• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

An examination of the CompStat management model on organizational health and job satisfaction

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Richard Scott Freeman
Abstract:
Law enforcement leaders and researchers have hailed CompStat as a truly revolutionary police management method. Researchers have found that the CompStat management model is highly effective in reducing crime, increasing police effectiveness, and addressing community disorder, but unlike the community policing model, has been heavily criticized for its top-down management style, reinforcement of internal bureaucratic processes, leadership by fear, and its failure to motivate officers. The purpose of this study was to use servant leadership characteristics to examine the effect of the CompStat management model on police departments by assessing organizational health, perceptions of servant leadership characteristics, and overall job satisfaction ratings of police department employees. Using the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey, data were obtained from both CompStat and non-CompStat police department employees ( N =466). Point biserial correlation analyses found no statistically significant relationships between department type (CompStat and those that are not CompStat) and organizational health, individual servant leadership characteristics, and job satisfaction ratings. This study concludes that CompStat does not have an adverse effect on the organizational health of police departments, which is an important finding for police leaders, scholars, and researchers. This research has significant implications for social change relating to the improvement of America's law enforcement organizations by balancing out the needs to control and reduce crime while also promoting the dignity, worth, value, and development of America's law enforcement officers and the organizations in which they serve.

i Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Background ....................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................................6 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................7 Research Questions ........................................................................................................7 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................8 Scope of the Study .........................................................................................................9 Assumptions .............................................................................................................9 Limitations .............................................................................................................10 Delimitations ..........................................................................................................10 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................11 Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................................12 Summary ......................................................................................................................12 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................14 Introduction ........................................................................................................................14 Policing in a Democracy ..............................................................................................14 History of American Policing ......................................................................................16 The Political Era ....................................................................................................16 The Professional Era ..............................................................................................20 The Community Era ...............................................................................................29 Modern Policing Models and Strategies ......................................................................35

ii Traditional Model of Policing ................................................................................35 Community-Oriented Policing ...............................................................................36 Problem-Oriented Policing ....................................................................................37 CompStat................................................................................................................37 Intelligence-led Policing ........................................................................................38 Policing Dimensions ....................................................................................................38 Hierarchical Focus .................................................................................................39 Determining Priorities ............................................................................................44 Targets of Policing Models ....................................................................................49 Criteria for Success ................................................................................................51 Expected Benefit ....................................................................................................56 CompStat......................................................................................................................59 Historical Development .........................................................................................61 CompStat Principles...............................................................................................64 Elements of CompStat ...........................................................................................68 Leadership in Law Enforcement ..................................................................................81 Servant Leadership.......................................................................................................85 Servant Leadership Characteristics ........................................................................89 Historical Methodologies .............................................................................................92 Summary ......................................................................................................................93 Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................96 Research Design...........................................................................................................96 Research Questions ......................................................................................................97

iii Research Population.....................................................................................................98 Instrumentation ..........................................................................................................100 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................102 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................104 Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................................106 Protection from Harm ..........................................................................................107 Informed Consent.................................................................................................107 Right to Privacy ...................................................................................................108 Honesty with Professional Colleagues.................................................................109 Institutional Review Board ..................................................................................109 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................111 Adjustments or Instrument Revisions ........................................................................111 Description of the Sample ..........................................................................................112 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................115 Analysis of Data .........................................................................................................117 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................117 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................119 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................121 Summary ....................................................................................................................123 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..........................................124 Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................125 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................125 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................128

iv Research Question 3 ............................................................................................130 Implications for Social Change ..................................................................................132 Recommendations for Action ....................................................................................134 Recommendations for Further Study .........................................................................135 Conclusions ................................................................................................................137 References ........................................................................................................................138 Appendix A: Permission to Use Existing Survey ............................................................147 Appendix B: Organizational Leadership Assessment......................................................148 Appendix C Initial Invitation to Participate .....................................................................153 Appendix D Initial Invitation to Participate: Flier ...........................................................156 Appendix E Second Invitation and Reminder .................................................................159 Appendix F Second Invitation and Reminder to Participate: Flier ..................................162 Appendix G Organizational Health Calculations ............................................................165 Appendix H Values People Calculations .........................................................................166 Appendix I Develops People Calculations ......................................................................167 Appendix J Builds Community Calculations ...................................................................168 Appendix K Displays Authenticity Calculations .............................................................169 Appendix L Provides Leadership Calculations................................................................170 Appendix M Shares Leadership Calculations ..................................................................171 Appendix N Job Satisfaction Calculations ......................................................................172 Appendix O Laub‟s Six Levels ........................................................................................173 Appendix P Permission to Use Vassarstat .......................................................................180 Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................181

