Program Profile: Compstat (Fort Worth, Texas)

This is a policing program designed to reduce crime through the management of police resources in Fort Worth, Texas. The program is rated Promising. Following the implementation of Compstat in Fort Worth, there was a statistically significant reduction in rates of overall crime and property crime, and a statistically significant increase in arrests for minor nuisance offenses. However, there were no statistically significant effects on violent crime rates.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Sites

The main goal of Compstat is to develop specialized solutions to combat criminal activity. The program aims to improve management of police resources and operation of the department. It promotes communication among the department to implement resources efficiently and to generate effective solutions to reduce crime.

The Fort Worth Police Department sought to reduce crime by targeting disorder and nuisance crimes in the neighborhood to test the “broken windows” theory of crime control. The goal was, by reducing disorder in the neighborhood, to improve citizens’ quality of life and reduce the more-serious crimes. The program targeted areas in Fort Worth that were identified as having high crime rates or rates of disorder.

Program Components

The Compstat (Fort Worth) program is based on the original Compstat, which was implemented by the New York City Police Department in the 1990s. Compstat is a police management program with the basic components of accurate and timely intelligence, rapid deployment of personnel and resources, effective tactics, and relentless follow-up and assessment. The Fort Worth Police Department implemented its own version of Compstat in September 2002.

The primary component of the Fort Worth Police Department Compstat is known as “focusing,” which entails proactive engagement and specialized interventions in law enforcement crime control efforts. The Fort Worth Police Department implements this element and other basic components of Compstat using the “All Staff Meeting” approach. This approach holds frequent intensive meetings to discuss crime strategies. Headquarters meetings are held every 2 weeks, while division meetings are held every week. At these meetings, commanders identify problems in their areas and present potential solutions, and every police officer is required to participate. Geographic information system (GIS) analysts at the department provide crime analyses based on GIS mapping; lag time is less than 24 hours, so they are able to identify criminal activity quickly. This detailed information is used to identify crime hot spots and to develop crime prevention strategies. Crime mapping technology is a vital element of Compstat for the Fort Worth Police Department. Police commanders are responsible for reporting results of proposed solutions, which helps with accountability and motivates the police officers to act in more proactively and efficiently.

No special units were created in the department to specifically implement Compstat, but existing divisions were delegated to implement specific aspects of the program. The timely and accurate crime information that Compstat helped provide made the enforcement more effective. Different units were targeted to sites that had been identified as hot spots for different types of crime, including drug enforcement and gang enforcement units. Broken windows enforcement against disorderly conduct and nuisance crimes was enforced using the agency’s Neighborhood Police Officers. The remaining units were patrol-enhanced information and directed effort, detectives to provide proactive approaches to investigations, community policing neighborhood patrol, structured tactical units, patrol special duty assignments, and centralized and specialized investigations units. Zero-tolerance units were also implemented, with officers who were employed to use targeted enforcement to solve predominant crime issues rather than answering calls for service.

Key Personnel

All officers of the Fort Worth Police Department, including GIS analysts, commanders, lieutenants, officers, were involved in the implementation of Compstat.

Program Theory

Compstat’s theoretical foundation is based on the broken windows model of crime, which postulates that a disorganized neighborhood will lead to an increase in crime. The theory is based on the example that if a window in a building is broken and left unfixed, it is a sign of disorder and that no one cares about the neighborhood. When the neighborhood is perceived as disorganized, crime will ensue. If society tolerates nuisance offenses such as graffiti, more serious crimes will follow as a result of the disorder. Therefore, if nuisance disorder crimes are targeted, serious crime can be reduced. However, the evidence of the link between disorder and crime has been mixed; thus, this connection has not been empirically proven in prior research. Broken windows offenses have not been proven to be a vital element to the Compstat crime control program (Jang, Hoover, and Joo 2010).

Study

Jang, Hoover, and Joo (2010) employed two different time-series analyses to measure Compstat’s impact on crime in Fort Worth. Data was obtained from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) from the Fort Worth Police Department, which are divided into Part I and Part II offenses. Part I offenses are serious felonies, while Part II offenses are nonserious felonies. The outcomes of interest were arrest rates for minor nuisance offenses, violent crime rates, property crime rates, and overall crime rates.

Part II nuisance offenses were analyzed to determine whether Compstat made an immediate impact on arrest rates for these types of offenses, and to determine whether increased arrests for disorderly behaviors were a fundamental component of Compstat. Arrest rates for minor nuisance offenses were measured as monthly arrests for six Part II nuisance offenses: drunkenness, prostitution/commercialized vice, vandalism, vagrancy, drug abuse violations, and disorderly conduct. The overall arrest rate was measured by the sum of these six categories per 100,000 persons. A time-series intervention analysis was used to examine arrest rates for these “broken window” offenses before and after the implementation of Compstat. Data was measured from January 2000 through August 2002 for the pre-intervention (32 months) and from September 2002 through May 2007 (67 months) for the post-intervention data.

Part I offenses were examined to determine whether Compstat had an effect on crime rates. A multivariate time-series analysis was used to analyze Part I offenses, and monthly data from January 1995 through December 2006 was used. Data was obtained from the UCRs and the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Part I violent offense rates were measured by the total number of murder and nonnegligent manslaughters, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 persons. Part I property offense rates were measured by the total number of burglaries, larcenies, and motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 persons; arson was excluded. Part I total index offense rates were measured by the sum of Part I violent and property offense rates. Regression analysis was used to control for certain explanatory factors that might influence the outcomes, such as unemployment rates, the percentage of young male residents, race, family structure, and residential mobility. To measure demographic and social structural variables, data from 2000 through 2006 was obtained from the American Community Survey and the 2000 U.S. Census. Unemployment rates were obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each variable was measured at monthly intervals. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. This practice is rated Effective for reducing overall crime and rated Promising for reducing violent, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?