Law enforcement accreditation

Material Information

Law enforcement accreditation an effort to professionalize American law enforcement
Williams, Gerald L ( Gerald Lee )
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xii, 176 leaves : illustrations ;

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Doctor of Public Administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public administration


Subjects / Keywords:
Law enforcement -- Accreditation -- United States ( lcsh )
Law enforcement -- Standards -- United States ( lcsh )
Police professionalization -- United States ( lcsh )
Law enforcement -- Accreditation ( fast )
Law enforcement -- Standards ( fast )
Police professionalization ( fast )
United States ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-141).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gerald L. Williams.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
25405933 ( OCLC )
HV8141 .W54 1988a ( lcc )

Full Text
Gerald L. Williams
B.A., Metropolitan State College, 1974
M.C.J., University of Colorado at Denver, 1978
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Public Administration
Graduate School of Public Affairs

This thesis for the Doctor of Public Administration
degree by
Gerald L. Williams
has been approved for the
Graduate School
of Public Affairs

Williams, Gerald L. (D.P.A., Public Administration)
Law Enforcement Accreditation: An Effort to Professionalize
American Law Enforcement
Thesis directed by Professor Mark Pogrebin
This study proposes to survey and measure the success of the
national effort of law enforcement accreditation. If improvement
via accreditation is observed, the Commission, through mandating an
in-depth organizational self-analysis and required compliance with
nationally developed standards, will be addressing two of the major
prerequisites of organizational professionalization. Law
enforcement accreditation began in 1979 with the creation of the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. At that
time four national organizations, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Organization for Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the National Sheriff's Association
(NSA), and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), met and
formed the accreditation committee. Their main goals were to
develop standards for law enforcement administration and operations
and to make those standards available to the law enforcement field
through a voluntary accreditation program. The 9^ standards that
were developed three and one-half years later, while dealing with
all aspects of law enforcement, included four goals;
1) increase agency capability to prevent and control crime,

2) enhance agency effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery
of law enforcement services,
3) improve cooperation and coordination with other law enforce-
ment agencies and with other components of the criminal
justice system, and
4) increase citizen and employee confidence in the goals,
objectives, policies and practices of the agencies.
Through December 31, 1986, 42 law enforcement agencies have
been granted accreditation through the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies. Additionally, over four hundred
agencies are in the process of compliance with the 944 standards for
accreditation. The overall intent of this dissertation will be to
evaluate changes that occurred in the 42 law enforcement agencies
granted formal accreditation by the National Commission on Law
Enforcement Accreditation as of December 31, 1986.
This task was accomplished through a questionnaire that was
administered to these 42 law enforcement agencies. The question-
naire was directed to the chief executive of each organization, the
purpose was to focus the assessment in each organization at the
department head level.
The questionnaire evaluated several areas, attempting to
measure impacts of the accreditation process. These impact
questions were in the areas of overall agency role with regard to
goals and objectives and employee involvement.
The questions then were directed to the areas of deadly
force, pursuit policies, and the collection and preservation of

The final section contained questions intended to seek
information again from the chief executive regarding changes he
would want to see in the process, what benefits if any does he view
as being a result of the process, what were the costs and will he
seek re-accreditation at the end of the initial five year period of
accreditation, and if so, why. Finally, several questions were
asked regarding the success of accreditation from an organizational,
employee, and a community perspective.
The results of this study should provide valuable informa-
tion to police organizations currently in the process of seeking
compliance with the standards established by the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and for the thousands of
other police organizations currently considering whether or not the
effort, time, and money required by the process are in fact
With regard to the academic notion of professionalism this
study if supported by the findings will address two of the major
components that are necessary for organizational acceptance as a
professional organization. Those components are a critical self-
analysis and compliance with universalistic developed standards.
'acuity member lfltcnarge or thesis

The cooperation, assistance and counsel of a number of
faculty members, professional associates and friends were invaluable
in the development of this thesis, the sincere appreciation of the
researcher is extended to each of them.
Dr. Mark Pogrebin, Masters Major Professor, and now Faculty
Member in Charge of this thesis committee. Dr. Pogrebin, this
researchers academic mentor, provided guidance, counsel, and most
important, friendship during the past 11 years. I'll always be
thankful for our association and friendship.
Dr. Eric Poole, Dr. Dail Neugarten and Dave Thomas have
always been there, their ideas are reflected in what appears here.
Their academic counsel, guidance, and direction provided invaluable
assistance during this undertaking.
To my closest friend in graduate school, Dr. Allison Hall,
who through her own perseverance was a motivator for me. Her
encouragement and support were more than just helpful.
The staff for the Commission on Law Enforcement
Accreditation are deserving of my sincere thanks. Ken Medeiros,
Executive Director, Richard Kitterman, Jr., and Frank Leahy, Jr.,
both Assistant Directors, have all been of great support with their
ideas and suggestions.
Others have helped: Dale Harris and his computer talents,
Sharon Larson and her word processor. Thank you.

