Police Administration CompStat Model - Essay Example

? Police Administration CompStat Model Police Administration CompStat Model Compstat is a computer driven crime statistics originally used by New York Police Department as a crime control management system. Unlike the conventional model of police management, CompStat is based on a geographically correlated management system whereby commanders are allocated precincts and districts in which they are individually held accountable for. The model is used to administer police operations in a multifaceted manner, especially in offering accountability for patrol commanders when administering policing actions within their geographical regions. CompStat system comprises five functioning principles of timely and correct intelligence, efficient policies and tactics, speedy deployment of staff and resources, in addition to assessment, monitoring, and re-evaluation (McDonald, 2001). However, critics of the model argues that it is based purely on pursuit of disorder, and as such, it enforces a zero tolerance policy. Others argue that it is aggressive policing thus returning the public to the days of police mishandling of force through violation of individual human rights. The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether CompStat model may or may not be the best alternative. The paper critiques the five basic principles of CompStat model, before discussing the long-term and short-term effectiveness measures. The paper also provides an implementation plan of the system. Discussion Strengths Firstly, since agendas are single focused, reporting meetings form a key program initiative under CompStat, and delays or any excuses are not tolerated. Hence no commander is allowed to leave the meeting without providing solutions to the task required (Willis, Mastrofskib, & Weisburd, 2004). In such meetings, every unit is represented and the commanding officers are not just able to share information, but also responsibilities. Therefore, time, distance or diverse objectives which are common inhibitors under conventional models are eliminated under CompStat. In the end many resources from the departments can be applied during a response issue during such meetings, and the major aspect of CompStat effectiveness in tactics is based on its specified assignment of resources to a particular issue (McDonald, 2001). The major component of CompStat is relentless follow-up with assessment, and the strategies and tactic are assessed regarding every decision undertaken. However, techniques of assessment shift based on particular issue or tactic applied in assessing issues, such as shifting crime patterns, citizen complaints, or shifts in arrests result in prosecution (McDonald, 2001). Technology use is significant under CompStat and it is implemented effectively when it comes to electronic pin mapping, thus enabling visual portrayal of not just the crime hotspots but also the crime patterns (Henry, 2008). For instance, computer pin mapping crime assessment system, adds to the departments radars system operations in attaining an early recognition of crime patterns. Thus, the system gathers response times while reporting activities. This technology use enables any police department to derive its crime data from various sources, hence guaranteeing precise identification of crime hotspots or crime patterns. Thirdly, data gathering and analysis forms a major aspect of CompStat program design and selection of effective tactics. Since timely data is essential, it is updated weekly and data analysis goes further than simple tallying of crime totals, to other trend indicators like assessment of geographic regions (McDonald, 2001). Hence, data analysis places emphasis on shifts in crime numbers, the demographic patterns, nature of arrests made, available resources, as well as behavior patterns of the criminals. Furthermore, the quality data collection and analysis does not cost millions of dollars or application of complicated software packages, but accurate automated systems which only require commitment and precision. Compstat entails varied strategies and approaches that were created in reaction to identified crime patterns (McDonald, 2001). Accordingly, an executive level structure is crucial in ensuring that appropriate authority exists and is competent in exerting cooperation from every operations or support units. Hence, the police leaders and their support units do not function autonomously from one another compared to conventional models making issues like patrol not to be held responsible for cases of crime within a particular geographic. Specialized units do not operate to attain their own individual goals, but instead they are combined in connection to patrol. Crime control authority under CompStat lies with the concept that every departmental unit actions are rather coordinated and incorporated in aid of similar objectives. CompStat emphasizes that communication should take place across the various different precincts or district. Support units and commanding officers form part of an integral unit of the assessment process (Henry, 2008). This then encourages the unit commanders to institute problem solving units within the various precincts or districts. Therefore, the inter-unit problem solving groups are able to review certain hotspots and crime patterns and then suggest possible solutions. Positive and downbeat behavior reinforcements are applied in conjunction with role modeling so as to facilitate involvement. This is based on supposition that praising and rewarding precinct commanders when observing desired behaviors while punishing negative behavior will result in desired behavior norm. This then reinforces other desired behavior such as utilizing available resources inventively, even as subordinates are allowed in problem solving and commitment in fighting crime. The leaders conducts themselves just like teachers or team members, and not just simply as a report filter men. The rapid response starts by the development of impressions that the law enforcers are effective, and thus on top of the wider community concerns (McDonald, 2001). CompStat contains detailed documentation regarding successes and failures of every tactic or strategy applied, and this facilitates an assessment at regular intervals, so as to determine which models result in success. Given that an evaluation of the entire crime trend within a given