MPACTs Effect on the Moulton Police Department - Essay Example

Running head: M*PACTs effect on the Moulton Police Department In broad strokes, M*PACT comprises a series of process essential for the gathering, analysis and dissemination of criminal intelligence data that is in turn applied in assisting the Moulton Police Department to develop effective tactics and strategies to combat crime. Its effective application is of prime significance and is one of the four major principles in the Compstat paradigm that has been largely embraced by law enforcement agencies across the globe (Henry, 2002). This research examines the impact of the implementation of M*PACT in the Moulton PD to determine whether it has managed to change the structure, management and law enforcement practices in the department. Effects of M*PACT on Moulton Police Department The Moulton Police Department has deployed a new anti-crime mechanism called M*PACT - short for Moulton Police Proactively Attacking Crime Trends -- that is modeled after the famous Compare-Statistics (COMPSTAT) program, a 1994 innovation of New York City Transit Police that was largely a computerized systematic way that engaged the use of Geographic Information System (GIS). M*Pact is primarily intended to make the most out of the officers. Using this model, Precinct Commanders along with their staff create strategies aiming at resolving crime in specific areas of jurisdiction. Afterwards, the police officers are deployed to areas in the shortest time possible. In addition, weekly M*PACT meetings are conducted to track and report the strategies from each precinct. The model further specifies that all Precinct Commanders must be held accountable for the performances of their precincts (Bratton, 1998). Like the Compstat, M*PACT aggressively analyzes data through electronic mapping to illustrate crimes, complaints, disorder in the system and calls for service. The resulting information is then applied in helping commander deploy the scant resources in the most vulnerable areas. This way, the Moulton Police Department is able to track crime trends and activities. The model is focused on cutting down on the rates of crime as well as involving the community in fighting crimes (Bratton, 1995). Typically, in addition to M*PACT being a management philosophy, it is an organizational management tool designed for the police department. From the analysis of the basis of its development, it can be described as a dynamic multilayered approach for crime reduction, human resource management and improved quality of life. M*Pact’s impact on the transforming the management, structure and law enforcement strategies can be measured by the statistical data over a period to allow the tracking of the ideas and techniques that have been implemented in reaching their strategies. The data will illustrate an increase in criminal activity in relation to changes effected at the Moulton Police Department based on the account of the staff at the police station (Maple, 1999). In this case, I conducted research to determine the impact of M*PACT on the personnel at the Moulton Police Department. Accordingly, I examined whether the innovative model is transforming the structure, management and law enforcement practices at that particular police department. The objective of this paper is to obtain the perceptions of the police officers at the Moulton PD on the implementation and effectiveness of the M*PACT. In this situation, three hypothesis were tested the first hypothesis being “Most officers believe that supervisors place too much emphasis on crime statistics.” The second being “Most officers feel that M*PACT holds officers accountable for crimes on their beats,” and the third hypothesis being “Most officers feel that teamwork between the beat officers and specialized units have improved because of M*PACT.” This research concludes that the M*PACT plays a great impact on the management and structure of the Moulton PD, as well as its strategies that are applied in law enforcement. Literature Review Several researches have been done to find out whether police departments and other law enforcement agencies have instituted models such as M*PACT that uses similar models to the COMPSTAT to address crimes in the respective jurisdictions. This research paper however takes a more different angle as it is not exclusively based on the reduction of crime rate but the impact on the management structure of the law enforcement institution. Apparently, more and more of the police departments across the country are adopting the model, and have in addition expressed their satisfaction with the model in reducing crime rates (Bratton, 1995). It has been further observed that such departments that were quick to embrace the model were less likely to concentrate on boosting the morale and improving skills of their street-level police officers (Kelling & Coles, 1996). When the model was originally adopted by the New York Police Department (NYPD), Commissioner William Bratton deployed outsiders to do a SWOT analysis of the department from the top to the bottom. Later, the department held a meeting twice each week in which Precinct Commanders had to appear before the department heads to present their reports on crime trends in their precincts and steps they have taken to curb the crimes (Kelling, 1991). The reports in this case serve as a centre of reference for the commanders to show their understanding of the crimes in their specific precincts. The COMPSTAT model