Information Technology: Police Policing

Predictive Policing

Information Systems Decision Making CIS500

October 21, 2013
To efficiently compare and contrast the application of information technology (IT) to optimize police departments’ performance to reduce crime versus random patrols of the streets, we first have to look at exactly what information technology is available to police today. One popular technology that is used by police departments is COMPSTAT abbreviated for computer statistics. Compstat is a "strategic control system" designed for the collection and feedback of information on crime and related quality of life issues. The COMPSTAT process can be summarized in one simple statement: "Collect, analyze, and map crime data and other essential police performance
measures on a regular basis, and hold police managers accountable for their performance as measured by these data (DeLorenzi, Shane & Amendola, 2006). This IT is placed into a computer system and allows officers to pretty much predict the crime before it happens. This is done by inputting both previous and current crime into the system which makes the predictions. Before the COMPSTST or COMPSTAT like technologies, officers would do routine patrols in potential areas, where they thought crime would likely take place based on previous cases. With this new system crimes have been reduced and more arrest have been made.
COMPSTAT as an information system implements the four basic IS functions.
Namely are input, processing, output, and feedback. Information is placed into computer systems using geographic information systems to map the locations of where crimes occur, indentify “hotspots”, and map problem areas. Also historical data is used to predict future crimes for police departments, known as predictive policing. The processing process takes place once the data has been inputted and the system begins to make predictions. The output is in action once the data has been processed. Officers follow up on the predictions and go to the exact locations where the model has predicted the crime to take place. It’s been proven that crimes have actually been prevented. Feedback from the system is the actual results. Zach Friend, a crime analyst of the Santa Cruz PD said burglaries were down 27 percent in a years’ time, suggesting that targeted policing may have a deterrent effect (Goode,
2011).
The technology that makes COMPSTAT possible is not very complicated, but its impact has been remarkable.
The ability to quickly gather, process and analyze large amounts of crime information creates many new opportunities for examining crime and crime trends, for developing effective strategies to reduce crime and improve quality of life, and for focusing personnel deployment and enforcement activities. Commanders have the technological capacity to analyze events on practically a real-time basis, and a wealth of crime intelligence can be rapidly communicated. These technological advancements dramatically altered the way the NYPD and other agencies deal with crime. Deployment strategies have been refined and carefully focused, and members of the department learned how detailed crime pattern analysis can point to appropriate strategies to reduce crime. Personnel at every level of the organization also saw how detailed analysis could be used to test the effectiveness of crime reduction strategies worked under specific conditions. In other words, the technology utilized in COMPSTAT revolutionized the way members of the NYPD and other agencies think about crime, crime control, and strategic policing
(Henry).
Strengths for police departments that intend to implement predictive policing are employees that are committed to participate, departments with good finance, and anything that would promote the department’s mission. Weaknesses for the model could be incompetent managers, poor data input, and inefficient employees who are responsible using and updating the system. This model presents many opportunities. As previously stated, predictive policing helps to prevent crimes before they happen. If the program continues to be successful crimes will continue to be reduced, and some will even be prevented. As long as the system doesn’t get worse and only improved predictive policing will continue to aid departments with crime. I believe that threats will less likely occur with predictive policing. Even though threats are not controlled by the agency itself, I don’t see the likelihood of threats being posed. According to our reading NYPD implemented this program in 1994, and after 19 years the program hasn’t failed. In all of our related readings it hints that if anything the program is trying to continue to thrive and improve.
In all IT plays a vital role in predictive policing. It helps to eliminate or prevent crimes from happening, overall reduces crime, and continues to build upon present policing methods. It is not designed to replace any procedure or departments employees simply to improve current policing methods.

References
DeLorenzi, D., Shane, J. M. & Amendola, K. L. (2006, September). The compstat process:Managing performance on the pathway to leadership. The Police Chief, 73(9), DOI: www.policechiefmagazine.org
Goode, E. (2011, 08 15). Sending the police before there 's a crime. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com Heny, V. (n.d.). Managing crime and quality of life using compstat:. Informally published manuscript, Long Island University, , Available from internet. Retrieved from www.unafei.or.jp