Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:38:31.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Critic

Changing Everything so that Everything Can Remain the Same: CompStat and American Policing

from Part IX - CompStat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2019

David Weisburd
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Get access

Summary

CompStat emerged in the mid 1990s and quickly came to be seen as a major innovation in American policing. By the turn of the century it had received national awards from Harvard University and former Vice President Gore, and was featured prominently along with William Bratton (the police administrator who created the program) in the national news media. Its originators and proponents gave CompStat credit for impressive reductions in crime and improvements in neighborhood quality of life in a number of cities that had adopted the program (Silverman, 1996; Remnick, 1997; Gurwitt, 1998; Bratton, 1999). And while CompStat was first introduced only in 1994 in New York City, police departments around the country had begun to adopt it or variations of it by the first decade of the new century (Law Enforcement News, 1997; Maas, 1998; McDonald, 1998; Weisburd et al., 2003; Willis, Mastrofski & Kochel, 2010a). Indeed, in a Police Foundation survey conducted only six years after CompStat emerged on the scene in New York City, more than a third of American police agencies with 100 or more sworn officers claimed to have implemented a CompStat-like program (Weisburd et al., 2001). By 2006, Willis, Mastrofski, and Kochel (2010b) reported that about 60 percent of large police agencies had adopted CompStat, and a Police Executive Research Forum membership survey in 2011 reported that 85 percent of 166 responding member agencies reported having adopted or plans to adopt CompStat (Bureau of Justice Assistance & Police Executive Research Forum, 2013). Drawing on this survey and the comments of police leaders, researchers, and others attending a conference on CompStat in 2013, a report on the meeting offered a uniformly positive assessment of CompStat’s performance to date, as well as its future potential: “Regardless of how it develops in the future, it is clear that Compstat has become an integral part of policing in the United States by helping agencies become more productive, agile, and effective” (BJA & PERF, 2013: 30).

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Innovation
Contrasting Perspectives
, pp. 417 - 436
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. C. (2001). Crime Control by the Numbers: Compstat Yields New Lessons for the Police and the Replication of a Good Idea. Ford Foundation Report: 5. New York.Google Scholar
Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bittner, E. (1980). The Functions of the Police in Modern Society. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.Google Scholar
Braga, A., & Bond, B. (2015). Rethinking the Compstat process to enhance problem-solving responses: insights from a randomized field experiment. Police Practice and Research, 16, 2235.Google Scholar
Bratton, W. J. (1996). Cutting crime and restoring order: What America can learn from New York’s finest. Heritage Foundation Lectures and Educational Programs, Heritage Lecture #573. Retrieved from www.nationalsecurity.org/ heritage/library/categories/crimelaw/lect573.html.Google Scholar
Bratton, W. J. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Bratton, W. J. (1999). Great expectations: How higher expectations for police departments can lead to a decrease in crime. In Langworthy, R. H. (ed.), Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policing Research Institute Meetings (pp. 1126). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Assistance and Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). COMPSTAT: Its Origins, Evolution, and Future in Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
Chilvers, M., & Weatherburn, D. (2004). The New South Wales “Compstat” process: Its impact on crime. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 2248.Google Scholar
Davis, E. M. (1981). Professional police principles. In More, H. W. Jr. (ed.), Critical Issues in Policing. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Di Lampedusa, G. (1991). The leopard. (Translated by Archibald Colquhoun.) New York: Pantheon Books [1960].Google Scholar
De Maillard, J., & Savage, S. P. (2017). Policing as a performing art: The contradictory nature of contemporary police performance management. Criminology and Criminal Justice, DOI 10.1177/1748895817718589.Google Scholar
Dixon, D. (1998). Broken windows, zero tolerance and the New York Miracle. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10, 96106.Google Scholar
Eterno, J. A., Verma, A., & Silverman, E. (2016). Police manipulations of crime reporting: Insiders’ revelations. Justice Quarterly, 33, 811835.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E., & Maguire, E. R. (2000). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (eds.), The Crime Drop in America (pp. 207–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1977). Toward a community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 630.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 236258.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Greenberg, D. F. (2013). Studying New York City’s crime decline: &<ethodological issues. Justice Quarterly, 31, 158188.Google Scholar
Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Greenspan, R., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2003). Compstat and Organizational Change: Short Site Visit Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Gurwitt, R. (1998). The comeback of the cops. Governing, January, 1419.Google Scholar
Henry, V. E. (2002). The COMPSTAT Paradigm: Management Accountability in Policing, Business, and the Public Sector. New York: Looseleaf Publications.Google Scholar
Jang, H., Hoover, L. T., & Hee-Jong, J. (2010). An evaluation of Compstat’s effect on crime: The Fort Worth experience. Police Quarterly, 13, 387412.Google Scholar
Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kelling, G. L., & Sousa, W. H. Jr. (2001). Do police matter? An analysis of the impact of New York City’s police reforms. Retrieved from www.manhattan-institute.org/cr 22.pdf.Google Scholar
Law Enforcement News. 1997. NYC’s Compstat Continues to Win Admirers. October 13.Google Scholar
Maas, P. (1998). What we’re learning from New York City. Parade, May 10, 46.Google Scholar
Maple, J. (1999). The Crime Fighter: Putting the Bad Guys out of Business. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Mastrofski, S. D. (1998). Community policing and police organization structure. In Brodeur, J. P. (ed.), How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues (pp. 161189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Rombouts, S., & McBroom, J. (2007). The impact of Compstat on reported crime in Queensland. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 237256.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. P. (1998). The New York City Crime Control Model: A Guide to Implementation. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. P., Greenberg, S., & Bratton, W. J. (2001). Managing Police Operations: Implementing the NYPD Crime Control Model Using COMPSTAT. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Melnicoe, W. B., & Menig, J. (1978). Elements of Police Supervision. Encino, CA: Glencoe Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B., & Selvin, H. G. (eds.). (1952). Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Punch, M. (1983). Management, supervision and control. In Punch, M. (ed.), Control in the Police Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Remnick, D. (1997). The crime buster. The New Yorker, February 24 & March 3, 94109.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, R., Fornango, R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile reduce homicide? Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 419449.Google Scholar
Santos, R. B. (2013). Implementation of a police organizational model for crime reduction. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36, 295311.Google Scholar
Silverman, E. B. (1996). Mapping change: How the New York City police department re-engineered itself to drive down crime. Law Enforcement News, December.Google Scholar
Silverman, E. B. (1999). NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Simons, R. (1995). Control in an age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73, 17.Google Scholar
Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1987). Theme and variation in community policing. In Crime and Justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods and the Nationwide Fight against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear. Annals of American Political and Social Science, 593, 4265.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., McElroy, J., & Hardyman, P. (1988). Challenges to supervision in community policing: Observations on a pilot project. American Journal of Police, 7, 2950.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. (eds.). (2018). Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., & Greenspan, R. (2001). Compstat and organizational change: Findings from a national survey. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice by the Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), 421456.Google Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., Weisburd, D., & Greenspan, R. (2004). Compstat and Organizational Change in the Lowell Police Department: Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from www.policefoundation.org/pdf/compstat.pdfGoogle Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2004a). COMPSTAT and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 463496.Google Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2004b). Compstat in Practice: An In-Depth Analysis of Three Cities. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.Google Scholar
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 and Society Review, 41, 147–88.Google Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Kochel, T. R. (2010a). The co-implementation of Compstat and community policing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 969980.Google Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Kochel, T. R. (2010b). Maximizing the Benefits of Reform: Integrating Compstat and Community Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 2938.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×