The Chair of the Doctoral Program, Dr. Sam Overman. He was
there and was very supportive.
Finally, to the people who have put up with the project for
well over a year, Shirley, Travis and Joshua. Thank you for your
understanding and love over these past troublesome months. This
thesis is dedicated to the three of you.

Police Professionalization.............................3
National Commissions...................................7
Professionalism The Dilemma. .,.................... 8
Purpose of This Dissertation...........................9
LITERARY SURVEY..........................................16
Police Professionalism................................19
Professionalism Barriers to Acceptance................20
Professionalism Defined...............................24
Reform Movements......................................25
Contemporary Police Efforts Toward
National Commission............................... 32
Law Enforcement Accreditation.........................34
Accreditation Research Efforts........................40
Questionnaire Design..................................58

The Questionnaire
Survey Procedure.......................................61
Coding System..........................................62
Additional Data........................................63
Created Fields.........................................64
Response Rate..........................................66
Questionnaire Introduction Findings....................66
Law Enforcement Agency Role............................76
Deadly Force...........................................81
Police Pursuit Policies................................87
Collection and Preservation of Evidence................92
Value of Accreditation.................................97
Changes in the Process................................104
Greatest Benefit......................................106
Accreditation Costs...................................107
Time and Personnel....................................121
Agency Role........................................-..124
Deadly Force..........................................125
Police Pursuit Policy.................................126

Collection and Preservation of Evidence..............126
Value of Accreditation.....,, *......................127
A. QUESTIONNAIRE..................................... 143

4 1 Respondents by Class and Population......................67
4-2 Time in Acreditation Process..............................69
4-3 Accreditation Manager and FTE Time Commitment.............71
4-4 Prior Written Policies and Procedures.....................72
4-5 Additional Written Directives Prior to Accreditation...74
4-6 Law Enforcement Agency Role...............................77
4-7 Benefit of Written. Goals and Objectives..................79
4-8 Liabilities of Written Goals and Objectives...............81
4-9 Use of Deadly Force....................................84
4-10 Use of Deadly Force - Liabilities......................85
4-11 Use of Deadly Force - Benefits.........................86
4-12 Police Pursuit Policy..................................89
4-13 Police Pursuit Policy - Benefits.,.....................90
4-14 Police Pursuit Policy - Liabilities....................91
4-15 Collection and Preservation of Evidence..................93
4-16 Collection and Preservation of Evidence Liabilities..95
4-17 Collection and Preservation of Evidence Benefits......96
4-18 Agency Change Based Upon Accreditation...................97
4-19 Value of Accreditation to Agency........................100
4-20 Value of Accreditation to Employees.....................101
4-21 Value of Accreditation to Community.....................103
4-22 Changes Suggested to Accreditation Process..............105

4-23 Greatest Benefit from Accreditation...................106
4-24 Accreditation Fees....................................108
4-25 Cost of Accreditation.................................109
4-26 Agencies Who Will Seek Re-Accreditation...............111
4- 27 Reasons for Seeking Re-Accreditation..................112
5- 28 Cost of Accreditation Departments with
Populations Between 100,000 and 200,000............123

In a time of rising crime and violence, racial conflict,
social unrest and the politics of protest and confrontation, the
police have achieved a new visibility. After decades of public
neglect, the vital role of the police in society is demonstrated
daily in the nation's press. Concerned citizens, public officials,
and national commissions testify to the heavy responsibility borne
by the police and the serious consequences which may result when
they are unable to meet those responsibilities.1 Yet, concurrent
with the increasing attention paid to police, is a widespread
misunderstanding of their role. Many Americans view the police as
solely responsible for controlling crime. Others fail to recognize
that law enforcement is an occupation demanding a high order of
skill and intelligence. This misunderstanding contributes in many
ways to the problems of the police. It explains the stereotype of
the "dumb cop." This stereotype is reinforced by the memory of many
adults who recall the days when any able-bodied man with the proper
political allegiance could find a place on the force. American
society is only a few decades away from the time when immigrants,
denied employment in the skilled trades, found the urban police
force one of the few open avenues to cultural assimilation. The
assumption that anyone with a strong back and weak mind could become
a police officer is reflected in the relatively low rating of the

police compared with other professions in national surveys of
occupational prestige. Police rank 47th on a list of 90
occupations.^ Another element in current attitudes is the fear of a
strong police force, a fear deeply ingrained in the national
psychology and a major influence in the historical development of
our fragmented police system. Fear and distrust of governmental
authority are reinforced by strong cultural values emphasizing
individual freedom. The police remain as the most visible symbol of
the limitations imposed on the individual.
If there is a single point on which the police and their
critics might agree, it is that reform of the police through
professionalism is the principle means by which the police can be
made more effective, more efficient,, and more accountable to the
A growing number of police executives believe that we are
approaching a new era in policing. The days of maintaining past
practices are disappearing. The pressures both internally as well
as externally are building. These pressures will force a
fundamental reassessment of policing as we approach the twenty-first
The future can be different. Police leaders can be an
influential force in the twenty-first century. To survive, to
update their craft they need to increase their use and direct
involvement in applied research. Today, the police need to do far
more than call themselves professionals*

Police Professionalism
Lack of professionalism contributes to the extensive
misinformation and information voids that permeate and
impede police administration today. In everyday usage,
professionalism means "professional quality and status";
professional means "characterized by or conforming to the
technical and ethical standards of a profession"; and
profession means "a calling requiring specialized knowledge
and often long and intensive academic training".
Policing in America at any level does not meet the test of
any of these definitions. Ideally it should satisfy all of them,
and as we move toward the new era of policing, managers should view
reform with these definitions as goals.^
Mayo (1985) states that the wide chasm between the need for
professionalism and the realities of police management in America
today has an undesirable ripple effect throughout the administration
and operations of a police department. This ripple can be
characterized as a lack of a philosophy of policing to guide police
chiefs. It is difficult if not impossible to measure progress
toward unclear or non-existent organizational goal3, and any problem
analysis requires an understanding of the sense of purpose or the
"why" of the goal.^
Perhaps more detrimental than the lack of a clear sense of
delegation and a state of philosophy or a body of theory to base
decisions on is the misdirection that has occurred under the guise
of professionalism. Mayo describes this distortion by first
discussing 0. W. Wilson who was viewed by many as the primary early
leader for professional police. Wilson's model was one of

. . narrow spans of control, a rigid chain of
command, the sanctity of written pronouncements on a wide
variety of subjects, specialization of tasks, carefully
controlled delegation of authority and responsibility, and
the close supervision of the troops in the fields . .
Within this framework, police officers would ultimately
reach the pinnacle of professionalization by doing
precisely what they were told to do by their commanding
officers ... It is narrow in the extreme, and has actually
retarded professionalization by fostering an administrative
attitude that the rank and file police officers are not to
be trusted.
Mayo (1985) characterized Wilsons conception of police
excellence as involving far more changes in form than substance and
quite frankly Mayo states an attractive looking police department is
not necessarily a professional one.
The legalistic form of policing, espoused by James Q. Wilson
(1970), persists today as the primary form of policing in the United
To the extent that a chief prefers a different style of
policing and a different organization structure, such as
Wilsons (1970) service style, embodied in neighborhood
team policing, his efforts to introduce the new mode in his
agency will be like "bending granite," as Guyot (1979) so
artfully depicted as the task of attempting to change the
military rank structure of police agencies.'2
The service model of policing, with its focus on responsive-
ness and involvement of community, an emphasis on participatory
management and its acknowledgment and acceptance of police
discretion, is quite frankly the antithesis of the legalistic model
1 q
and has the potential to evolve into a true professional model. J
While many police chiefs and sheriffs want to consider a
change from the traditional legalistic model to the service model
with its potential for success as a true professional model, there

currently exists a rather serious problem. Unfortunately, there is
no orderly, efficient progression from the legalistic to the service
It appears from the track record of those who have tried,
the transition period may be quite lengthy. During this transition
period which may last many years (especially in the very larger,
traditional, unionized departments,) the agencies very likely will
be 'schizophrenic" in staffing, operations, policy, and related
monitoring systems designed to inform the police chief. There may
not be a clear indication of which style of policing is controlling
the organization during the majority of this transitional period.
The result is confusion and conflict both within the police
department and in its interaction with other government agencies as
well as with the public. The road toward professionalism is
difficult and potentially hazardous.
Though some police administrators argue that their police
officers are professionals, one can argue that their claim is not
valid. The police are not independent professionals like doctors
and lawyers, and there is substantial doubt that their claim to
expertise underpin a professional police.
Police work is based on an ideal of service, but their
autonomy has less to do with acknowledged professional
status than with contemporary structure of municipal
As Michael Brown points out in his text, Working the Street,
The modern police are closed to Amos Perlmutter's
concept of "corporate professional." Corporate
professionalism is based on a fusion between the
professional and the bureaucrat. A fusion between group

exclusitivity and managerial responsibility.
The label applied is less important than the quality of
police work. Nevertheless, some writers will not apply the term
profession to policing. Bittner (1984) for example, says police
work is treated by its practitioners more a3 an adventure than a
craft. Etzioni (1961) is a bit more lenient calling law enforcement
a "semi-profession."^
The concept of professionalism within American policing
seems particularly appropriate today as we seek answers to the issue
of corruption within American policing. Professionalization is
basically an argument for certain kinds of control over police
behavior. Certain behaviors are regarded by the public or some
segment of the public as unacceptable and professionalization is
then proposed as a means of controlling police conduct so as to
preclude these unacceptable behaviors. This solution is chosen
because apparently the reformers are well aware of the phenomenon of
police solidarity which underlines what James Q. Wilson calls the
"code of the system" (1963).
Professionalization is seen as a solution to these control
problems because it prescribes an externally based but directly
competing code and requires personnel who adhere to that new code
rather than to the internal controls of that system. The process
of imposing these controls is the process of professionalization
which produces a set of role perceptions such that their job related
behaviors are deemed acceptable or unacceptable in reference to the
values and constraints inherent in their professional code.

