The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing

Citation

Colin Bolger, P. (2011), "The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm.2011.18134aae.005

The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing

The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing

Article Type: Perspectives on policing From: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Volume 34, Issue 1

James J. Willis, Stephen D. Mastrofski and Tammy Rinehart Kochel,Journal of Criminal Justice,2010,pp. 969-980,Vol. 38

The two principal reforms experienced by modern American police are Compstat and community policing. The former is strategic management system which uses computerized crime mapping to allow decentralized decision-making to middle managers with increased accountability of these same managers. The latter involves the development of community partnerships, problem solving, and decentralized decision-making to patrol officers to address the strengthening of public support of the police and social capital, and reducing crime, disorder, and fear of crime. The two reforms share some key similarities, which has led some to argue that co-implementation should be beneficial as they are complimentary or even improve one another. Critics, however, argue that certain differences in philosophy between the two reforms should create conflict within organizations that co-implement.

To evaluate the cohesion of the two reforms, Willis et al. (2010) identifies seven police agencies, of varying size, which have self-reported as having implemented both reforms. Using social observation, interviews, focus groups, and departmental records, the agencies are rated on seven elements which may differentiate the two reforms. Researchers then graded the elements as being either: reinforcing, conflicting, or separate of the two reforms within each department.

The first of these elements is the role of the community in defining the police mission. While community policing aims to incorporate in the community in identifying the goals of the agency, Compstat focuses primarily on crime reduction, regardless of community concerns. The second element is the importance placed on accountability for performance. A primary concern for Compstat is to continually hold middle managers accountable for crime problems on their beat, while this importance is not found in community policing. Another difference revolves around the importance of decentralized decision-making found in both reforms. While Compstat looks to place more control in the hands of middle managers, community policing seeks to increase discretion of patrol officers. A further difference involves the flexibility of the department in responding to problems. Community policing emphasizes flexibility in problem resolution, through using any technique or strategy possible to address the problem. Conversely, Compstat relies solely on law enforcement techniques to resolve problems, but does emphasize flexibility in how personnel and resources are assigned geographically. The reforms also differ in how data-driven problem identification is compiled and used. Compstat focuses on the collection of police records and analysis by police administrators. Community policing, however, seeks to collect information from local residents, and encourages patrol officers to use that information accordingly. Finally, while both reforms emphasize increased accountability of the police to the community, they differ in the information provided to the public. Compstat departments only provide the community with crime statistics and information on crime-control, while community-policing departments provide the community with any information pertinent to the problem at hand.

The results of the analyses demonstrated a lack of contention between the two reforms. This lack of conflict, however, appeared to the authors, to result from the departments implementing the reforms on a superficial level. This level of implementation appears to be a conscious choice to achieve two objectives. First, the departments sought very different goals from implementing either reform. Second, the level of implementation was to avoid conflict both between the reforms and with the existing structures of the organizations. Generally speaking, departments appear to use the crime mapping and analysis, and weekly performance evaluations of Compstat. Meanwhile, departments also created specialized community policing units to encourage problem solving and increase citizen satisfaction. Thus, instead of implementing the reforms through whole-scale reorganization, as both reforms would recommend, departments that co-implement the two reforms do so in a way that supports current structures while allowing for the response to a broader set of goals than they would otherwise be able.

P. Colin BolgerUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA