Transcription
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing ServicesThe Co-Implementation of Compstat andCommunity Policing: A National AssessmentJames J. Willis Tammy Rinehart Kochel Stephen D. MastrofskiCenter for Justice Leadership and Management, George Mason University
The Co-Implementation of Compstatand Community Policing:A National AssessmentPrepared byJames J. WillisTammy Rinehart KochelStephen D. MastrofskiCenter for Justice Leadership and ManagementGeorge Mason UniversityOctober 2010
A note on formatThis report is organized to address the interests of different readers. The executive summary provides an overview of the project,including its major findings. A more detailed examination of how Compstat and community policing operated is divided into twoadditional sections depending on the methodology we used: a quantitative analysis of our national survey data and a qualitativeanalysis of the fieldwork we conducted at seven sites that reported fully implementing CS and CP. Multiple headings within eachsection help readers identify those issues of greatest importance or interest to them.This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-CK-WX-K003 awarded by the Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of theauthor(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Referencesto specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or theU.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) is the component of theU.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’sstate, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources. The communitypolicing philosophy promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships andproblem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safetyissues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. In its simplest form, community policing is aboutbuilding relationships and solving problems.The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire and traincommunity policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime-fighting technologies, anddevelop and test innovative policing strategies. The COPS Office funding also provides trainingand technical assistance to community members and local government leaders and all levels of lawenforcement. The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of information resourcesthat can help law enforcement better address specific crime and operational issues, and help communityleaders better understand how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime.Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than 16 billion to add community policing officersto the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, andprovide training and technical assistance to help advance community policing. More than 500,000 lawenforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have been trained throughCOPS Office-funded training organizations.The COPS Office has produced more than 1,000 information products, including Problem OrientedPolicing Guides, Grant Owners Manuals, fact sheets, best practices, and curricula. More than 500 ofthose products are currently available, at no cost, through its online Resource Information Center. Thisuser-friendly publication search engine is used to make ordering or downloading these documents simple.The COPS Office has distributed more than 2 million topic-specific publications, training curricula,white papers, and resource CDs through the COPS Office Response Center and another 2 millioncopies were downloaded from the web site, www.cops.usdoj.gov in FY2010 alone. The COPS Officealso distributes these documents at a variety of law enforcement and public-safety conferencesthroughout the nation. The COPS Office participated in 45 conferences in 25 states in 2010 in orderto maximize the exposure and distribution of these knowledge products.The COPS Office launched its new, improved web site June 1, 2010. The web site, which is a resourceused by law enforcement personnel from every state in the union, is now easier to navigate and is fully upto date. When state, local, or tribal law enforcement officials are looking for COPS Office grant programsto support their community policing efforts, they’ll be able to quickly find open programs, applicationinstructions, and specific eligibility requirements. The web site is also the grant application portal,providing access to online application forms. The COPS web site is also a clearing house full of usefulinformation. Publications on a wide range of community policing topics—from school and campus safetyto gang violence—can be ordered for free through the web site’s resource library.
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentLetter from the DirectorLetter from the DirectorDear Colleagues,Over the last quarter of a century, Compstat and community policing have been two of the mostinfluential policing reforms taking place in the United States. Due to the development of communityrelationships, problem solving initiatives, and the delegation of decision-making throughout the lawenforcement agency, both reforms have significantly altered how routine police business is conductedand understood. Yet despite the continued growth and popularity of both, researchers have focused moreon the strengths and weaknesses of each reform, rather than on how well these reforms operate whenimplemented together.Recognizing the potential for these reforms to work in unison to improve the effectiveness and efficiencyof police organizations, the COPS Office partnered with well-respected policing researchers at GeorgeMason University. They were commissioned to conduct research on the co-implementation issue, withthe main questions being: Do the two reforms work together, mutually supporting each other, or arethere points of conflict, where pursuing one makes it hard to pursue the other successfully? Moreover,do they work independently, with each having little consequence for the other? This report is a result ofa national survey, as well as site visits to seven police agencies that indicated they had fully implementedboth reforms.The authors present a look at the current state of co-implementation of both reforms and the types ofcompatibility problems they found. By seeing what local departments have been doing with Compstatand community policing, we hope that you give thoughtful consideration to the benefits you can bringto your own law enforcement agency, and we encourage you to please provide us with feedback on yourexperiences implementing them.Sincerely,Bernard Melekian, DirectorOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services4
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentTable of ContentsContentsAcknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Major Survey Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Major Site Visit Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11General Conclusion on Co-Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15The Compatibility Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Theory X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Theory Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Survey Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Adoption and Implementation of CS and CP in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Prevalence of CS and CP Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18What did CS and CP Look Like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Do CS and CP Share the Same Goals?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Reasons for Adopting CP or CS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Co-Implementation: Exploring the Relationship between CS and CP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24A Comparison of Co-Implementing and CP-Only Departments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24How do Co-Implementers Differ from Community Policing-Only Departments?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Benefits and Challenges of Implementing CS and CP: Are They Compatible?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Benefits of Co-Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Challenges to Co-Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Summary of Survey Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Site Visit Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35How were CS and CP implemented?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Mission Clarification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Internal Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Decentralization of Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Decision-Making Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Organizational Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentTable of ContentsData-Driven Problem Identification and Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Identification of Crime and Disorder Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55How were Data Used?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Assessment of Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Innovative Problem-Solving Tactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Focusing Resources through Traditional Reactive Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Office-Initiated Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Community Policing Officers and Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Problem Solving with the Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67External Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Benefits and Challenges of Co-Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Mission Clarification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Internal Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Decentralization of Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Organizational Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Data-Driven Problem Identification and Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Innovative Problem-Solving Tactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81External Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88TablesTable 1. Responses to Select Questions by Implementation Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 2. Profile of Participating Police Departments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Table 3. A Comparison of the Doctrines of CP and CS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Table 4. CS Crime Control Mission (goals are for 2006 or 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 5. A General Cross-Site Comparison of Reform Elements under CS and CPand Assessment of Their Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Table A-1. Logistic Regression Predicting Co-Implementation (n 279). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentTable of ContentsFiguresFigure 1. CP (n 352) and CS Adoption (n 355). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 2. Co-Implementation of CP and CS (n 355). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 3. P ercentage of Implementing Agencies Reporting Levels of CP (n 341)and CS Adoption (n 213). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Figure 4. Implementation of CP Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 5. Implementation of CS Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 6. Implementation of Shared CP and CS Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 7. Reasons for CP Adoption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 8. Reasons for CS Adoption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 9. Comparing Reasons for Adopting CS and CP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Figure 10. Perceived Compatibility by Implementation Status(CP-only n 123, Co-Implementing n 200). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 11. Average Number of Personnel (n 339 sworn, 334 civilian). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 12. Membership in Professional Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 13. Reasons for CP Adoption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 14. Most Common Benefits to Co-Implementation (n 208). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 15. Most Common Challenges to Co-Implementation (n 208). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 16. Percent of Co-Implementing Departments that Overcame Challenges (n -159). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 17. Degree of Overcoming Co-Implementation Challenges by Yearsof Co-Implementation (n 155). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentAcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that made this research possible. First, we are indebtedto the following police chiefs for granting us permission to visit their agencies: former Chief William Bratton, Los AngelesPolice Department, California (LAPD), Chief John Douglass, Overland Park Police Department, Kansas (OPPD), ChiefDaniel Flynn, Marietta Police Department, Georgia (MPD), Colonel Jerry Lee, St. Louis County Police Department, Missouri(SLC), Chief J. Thomas Manger, Montgomery County Police Department, Maryland (MCPD), Chief Robert Petrovich, CapeCoral Police Department, Florida (CCPD) and former Chief Luis Velez, Colorado Springs Police Department, Colorado(CSPD). We are grateful to Chief John Romero of the Lawrence (Massachusetts) Police Department and Philip O’Donnell,director of Public Safety at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, for assisting us with some of our on-site training.We would also like to thank the following points-of-contact for facilitating our site visits: Officer Nina Preciado (LAPD),Gerry Tallman (OPPD), Sergeant Greg Stephenson (MPD), Sergeant David Stuckmeyer (SLC), Lieutenant Terrence Pierce(MCPD), Assistant Chief Todd Everly (CCPD), and Sergeant Howard Black (CSPD). We are grateful to Dr. Craig Uchidafor his helpful advice. Our site visits would have been much less rewarding and productive without their considerable effortson our behalf.A note of appreciation goes to the many sworn officers and civilians who shared their Compstat and community policingexperiences during interviews, ride-alongs, and focus groups.Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Matthew Scheider, our program manager at the Office of Community Oriented Policing,who provided us with very helpful guidance and support throughout this entire project. We are especially grateful for hispatience and his willingness to provide encouragement when we needed it most.8
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryPurpose of the StudyIn the last quarter century or so, Compstat (CS) and community policing (CP) have emerged as powerful engines of policereform in the United States. CS is a strategic management system focused on reducing serious crime by decentralizingdecision-making to middle managers operating out of districts or precincts, by holding these managers accountable forperformance, and by increasing the police organization’s capacity to identify, understand, and monitor responses to crimeproblems. Community policing can be characterized as a philosophy and an organizational strategy designed to reduce crimeand disorder through community partnerships, problem solving, and the delegation of greater decision-making authorityto patrol officers and their sergeants at the beat level. It varies more than Compstat from place to place in response to localproblems and community resources. To date, researchers have focused their energy on identifying the individual merits andweaknesses of each, but have given much less attention to how well these reforms operate when implemented in the samepolice agency. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) asked us to do research on this coimplementation issue: Do CS and CP work together, mutually supporting each other, or are there points of conflict, wherepursuing one makes it hard to pursue the other successfully? Moreover, do they work independently, that is each having littleconsequence for the other?This report presents findings from the first national assessment of CS and CP as co-implemented reforms. Given thatsystematic research on the co-implementation of CS and CP is scarce, the first purpose of this project was to illuminate thecurrent state of implementation of each reform in the United States and the nature and extent of compatibility problems.Thus, we begin by drawing on data from our national survey to provide a profile of CS and CP in large police agencies.The purpose of the profile is to show what local police departments were doing with each reform, why they decided to adoptthem, what some of the differences were between co-implementing and CP-only departments, and what some of the benefitsand challenges were that arose from operating both reforms simultaneously.In the next section, we draw upon observations from site visits to seven police agencies that reported fully implementingboth CP and CS. The second purpose of this project was to learn how CS and CP operated “on the ground.” To this end,we identify seven core elements that the full implementation of CS and CP would seem to demand and present in-depthknowledge on how each of these elements was implemented. More specifically, we describe how CS and CP functioned inrelation to one another, and we assess their level of integration (not at all integrated, low, moderate, or high).Because of the popularity of CS and CP, our hope is that this comprehensive description of our findings and our assessmentof CS/CP integration will deepen understanding among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about the currentrelationship between these two reforms and provide a framework for decision-makers to envision alternative possibilities forco-implementation within local police organizations. A list of recommendations for integrating CS and CP based on ourfindings can be found in our report, Maximizing the Benefits of Reform: Integrating Compstat and Community Policing inAmerica (2010).9
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentExecutive SummaryMethodologyTo better understand this co-implementation issue, we used information from two sources collected sequentially: (1) anational mail survey conducted during spring and summer 2006 of 566 local and county police agencies with at least 100sworn officers; and (2) intensive site visits (5 days in length) made to seven police agencies in 2006 and 2007 who reportedfully implementing CS and CP, who experienced a wide variety of successes and problems with their co-implementation, andwho differed in size, organization, and crime environment.Major Survey FindingsI.Prevalence of Co-Implementation of CS and CPA. A large proportion of local police agencies were pursuing both CP and CS simultaneously (59 percent).CS was the latecomer and, in most cases, was being grafted onto already long-established CP programs.II. Nature of Implementation of CP and CSA. A significant portion (1 in 4) of departments reported that both CS and CP played a major part indepartment operations.B. CP and CS were implemented unevenly with some of their features much more advanced than others:1. Agencies reported that the most thoroughly implemented features of their CP programs were gettingofficers to be more caring and respectful of the public (89 percent), establishing partnerships withother organizations (75 percent), getting the community to work with the police (64 percent), andembracing a wide range of goals as part of the department’s mission (56 percent).2. These are core features of CP, but agencies reported implementing least thoroughly many of thethings that citizens would seem to value most: promoting community capacity for collective self-help(46 percent), giving neighborhood groups a say in department policies and practices (43 percent),and offering lots of nonlaw enforcement services (40 percent).3. Agencies reported that the most thoroughly implemented feature of CS was “hot spots policing”(83 percent). Also significant majorities reported they had succeeded in delegating authority toprecinct commanders (67 percent), widely used crime statistics for operational purposes (65 percent),and were engaged in broken windows (60 percent).4. Regarding CS, agencies were much less likely to report that they had set crime-reduction goals(36 percent), had pinpointed the agency’s energies on a single mission (35 percent), and had replacedmiddle managers for not meeting organizational goals (21 percent).C. In terms of those features shared by both CS and CP, the implementation rate was fairly high. More than60 percent of agencies reported having mostly or completely implemented fostering team work betweenunits, problem-oriented policing, and using data to identify and evaluate problems.10
The Co-Implementation of Compstat and Community Policing: A National AssessmentExecutive SummaryIII. Reasons for Adopting CS or CPA. One reason for adopting CS or CP was that at a very general level U.S. police leaders saw these reformsas supporting the same goal of reducing serious crime, but disparities between their responses alsosuggested that they regarded these reforms as sufficiently different to allow for the pursuit of more-or-lessindependent goals as well. The most popular reason for implementing CP was to increase communitysatisfaction (88 percent) while for CS it was to reduce crime (91 percent).IV. Benefits and Challenges of Co-ImplementationA. According to our survey, a major benefit of operating CS and CP at the same time was improving policerelationships with the community by facilitating information exchange and communic
Center for Justice Leadership and Management, George Mason University. The Co-Implementation of Compstat . This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-CK-WX-K003 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. . Recognizing the potential for these reforms to work in unison to .
