Rethinking the Compstat process to enhance problem-solving responses: insights from a randomized field experiment

Abstract

Compstat is an important administrative innovation in policing that provides a much-needed mechanism for holding mid-level managers accountable for controlling crime rates. Research evidence suggests that Compstat is more likely to generate reactive crime control responses rather than more creative problem-solving responses. A randomized field experiment in Lowell, Massachusetts found that ‘problem-solving meetings’ produced more innovative responses to crime problems and generated stronger crime control gains when compared to the Compstat process. Analysis of qualitative data collected to monitor the implementation of the experiment revealed that important differences in meeting dynamics were associated with observed differences and suggests promising avenues to improve Compstat processes.

Keywords:

• Compstat
• problem-solving
• police management
• crime control

Acknowledgments

This research was supported under Award 2004-DB-BX-0014 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice through the Programs Division of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. The authors thank former Superintendent Edward F. Davis, Superintendent Kenneth Lavallee, and other officers, and staff from the Lowell Police Department for their valuable assistance in the completion of this research. The journal editor and anonymous reviewers also provided helpful comments that improved upon earlier drafts. The points of view in this article represent are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the US Department of Justice, Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, or Lowell Police Department.

Notes

1. For instance, both Eck and Maguire (2000) and Rosenfeld et al. (2005) found little evidence that Compstat was associated with noteworthy reductions in homicide in New York City. However, Mazerolle et al. (2007) and Jang et al. (2010) found that the implementation of Compstat was associated with reductions in property crimes.

2. These attendees included Sector Captains and their selected Lieutenants and Sergeants; other Bureau and Unit Captains and Lieutenants (such as Investigations, Housing Authority, Family Services and Traffic Bureau), members of the Crime Analysis and Intelligence Unit, a civilian Community Liaison, and civilian managers who led the Communications Division and Research and Development. Other Lowell City Department Heads (e.g. Inspectional Services, Neighborhood Services) and the Lowell District Court Probation Chief were regular participants as well.

3. This collection of work utilizes the term group and team interchangeably (Williams & Allen, 2008).

4. Monthly problem-solving meeting continued for two months after the 12-month-intervention period ended. Unfortunately, the research team was not able to observe two Compstat meetings during the 12–month-intervention period due to scheduling conflicts.

5. The research team conducted recurring unstructured interviews with the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent in Charge of Operations, the three sector Captains and three Lieutenants from those sectors, the Lieutenant in charge of the Crime Analysis Unit, the Sergeant who commanded the Vice and Narcotics Unit, the Sergeant who served as the liaison to the Lowell Housing Authority, a civilian crime analyst assigned to the experiment, and the civilian Community Liaison specialist.

6. Weekly ride-alongs were conducted with the lieutenants, sergeants, and patrol officers responsible for implementing the treatment strategies in the three policing sectors. Researchers conducted monthly visits to the control sites to monitor these locations.