Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T17:59:18.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Critic Changing everything so that everything can remain the same: Compstat and American policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
David Weisburd ,
Stephen D. Mastrofski ,
James J. Willis  and
Rosann Greenspan
Edited by
David Weisburd  and
Anthony A. Braga
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Professor of Law and Criminal Justice and Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice Hebrew University Law School in Jerusalem and University of Maryland, College Park
Stephen D. Mastrofski
Affiliation:
Professor of Public and International Affairs George Mason University
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Compstat has come to be seen as a major innovation in American policing. It has received national awards from Harvard University and former Vice President Gore, and has been featured prominently along with William Bratton (the police administrator who created the program) in the national news media. Its originators and proponents have given Compstat credit for impressive reductions in crime and improvements in neighborhood quality of life in a number of cities that have adopted the program (Silverman 1996; Remnick 1997; Gurwitt 1998; Bratton 1999). And while introduced only in 1994 in New York City, police departments around the country have begun to adopt Compstat or variations of it (Law Enforcement News 1997; Maas 1998; McDonald 1998; Weisburd, Mastrofski, McNally et al. 2003). Indeed, a Police Foundation survey suggests that Compstat had literally burst onto the American police scene. Only six years after Compstat emerged 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, Mastrofski, McNally, and Greenspan 2001).

Drawing from a series of studies we conducted at the Police Foundation (Weisburd et al. 2001; Greenspan, Mastrofski, and Weisburd 2003; Weisburd et al. 2003; Willis, Mastrofski, Weisburd, and Greenspan 2004; Willis, Mastrofski, and Weisburd 2004a, 2004b), we will argue in this chapter that there is a wide gap between the promise of Compstat and its implementation in American policing.

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Innovation
Contrasting Perspectives
 , pp. 284 - 302
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. The Annals of American Political and Social Science, 578, 104–125.CrossRefGoogle 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.
Bratton, W. J. (1998). Turnaround: How America's top cop reversed the crime epidemic. New York: Random House.
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. 11–26). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.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
Eck, J. E. and Maguire, E. R. (2000). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In Blumstein, A. and 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), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 236–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Greene, J. R. and Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Greenspan, R., Mastrofski, S. D., and 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, 14–19.Google Scholar
Henry, V. E. (2002). The COMPSTAT paradigm: Management accountability in policing, business, and the public sector. New York: Looseleaf Publications.Google Scholar
Kelling, G. L. and Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kelling, G. L. and Sousa, W. H., Jr. (2001). Do police matter? An analysis of the impact of New York City's police reforms. Retrieved from: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cr_22.pdf
Law Enforcement News. (1997). NYC's compstat continues to win admirers. October 13.
Maas, P. (1998). What we're learning from New York City. Parade, May 10, 4–6.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. 161–189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. P. (1998). The New York City crime control model: A guide to implementation. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC.
McDonald, P. P., Greenberg, S., and 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. and Menig, J. (1978). Elements of police supervision. Encino, CA: Glencoe Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B., and 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, 94–109.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. and Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12 (4), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1–7.Google Scholar
Skolnick, J. H. and Bayley, D. H. (1987). Theme and variation in community policing. 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. and Braga, A. (2003). Hot-spots policing. In Kury, H. and Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (eds.), Crime prevention: New approaches (pp. 337–355). Mainz, Germany: Weisser-Ring.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. and Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear. Annals of American Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D., McElroy, J., and Hardyman, P. (1988). Challenges to supervision in community policing: observations on a pilot project. American Journal of Police 7 (2), 29–50.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., and 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
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., Weisburd, D., and Greenspan, R. (2004). Compstat and organizational change in the Lowell police department: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Also available from: http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/compstat.pdf
Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., and Willis, J. J. (2003). Reforming to preserve: Compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology and Public Policy, 2 (3), 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., and Weisburd, D. (2004a). COMPSTAT and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly, 21 (3), 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., and Weisburd, D. (2004b). Compstat in practice: An in-depth analysis of three cities. Washington DC: The Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29–38.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×