that was initiated by the NYPD has today become a landmark model, which although called by many names such as M*PACTS, that many police departments are using across the globe (Bouza, 1997). In fact, it is globally recognized for having become extremely effective in integrating accurate intelligence analysis procedures and rationalizing the police department’s management processes (Chetkovich, 2000). Some researchers have observed that one of the most significant rates steps toward cutting down on crime rates was to come up with a system that could ensure rapid collection of data, as well as its analysis and distribution (Henry, 2000). In retrospect, this resulted in the creation of the Compstat management system. Before its invention, most police departments lacked a functional system to rapidly capture crime stats, or integrate them in strategic management of the department. Some researchers have argued that crime statistics were often older than four months when they were finally compiled and analyzed. In addition, the methods used in these processes were rather rudimentary. Analysts observe that such 4-month old data are of little consequence in decision making especially in a police department such as those in urban areas where crime rates are high and data is so dynamic (Braga, 2001). Obviously, the fact that researches show that before police department executives in earlier law enforcement agencies never saw a compelling need to obtain accurate and timely information is an evidence of poor management structures that characterized earlier police forces (Henry, 2002). Management M*PACT can be an effective management strategy, or a strategic control mechanism. DeLorenzi (2006) has argued that the Compstat model is indeed a powerful tool for transforming the law enforcement management and practice. He further elaborates that the strategy should be summarized in a simple phrase, to collect, analyze and map crime data and police performance measures. From the management perspective, M*PACT enables the police to enhance their coordination skills as well as to be accountable to crime statistics in their respective precincts (DeLorenzi, 2006). Overall, improving the leadership command is an essential step every police department should follow (Beer, 1980). The Compstat model has however been criticized for its downside to the supervisors, commanders and the agency itself as it can affect the moral, cause embarrassments, resentments as well as create more problems than it can solve. According to some social theorists, for such models like the M*PACT to be highly effective, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the department has to have many highly skilled managers but even in departments where a considerable number of less-effective managers are culled out or marginalized so that a significant shift in the department’s management culture can be realized. Early researches have showed that in fact, after the less-effective managers were weeded out or neutralized through the weekly meetings in the early NYPD structure did the reaping the benefits of the Compstat management start. However, the substantive change desired in the department required new management coalition that is committed to reducing crime rates as well as hoping to empower middle managers substantially (Kelling, 1987). Earlier attempts to initiate community policing to empower beat officers failed to attain it objectives to reduce crime or for the departments overall performances prompted the need to increase the powers of middle officers, such as the Commanding Officer. This kind of power devolution is an important aspect of the M*PACT. Bratton (1996) elaborated his motivation to devolve power using the Compstat management model from top officers to middle officers claiming it was a motivational approach. In addition, M*PACT can achieve a critical mass of committed and effective officers to revitalize the department’s management culture. In the 1990’s NYPD adopted a highly focused and strategic quality of life support into the Compstat that it quickly led to dramatic decline in crime rates. Basically, this is what the NY police department adopted in its highly strategic enforcement efforts based on the Compstat process and its capacity to direct rapid officer deployment to address crimes. The resolution was to assertively adopt the innovative Compstat process, and within a matter of weeks, the first confirmatory steps to develop suitable technology that would transform the way the NYPD managed its system to curb crimes. Despite its attainments, the Compstat model has been largely misinterpreted as a management structure. Cases have been reported where the model has been extensively depicted as a high-pressure meeting between the beat officers, supervisors, precinct commanders, computer programmers and as a organism for sharing vital management information (Henry, 2012). In the case of Moulton Police Department, the fact that the M*PACT management model comprises all of these aspects may account for some of the misconceptions by the officers interviewed. It should however be noted that the M*PACT, per se, involves a management process through which the Moulton Police Department identifies issues of concern and measures the results of its suggested solutions. In fact, M*PACT comprises meetings between the department heads and other police officers and applies computer-based technology system. However, these should just be understood as necessary elements in the much