Consequently, the argument concludes the outcome of
professionalization will be acceptable behaviors. 3 Professional
roles then are imposed to counteract police commitment to
unacceptable job related behaviors with the hope of establishing a
set of acceptable role perceptions and behaviors that the officers
will internalize.
National Commissions
In his article Setting the Standards, Walker (1985) argues
that blue ribbon commissions are in part established as a means to
define minimum standards of professional competence. In American
policing between 1963 and 1973, three major commissions studied the
police, each producing a report with specific recommendations.
These commissions were:
- President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice, 1968
- American Bar Association, 1973, 1980
- National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
Goals, 1973
Today these three reports still serve as basic references when
police reforms are discussed. The most recent study was published
when the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
released its set of minimum standards in 1983.^
Walker- (1985) states that the most important impact of the
first three reports has been in the conceptual area.

Together, they have given authoritative endorsement and
publicity to new ideas about policing. Goldstein (1983)
observed that the notion that police have a complex and
multi-dimensional role today pervades the literature.
Similarly, it is now generally recognized that police
officers routinely exercise discretion and that these
decisions constitute the making of social policy. 4
Walker (1985) goes on to state that while administrative
controls over police discretion have grown, it is still difficult to
assess this situation with precision.
A large and detailed procedure manual is currently the
norm in American policing, at least among the large (300+
officers) departments. Yet these manuals tend to over-
emphasize internal regulations (wearing of hats while on
duty or protocol for addressing superior officers) rather
than practices relating to police-citizen contacts. The
most notable progress has occurred with respect to deadly
force policy (Gelier, 1982; Geller and Karales, 1981a,
1981b; Milton et. al., 1977). But there has been only
spotty progress in terms of controlling officer discretion
in a general arrest situation.
The idea of law enforcement accreditation grew out of the
work of these three blue ribbon commissions, Walker (1985). The
National Advisory Commission (1973) noted the absence of a document
to which a police administrator can refer to in order to establish
and maintain an effective police agency.
Professionalism The Dilemma
The issue being considered is that of professionalism, the
application of the concept in law enforcement in the United States.
The police desire to be perceived as professionals. The
public would like their police to be considered professional. The
question then becomes one of which definition should be applied? Do
we use the definition of 0. W. Wilson? Or do we take James Q.

Wilson's legalistic model? Today, as some police departments move
toward a service model, are those departments on the right track?
The American College of Surgeons was organized in November
of 1912 in an attempt to standardize and organize the practice of
surgery.^ As a first step toward a professional police, do the
police need to standardize and organize police services? Do the
citizens of Greensboro, North Carolina, deserve the same type of
police services that the citizens of Lakewood, Colorado receive?
Should there be an expectation of consistent levels of policing in
such areas as the use of deadly force or police chase policies?
Should police departments define their organizational structure and
In the literature chapter of this dissertation the reader
can find several different definitions of what police
professionalism should be and what it currently is not.
The police in a general sense will continue to speak of
professionalization and wanting to be more professional. The
communities of this country will also want, even to a greater
degree, a more professional police force for their town, or their
city. Can regulation through an accreditation process which assures
that basic standards of quality and consistency are maintained be a
step in the right direction?
Purpose of This Dissertation
The purpose of this study is to measure a national effort
toward standardization of the police role in our society.

The accreditation process itself is now ten years in the
making, and yet no one has evaluated whether or not it is working.
The accreditation movement was initiated in 1970 and again
in 1976 when the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP) submitted proposals to the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA) requesting funds to develop a comprehensive
set of standards. Both of these requests were denied. The present
Commission on Accreditation was established by a 1979 LEAA grant to
the IACP and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE), the National Sheriffs Association (USA), and
the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).^
Three and one-half years were devoted to launching the
accreditation process. The initial phases involved drafting and
revising standards that addressed all aspects of policing. The
standards were then field tested in several agencies of different
sizes throughout the country. The Commission on Accreditation for
Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) began accepting applications from
agencies seeking accreditation on October 1, 1983. In the first
month, 33 applications were submitted and within the first year, 175
agencies had formally begun the process. *
As of January 1, 1986, M2 agencies had been granted
accredited status. It is these M2 agencies, and the assessment of
their chief executives, that has formed the basis of this study.
The chief executives were asked to evaluate the impact of the
accreditation process in the specific areas of organizational
direction, policies pertaining to use of deadly force, police

pursuit, and collection and preservation of evidence. The chief
executives were also asked to assess the overall value of
accreditation and whether their agency would seek re-accreditation
in five years. From the responses, it is the intent of this study
to evaluate the premise that through mandatory compliance with
minimum standards, the process of accreditation can improve law
enforcement. As a collateral issue, the movement for police
organizational professionalization will be examined. Will
accreditation, enhance the professional status of accredited law
enforcement agencies?
The questionnaire will seek specific data regarding the
strategies and policies used prior to that agency seeking
accreditation. These data will then be compared with the strategy
and policy changes, if any, that were made because of the
accreditation process. The goal is not to assess bottom-line
decreases in reported crime rates, but to address Goldstein's
premise that we currently need to "refocus on fundamentals"; to
shatter the myth that policing is made up of primarily crime
fighting strategies. Are these strategies and policies that are
being implemented in accredited departments directed towards current
progressive concepts in policing. Are we or can we become more of
an innovative, problem-oriented, community based police
organization? And if that is the case, what role does the police
chief feel that the accreditation process played in re-defining the
agencies' goals, policies and practices.
The process of accreditation is designed to encourage

administrators to bring greater coherence to the organizations
mission, objectives, and organizational structure. It is also
formulated to encourage administrators to communicate with other
police administrators and hopefully increase the interaction with
researchers in developing and implementing new policies. The
process should also enhance the police administrator's skill in
leadership and management by addressing not only cooperation and
coordination, but the specifics of a department goal statement and a
set of organizational objectives.
This study will seek to determine what types of
organizational goals and organizational objectives existed before
accreditation, if any. Then the data will be compared to the
outcome of the accreditation process in the areas of organizational
goals and objectives that have occurred based upon the accreditation
process. Special emphasis will be placed on how the administrator
developed these policies as the entire process is based upon
encouragement and suggestion rather than step-by-step guidelines and
encourage the administrator to develop a method for department input
and involvement in developing organizational goals and departmental
In a recently completed paper on professionalism among
police chiefs Regoli (1988) states that there is a tendency
in policing to assume that professionalization and professionalism
are synonymous. Their findings support a "loosely coupled
system." They found in their research of police chiefs a gap that
exists between a police departments formal and informal

structures. They went on to point to a weak structural link between
agency professionalizing criteria and professionalism, that the
mediator, if one existed, was the chief and the role he or she
played in the organization.
The issue in this study with regard to professionalization
is an organizational one. If accreditation does improve law
enforcement organizations in the impact areas selected, one can then
argue that two of the accepted organizational components of
professionalization have been addressed. Not that because of
accreditation a law enforcement organization is now professional,
but rather two of the requisites have been addressed. Those two are
a critical self-assessment or analysis and secondly that this
analysis or asessment was based upon universalistically developed
Accreditation on a national scale if it is successful
should, based upon its process, do something. This writer believes
that it does. Accreditation nationally moves those few law
enforcement organizations who successfully complete the process
closer to an accepted organizational structure of professionali-
zation. The data collected and analyzed in the research project
will address that relationship.

1. Charles B. Saunders, Upgrading the American Police, Critical
Issues in Law Enforcement, (Anderson Publishing Co., 1981), p.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p. 31.
4. Ibid.
5. James K. Stewart, "Research and the Police Administration:
Working Smarter Not Harder," ed., William A. Geller, Police
Leadership in America, Crisis and Opportunity, (Chicago, IL,
1985), p. 371.
6. Louis A. Mayo, "Leading Blindly: An Assessment of Chiefs
Information About Police Operations," ed., William A. Geller,
Police Leadership in America, Crisis and Opportunity, (Chicago,
IL, 1985), p. 397.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., p. 399.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p. 400.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., p. 401.
14. Ibid., p. 402
15. Michael K. Brown, Working the Street. (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1981), p. 40.
16. Ibid., p. 41.
17. Geller, William A., ed., Police Leadership in America, p. 351.
18. Susan 0. White, eds., Pogrebin and Regoli, A Perspective on
Police Professionalism: Police Administration Issues, (New
York: Associated Faculty Press, 1986), p. 222.

19. Ibid., p. 223
20. Ibid.
21. Samuel Walker, "Setting the Standards: The Efforts and Impact
of Blue-Ribbon Commissions on the Police", ea., William A.
Geller, Police Leadership in America, Crisis and Opportunity, p.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., p. 364.
25. Ibid., p. 365.
26. Ibid., p. 366.
27. Timothy S. Jost, Boston College Law Review, "The Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals: Private Regulations
of Health Care and the Public Interest", Volume XXIV, Number 4,
p. 847.
28. William A. Geller, ed., p. 367.
29. Ibid.
30. Robert M. Regoli, John P. Crank, Robert G. Culbertson, and Eric
D. Poole, Linkage Between Professionalization and
Professionalism Among Police Chiefs, "Journal of Criminal
Justice", Pergamon Press, New York, Volume 16, Number 2, p. 89.

During the past 40 years there have been many efforts
directed toward defining an agenda for police improvement. These
include the Wickersham Commission C1931) the Presidents Commission
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967), and the
National Advisory Commission on Standards and Goals for the Police
(1973). For the most part these reports, (rather than meeting a
classical definition of professionalism,) deal with upgrading the
American police in operational terms. Indeed, the answer to the
question of how well American police conform to the traditional
criteria of a profession seems much less relevant and much more
difficult to answer with specificity than detailing the efforts and
obstacles in recent years in the drive to upgrade the police.
According to Staufenberger (1977), selective indicators of police
improvement have a close relationship to traditional criteria of a
Policing in America encompasses approximately 500,000
persons scattered throughout some 17,500 public agencies. A few of
these agencies are relatively large (for example, the New York City
Police Department has nearly 30,000 members) yet the median
department in cities of more than 10,000 people has only 39

members. In fact, of 17,500 departments, 280 account for more than
60 percent of the total law enforcement personnel. Observers
suggest that the dispersal and relative small size of most police
agencies affect such things as salaries, training, career
development (and consequently, professionalism.) Whether this is a
fair observation or whether these observers are confusing
organization efficiency with professionalism is debatable, however
the wide variations in policing throughout thousands of departments
make it difficult to give an account of the state of the art of
policing.^ Staufenberger, in his article The Professionalism of
Police Efforts and Obstacles, gives an overview of some general
characteristics of American policing that are indicators of both
increasing professionalism and general police improvement. His
list, by his own admission, is not intended to be inclusive, but
rather selective.
First, Staufenberger cites the traditional organizational
arrangements of police departments as major obstacles to
professionalization. Military rank structure is the accepted
traditional mode of operation for most departments, but is contrary
to the admission of civilian personnel to policy making positions.
According to Staufenberger this severely limits discretion and
initiative in line officers, and restricts discretion at command
levels in hiring, especially in reference to lateral entry into
departments, all of which are cited by Staufenberger as necessary
for professionalism.
Another area in which police practices have changed and

improved radically is that of departmental orientation vis a vis the
community. Unfortunately, it was the urban riots of the 1960*s that
forced a reassessment of the highly centralized and mobile police
departments that had become faceless to the communities they served.
Professional police organizations are growing in strength
and number, each with a specific, and often limited constituency,
but none approach the traditional professional organizations, the
American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, in
efforts to establish and enforce national standards. However,
efforts in this vein seem to be overshadowed by the burgeoning
organized labor movements found in most departments today, and cited
by Staufenberger as considerable roadblocks to professionalism.
Additionally, Staufenberger recognizes the increase in
research into police related issues, i.e., equipment, personnel
issues, tactics, productivity and organization. The observation was
made that during the decade ending 1973 more research was done than
in the preceding 150 years. Much of this activity is the direct
result of increased federal spending in this area.
Finally, in the field of higher education, although there
are problems establishing a systematic body of knowledge, virtually
all studies cite better education, along with training and improved
selection procedures as elemental to improving police.
In conclusion, Staufenberger states, "The progress the
police have made during the last decade has to be encouraging even
to the most severe critics."1* On the plus side of the balance are
job-related selection procedures, stricter training and conduct

standards, a larger number of officers with post high school
education, increased research and the growth of professional
organizations established to upgrade police. However, this list is
counteracted by the negatives, including closed promotional systems,
lack of career mobility, limited career opportunities, and an
unhealthy pessimism that negatively affects research and change.
Police unions are an increasingly powerful force which presently are
not defined as definitely positive or negative. However, on the
whole Staufenberger is "cautiously optimistic regarding the future
of American policing."^
Police Professionalism
In 1965 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice began a comprehensive study of each
part of the criminal justice system. In its task force report
entitled "The Police," the Commission said that, "If the police want
professional recognition, they must afford professional status to
the sworn officer." Among the suggestions were that independent
judgment should be encouraged, technical criticism of existing
practices should be solicited, and unnecessary regimentation should
be removed. Ultimately, commissions have as their mandate lobbying
for reform in their area of investigation. The Presidents
Commission rightly recognized the appeal of professionalism as a
motivator to change. Why is professionalism so appealing to an
occupation so ill-equipped to meet its criteria in terms of
established structure, i.e. military rank structure, resistance to

change, that would be contrary to established professional
According to Price (1977) it has often been observed that
the middle class has become professionalized in part because middle
class persons are attracted to features of the professions such as
independence of judgment, esoteric knowledge, and immunity from
outside criticism. We all find comfort in believing that someone
has the answers, the unique skills for a job and a solution to a
problem. These attributes have in turn helped to accord high status
to the professions and to professionalism. Long before the momentum
for according prestige to any activity or occupation, professional
expertise was at its peak. Parsons states ...
"Comparative study on the social structures of the most
important civilizations show that the professions occupy a
position of importance in our society which is in any
comparable degree of development, unique in history.
Professionalism Barriers to Acceptance
Perhaps in part the confusion stems from a corrupt usage of
the term itself. "Professional" is used today to describe such
varied endevors as medical doctors, wide receivers, and
prostitutes. According to the American heritage Dictionary, the
word derives from the Latin "to declare publicly, to acknowledge, to
confess." Certainly many police today "declare publicly" that they
are professional however according to a more strict definition to be
used for the purpose of this study, they are not. There is a
tendency to assume that professionalization and professionalism are

synonymous. This project will focus on agency professionali-
zation. As Regoli (1988) found, the linkages between the two
can be characterized as a "loosely coupled system." We shall adopt
the definition of professional as one characterized by or conforming
to the technical and ethical standards of a profession, which
requires specialized knowledge, a critical self analysis, based upon
universalistic developed criteria and often long and intensive
academic training. The first reason the police fall short of a
profession is the lack of systematic knowledge available for
appropriation by the occupation. The vacuum is apparent and is
reflected in the limited evolution of police strategies and
formation of expertise. The second and third reasons are to be
found in structural aspects of the occupations; its bureaucratic
organization and the leadership structure.^ The absence of
sufficient systematic knowledge for occupational expertise was a
serious shortcoming in professionalization.
A prime characteristic of all professions is the
presence of a coherent body of theory which the occupation
oan claim as its own and which can be transmitted through a
lengthy training procedure. In 1929 Charles Merriam, a
professor of political science at the University of
Chicago, noted that profession standards of policing are
yet to be developed and that this is directly due to the
lack of scientific study of police.10
The second barrier is the bureaucratic structure of
police. In historical development, centralization is cited (Frice,
1977) as the principle organizing force in England and was
subsequently adopted as police developed in the United States.
Today, an elaborate bureaucratic model has been built around the

centralized structure. Among the many bureaucratic features of the
police department are rules, specialization of functions,
communication patterns, universalism, an elaborate control system of
rewards and punishment, and the civil service structure. The
development of a centralized command and the strict hierarchy of
control was no accident. The Metropolitan Police of London, the
historical model for American police, had been formed to respond to
civil chaos. Military discipline was imposed upon a civilian
militia-type organization as the strategy for obtaining
performance. It was the judgment of early police leaders, both in
England and America, that without strict supervision, there was no
guarantee that the patrolman would perform his duties.11
After the turn of the century, the rapid urbanization of the
young country increased workloads for police. Growth, mixed with
the American respect for efficiency meant that the bureaucratization
of police organizations proceeded rapidly in the early 1900s. In
an effort to become efficient administrators, and urged on by the
first criminal justice national commissions demands in 1931, to
become more competent administrators, strategies arose or were
strengthened that were exactly opposite to the professionalization
of the police and the occupation.
These were 1) militarized command which required strict
adherence to orders allowing only minimal individual
judgment, 2) increasing use of police policy manuals with
the expectation that universalism will prevail in the
application of these rules, and 3) civil service hiring
procedures that eliminated lateral mobility. Still another
strategy increased specialization of police function
contributed to organizational efficiency, but it limited
individual autonomy by precluding full service to the

client by each officer. Between 1930 and 1950 these four
sets of standards hardened into police doctrine. The new
dogma was effectively promoted by a Chicago superintendent
of police, 0. W. Wilson, in his book, Police Administration
(1950) which became the most widely used police text. The
theme stressed by Wilson was one of rational police
administration for greater efficiency. 2
If autonomy, internalized norms of behavior, and a sense of
commitment are essential to professionalism, then it is evident that
the bureaucratic model with its limitations on discretion is a
barrier to at least the one-to-one medical model of professionalism.
As Barbara Price points out in her book Police
Professionalism, discretion is one of the necessary elements of 11
professionalism, in that case decisions are made based on the
professionals special knowledge. Traditionally, police decisions
have been made according to rules established by a bureaucratic
method, and rigid departmental rules and regulations severely limit
an officer's discretion, and thereby his level of professionalism.
It has become a difficult task for police administrators to
encourage professionalism and initiative, while holding officers
accountable to established departmental regulations. J
The third barrier that has curtailed the professionalization
of the police is the internal leadership of the occupation.
Positions taken by police leadership, those who most often speak for
the occupation, have created obstacles to the police becoming
professionals (Goldstein, 1977). In conclusion, Price feels that
these three aspects of the police occupation provide major reasons
for the failure to professionalize; 1) a systematic theory and body
of knowledge lacking empirical, tested research on strategies, 2) an

