Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ARPA-CLE: Review data processing script #118

Open
Weihua4455 opened this issue Nov 10, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

ARPA-CLE: Review data processing script #118

Weihua4455 opened this issue Nov 10, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Weihua4455
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@Weihua4455 Weihua4455 self-assigned this Nov 10, 2022
@Weihua4455
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi hi,

I just finished reviewed the scripts. The code makes sense, however, I have some questions about how we compiled in-direct funds that local government received from the state.

Here's Ana's readme/instruction for this part:

Finally, indirect allocations from the state. 

They were hand input by Rachel Disell here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaZU-rJdtvhGJMLtLYfqqiAcBRrswdM_N1iCRubEXF8/edit#gid=125400899

Tabs: Ohio_CC_courts and Ohio_CC_Violent crime reduction.

Ana copied them over to a clean table here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nq0AwnOEi61XXPcbFUaI_aHfBl4lHWKphSqp3f9B0Jc/edit#gid=1493443383

Then, exported as xlsx file, cleaned here 
clean_indirect_multiplesheets.py
and saved as cle_indirect_multiple.csv

From Rachel's source documentation in the hand-compiled Google Sheet, here're a couple of tabs that I understand are CJ-related and need to be included in the analysis, and I have a few questions about those:

First, some overarching questions about the analysis:

  • Question: There are multiple sheets in the Google Sheet (Ohio_CC_ARPA_Wellness, Ohio_CC_ARPA_ViolentCrimeReduction, Ohio_ACC_ARPA_BodyCam, Ohio_CC_Courts), why did we choose to only export the crime (which I assume is Ohio_CC_ARPA_ViolentCrimeReduction) and court tabs?

  • Question: In the story, we said About a third of Cuyahoga County’s ARPA money – $66 million – was divided up between county council districts to be used as “community grants.”. But I don't see any scripts that pulls in or analyzes that data. Where are we doing that?

  • Tab Ohio_CC_ARPA_Wellness

    • Source data: Ohio First Responder Recruitment, Retention, and Resilience Program Grant
    • Question: Looking under the Cuyahoga County list, there are two spendings (highlighted in the spreadsheet) that we did not include in the initial tally. Did we exclude them on purpose?
    • Question: There were also a couple of cases where the departments who benefited from the grant are police and fire department, but we only included police in the dataset. Would love to learn more.
  • Tab Ohio_CC_ARPA_ViolentCrimeReduction

    • Source data: Ohio Violent Crime Reduction Program Grant
    • Question: There were 5 grants under Cuyahoga County that were not included in our spreadsheet (see highlighted in the tab). Did we exclude them on purpose?
    • Question: I could not find the last two projects ($1.8 million to Westlake Police Department and ~$250,000 to Southeast Area Law Enforcement Task Force) in the source data. Did we find them somewhere else?
  • Tab Ohio_ACC_ARPA_BodyCam

    • Source data: Body Worn Camera Grant
    • Question: This seems to come from a different source, or at least the format of the source document looks different. Would love to learn more about why that's the case.
  • Tab Ohio_CC_Courts

    • Question: Ana included this in the final analysis, but I'm not sure where this came from.

@Weihua4455
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I talked to Rachel today, who answered most of my questions. See notes here.

However, during fact-checking, Rachel flagged another issue: In the CJ-related spendings, there are a lot of cases where police spending is wrapped with other things. I.e. Cleveland is spending more than $109 million on salaries, but Rachel found out that only half of those went to the police.

I think there was a discussion on how we need to take some of those numbers out of the total, which, I assume, is why we have the $96 million as the total, not $151 million that I got. That said, I don't see documentations about this, and can't really include the analysis in the review. We can either use the $151 million number and say "no more than," or document which projects we're taking out of the totals.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant