Compstat and Organizational Change in the Lowell Police Department Challenges and Opportunities 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-2636 (202) 833-1460 Fax: (202) 659-9149 E-mail: pfi[email protected] www.policefoundation.org Compstat and Organizational Change in the Lowell Police Department Challenges and Opportunities James J. Willis Stephen D. Mastrofski David Weisburd Rosann Greenspan WASHINGTON, DC i The Police Foundation is a private, independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting innovation and improvement in policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted seminal research in police behavior, policy, and procedure, and works to transfer to local agencies the best information about practices for dealing effectively with a range of important police operational and administrative concerns. Motivating all of the foundation’s efforts is the goal of efficient, humane policing that operates within the framework of democratic principles and the highest ideals of the nation. The Police Foundation’s research findings are published as an information service. This project was supported by Grant Number 98-IJ-CX-007 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions contained in this docu- ment are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Police Foundation. Additional reports are forthcoming from the larger project, Compstat and Organizational Change, from which this report on the Lowell, Massachusetts, Police Department’s implementation of Compstat is derived. A Police Foundation Report, The Growth of Compstat in American Policing, will describe the national survey that assessed the number of American police agencies using Compstat and measured the degree to which the elements of Compstat were part of their routine and structure. A third report will describe intensive examinations of Compstat’s implementation in three police departments–Newark, New Jersey, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Lowell, Massachusetts. ©2003 by the Police Foundation. All rights, including translation into other languages, reserved under the Universal Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. Permission to quote readily granted. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CompStat and organizational change in the Lowell Police Department : challenges and opportunities / James J. Willis ... [et al.]. p. cm. ISBN 1-884614-19-1 (alk. paper) 1. Lowell (Mass). Police Dept. 2. Police administration—Massachusetts—Lowell. 3. Police administration—Data processing. 4. Law enforcement—Data processing. 5. Crime analysis—Data processing. I. Willis, James J. HV8148.L85C66 2004 363.2'0285--dc22 2004001900 ISBN 1-884614-19-1 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-2636 (202) 833-1460 • Fax: (202) 659-9149 Email: [email protected] www.policefoundation.org ii Table of Contents Foreword . .v Acknowledgments . vi I. Introduction . .1 Background on Lowell and its police . .2 II. Overview of Compstat at Lowell . .3 III. Origins and Development of Compstat at Lowell . .5 The influence of the NYPD . .5 The role of the superintendent . .5 Government support—City Hall and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services . .6 Early Compstats—fuzzy memories and change . .7 IV. Research Methods . .8 V. Analysis of Lowell’s Experience with Compstat . .9 Mission Clarification . .9 Internal Accountability . .13 Geographic Organization of Operational Command . .18 Organizational structure . .19 Decision making . .19 Coordination issues . .22 Geographic versus temporal organization . .23 Organizational Flexibility . .24 Manpower . .26 City politics . .27 Rivalry between sectors . .28 Data-Driven Problem Identification and Assessment . .30 A history of Compstat—overcoming technical and learning obstacles . .31 What kinds of data are used? . .33 Visibility of crimes at Compstat . .33 How are the data collected, processed, and analyzed? . .34 How are the data used? . .35 Quality of the data—timeliness and accuracy . .38 The Crime Analysis Unit (CAU)—autonomy, time constraints, and frustrations . .39 Innovative Problem-Solving Tactics . .41 Problem solving and brainstorming during Compstat meetings . .42 Follow-up . .43 Traditional police responses . .44 Traditional and innovative police responses . .45 Innovative police responses . .46 External Information Exchange . .48 iii VI. Discussion . .51 Mission Clarification . .52 Internal Accountability . .53 Geographic Organization of Operational Command . .54 Organizational Flexibility . .55 Data-Driven Problem Identification and Assessment . .55 Innovative Problem-Solving Tactics . .56 External Information Exchange . .57 VII. Conclusions . .58 Appendices . .61 Appendix I: Lowell Police Department Organizational Chart . .63 Appendix II: Map of the City of Lowell and City Neighborhoods . .67 Appendix III: Patrol Officer Survey . .71 Appendix IV: Sample Compstat Prep Sheet . .81 References . .87 Authors . .89 iv Foreword This report provides another challenge to Compstat’s proponents by showing the program The birth of Compstat dates back to 1994, when to be a tool whose potential is unfulfilled. Accord- former NYPD police commissioner William Brat- ing to Bratton, Compstat meetings created a sense ton asked a team of officers to create a simple data- of immediate accountability that galvanized New base with information about the major crimes that York’s local commands, fostered innovative prob- cities must report to the FBI. A significant change lem solving, and guided the department in ration- in police practice ensued when the simple data- ally allocating resources to precincts that most base became an elaborate program where police needed them. Implementation of the program in entered crime reports into a computer system that the much smaller Lowell Police Department re- sorted them by type. With the continuing evolu- veals, however, that a gap divides the theory and tion of the program, officers began scrutinizing practice of Compstat. the statistics it generated to create maps and charts Lowell, Massachusetts, like New York City, showing notable changes and emerging problem stoked Compstat’s reputation for working miracles spots. Meanwhile, department heads convened in crime-ridden streets. Lowell’s crime rate began regular meetings to discuss crime trends, to ques- to decline in 1994 and continued to drop after the tion district commanders on their responses to department implemented Compstat. Like New crime, and to work out future strategies. York, Lowell conducts biweekly Compstat meet- The systematic use of hard data and height- ings where the department’s leaders question sec- ened accountability to reduce crime has been her- tor commanders on problems and crime spikes. alded as a seminal innovation in police manage- While many cities that use Compstat only call ment. Compstat’s many advocates claim that it has meetings when a particular sector needs attention, spurred the development of innovative, local, Lowell holds regular meetings where command- crime-fighting strategies and improved public ers present statistics on their sectors and face an safety. These perceived successes have caused an unnerving grilling if crime has increased. exuberant Compstat movement to rapidly sweep The theory of Compstat notwithstanding, the nation. A Police Foundation survey found that Lowell’s program was subject to internal conflicts a third of the country’s 515 largest police depart- that made it deviate from New York’s prototype. ments had implemented a Compstat-like program Scarce resources and a veiled sense of competi- by 2000 (Weisburd et al. 2001). tion made commanders reluctant.