{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014192139737991267, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.1640625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rethinking the Compstat process to enhance problem-solving responses: insights from a randomized field experiment

Compstat is an important administrative innovation in policing that provides a much-needed mechanism for holding mid-level managers accountable for controlling crime rates. Research evidence suggests that Compstat is more likely to generate reactive crime control responses rather than more creative problem-solving responses. A randomized field experiment in Lowell, Massachusetts found that ‘problem-solving meetings’ produced more innovative responses to crime problems and generated stronger crime control gains when compared to the Compstat process. Analysis of qualitative data collected to monitor the implementation of the experiment revealed that important differences in meeting dynamics were associated with observed differences and suggests promising avenues to improve Compstat processes.