Compstat

One of the first problems that this system has to do with the “procedures that captures it,” and this leads to why we must be cautious about this methods. The procedure involves the crime to be initially reported to the police. This beginning procedure already has a problem, and according to James, the problem is, “the NIBRS collect data on the number of offenses known to law enforcement each year. However, not all crimes that occur are known to the police” (2). The procedure that is used in NIBRS to get the number of crimes begins initially with the crime being reported to

Crime measurement and statistics for police departments are very important when it comes to money allotment, staffing needs or termination and it is also used to determine the effectiveness of new laws and programs. There are three tools used to measure major crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Incident Based Reporting System- which is currently being tested to replace the Uniform Crime Reports. Although there different tools used to measure crime, crime rates can be deceiving. Each different tool reports a different type of rate, crime rates, arrest

A system called “CompStat” was used to track crime reports and other data in an effort to track areas with high crime rates and gang hot spots. Karoliszyn reports that “after patrolling these hot spots for a year, murders had dropped by 60 percent. By 2003, murders were the lowest they had been since 1964” (338). With these statistics, Karoliszyn proves the effectiveness of the system when actually used in the workforce. There is a flaw in his claim. The author only proved the system’s effectiveness in one city, and in one year. As with a great majority of statistics, these numbers could vary either towards or against the system’s value if done in different cities and in different amounts of time. With more data spread across the spectrum, a bigger picture could be seen regarding the reliability of a precognitive policing system.

Here are the four core strategies that the policing agencies try to stand by to effectively use CompStat.

After an arrest is made, the police will create a report for the prosecutor. With this information, the prosecutor will decide

At what point do the people determine if certain crimes will require intervention? Are these computer programs causing people to get into trouble before they even commit a crime, just because they are now likely to? People have been arrested when they were technically committing no crime, they were then later proven to have illegal substances on them. The only reason these women were found and arrested, was because the program determine they would be at the location where crime was predicted to be committed. This program does not seem to be completely legally sound. “Two women were taken into custody after they were discovered peering into cars in a downtown parking garage in Santa Cruz, Calif. One woman was found to have outstanding warrants; the other was carrying illegal drugs” (Goode). Crime tracking systems are not calibrated as much as manually put in information in the systems. Some of the programs are mostly only good for analyzing past information and patterns, rather than predicting future crimes.” In contrast, CompStat and other crime-tracking systems in use in many cities are calibrated less frequently, rely more on humans to recognize patterns, and allocate resources based on past crimes rather than predicted future offenses” (Goode). The programs have yet to even be completely proven, in terms of accuracy. These programs depend on the accuracy of the information that was put

orting System fall under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program that provides information on crime all of the United States. This includes regions, states, counties, cities, towns, tribal law enforcement, colleges and universities. In this paper we will compare and contrast the two primary crime data sources used within the United States, the Uniform Crime Report and the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Before we do this, we will discuss each source individually and how it is used in Criminological research. The purpose of this study is to determine which source is lacking in function and which provides the best accurate information.

651). This can lead to negative results on the reports and force change amongst the department and force out the police chief. These reports can be used intentionally and with the purpose to rid an unsuccessful chief.

and so forth, to identify crime patterns, clusters, suspects, and hot spots. Strategies are then

For the analytical unit to be effective in a police department, the unit as a whole, needs to understand their role in crime prevention. All of these strategies work toward the prevention of crime. The analytical unit will complie information from each of these strategies and assist the police department in their efforts to prevent crime. The collection and analyization of data to present to the police department can not be done by one person. Let me move on to the staffing of the analytical unit.

3. Determine how information systems have allowed police departments that implement tools such as COMPSTAT to respond to crime faster.

The use of technology in the policing domain has been rapidly adopted over the past few years. However, it should be noted that the process of adopting and effectively using technology in law enforcement, begun more than 50 years ago. For instance, it become apparent in the 1950’s that computer would enable easier storage and retrieval of large amounts of data. More recently, advancement in technology has incorporated more sophisticated ways of transmitting and analyzing information, therefore aiding the law enforcement process (Button, Sharples & Harper, 2007). The police have found various aspect of technology useful; predominantly, computer crime mapping has been widely adopted and consequently received a lot of attention

CTPED or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design is defined as “The prevention strategy which outlines how the physical environments can be designed in order to lessen the opportunity for crime.” (Queensland Police Department.) CPTED not only is defined by this definition, but it focuses on four more characteristics that help to make this design work effectively, and smoothly. These four characteristics are: maximizing the risk that offenders face, maximizing the effort required by offenders to commit crimes, minimizing the benefits that offenders can gain from committing crimes, and finally minimizing the excuses for opportunities toward offenders. COP is defined as “Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues, such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” (Community Policing Defined." Community Policing Dispatch). CPTED and COP are methods that promote strong communities to deter crime, and provide the community with alternatives to stop crime from ever happening in the first place. As well as these definitions, the strategies of COP, and CPTED, these strategies are based off of the broken windows theory. The broken windows theory is the theory that states once criminals see an area that is under-patrolled, they will commit more crimes

Auditing the effectiveness of a public organisation is a difficult task in itself, however. What does effectiveness entail, and how does one measure it? You could argue that the effectiveness of the police force could be measured by looking at the ratio of number of crimes reported to the number of crimes solved. This seems to be in line with the police force’s social goals, so in theory seems an appropriate proxy for effectiveness. Yet it is also easy to see how this metric could be manipulated; where it is unlikely that a crime will be solved, the reporting of the crime may be ignored. The measure will give a false image of the efficacy of the police force in question, when

For most law enforcement agencies, a crime analyst main objective is to provide information in order to accomplish their mission of prevention and suppression of criminal activities(Canter, n.d.). Furthermore, crime analyst effect how policies are implemented, justify budget request, and aids in identifying and understanding