In 1994, Commissioner William Bratton of the NYPD created a new system to track crime progression and the effectiveness of the police department in the New York City. This system would assist the police department in planning strategic ways of improving responses to crimes efficiently and improving the police department method of problem solving. This system would also help to ensure community safety once a decrease in crime was presented through crime data. The system Commissioner Bratton created would be known as COMPSTAT (Computer Comparison Statistics). COMPSTAT purpose is to manage accountability and crime control theory, to summarize the analysis of crime and disorderly conduct, strategic problem solving, and an accountability structure
…show more content…
They both discussed the same subject of COMPSTAT but in a different ways and focus, but there were some similarities between them. Both articles examined the six key elements to COMPSTAT by explaining what the key elements importance to the COMPSTAT model. However, each article had differing ways of connecting their importance to their specific study. Article 1 examined each element and its affect on a small police department in order to see if they were useful in curving crime. Article 2 on the other hand explained the elements but looked at their affects on the American police system as a whole by using three departments. Article 1 and 2 explained that district managerial officers that participated in COMPSTAT meetings did not fully relay information and concerns brought up in those meetings. This outcome causes a problem when trying to implement new procedures or improving them because those at the bottom (like the patrol officers) do not get the information. Both articles also used the same methodology to gather the information they needed to prove their hypothesis; each used interviews, surveys, and observation to illustrate the use of COMPSTAT in policing. This was more effective than solely looking at statistical data on COMPSTAT, because it allowed them to pin point some issues with the …show more content…
Nonetheless, one editorial explained a "new" COMPSTAT program, called COMPSTAT Plus. The author, George Gascón an Assistant Chief and Director of Operations for LAPD; listed some modifications for certain departments. Some of his suggestions were to have patrol operations form better scheduling and additional training for commanders/supervisors if needed. The detective operations would also get additional training, but they would also be required to review all arrest and crime reports for correct classification (LAPDonline.org, n.d.). Another modification Gascón mentioned was to have peer mentorship, this way senior officers can continue to guide new or lower ranking officers to make good decisions in the
They both discussed the same subject of COMPSTAT but in a different ways and focus, but there were some similarities between them. Both articles examined the six key elements to COMPSTAT by explaining what the key elements importance to the COMPSTAT model. However, each article had differing ways of connecting their importance to their specific study. Article 1 examined each element and its affect on a small police department in order to see if they were useful in curving crime. Article 2 on the other hand explained the elements but looked at their affects on the American police system as a whole by using three departments. Article 1 and 2 explained that district managerial officers that participated in COMPSTAT meetings did not fully relay information and concerns brought up in those meetings. This outcome causes a problem when trying to implement new procedures or improving them because those at the bottom (like the patrol officers) do not get the information. Both articles also used the same methodology to gather the information they needed to prove their hypothesis; each used interviews, surveys, and observation to illustrate the use of COMPSTAT in policing. This was more effective than solely looking at statistical data on COMPSTAT, because it allowed them to pin point some issues with the …show more content…
Nonetheless, one editorial explained a "new" COMPSTAT program, called COMPSTAT Plus. The author, George Gascón an Assistant Chief and Director of Operations for LAPD; listed some modifications for certain departments. Some of his suggestions were to have patrol operations form better scheduling and additional training for commanders/supervisors if needed. The detective operations would also get additional training, but they would also be required to review all arrest and crime reports for correct classification (LAPDonline.org, n.d.). Another modification Gascón mentioned was to have peer mentorship, this way senior officers can continue to guide new or lower ranking officers to make good decisions in the