Compstat and The New Penology

A Paradigm Shift in Policing

Bibliographic Data

ID8400271
AuthorsJ J Willis (0000-0001-9954-8401, George Mason University), Stephen D Mastrofski (Oxford University Press (United Kingdom))
Year2012
Volume52
Issue1
Pages73-92
Publication date2012-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe British Journal of Criminology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0007-0955 • E-ISSN: 1464-3529
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/bjc/azr063
OpenAlexW2317713934
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited41

James J. Willis* and Stephen D. MastrofskiUsingfieldworkdatacollectedatsevenpoliceagencies intheUnitedStates,thisstudyasks‘Towhatextent is the operation of Compstat, a recent and highly touted police management and account-abilitysystem,consistentwiththenewpenology?’.Examiningamultidimensionalreforminanarea(police innovation) that has been relatively neglected helps illuminate to what degree Compstat ispart of a new trend in criminal justice, and it gives theoretical insight into how the applicability ofthe newpenology’selements mayvary acrossdifferentinstitutionalsettings.Ourfindingssuggestedsupport for the new penology at a general level but this weakened significantly upon closer exam-ination.Thisarticlethenprovidesabroader theoreticalexplanationfor thisloosenessoffitwithourobservations of Compstat’s operation.Keywords: Compstat, new penology, police reformIntroductionScholars have observed that, over the last 40 years, large-scale political, social and eco-nomic changes in Western democratized countries have given rise to new responsesto crime (Cohen 1985; Ericson and Haggerty 1997; Garland 2001; De Giorgi 2006).One such response is Compstat, a highly focused strategic management system concen-trating on reducing serious crime by decentralizing decision making to middle manag-ers operating out of districts (district commanders who often hold the rank of captain),by holding these managers accountable for performance, and by increasing the po-lice organization’s capacity to identify and respond to crime problems (Henry 2002;Weisburd et al. 2003). To what extent these new approaches are extensions of pastpractices or constitute a radical change is the subject of much debate, but there isbroader agreement, at least among scholars analysing trends in punishment and socialcontrol, on the sources shaping criminal justice. These include revamped expectationsfor what the state can accomplish and heightened concerns, especially among politicalelites,abouttherisks presentedbycertainpopulations,particularly thelowerclassesandracial and ethnic minorities (Bottoms 1995; O’Malley 1998; Rose 1999; Garland 2003;Simon 2007). Because these present new challenges to social order, they require newconcepts and theories for their explanation.One of the most best known attempts to understand these developments is MalcolmFeeley and Jonathan Simon’s (1992) ‘new penology’. Elaborating on the work of others(Cohen 1985; Foucault 1978/1991; Reichman 1986), their purpose is to provide anintegrative framework for what appear to be major transformations in the traditional

Criminology · Paradigm shift · Penology · Physics · Prison · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Engineering · Policing Practices and Perceptions · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub