CompStat
CompStat is a crime data and managerial accountability program that originated in the early 1990s, initially designed to manage crime in New York City's transit system. Developed by Jack Maple, it was adopted citywide in 1994 by Police Commissioner William Bratton and has since gained recognition for contributing to significant reductions in crime rates, particularly in New York City. The program operates on four key principles: gathering accurate and timely intelligence, implementing effective tactics, rapid deployment of resources, and ongoing follow-up and assessment to ensure accountability among police commanders. These principles have led to its widespread adoption across many police departments in the U.S. and internationally.
While CompStat has been credited with improving crime reduction efforts, it has also faced criticism. Some former officers allege that the pressure to lower crime statistics resulted in manipulative practices, such as downgrading crime reports. Nevertheless, supporters argue that the overall decrease in crime rates is evident and difficult to dispute. Variations of CompStat have inspired similar performance management systems in other city departments, as seen in Baltimore's CitiStat, which tracks a range of public services. Overall, CompStat remains a significant example of how data-driven strategies are applied in law enforcement and public administration.
On this Page
Subject Terms
CompStat
CompStat is a crime data and managerial accountability program developed in the 1990s to help police departments accomplish their mission of reducing crime. First implemented in the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1994, the program—though not without its critics—has been hailed as tremendously successful. It is now used in some form by a majority of medium and large police departments across the United States and in other countries as well as part of the process of crime analysis.
Overview
CompStat was developed in the early 1990s by Jack Maple, a lieutenant with the New York City Transit Police, to help track and control crime in the city’s transit system. (The origin of the name is uncertain, but it is most commonly considered short for “computer statistics.”) The system was so effective that when former transit police chief William Bratton was appointed New York City police commissioner in 1994, he brought CompStat with him and applied it citywide. The system gained nationwide attention along with New York’s drastic decreases in crime—the murder rate in the city dropped 65 percent from 1993 to 2000, along with similar sharp drops in all other categories of major crime—and other metropolitan police departments began adopting it.
CompStat operates according to four basic principles: accurate, timely intelligence (keeping detailed crime data, such as calls, locations, types of crime, and arrest rates, and using it to identify problem areas); effective tactics (addressing problems based on what works, not what has always been done); rapid deployment (sending additional police resources to problem areas to head off the problem before it gets worse); and ongoing follow-up and assessment (holding regular meetings with district commanders to track the success of current strategies or propose changes). The last principle—often articulated as “relentless” follow-up and assessment—is a key part of the CompStat program, creating accountability for the mid-level police commanders responsible for tracking and reducing crime in their geographic areas.
Some have described the program as one that merely brings standard private-sector management approaches, such as setting measurable goals and holding managers accountable for meeting them, to the public sector. In fact, some municipalities have expanded the CompStat approach to other areas of city and even state government. For example, Baltimore adopted the program in 2000 but applied it to all city departments, naming it CitiStat. All measurable public services, from trash pickup to filling potholes to identifying rates of homelessness, were tracked, and department heads were made responsible for meeting service delivery targets that were reviewed on a regular basis.
Though largely hailed as a success, CompStat has had some critics. In New York, some retired officers have come forward claiming that the relentless drive to push down crime numbers led some supervisors to manipulate crime data, as by reducing the estimated value of stolen goods to below the threshold for grand larceny or even by pressuring victims not to file reports. The program’s defenders counter that homicide rates are harder to falsify and that the overall reduction in crime in cities like New York is obvious to everyday citizens. According to the Police Executive Research Forum, by 2011, some variation of CompStat was in use by almost 80 percent of medium to large police departments.
Bibliography
“America’s Safer Streets.” Economist. Economist Newspaper, 25 Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.
Eterno, John A., and Eli B. Silverman. “The NYPD’s Compstat: Compare Statistics or Compose Statistics?” International Journal of Police Science and Management 12.3 (2010): 426–49. Print.
Henry, Vincent E. The COMPSTAT Paradigm: Management Accountability in Policing, Business and the Public Sector. Flushing: Looseleaf Law, 2002. Print.
Morganteen, Jeff. “What the CompStat Audit Reveals about the NYPD.” New York World. Columbia Journalism School, 3 July 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.
Rosenberg, Tina. “Armed with Data, Fighting More than Crime.” New York Times. New York Times, 2 May 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.
Weisburd, David, et al. “Reforming to Preserve: Compstat and Strategic Problem Solving in American Policing.” Criminology and Public Policy 2 (2003): 421–56. Print.
Willis, J. J., et al. “Making Sense of CompStat: A Theory-Based Analysis of Organizational Change in Three Police Departments.” Law and Society Review 41.1 (2007): 147–88. Print.
Zink, Robert. “The Trouble with Compstat.” PBA Magazine. New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., Summer 2004. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.