What is the New Orleans Police Department’s COMSTAT process? What should we know about it, and how should we evaluate it?

These are questions that remain unanswered by a story printed in today’s Times-Picayune.

One concern is that the process creates internal competitive pressures that can tend toward corruption of statistics.

But COMSTAT also has its share of critics. The Baltimore Police Department suspended its use of COMSTAT last month, weeks after a New York study showed that more than 100 retired high-ranking officers criticized the model and said it created undue pressure to manipulate and lower crime statistics.

To critics of the COMSTAT process, we might ask, what alternative to a performance measurement process do you propose? It’s true that there have been concerns about artificial manipulation of statistics in the NOPD, but that doesn’t negate the value of measuring the results that commanders achieve in their efforts to create a safer community. What’s needed to combat distortion of statistics is independent oversight to validate of the veracity of statistical claims. We shouldn’t abandon a vital tool required to strive for excellence, best practices, and professional conduct. Chief Serpas has committed to “opening up the shop” to independent oversight.

There have also been criticisms that the traditional emphasis on a “broken windows” approach tends to apply a sledgehammer to the crime problem, rather than a more intelligent approach that targets scarce resources at the most dangerous offenders.

In New Orleans, a high-profile 2007 assessment of the NOPD by crime consultant Lee Brown recommended that the department re-examine its use of COMSTAT, noting that the model often puts pressure on district captains to increase the number of arrests for minor crimes, which “while sounding attractive, is not always as fruitful as management would expect.”

COMSTAT is merely a process to measure progress in the application of a crime-fighting methodology. It isn’t, itself, a crime-fighting methodology. Instead, COMSTAT is a performance management approach to governing an organization. A “broken windows” approach to fighting crime by arresting large numbers of people for even minor offenses isn’t a foregone conclusion as a function of the COMSTAT process. More contemporary policing theory follows a problem-oriented approach, and that can be applied within a performance management approach like COMSTAT.

COMSTAT can adapt and respond to other approaches, such as issuing court summons for minor offenses. It all depends on having a police department that utilizes evidence-based, successful approaches to fighting crime, that is open about the methods it is employing, and that responds to the diverse needs of various neighborhoods. Again, Serpas has committed — through a re-decentralization of the NOPD — to fostering a community-policing approach that tailors crime-fighting tactics in response to the particular needs of different neighborhoods.

Finally, does COMSTAT produce “feet-to-the-fire” accountability meetings, as described by The Times-Picayune? Or is there a more respectful but disciplined tenor to the dialog between the police chief and commanders in COMSTAT meetings?

According to Serpas, the performance management process is more than an accountability process. Commanders may be forgiven mistakes when they attempt creative approaches to solving problems, as long as they show results over time. Serpas’ comments appear in a goverment reform chapter from a NolaStat policy paper. Serpas fosters a problem-solving process which recognizes that failure in the pursuit of excellence can be a positive experience which improves the ability to meet performance goals over the long term:

“Risk taking can be fostered when the leader recognizes that efforts made for the right reasons may nonetheless sometimes fail. The response to these failures, in a public and positive way, sends the unmistakable message that risk taking in the pursuit of commendable goals can become a positive learning experience for all, will be tolerated, and in fact is encouraged.”

Serpas shared his advice on the role of a leader in “creating a learning environment”:

1) Bring issues into focus.
2) Ask critical questions and give straight answers.
3) Create and maintain an atmosphere of open and honest dialog.
4) Set expectations of behavior – and model them.
5) Recognize accomplishments and risk taking.

Tags: Accountability, COMSTAT, NOPD, Performance Management, Ronal Serpas

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 19th, 2010 at 9:43 am and is filed under Best Practices. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.