15.1%, rising from 1,654 in 2014 to 1,904 in 2015.

Let us make a number of observations.  After larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +20.4% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not authorize spending $130,000 for billboards.  We know of no special programs, policies, or procedures that were instituted to reduce these motor vehicle larcenies.  The following year, larcenies from motor vehicles declined -28% without Sheriff Morgan apparently instituting anything special that the public would have noticed.  Certainly, had the ECSO done something different in 2014, it would almost certainly had duplicated those programs, policies, and techniques in 2016.  To the contrary, Chief Deputy Haines stated on Facebook that they started the overall billboard campaign in August 2015--several months before they knew what the actual level of "larcenies from a motor vehicle" would be.  In 2015, larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +15.1%, significantly less than in calendar year 2013 (20% less) when the same crime category rose +20%, yet this year--faced with a tough reelection campaign against highly qualified challengers--Sheriff Morgan authorized spending $130,000 in a billboard publicity campaign using a police publicity campaign considered by the Department of Justice to be the least effective method of changing the behavior of car owners.  In short, Sheriff Morgan has seemingly used the plausible cover a 15% rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle to spend $130,000 to promote his image on billboards around the county from March 2016 to just ten days before the election in August.

Escambia County taxpayers need to know that the $130,000 initially comes from the General Fund account.  Sheriff Morgan needs to submit the documentation for the billboards to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to be reimbursed from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.  Should the BOCC find that the money is not consistent with the purpose of the LETF, they could decline to reimburse the Sheriff.  The same is true for all other expenditures that the Sheriff requests reimbursement for from the LETF.  I am not suggesting that the BOCC will not reimburse the Sheriff.  I am only stating that initially the Sheriff spends funds from his own General Fund account.  Only later does the money come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.

As the issue now stands, Sheriff Morgan is spending in excess of $130,000 from his General Fund account to apparently boost his re-election campaign.  Whether or not the expenditure was justified is up to the BOCC and the voters to decide.  But, the evidence suggests that this expenditure was driven first and foremost by political considerations and only secondarily by crime data considerations.  Instead, it appears that Sheriff Morgan is using the rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle as cover for an underhanded re-election publicity campaign.  After larcenies from motor vehicles rose +20% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not resort to a publicity campaign.  Why not then and why now?