The Effect of Compstat on Interjurisdictional Public Budgeting: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Crime-Rate Spillover on Neighboring New Jersey and New York Municipalities by Lawrence R. Adamitis A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School – Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Public Administration written under the direction of Dr. Marc Holzer and approved by ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Newark, New Jersey May, 2015 Copyright page: 2015 Lawrence R. Adamitis ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Effect of Compstat on Interjurisdictional Public Budgeting: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Crime-Rate Spillover on Neighboring New Jersey and New York Municipalities Dissertation Chair: Dr. Marc Holzer Public budgeting is a core issue within the public administration field. Public administrators have to make difficult budgeting choices with limited public resources. How public funds are allocated is a central focus of both elected and appointed public administrators regardless of the size or make-up of a municipality. Municipalities struggle to meet the demands of their constituents and provide necessary services within a framework of limited resources and political pressure. Law enforcement is one aspect of public budgets that is both necessary and expensive. Programs that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement services are important factors within given budgetary constraints. Compstat is one such program that was developed and implemented by the New York City Police Department in 1994. This study uses crime rates, public budgets, demographic variables and public grants to examine whether the success that Compstat had in reducing crime rates in New York City caused spillover effects onto neighboring New Jersey and New York comparison cities. The primary focus being the budgetary effects on the comparison cities from 1991 (pre-Compstat) to 1997 (post-Compstat). This study is a comparative analysis of: budget data, Uniformed Crime Reporting (UCR) crime-rate statistics, demographic statistics from United States Census and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant funding. New York City was ii compared to four cities in Westchester County, New York (Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, White Plains and Yonkers) and four cities in New Jersey (Elizabeth, Hoboken, Jersey City and Newark). The comparative analysis revealed that while the New York comparison cities experienced crime rate declines from 1991 to 1997, they did not experience unusual budget increases. The New Jersey comparison cities crime rates fell but remained higher than the New York comparison cities and New York City. The main finding was that the New Jersey comparison cities experienced substantial upticks in their total police budgets from 1994 to 1997. Regressions and correlations were performed on relevant data that upheld the null hypothesis that Compstat in New York City had not effect on UCR crime rates in the New Jersey and New York comparison cities. The dissertation concludes that the comparative analysis produced mixed results, especially in New Jersey, where police performance lacked commensurate budget accountability. iii Dedication For my wife Mary Theresa and our daughters Cailin, Braelee and Saige. iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Public Budgeting 2 A. Introduction 2 B. Public Budgeting Concepts 6 C. Budgeting Externalities – Tiebout’s Theory 9 D. Tax Burdens 11 E. Public Education 13 F. Budgeting with Limited Resources 15 G. Conclusion 17 Chapter 3: Compstat 19 A. Introduction 19 B. History 21 C. Essentials 24 D. Theories 28 E. Performance Measures 33 F. Difficulties and Criticisms 34 G. Diffusion 42 H. Conclusion 44 Chapter 4: Crime Spillover 45 A. Introduction 45 B. Criminal Perspectives 47 1. Criminal Mobility 47 2. Economic Theories of Crime 49 3. Economic Theory Problems 54 4. Crime Displacement 55 5. Mechanical Crime Prevention 58 6. Criminal Spatial Mobility 59 C. Policies to Consider 61 D. Compstat as a Corrective Program 65 E. Conclusion 69 Chapter 5: Crime in the Nineties 70 A. Introduction 70 v B. Nationwide Crime Decline 70 C. Factors 71 D. Conclusion 80 Chapter 6: Synthesis/Research Question 81 A. Synthesis of Topics 81 B. Statement of Problem 81 C. Research Question 84 D. Research Methodology 85 E. Time Frame 87 F. Crime Data 88 G. Budget Data 90 H. Municipalities Used 91 I. Variables 96 J. Data Analysis/Statistical Method 97 K. Limitations of Study 99 Chapter 7: Demographic Variable Data Analysis 103 A. Introduction 103 B. Forms of City Governments 103 C. Individual City Demographic Variables 108 1. City of Elizabeth, New Jersey 108 2. City of Hoboken, New Jersey 112 3. Jersey City, New Jersey 116 4. City of Newark, New Jersey 119 5. City of Mount Vernon, New York 123 6. City of New Rochelle, New York 127 7. City of White Plains, New York 131 8. City of Yonkers, New York 135 9. City of New York, New York 139 D. Conclusion 144 Chapter 8: Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 145 A. Introduction 145 B. Explanation of UCR Raw Data 145 C. Grouping of UCR Data 148 D. UCR Data for All Cities 149 1. City of Elizabeth, New Jersey 149 2. City of Hoboken, New Jersey 153 3. Jersey City, New Jersey 158 vi 4. City of Newark, New Jersey 162 5. City of Mount Vernon, New York 167 6. City of New Rochelle, New York 171 7. City of White Plains, New York 177 8. City of Yonkers, New York 185 E. Conclusion 189 Chapter 9: Budget Data 191 A. Introduction 191 B. General Appropriations and Total Police Budgets 192 1. City of Elizabeth, New Jersey 192 2. City of Hoboken, New Jersey 194 3. Jersey City, New Jersey 195 4. City of Newark, New Jersey 197 5. City of Mount Vernon, New York 198 6. City of New Rochelle, New York 200 7. City of White Plains, New York 201 8. City of Yonkers, New York 203 9. City of New York, New York 204 C. Conclusion 205 Chapter 10: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants 207 A. Introduction 207 B. Individual COPS Grant Awards 208 1. City of Elizabeth, New Jersey 208 2. City of Hoboken, New Jersey 209 3. Jersey City, New Jersey 210 4. City of Newark, New Jersey 212 5. City of Mount Vernon, New York 213 6. City of New Rochelle, New York 214 7. City of White Plains, New York 215 8. City of Yonkers, New York 216 9. City of New York, New York 217 10. COPS Grants Included in Budget Data 219 C. Conclusion 222 Chapter 11: Findings 223 A. Introduction 223 B. United States Census Data – Demographic Variables 223 1. Total Population 224 vii 2. Economic Factors 226 3. Education 229 C. UCR Findings 231 D. Combined Budget Data 239 E. Conclusion 244 Chapter 12: Conclusions 245 A. Introduction 245 B. Hypotheses 245 C. Regression and Correlation of Null Hypothesis 251 D. Conclusion of Hypotheses 258 E. Implications for Public Budgeting 258 F. Further Research 261 Appendix 266 References 273 viii 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Public budgeting is a core issue within the public administration field. It is imperative that public administrators in all jurisdictions and sizes understand the financial constraints imposed by various components that make up their budgets. A major aspect/feature of a majority of a municipality, county, state or federal budget is law enforcement. Law enforcement encompasses not just the police or investigative bodies, but also corrections, parole, district attorneys, and their counterparts or surrogates. Law enforcement is a major requirement in our civil society that needs to be properly accounted for in the budgeting process. While political issues play a significant role in government funding, public revenues in the form of taxes and other fiscal sources create a limited monetary resource that has to be divided among many budget areas. 2 Chapter 2: Public Budgeting A. Budgeting: An Introduction Commonly, law enforcement officials are asked by stakeholders to do more with a lot less resources. One indicator is the many years taken to agree on law enforcement contracts in large jurisdictions, such as New York City and Los Angeles. These demands place a burden on both law enforcement agencies and the governments they serve, as well as the officers on beat and the citizens they serve. Many factors influence law enforcement budgeting. The largest component lies in the salaries and benefit obligations of the police department. Other costs include new and replacement equipment, working operational facilities and civilian and uniformed support staff. Keeping within budget often necessitates difficult choices that can lead to lower staffing levels that ultimately affects the safety of the police personnel and their stakeholders. Law enforcement agencies employ many strategies to combat crime. Ultimately, successful strategies are impacted by crime rates. Movements in crime rates can affect public budgets, especially if crime increases and public revenue decreases. Sometimes, these contradictory factors create a no-win situation in which governments are put in an unenviable position of facing diminished revenues while dealing with demands for increased police budgets to combat growth rates in crime. The strategies law enforcement agencies employ to combat crime and minimize crime rates have met with various degrees of success and failure. The major purpose of 3 this paper is to examine how specific anti-crime strategies affect crime rates and, in turn, public budgets among municipalities. In particular to determine whether these coping strategies from one jurisdiction are having adverse effects on a neighboring municipality’s police budget due to any negative externalities. Many support programs have aided police agencies in their efforts to control crime. Community policing, for one, has its roots in the “cop on the beat” concept that pre-dates motorized patrolling.