This document discusses adapting the COMPSTAT model of disorder management, originally developed by the NYPD, to a small residential college campus. The COMPSTAT model involves weekly meetings where data on crimes and issues is analyzed and departments collaborate on responses. At Susquehanna University, they formalized this process as "ResStat" meetings, involving departments like public safety, residence life, and facilities. Data shows enhanced collaboration, improved efficiency, and reduced crime, disorder, and costs since implementing ResStat.

1. Adapting the COMPSTAT
Model of Disorder
Management to the Small
Residential College Campus
Presented by:
D. Eric Lassahn
&
Thomas A. Rambo
March 29, 2009

2. Objectives:
 Become familiar with the COMPSTAT model of
disorder management and how it can be applied on a
small residential campus.
 Gain exposure to a model for effective collaboration
between various departments on and off campus.
 Discuss how accountability plays a role in program.
 Understand how outcomes can be measured and
assessed.

3. Adapting the COMPSTAT Model
of Disorder Management to the
Small Residential College Campus
Featured in the books “Fixing Broken Windows” and “The
Tipping Point”
Theory based on addressing small details in an effort to
prevent larger problems.
Susquehanna University formalized process in Spring 2006.

4. Brief History
 COMPSTAT is a management process for crime
analysis.
 Developed by the New York City Police Department in
1998.
 Information collected and analyzed in a way that allows
police to better inform their efforts and focus
resources.
 A goal is to have the highest impact on the reduction of
crime and disorder.

5. Law Enforcement Application
 Statistical information is the basis for weekly
meetings where management team plan and
coordinate efforts.
 Data reveals “Hot Spots” for serious crime and other
quality of life issues.
 District leaders responsible for tactical plans to
combat issues.

6. COMPSTAT Adaptation at
Susquehanna University
 Street crime and disorder low.
 Most incidents occurring in residence halls.
 Need to address vandalisms, thefts, alcohol issues.
 Public Safety, Residence Life, Facilities
Management, Campus Activities, Student
Conduct all addressing issues on individual
basis.
 Weekly meetings to collaborate responses based on
data. Reporting on results.
 ResStat is born.

7. Organization of Meetings
 A leader or facilitator of the process is key.
 Representatives from stakeholder departments
have decision making authority.
 Meetings are formal and minutes are taken.

8. Who Attends?
On-Campus Stakeholders
 Public Safety
 Residence Life
 Facilities Management
 Student Conduct
 Campus Activities
 Counseling Center
 Greek Life
 Multicultural Affairs

9. Who Attends?
Off-Campus Stakeholders
 Local Police and/or Fire Departments
 Town-Gown Representatives
 Chamber of Commerce Representatives

10. Meetings
 A representative from every area may not be
required at every meeting.
 Issues of confidentiality are considered.
 Tempo is upbeat.
 Topics are focused.

11. Accountability
 Participants report back on actions taken and are
responsible for follow-up.
All departments provide appropriate support for issues
addressed in meetings.
 Collaboration and information sharing is critical to
achievement of desired results.
 Each department is responsible for results.
 Personnel evaluation issues may be noted for continued
lackluster performance.

12. Results
Summary of trends
 Enhanced collaboration
 Improved efficiency
 Reduction in crime and disorder
 Cost to institution reduced
 Satisfaction of community
 Improved morale

13. Incidents in Residence Halls Reported to DPS
250
200
150
Residence Hall
Incidents
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008

14. Disciplinary Incidents Reported to DPS
300
250
200
150 Disciplinary
Incidents
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008

15. Part 1 Crimes Reported to DPS
39
38
37
36
35
Part I Crimes
34
33
32
31
2005 2006 2007 2008

16. Part I & II Crimes Reported
60
58
56
54
Total Offenses
52
50
48
2005 2006 2007 2008

17. Fall Damage Costs
$16,000.00
$14,000.00
$12,000.00
$10,000.00
Total Damages
Cost
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
Attributable Damages
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008
Year

18. Spring Damage Costs
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
Total Damages
Cost
$10,000.00
Attributable
Damages
$5,000.00
$0.00
2006 2007 2008
Year

19. Conclusion
 Susquehanna University has experienced some success
with this process.
 This process should supplement what is already done
on a daily basis.
 Campus environment may change.
 Some institutions may experience resistance to
participation.