Police performance regimes and police activity: Compstat in Paris and London compared
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370817749497 |
| Author | Jacques de Maillard |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370817749497
European Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 15(5) 589 –608
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370817749497
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Police performance regimes
and police activity: Compstat
in Paris and London compared
Jacques de Maillard
University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, CESDIP, France
Abstract
This paper analyses the implementation of Compstat-like processes in two large European police
organizations: the Metropolitan Police Service in London and the Préfecture de police in Paris.
Compstat-like processes are characterized by processes framed by performance indicators
and targets, performance assessment sessions, units dedicated to the collection and analysis of
performance data, and information processing requiring the use of crime data. Such processes
raise two broad sets of questions. First, do these innovations lead to tighter or more encompassing
crime control strategies? Second, does the old command-and-control organizational model of
police departments emerge reinforced, or does innovation foster the emergence of a new, more
deliberative, problem-solving style of management? The paper analyses the mix of common
features (limited geographical decentralization, increasing internal accountability based on the
centrality of quantitative data, the prioritizing of crime reduction, and the influence of new
technologies on how data is used) and differences (the range of indicators used, broader in
London, and the management styles, more in line with a neo-managerial impetus in London).
Interpreting these contrasts requires an analytical framework combining both the administrative,
political and cultural traditions in the two police forces and the intentional projects carried out
by political and professional actors.
Keywords
Comparison, Compstat, managerialism, performance, police, Paris, London
The international diffusion of Compstat1 epitomizes the combined effects of two broad
dynamics impinging on contemporary policing: the diffusion of performance
measurement tools inspired by neo-managerial thinking, and a strong push from novel
Corresponding author:
Jacques de Maillard, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, CESDIP, Immeuble Edison, 43
Boulevard Vauban, 78280 Guyancourt, France.
Email: demaillard@cesdip.fr
749497EUC0010.1177/1477370817749497European Journal of Criminologyde Maillard
research-article2018
Article
590 European Journal of Criminology 15(5)
information-processing technologies – crime mapping and crime analysis in particular.
Most of the debate so far has focused on some of the large US police departments
Compstat originated from (Silverman, 2001; Weisburd et al., 2003; Willis et al., 2007).
This technical-managerial device, however, turns out to have been imported in some
form or other by the Australians (Fleming and Scott, 2008), the English (Neyroud, 2008),
the French (Didier, 2011) and the Dutch (Punch, 2007), which makes it necessary to
broaden the field of investigation beyond just the US police agencies.
Two main strands of argument may be distinguished in the academic debate on
Compstat. The first relates to the extent of the change: Compstat can be seen as trigger-
ing a major change by introducing new components (mission clarification, internal
accountability, etc.), even though traditional paramilitary characteristics still seem to
prevail (Weisburd et al., 2003). On the basis of assumptions derived from institutional
theory, Willis et al. (2007) have shown that, in three large police departments, Compstat
had been mostly implemented as a way of conferring crime-fighting legitimacy to police
organizations. In terms of providing a basis for the rigorous assessment of organizational
performance and changing routines, however, its effects have been more limited. The
second debate refers to the direction taken by the change. Compstat has been described
by some as an effective innovation in US policing, enabling a strategic, problem-solving
and data-driven approach to policing. Not only has this position been advocated by
Compstat’s creators, but it has also been endorsed by a variety of scholars (Silverman,
2001; and, more recently, Zimring, 2012). Conversely, critics have stressed Compstat’s
tendency to accentuate the military style of police management while offering limited
problem-solving and innovative capacities (Moore, 2003; Weisburd et al., 2003; Willis
et al., 2007; Sparrow, 2015). Some initial supporters have even changed tack, citing vari-
ous deviances – such as unethical data-recording practices – and the culture of fear gen-
erated by Compstat (Eterno and Silverman, 2012).
This domestic US debate constitutes a bedrock for a more international discussion on
the effects of Compstat-like processes within police organizations. By Compstat-like
processes, I mean technological and managerial systems drawing on four complemen-
tary dimensions: (i) scoreboards, performance indicators and targets; (ii) collective per-
formance sessions, where the activities of units are publicly reviewed; (iii) units in
charge of collecting, analysing and disseminating performance data within the organiza-
tion; (iv) the existence of information-processing schemes requiring the use of crime
data. What remains to be seen is how these new processes impact on the organization of
police forces, their internal accountability processes, and how they make sense of infor-
mation processing. This is the objective of the present analysis of Compstat-like pro-
cesses in two European capitals, Paris and London.
More precisely, this paper will build upon and combine two lines of reasoning. First,
do Compstat-like processes lead to an ‘old’ police strategy, focused solely on crime con-
trol (as the main, or even the sole, goal of policing) or to a more global approach that
takes into account community-related concerns, underlying causes of crime (disorders,
fear) and the quality of the police response (rectitude of police officers, quality of inter-
nal processes)? Second, should Compstat-like processes be seen as a reinforcement of
the old command-and-control, punitive management style of police departments or as a
new, more deliberative, problem-solving and collaborative style?
To continue reading
Request your trial