jurisdiction either annually or bimonthly, it forms a basis for a given department report card. Hence, such information is utilized in budget processing regarding resource allocation or individual staff distribution (Weisburd & ettal, 2003). In such a way, the executives shift their role from micromanagement with rigidity to innovation and teamwork with examination of failures. The management is organized to offer resources rapidly and at the same time deal with personnel imbalances or equipment necessities. Based on CompStat guidelines, accountability is not just a vague and theoretical term, but instead, it is practiced exclusively and regularly since the midlevel executives, precincts commanders account for every action they undertake when solving problems. Thus, the whole management system necessitates a major cultural shift through the infusion of unrelenting feeling of urgency regarding crime solving. For instance, Compstat comprises a sequence of five steps with no restrictions to resources which can be utilized in solving crime issues. CompStat efficiently leverages numerous specialist units, so that they function alongside patrols instead of competing sub-groups under the traditional model. Thus, the model effectively positions all group onto a similar team having a common purpose of operating jointly (McDonald, 2001). Risks Even though CompStat struggles to avoid being an excessively centralized model, it regresses back into some sort of a bureaucratic police management system. This is because it is an extremely geographically emphasized system creating a big number of personnel operating under it. Thus, CompStat has been observed to be aggressive in its policing structure with greater likelihood of resulting in complaints against police. Secondly, given that CompStat tactics emphasize on criminality within certain regions, enormous temporary crime cutbacks are focused extensively under every precinct. This then ignores the fact that criminals can be extremely transitory and will shift from one region to another when pressure mounts from police. Accordingly, it is crucial that trends have to be evaluated amongst neighboring precincts, something which CompStat does not factor effectively in trying to ensure crime is not just being shifted between the precincts or districts (Weisburd, & ettal, 2003). Implementation Phase one of the implementation would entail preparation and selection of competent command personnel. This entails conducting extensive meetings which discusses the intentions, rationales, technical components, as well as anticipated changes in work roles and operations duties (McDonald, 2001). Secondly, bringing on board jurisdictions leaders by helping the department to conduct system briefings to administrators of the jurisdiction covered, so that they can comprehend the functioning of the system, especially through coordinated press coverage with the administers. Thirdly, conduct an evaluation of departmental structures and facilities for capacity to generate crime data under a timely and precise manner. This entails provision of crime mapping and availability of sufficient meeting spaces. The other step is to conduct and to formulate crime reduction goals. Such a step requires specific objectives and should not be defined as some percentages, but on the crimes to be reduced. Furthermore, the specific programs should be identified under a single name. Afterwards preparation of every department member is conducted by providing them with program description and all the rational for using the system (McDonald, 2001). Phase two involves ensuring that meeting rooms are sufficient to accommodate top level commanders, and that procedure for the meetings is formulated. Hence, video screens and display of data analysis should be factored in. The presence of commanders, investigators, and the head of patrols in every meeting is crucial in ensuring that the basis for planning, such that the wellbeing and actions of every unit are coordinated within that geographic region for maximum effectiveness (McDonald, 2001). Moreover, the agreements in terms of services arising from units outside the patrol region are negotiated within an organized framework. In the end, the strategies are synchronized both among and between the units based on their interests (Henry, 2008). Conclusion This paper has evaluated whether CompStat model may or may not be the best alternative. The paper as also critiques the five basic principles of CompStat model, before discussing the effectiveness measures. This paper argues that CompStat provides the best alternative when it comes to police management system, since it involves not just timely intelligence but accurate intelligence gathering in redirecting police energy. The model effectively removes the chances of group thinking as it encourages innovative and wide solutions rather than status quo. Also, a crucial reinforce under CompStat is the use of regular meetings whereby departmental chiefs and commissioners come up with programs and tactics to tackle crime in concert. The basis for such meetings is to formulate processes and performances for convincing commanders regarding welfare of departments and the community they serve. Secondly, commanders are able to learn how to organize their personnel using appropriate resources. Thus, they key is hold the police commanders accountable especially through inquiring from them answers regarding extensive crime reduction tactics used. Thirdly, effective data analysis allows the department to modify their tactics, in line with shifting patterns, or in countering new forms of criminal acts. Thus, the CompStat is based on coordination, organization and integration instead of fragmentation and random actions. References Henry, V. E. (2008). Managing Crime And Quality Of Life Using Compstat:Specific Issues In Implementation And Practice. Retrieved May 5, 2013, from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No68/No68_12VE_Henry2.pdf McDonald, P. P. (2001). Managing Police Operations: Implementing the NYPD Crime Control Model Using COMPSTAT (The Wadsworth Policing in Practice Series). Newyork: Cengage Learning. 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 & Public Policy , 2, 421-455. Willis, J. J., Mastrofskib, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2004). Compstat and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly , 21 (3), 463-496. Read More