larger management paradigm of the Moulton PD (Bratton, 1996). Integrating M*PACT in Compstat paradigm Paradigms comprise a set of organizational principles and perceptions that touch on how humans organize their basic understanding of the world. Some researchers have compared them to ideologies or philosophical models that shape the understanding of something (Henry, 2002). With regard to management, paradigm can roughly be described as the general opinions on the human nature and behavior about the way organizations operate (Kuhn, 1970). It further specifies the management issues that we view as most urgent and that we seek to find a resolution to. Generally, a police department’s paradigm on management determines the nature of results it seeks to attain as well as the procedure and devices to use. Under ordinary circumstances new knowledge and insights as well as innovations – and in this case the M*PACT -- can increase within the existing paradigm’s boundaries (Braga, 2001). Concerning policing, researches have showed that most police department heads are guided by either Community Policing Model or the Professional Model, both of which use Compstat’s paradigms (Henry, 2002). Just like scientists who have to use empirical procedures, the police heads are guided by paradigms, and as they slowly by slowly use a paradigm’s prepositions of assumption, they rarely venture further from the paradigms and more often would consult the paradigms in their daily operations (Brown, 1988). The same can be said of M*PACT’s adoption at the Moulton Police Department. To strengthen this point, some theorists have demonstrated that scientific revolutions take place when paradigms shift drastically, or whenever a new one emerges. As the new paradigms are slowly incorporated into systems of management by the police department, the departments increase insight on crime prevention even as they develop fresher theories based on the paradigms (Manning ,1992). As witnessed in the rise of crime across the United States in 1950s and ‘60s, until the invention of the Compstat management model in the mid-1990s in New York (Bratton, 1996). The Compstat paradigm , which the M*PACT uses, offers the police executives revolutionary ways for viewing the police departments and activities, as well as directing the way the police can manage their affairs. M*PACT Meetings M*PACT the meetings should appear as meetings at which police executives and managers use to discuss the latest information on crime trends as well as develop crime counter tactics as well as track the results of actions already taken (Bratton, 1998). Each week at the Moulton Police Department, commanders of all operations units and precincts in Moulton areas gather at the department’s headquarters with a view of presenting reports on themselves and their assistant’s activities. In most departments across the United States, these meetings are conducted in Command and Control Centre that are equipped with high-tech conferencing facilities as well as video monitors and projectors as well as other communication equipment. At the early stages of the Compstate model, meetings were carried out in small rooms that were only equipped with flip charts and easel (Bratton, 1998). In a typical M*PACT meeting, each precinct commander is expected to take turns in presenting their records of activities as well as accomplishments, both of which are open to criticism from the police commissioner or his deputy. In addition, the detectives or squad supervisors, as well as any other ranked officer within the geographic area of operation should accompany the precinct commanders at the meeting (Bratton, 1995). Given that the meetings will often turn out animated resulting from the quantity of statistical operation, the M*PACT meetings tend to permit the department’s executives to have access to unlimited level of in-depth knowledge. Generally, the executives and commanders are supplied with the crime intelligence data before the actual meeting to enable them to develop strategies. This also allows them to challenge the precinct officers on areas of concern with regard to their reports. Crime patterns can easily be noted through the discussions in these meetings, as well as the links between issues that appear connected. The precinct commanders are obligated to ensure that have primary information on the incidences of crime and the quality of life issues that take place within their precincts, the same way they are expected to have first-hand info on corporation and coordination across the department (Manning, 2001). Overall, the M*PACT model puts emphasis on cooperation and coordination right across the department. In this case, there must be efforts to ensure teamwork as specialized squad commanders and precinct commanders and must show they coordinate and integrate their activities. Methodology Ten questions are included in the survey, most of which used the Likert scale. Overall, the survey seeks from the police department staff of their professional opinion on M*PACT with reference to the number of years each police officer has served at the police Department, their ranks, if ever they had attended the M*PACT meetings and what part they played at the meetings. The survey also examines what was their perspective on the effect of M*PACT at their precincts to reduce crime and whether the M*PACT holds the precinct Major accountable for crimes at his area of jurisdiction. It also looks at whether M*PACT has led to improved teamwork, whether M*PACT has led the supervisors to place much emphasis on crime statistics and whether M*PACT has changed the responsibility of officers. In addition, it seeks to find out whether the weekly M*PACT enable the departments to meet their objectives. The officer’s overall responses are used to indicate whether they approve the M*PACT or not. In all, the respondents comprise 46 patrol officers, one corporal, five special units and sergeants, one lieutenant and two majors. The survey questions are used to test the three hypothesis. The first being first hypothesis (H1) being “Most officers belive that supervisors place too much emphasis on crime statistics.” The second hypothesis (H2) being “Most officers feel that M*PACT holds officers accountable for crimes on their beats and the third hypothesis (H3) that “Most officers feel that teamwork between the beat officers and specialized units have improved because of M*PACT.” This research concludes that the M*PACT plays a great impact on the management and structure of the Moulton PD, as well as its procedures utilized in law enforcement. Results The results from the survey (as indicated in appendix) indicate the perspectives of police staff at Moulton Police Department toward the M*PACT and whether their perceptions conform to the objectives of their departments. Out of the 60 responses, I received 46 from patrol officers, one from corporal, 5 from special units and another 5 from sergeants, and lastly one from lieutenant and 2 from majors. The results show that most of the police officers at Moulton Police Department have worked for between five and 10 years, with 40% of the respondents falling within that range. Only 25% of the officers have been at the department for less than 10 years while 35% have worked at the department for more than 20 years. With regard to M*PACT meetings, 60 percent of the respondents admitted they had attended the meetings. However, of this 54 percent admitted they had attended the meetings just to observe and not to participate while 13% had answered questions while less than 1% had answered questions and offered an opinion in that order. Thirteen percent of the respondents had received commendations at the meetings. Some 66% of the respondents said the M*PACT holds Majors accountable for crimes committed at their precincts while only 15% disagreed. With regard to whether the officers feel that teamwork between the beat officer and specialized units have improved because of M*PACT, 50% percent of the respondents were undecided while only 9% agreed. Some 36% disagreed. On the issue of whether M*PACT has been instrumental in influencing places to much emphasis on crime statistics, 40% agreed while 28% disagreed. On whether the M*PACT has changed the responsibility of officers, 45% agreed while 36% disagreed. Lastly, on whether the M*PACT has helped the department to meet the objective of the program, 46% agreed while 33 percent disagreed and another 21% were undecided. Findings A review of the results of analysis reveals that two of the three hypothesis were proved correct. According to the survey, “most officers believe that supervisors place too much emphasis on crime statistics”, and that “most of the officers feel that M*PACT holds officers accountable for crimes on their beats.” However, the survey failed to justify that “most officers feel that teamwork between the beat officers and specialized units have improved because of M*PACT.” The research further proved that M*PACT meetings are a key element in reducing crime, even though they are just a tip of the iceberg as more management processes are necessary in order to attain the crime reductions in Moulton. As most officers agree that M*PACT has been instrumental in the reduction of crimes, it can be noted that without the transformational changes brought about by the management model, the crime reductions could never have been achieved. From the results, it can further be deduced that most of the officers only get to attend the M*PACT meetings out of necessity as they are obligated to while more of them seem to lack interest and as such contribute little to the meetings through offering opinions. It has also been proved that most the officers at Moulton have tended to put much emphasis on statistics on crime. However, from the general analysis of the results, these statistics can be said to have contributed much to the decline in crime and the realization of a more structured and manageable department. It can as well be deduced that the M*PACT management model is favored by many of the officers, which merely proves the point that one of the most important factor justifying the reason the Compstat model, which the M*PACT, uses to operate is because it enjoys wide political and institutional support as a management structure. Since most of the officers attend the M*PACT meetings, it is important to consider that the meetings have become a major element in the criminal justice system. M*PACT meetings and technology are indispensable management devices that use the Compstat management model, which a large number if American police departments have employed to ensure an innovative management paradigm. From the research, it can be argued that the M*PACT in use by the Moulton Police Department is a revolutionary method of management as it incorporates significant shift in the department’s management paradigm. Basing on the results, it can be pointed out that most officers have been attending the M*PACT meetings as mere casual observers, while the meetings appearing as meetings at which police executives and managers use to discuss latest information on crime trends as well as develop crime counter tactics as well as track the results of actions already taken. The results lead to the conclusion that M*PACT was started at Moulton Police Department as a strategic approach to addressing crimes from the managerial perspective, which in due course enable the beat officers with mid-level leadership to become proactively involved in their work. It further opened the lines for more cordial and coordinated communication as vital information can be passed to the officers during M*PACT meetings. Discussion The Concept of M*PACT and its effect on the Moulton Police Department has been instrumental in reducing crime, improving arrests and involving the community to participate in crime prevention and mitigation programs. Besides the application of the concept to the Moulton Police Department’s scenario, several departments across the United States have proved it to be effective in carrying out its objectives (Bratton, 1995). In order to address the issue of high crime rates in the U.S., the concept that Moulton PD uses was started by Commissioner William Bratton in 1994 under the banner Compstat. Through his perceptions and ideas of strategic planning, he set out and his team to challenge critics who alleged that the police were not doing enough to stop the crimes in New York (Manning, 2001). Bratton’s ideas included better information exchange between the police and the department, meetings between staff to exchange ideas, better education of police officers, and a number of programs for participation of the community. This process had to further apply the basic principles of information collection, planning and implementation of the ideas. In the course of this research, I found that M*PACT applies similar rules, ideas and concepts to those of the Compstat, in fact, the two run on a similar model and the name M*PACT has just been used in the place of Compstat to show customization. I also learnt that the same model M*PACT operates has been deployed across the nation. Recommendations I recommend that: 1. The Moulton Police Department executive officers should educate the police officers on the significance of the M*PACT so that it can be fully embraced as a necessary crime management model and not seen as being forced on them. 2. The department should also maintain free and open communications as well as increase channels of communications among the ranks of officers so that more officers can participate in contributing opinions during the M*PACT meetings (Manning ,1992). 3. The Moulton Police Department should as well develop a crime analysis unit that would be responsible for monitoring the crime communicating the analyzed information in digestible quality and quantity during the M*PACT meetings (Chan ,1997). References Beer M. (1980). Organization Change and Development: A system View. Santa MOnice: Goodyear Publishing Company. Bouza T. (1997). NYPD Blues – Goood Lucky, or Both? Law Enforcement. January 31. Vol.8,10 Braga A. (2001). The Effects of Hot Soft Policing on Crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, no. 578:104-125 Bratton, W. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. With Peter K. New York: Random House Bratton W. (1995). Great Expectations: How Higher Expectations for Police Departments Can Lead to a Decrease in Crime. Paper presented at a National Institute of Justice conference on Measuring What Matters, Washington, DC. Buntin, J. (1999). Assertive policing, plummeting crime: The NYPD takes on crime in New York City. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Case Study Program Series. Brown M. (1988). Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform. New York: Russel Sage Foundation Chan J. (1997). Changing Police Culture: Policing in Multicultural Society. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chetkovich, C. A. (2000). The NYPD takes on crime in New York City.Case Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government. Clines, F. X. (2001, June 10). Baltimore uses a databank to wake up city workers. New York Times, p. A11. 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), Retrieved 16 March 2013 from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=998&issue_id=92006 French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Gootman, E. (2000, October 24). Police department’s allure is growing. New York Times, p. B1. Henry, V. E. (2000). Interview with William J. Bratton. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 1, 397-434. Henry, V. E. (2002). The Compstat paradigm: Management accountability in policing, business and the public sector. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publishers. Kelling, G. (1987). Acquiring a taste for order: The community and the police. Crime and Delinquency,33(1), 90-102. Kelling, G. (1991). Reclaiming the subway. City Journal, 1(2), 17-28. Kelling, G. & Coles, C. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Manning P. (2001). Theorizing Policing: the Drama and Myth to Control in the NYPD. Theoretical Criminology 5 (3): 315 – 344 Manning P. (1992) Information Technologies and the Police. In Modern Policing, ed. Michael T and Norval M, 348 -398. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maple J, (1999) The Crime Fighter: Putting the Bad Guys out of Business. With Chris Mitchel. New York: Double Day. Read More