v List of Tables Table 1 OLA Reliability Scores.......................................................................................102 Table 2 Departmental Demographics ..............................................................................114 Table 3 Department OLA Results ...................................................................................118 Table 4 Individual Servant Leadership Sub Scores ........................................................119 Table 5 Job Satisfaction Scores ......................................................................................122 Table 6 Laub's Organizational Categories and OLA Score Ranges ..............................126 Table 7 Department OLA Results ...................................................................................127 Table 8 Servant Leadership Characteristic Ranking ......................................................129 Table 9 Job Satisfaction Scores ......................................................................................131

1

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Background Over the past 2 decades, American law enforcement agencies have faced a growing expectation to control and reduce crime. As Shane (2002) stated, the chief must not only control the department‟s budget, the chief must also control the human element of crime (p. 12). Because of the growing expectations of controlling and reducing crime, along with controlling the budget and daily operations, the management of modern police agencies has evolved into a complex and demanding job for law enforcement executives. In today‟s American police organizations, police executives must lead their departments in changing police culture, operations, and service delivery strategies to control and reduce crime and disorder. One management strategy that has emerged to meet the new, ever changing demands on law enforcement is CompStat. American police executives face choosing from a wide array of policing strategies to achieve departmental goals with service delivery and crime control. Traditionally, police agencies have been the nonprofit governmental agencies that have had the responsibility of providing services regardless of a lack of budgetary support (Dorriety, 2005, p. 101). With those challenges, some police executives have sought to implement the most current and technologically advanced methods to ensure that their agency operates in the most efficient manner possible while also achieving the goals of crime control and reduction. American law enforcement has a diverse, eclectic history of goals. The general goals for modern American law enforcement agencies include maintaining order, enforcing laws, and providing services to the citizens, with a major goal being that of

2

reducing crime (Dorriety, 2005, p. 101). With these goals in mind, both police agencies and police officers face new pressures, challenges, and opportunities for growth (Henry, 2002/2003, p. 151). As these pressures and challenges increase, the demands on police executives to lead their departments also increase. Innovations in modern technology and management principles for policing have provided police executives the tools to collect and analyze crime data and to provide direction to support police officer efforts to control crime. Of the many different policing strategies, CompStat is one that encompasses a wide array of technology and innovation. CompStat is a widely known and highly successful strategy for controlling and reducing crime (Henry, 2002/2003; McDonald, 2002; Ratcliffe, 2008; Weisburd, Greenspan, Mastrofski, & Willis, 2008a). Since its emergence in the early 1990s, CompStat has become a new, highly effective model for managing and leading a police organization. According to Henry (2002/2003), CompStat has revolutionized the way that some police agencies have operated, and how police officers provide police services in order to realize significant decreases in crime. The CompStat model combines various policing and managerial strategies into one comprehensive policing paradigm. According to Walsh (2001), “CompStat is a goal- oriented strategic management process that uses technology, operational strategy and managerial accountability to structure the delivery of police services and provide safety to communities” (p.347). CompStat successfully blends all of these elements into a viable paradigm that police executives can utilize to address the element known as crime. According to Henry (2002/2003), CompStat is a hybrid management style that combines the most effective managerial elements and philosophies into one comprehensive

3

management model (p. 24). With the blending of the best policing strategies and managerial concepts, CompStat provides American law enforcement executives with a new, revolutionary paradigm to lead their police agencies. While CompStat has rapidly spread (Walsh, 2001) and has proven to be an effective management style that focuses on reducing crime, it has also been criticized for reinforcing the traditional top-down model of policing (Eterno & Silverman, 2006). Eterno and Silverman found that CompStat utilizes a combination of management styles that utilize fear, intimidation, and embarrassment for top police and middle commanders. Eterno and Silverman further posited that, despite the external, positive aspects of crime control and reduction in which CompStat has been highly successful, a number of negative outcomes may emerge in the police organizations that implement and utilize CompStat that include depriving employees of a voice in decision-making, concealment of mistakes, and feelings of alienation. In addition to the internal problems associated with CompStat, the CompStat paradigm has also created a number of problems within the community. Eterno and Silverman (2006) posited that the very nature of CompStat is a numbers game in which officers fail to seek out crime victims for fear of creating another crime number that would be reported in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). In addition, CompStat has been more closely aligned to the legalistic approach to policing, which focuses heavily on the police making arrests and issuing summonses (Eterno & Silverman, 2006). While CompStat has been effective at reducing crime and disorder, the impact on the community is often negative in the light of abuse of authority by the police (Eterno & Silverman, 2006). According to Eterno and Silverman, departments that have

4

implemented CompStat have often realized significant increases in citizen complaints regarding illegal searches, excessive use of force, and the perception that the police were more like an occupying army than a police force as a result of the pressures from CompStat to reduce crime. With the combined internal and external problems associated with CompStat, departments utilizing the CompStat management model could realize problems associated with personnel and staffing. The demands placed on modern law enforcement agencies have translated into higher recruitment standards that align individual officers with the department‟s goals and objectives. This is even more apparent in smaller agencies, which have reported extreme difficulties in filling vacancies due to a lack of qualified applicants (Raymond, Hickman, Miller, & Wong, 2005, p. 19). In the past few years, recruitment, hiring, and retention of high quality police officers have become an even larger problem than in the past (Scrivner, 2006). The totality of the negative aspects of CompStat, combined with its wide and rapid adoption by agencies, could adversely affect the organizational health of police agencies; thereby, hindering recruitment efforts, increasing turnover rates, and exacerbating personnel shortages. While community-policing models may have diverted police organizations away from traditional, centralized decision-making and control, Compstat reportedly refines and reinforces the traditional, hierarchical structures of policing (Weisburd et al., 2008a, p. 12). Despite the overwhelming successes in reducing crime in hundreds of law enforcement organizations, CompStat has been heavily criticized for its top-down management style, reinforcement of internal bureaucratic processes, leadership by fear, and its failure to motivate officers (Eterno & Silverman, 2006). Weisburd et al. (2008)

5

posited that, although CompStat offers agencies the potential to improve their performance and the way they work, it reinforces the traditional hierarchical structures that have been under attack by scholars for more than 2 decades. Traditionally, police departments have relied heavily on highly detailed policies and procedures that clearly establish clear internal controls by chief executives (Weisburd et al., 2008a). Traditional supervisory systems have been strongly hierarchical and negative with a heavy reliance on sanctions for violations of policies and procedures (Weisburd et al., 2008b, p. 57). It is under this type of system that police agencies are likely to use negative supervision approaches to reinforce internal accountability (Weisburd et al., 2008b). Weisburd et al. (2008b) posited that it was the bureaucratic organizational model of traditional policing that came under attack as community policing and related policing models gained popularity. The goals established by CompStat agencies, in contrast to the goals set by community policing agencies, reveal the focus of the department and the chief executive. Research conducted by Weisburd et al. (2008b) indicated that agencies implementing CompStat had the primary goal of reducing serious crime. In the same research, the agencies implementing CompStat gave a much lower priority on improving the skills and morale of the police officers, which had been a higher priority for agencies implementing community policing. Eterno and Silverman explained that “reducing crime, as admirable as that is, is not the most critical goal of policing in democracies; it is incomplete. The most critical goal is to protect Constitutional rights while, at the same time, attempting to reduce crime” (p. 227). In comparing CompStat and community policing departments,

6

clear distinctions begin to emerge that place each of the models on opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to goals and priorities. Although CompStat has proven to be effective in reducing crime, there are many unanswered questions about CompStat. Despite the major advantages of crime reduction, the research has not demonstrated a theoretical foundation for explaining how CompStat operates nor the implications for the implementation of CompStat (Willis, Mastrofski, & Weisburd, 2007, p. 147). Walsh (2001) cautioned that the rush to adopt CompStat must be carefully considered because of the change process the organization must undertake to implement CompStat (p. 356). Before CompStat proliferation continues, the organizational effects, especially on the employees, must be researched and understood. The implications of the CompStat reform on the organizational health of police organizations have not been adequately explored or researched. As Walsh (2001) explained, it is only with testing and analysis that CompStat can be evaluated to determine if it is appropriate for the future of American policing (p. 359). This research study was conducted to determine the impact of the CompStat management paradigm on the organizational health of police organizations. Statement of the Problem The problem addressed by this study involved understanding how the CompStat management paradigm affected the organizational health of police organizations. Currently, many U.S. police organizations are using the CompStat management model. Critics of CompStat have argued that the CompStat paradigm reinforces traditional leadership model characteristics, which are adverse to a healthy organization. The reinforcement of traditional leadership model characteristics is a problem that affects

7

police organizations because traditional leadership characteristics have proven adverse to organizational health (Eterno & Silverman, 2006; Weisburd et al., 2008a, 2008b). In contrast, servant-led leadership characteristics have proven optimal to organizational health (Bass & Bass, 1974/2009; Haberfeld, 2006; Laub, 1999; Ledbetter, 2003). Possible factors contributing to adverse organizational health conditions within CompStat departments may include a divergence between the elements of CompStat and the characteristics of a healthy organization, based on servant-led leadership practices. A knowledge gap was identified in the literature relating to the compatibility of the elements of CompStat and the characteristics of a healthy organization. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative study was to use servant leadership characteristics to examine the effect of the CompStat management style (independent variable) on the organizational health (dependent variable) of police departments. Using servant leadership characteristics, the goal of this research was to determine what impact the CompStat management style had on the organizational health of police departments. Research Questions The following questions guided this research study: 1. How does the CompStat management model affect the organizational health of police departments? 2. Can individual servant leadership characteristics emerge within police departments that utilize the CompStat management model? 3. How does the CompStat management model affect the overall job satisfaction rating in police departments?

8

Theoretical Framework The foundation of this study incorporated the characteristics of servant leadership and the elements of CompStat. This research built upon current research on servant leadership, law enforcement leadership, organizational health of law enforcement organizations, community policing and the CompStat management paradigm. Utilizing the characteristics of servant leadership, this study examined the organizational health of police departments that were using the CompStat management paradigm. The concept of servant leadership is not new. Robert Greenleaf first conceptualized servant leadership in his publication The Servant as Leader (1970/2008), and wrote, “The servant-leader is servant first” (p. 15). Servant leadership research and implementation have only recently gained momentum, indicating that there is a growing interest in servant leadership. Laub (1999) posited that there are six characteristics of servant leadership: Values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. The presence, or absence, of these characteristics in police organizations will serve as the foundation of research for determining the organizational health of police organizations that utilize the CompStat paradigm. Law enforcement leaders and researchers have hailed CompStat as a truly revolutionary police management method that gets results by reducing crime, increasing police effectiveness, and addressing community disorder (Henry, 2002/2003). CompStat has proven highly effective in addressing crime and disorder in hundreds of law enforcement organizations. The major components of CompStat include four principles: accurate and timely information, effective tactics, rapid deployment of personnel and

9

resources, and relentless follow up and assessment. When implementing the CompStat principles, Weisburd et al. (2008b) posited that six key elements emerge that include mission clarification, internal accountability, geographic organization of command, organizational flexibility, data driven problem identification and assessment, and innovative problem solving. If American law enforcement strives to address crime and disorder while also enhancing organizational health, the divergence of the characteristics of a healthy organization and the elements of CompStat raise an interesting challenge within the law enforcement profession. Servant leadership places the needs of the individual within the organization over the needs and successes of the organization (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). CompStat, on the other hand, places the needs and successes of the organization over the needs of the individual (Weisburd et al., 2008b). This study will investigate whether, despite this dichotomy, if it would be possible for CompStat departments to emerge as healthy organizations based on the characteristics of servant leadership. Scope of the Study According to Reaves (2007), the United States has 17,876 state and local law enforcement agencies. In 2004, local police departments employed the largest number of sworn officer, which represented 61% of the nation‟s law enforcement officers (Reaves, 2007, p. 1). The research study included six police departments from the state of Georgia. Assumptions The research study had the following assumptions:

10

1. All departments that self reported to have implemented CompStat had implemented CompStat and all four of the CompStat principles. 2. No departments that self reported to have adopted a community-policing philosophy had adopted the CompStat management model or any of the CompStat principles. 3. Laub‟s Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) instrument was a valid and reliable instrument for determining and measuring organizational health of police departments. Limitations The proposed research study had the following limitations: 1. Law enforcement organizations not identified as county or municipal police departments were not part of the proposed research study. 2. The Office of Sheriff was not part of the research study. 3. Police departments that did not self report as CompStat or community- oriented policing organizations were not part of the research study. Delimitations The research study had the following delimitations: 1. The participating departments and the individual participant‟s awareness and or understanding of servant leadership and its characteristics were not central to the research study. 2. There was no available measurement to determine the intensity level of the implementation of the CompStat principles; therefore, there were

11

immeasurable variations for the degree of implementation for each of the CompStat principles between all participating CompStat departments. 3. There was no available measurement to determine the intensity level or degree of the implementation of community-oriented policing; therefore, there were immeasurable variations for the degree of implementation of community- oriented policing goals, projects, and philosophies. 4. Public perceptions regarding servant leadership and an executive‟s responsibility to hold his/her department accountable for controlling crime were not evaluated as part of this research study. 5. Public desires regarding local policing practice (i.e., crime control vs. community policing) were not evaluated as part of this research study. Significance of the Study The CompStat management paradigm has been hailed as a truly revolutionary management method for police managers that get results by reducing crime, increasing police effectiveness, and addressing community disorder (Henry, 2002/2003). Despite the overwhelming successes of CompStat in hundreds of law enforcement organizations, CompStat has been heavily criticized. According to Eterno and Silverman (2006), criticisms of CompStat include its top-down management style, reinforcement of internal bureaucratic processes, leadership by fear, and failure to motivate officers. A gap emerged in the literature relating to the compatibility of the elements of CompStat and the characteristics of a healthy organization. This study has added additional knowledge to fill the identified knowledge gap. This study has far-reaching implications for American police agencies and the communities that those agencies serve

12

because it addresses the fundamental needs of the law enforcement officers within police organizations. The findings of this research have significant implications for social change relating to the improvement of America‟s police organizations by balancing out the needs to control and reduce crime while also promoting the dignity, worth, value, and development of America‟s law enforcement officers. Definitions of Terms CompStat: “CompStat is a goal-oriented strategic management process that uses technology, operational strategy, and managerial accountability to structure the delivery of police services and provide safety to communities” (Walsh, 2001, pg. 347). Healthy organization: “The healthy organization is an organization in which the characteristics of servant leadership are displayed in the organizational culture and are valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce” (Laub, 2003, p. 12). Servant-leadership: The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. (Greenleaf, 1970/2008, p. 15) Summary CompStat has been proven both effective and efficient in addressing crime and disorder; however, the traditional managerial processes of CompStat have proven adverse

13

to organizational health. As the proliferation of CompStat continues throughout American law enforcement organizations, CompStat‟s impact on organizational health remains in question. A knowledge gap emerged in the literature relating to the compatibility of the elements of CompStat and the characteristics of a healthy organization. This quantitative study examined the impact of the CompStat management paradigm on the organizational health of police departments. The administration of the OLA survey, as developed by Laub (1999), determined the organizational health of CompStat and non-CompStat (community-oriented) police departments. The OLA examination of police departments also determined the leadership style that was present, organizational health, the presence, or absence, of servant leadership characteristics, and job satisfaction ratings. A review of the scholarly literature provided an in depth, critical review of American policing, CompStat, and servant leadership.

14

Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction The purpose of this quantitative study was to use servant leadership characteristics to examine the effect of the CompStat management style (independent variable) on the organizational health (dependent variable) of police organizations. This literature review represents an overview of the history of American policing, its development, organizational structure, and in depth examination of the most common policing strategies. An understanding of this historical background provides a foundation for the readers‟ understanding of the complexities and challenges facing American law enforcement leaders. Central to this literature review, both the CompStat management model and the characteristics of a healthy organization, based on servant-led leadership, are examined. To conduct the literature review, a search for the most relevant literature to this research topic was undertaken. This search included a review of peer reviewed journals, websites, and books. Reference lists from scholarly texts and dissertations were utilized to help direct the literature review to the most relevant and current sources. Online databases were also utilized, to include databases through the Walden University Library, ProQuest Central, and Academic Search Premiere. The areas of focus and search terms for this study included: police, law enforcement, CompStat, community policing, servant leadership, organizational health, and leadership. Policing in a Democracy Policing in a democratic society carries with it a unique power and duty that is different from that found in a totalitarian government. The differences between policing

15

in a totalitarian versus democratic society are many; however, differences in the policing of these societies are rooted in whom the police serve and how they carry out that service. Thurman, Zhao, and Giacomazzi (2001) differentiated these two forms of policing in that totalitarian governments enforce laws ensuring protection of the government while democratic governments enforce laws ensuring protection of its citizens (p. 20). The differences between these two types of governments have created distinctly different policing ideologies (p. 22). Although addressed in different manners, these differing policing ideologies are joined by the fact that policing involves power, authority, and the potential for the restriction of freedom (Thurman et al., 2001, p. 22). In the United States, where the executive branch of the government oversees law enforcement, the police are granted civil authority by the majority of people over the dissent of individuals (Reiman, 1990). Therefore, it is the cornerstone of democratic policing that the police get their power from the people, not the ruling elite. According to Meese and Ortmeier (2004), it is within the framework of democratic policing that the police are granted considerable powers of discretion in carrying out their mission. In the United States, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments broadly govern, yet limit the activities of the criminal justice system. The Bill of Rights and the U. S. Constitution highlight the challenges to maintain and enforce the laws while also protecting individual liberties for all persons (Thurman et al., 2001, p. 21) Democratic policing can be a burdensome undertaking, considering the conflicting roles of the police, their use of power, and their mission of providing public safety services to a free and democratic society. The American policing system, however,

16

has evolved to meet those burdens and challenges by using strategies that allow the police to balance power and their mission. With a foundation rooted in democratic values and principles, American policing has been in a continuous state of evolution. History of American Policing American policing has its historical roots strongly grounded in English history. The history and development of American policing, in structure, organization, and service delivery, closely parallels that of the English model as first envisioned by Sir Robert Peele (Gaines & Kappeler, 1994/2003). During the last 160 years, there has been great change in American law enforcement. According to Thurman et al., (2001), the changes in American law enforcement are recognized in three eras: the political era, the professional era, and the community era. The Political Era The first era of American law enforcement began in the mid 1800s when cities began establishing full time police departments (Gaines & Kappeler, 1994/2003). Most police scholars recognize the American policing political era as lasting from 1840 until about 1920 (Gaines & Kappeler, 1994/2003; Roberg et al., 2002). According to Roberg et al. (2002), this era earned its name from the fact that politicians had a major role in law enforcement operations and controlled every aspect of the nation‟s first police organizations, chiefs, and officers. In the political era, the policing environment focused on keeping the ruling political party in power, which often resulted in mass corruption of local police organizations (Gaines & Kappeler, 1994/2003). In one such example, in the New York Police Department, rather than trying to stop prostitution and gambling, police officers

Full document contains 195 pages
Abstract: Law enforcement leaders and researchers have hailed CompStat as a truly revolutionary police management method. Researchers have found that the CompStat management model is highly effective in reducing crime, increasing police effectiveness, and addressing community disorder, but unlike the community policing model, has been heavily criticized for its top-down management style, reinforcement of internal bureaucratic processes, leadership by fear, and its failure to motivate officers. The purpose of this study was to use servant leadership characteristics to examine the effect of the CompStat management model on police departments by assessing organizational health, perceptions of servant leadership characteristics, and overall job satisfaction ratings of police department employees. Using the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey, data were obtained from both CompStat and non-CompStat police department employees ( N =466). Point biserial correlation analyses found no statistically significant relationships between department type (CompStat and those that are not CompStat) and organizational health, individual servant leadership characteristics, and job satisfaction ratings. This study concludes that CompStat does not have an adverse effect on the organizational health of police departments, which is an important finding for police leaders, scholars, and researchers. This research has significant implications for social change relating to the improvement of America's law enforcement organizations by balancing out the needs to control and reduce crime while also promoting the dignity, worth, value, and development of America's law enforcement officers and the organizations in which they serve.