Introduction
Ever since its implementation in 1994 the Compstat process has been widely praised as a revolutionary innovation into the organizational/administrative processes of policing within the United States. This particular process utilizes a system where crime data from certain districts are mapped, the type of crime evaluated and resources eventually allocated in order to effectively reduce crime in that particular area. It utilizes the concept of internal accountability in order to encourage greater responsiveness to crime which, when combined with crime strategy meetings, effectively creates numerous possible solutions to criminal activity. Furthermore, through its emphasis on resource flexibility this enables police districts to allocate resources to new special units and taskforces in order to resolve problems as seen from the perspective of the district chief or top management. It must be noted though that not all aspects of the Compstat system are generally positive, several studies examining its use in various police districts indicate a general dissatisfaction with its emphasis on performance, rigidness in handling crime and it’s the top – down authority structure which places undue pressure on local police district supervisors (Willis et al, 2007). Based on this, what will be examined in this paper are the positive and negative implications of utilizing Compstat, a critique of its basic principles and should such a system be implemented, what would it entail in terms of planning and implementation.
Advantages in Implementation
When examining the case of the implementing Compstat systems in various police districts what must first be taken into consideration are the positive appeals of such as system. Its utilization of software crime mapping not only enables faster response times by individual districts but it enables top management to see how problems occur, recommend what can be done and immediately approve proposed processes. Utilizing individual accountability as an essential aspect of the Compstat process this results in more district chiefs being accountable for the actions of their precinct resulting in them encouraging more crime prevention measures indentifies areas. The flexibility afforded to numerous districts as a direct result of Compstat implementation results in precinct resources being able to be effectively and expeditiously transferred from one aspect of crime prevention to another in order to effectively deal with problems as indicated by Compstat (Eterno and Silverman, 2006). What must also be taken into consideration is the facts that through weekly and monthly meetings top management officials in various states are able to learn more about the various types of criminal problems affecting certain districts and thus are able to share their ideas with local district chiefs in order to ascertain their effectiveness and to implement them immediately. Lastly, through the use of its data collection system various police districts in certain states are able to evaluate growing trends in crime, expanding areas of criminal influence and reported areas of criminal activity in order to determine processes can be implemented to reduce crime in these areas and whether joint actions with other districts will be a necessity or not.
Problems in Implementation and Evaluating the Principles of the Compstat Process
While it may be true that the Compstat process does enable better organizational efficiency in sharing information, identifying criminal hotspots, allocating proper resources, and creating a more efficient method of handling crime there are certain departmental limitations that should be taken into consideration before assuming that Compstat should be enabled across all police precincts within the U.S. First and foremost what must be understood is that nearly all studies examining Compstat as a method of combating crime use the NYPD as the focal point of their research. The inherent problem with this method study is the fact that the NYPD is often better funded, has more personnel, training and resources at its disposable as compared to other police departments within the country. Willis et al. in their study examining the implementation of Compstat in the police departments of Lowell, Newark and Minneapolis state that the acclaim Compstat has gained as a method of crime prevention is fueled more from anecdotes, rhetoric and praises rather than from an actual large body of research which has examined every facet of its implementation across several police departments (Willis et al, 2007). When Willis et al. examined the case of Minneapolis it was seen that despite the best efforts of the administration most police officers within the department felt ambivalent about the goals of crime reduction set by Compstat (Willis et al, 2007). Many felt that the utilization of directed patrolling and zero tolerance on policing resulted in them being unable to meet other equally important goals within the general community. They stated that community policing was preferable in their particular case since not only did it enable them to pursue multiple objectives but it allowed them to provide multiple services to various residents within communities. Police officers within Minneapolis felt that a focus on purely combating crime, which is the complete opposite of community policing which does not allow any organization to merely pursue one objective, undermined the much broader mission of providing various services to a community (safety, security, dispute settlement etc.). Another factor that should be taken into consideration in the Compstat process is the concept of internal accountability and the significant challenges it presents for police districts that follow community based methods of policing. An examination of the cases presented by Willis at al. in their study of the Compstat implementation across 3 states reveals that while the concept of internal accountability encouraged top management and district commanders to be more aware of their crime environment and to subsequently solve the inherent problems present it was noted that it impacted middle managers disproportionately as compared to either top management or officers on lower tier levels of authority (Willis et al, 2007). The reason behind this is quite simple, there is an inherent lack of a mechanism for delegating accountability down the chain of command which results in middle managers/ district commanders receiving most of the criticism to perform while patrol officers and supervisors rarely felt the same type of pressure. This resulted in the creation of a system where unlike the community policing approach which advocates a decentralized method of decision making which enables officers to exercise discretion in solving particular problems the system that was developed was more of top – down control approach where orders relayed from above were suppose to be expressly followed by those below. This creates a system which is distinctly at odds with the community based method of policing which creates distinct problems in its implementation and approval by police departments used to community policing methods. The end result of such a system is the creation of a distinct amount of tension and contradiction between top management and district commanders over the use of centralized or decentralized methods of decision making wherein the decentralized decisions of district commanders are allowed so long as they conform with what top management wants. This limits the actions of district commanders to such an extent that the allocation of resources for particular projects or initiatives are in effect dictated by orders coming from above which creates problems for other initiatives meant to assist the public. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the fact that Compstat requires police organizations to develop a certain degree of flexibility when it came to dealing with current or unforeseeable problems that may or may not happen. This came in the form of creating special task forces or specialized units meant to deal with particular problems as determined by Compstat. Unfortunately, as seen in the cases of Minneapolis, Lowell and Newark, the creation of these new units or task forces siphoned off manpower and resources from particular departments resulting in fewer officers left for particular services (Willis et al, 2007). Not only that it must also be noted that the Compstat system fostered a certain degree of competitiveness among the various district commanders resulting in a situation where they would not willingly share resources resulting in a situation where not only were some departments undermanned but lacked the resources to function as effectively.
Evaluating the Principles of the Compstat System
When examining the short and long term effectiveness of the Compstat system based on the work of Willis et al. it becomes clear that while in the short term the Compstat system is effective in reducing crime through its performance based approach on crime the fact remains that it becomes clear that in several cases this comes at the expense of other public services (Willis et al, 2007). As noted by Willis et al. the transfer of resources and the focus on criminal reduction in effect causes a deterioration of other services which police officers criticize as an ineffective method meeting the broader goal of police department which is to serve the general public (Willis et al, 2007). Not only that the continued usage of this particular system continues to create elevated levels of pressures to perform which may result in distinct disreputable activities.
Criticism of the Compstat System
Some notable criticisms of Compstat originate from numerous studies indicating that the data gathered and inputted by numerous police officers may in fact be false in order for them to show a quantifiable result of crime reduction. The reason behind this comes from the enormous amount of pressure being placed on various districts commanders to show that they are actually making some headway and accomplishing the tasks set by top management. The result of such actions is in effect a situation where certain communities appear to be improving based on Comstat when in reality they are not improving at all. The inherent problem with this is the fact that due to system of resource allocation that exists within the Compstat system this may result in manpower and resources being allocated from improving communities to areas that are more troubled. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, the communities that were supposedly improving were actually not improving at resulting in a situation where manpower is taken away from an area that needs it the most. The problem is not that certain districts are intentionally presenting the wrong type of data but rather it is due to the concentration on performance and the top – down method of authority which creates undue pressure and tension on districts to perform.
Implementing the Compstat Model
An implementation plan for utilizing the Compstat model for any district will require the following key elements in order to be successful:
Mission clarification – this entails establishing a specific crime reduction goal and reinforcing it through various mechanisms in order link specific plans of action with actual methods of implementation.
Determining Appropriate Internal Accountability – this aspect requires the establishment of an effective mechanism of accountability for district supervisors so as to create a greater sense of responsibility towards the level crime within their areas of responsibility.
Examining Organizational Flexibility – since one of the requirements of Compstat is to create a police organization that is flexible towards shifting resources to a variety of cases as determined by the process it is important for any implementation plan to examine the current organizational flexibility of a police district and create new processes which allow manpower and resources to be transferred on a “per need” basis in order to comply with the requirements of Compstat.
Establishing Methods of Data Driven Problem Identification and Assessment – in this particular case what is needed is to establish new methods of data collection and summation which would enable district commanders to map out crime rates in particular areas and assess what manpower and resources should be allocated to areas depending on the level of crime as indicated by the date collected.
Implementing New Problem Solving Tactics – the final aspect of the Compstat implementation plan would entail establishing new crime solving tactics as determined by the utilization of data gathering and crime mapping. This entails the input of data from bi weekly meetings of area supervisors in order to determine what course of action should be implemented and devise new plans of actions based on inputs from the various area supervisors.
Reference List
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2007). Making Sense of COMPSTAT: A Theory-Based Analysis of Organizational Change in Three Police Departments. Law & Society Review, 41(1), 147-188.
Eterno, J. A., & Silverman, E. B. (2006). The New York City Police Department’s Compstat: dream or nightmare?. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(3), 218-231.