organizational structure based on the bureaucratic which makes
difficult the development of professional values and behavior in its
members (especially discretion, autonomy, commitment, and responsi-
bility) and 3) a leadership with special interests and concerns that
do not always further professionalization of the occupation.
Professionalism Defined
We shall adopt the definition of professional as one
characterized by or conforming to the technical and ethical
standards of a profession, which requires specialized knowledge (a
critical self analysis of universalistic developed criteria) and
often long and intensive academic training.
According to Michael Brown,
professionalism as an attribute of an occupation and
its practitioners is based on three related elements.
Professionals are experts, they apply the results of
theoretical knowledge acquired during an extended period of
training to a specialized area of human endeavor and their
actions and decisions are presumably governed by
universalistic criteria. ^
Brown goes on to state that the authority of professionals
rests on the claim that they alone are qualified to apply a
particular body of knowledge. The second element of a profession is
a devotion to service. Professionals, unlike self-interested entre-
preneurs are expected to be devoted to an ideal of community service
rather than the attainment of material well-being. The relationship
between a professional and his client is to be governed by detach-
ment and "effective neutrality" and a professional's decisions are
to be based upon the client's best interests. Finally, all

professions claim autonomy from external controls of the pre-
supposition that professions, through a code of conduct and a close
scrutiny of a professional's conduct by his peers, are self-
controlling and that such autonomy is necessary for the application
of professional knowledge to human endeavors. Among professionals,
responsibility for one's actions is insured by a system of collegial
controls that differ from the hierarchial controls characteristic of
bureaucracies. One consequence of the autonomy of professionalism
is that they require an identity of themselves as a special group
set off from the rest of society, an identity frequently buttressed
with a professional ideology.10 Though the police might argue that
police professionalism is based on these attributes, this claim is
not entirely valid. The police are not entirely independent profes-
sionals like doctors and lawyers, and there is substantial doubt
about the claim to expertise that might underpin the professional
police. Police work is based on an ideal of service but their
autonomy has less to do with acknowledged professional status than
with contemporary structure of municipal government. 1
Reform Movements
Reform of the police was not really accomplished until after
World War II by a second generation of reformers the roots of
police professionalism are to be found in the progressive movement
at the turn of the century (Brown, 1981). This central value of the
progressive vision was efficiency. Efficiency was a way of
transcending politics for it offered an alternative to political

1 ft
conflict. Those progressives preoccupied with reforming the
police were concerned with separating the police from the
vicissitudes of machine politics, upgrading their personnel and
narrowing their responsibilities. These concerns were eventually
translated into a coherent vision of police professionalism by a
number of post World War II police administrators, among the most
prominent being 0. W. Wilson and William H. Parker. The link
between the progressives and the post war generation of police
1 Q
reformers as August Vollmer. 3
Professionalism presupposes a narrowing of the police
function from the polyglot range of activities 19th Century police
performed. For if the police were to have any claim at all to be
professionals, they first had to establish a claim to expertise.
Vollmer's solution to this problem was to insist that the role of
police in modern society is that of protecting society and crime
prevention. While Vollmer consistently stressed the need for the
police to adopt the most sophisticated technologies available to
fight crime, he also envisioned a clear preoccupation with order.
Though his comments are more veiled than William H. Parker who
viewed the police as the thin blue line between order and anarchy,
this preoccupation with order is linked to the idea that the police
are required not only to apprehend felons but also to prevent
crime. Vollmer never clearly indicates exactly what he meant by
prevention. But it includes the notion of deterrents and the idea
that the police must seek out crime. Vollmer simply believed that
once the police were professionalized, most other problems would be

minimized. In times of social strife and conflict this model did
not survive challenges to police authority. Reformers did not
remove politics from police work. They only moved it out of city
O 1
hall and into the police department.
Contemporary Police Efforts Toward Professionalization
By substituting formal legal and bureaucratic standards for
particular communities, a police force based upon a personal concept
of authority enhances participation of policemen in the society they
police. The crucial implication of this fact is, ironically,
double-edged. It clearly means that the police will reflect the
mores and prejudices of the community in the way they enforce the
law. In the United States this has been most apparent in the way
the law has been enforced among blacks. Police practice in these
minority areas was to under-enforce the law in the instance of an
offense committed by a black against another black. Thus, to the
extent that citizen and policeman are members of the same community
and share common values, the former gains some informal control over
the actions of the latter. This is precisely the kind of control
that was facilitated by the extreme decentralization of the American
police in the late 19th Century where the intimate working
relationship between the police forces and the political machines
assisted in sustaining the cultural pluralism of American cities.
In police forces based upon an impersonal concept of authority by
comparison, the sole restraint upon the behavior of policemen is
derived from the force of administrative pressure to adhere to the

law and organizational rules and procedures. The consequence,
though, is not only to remove the police from the "informal control
of community expectations, but to reduce their moral authority" or
at the very least, make the legitimacy of their authority
If the trend in 20th Century America has been toward
increasing separation between police and community, this development
has not proceeded uniformly, and there are a number of factors that
mitigate the separation and enhance a policemans sensitivity to
community values. The size and homogeneity of a community are very
important factors yet one should not over-emphasize such differences
between communities. Aided by broader societal trends toward
bureaucratization, reform has to a greater or lesser degree affected
the operation of most American police departments. To the extent
that professionalism inculcates in policemen a distinctive set of
values, it accentuates the differences between police and community,
even in a small, homogeneous community. The major implication is
that the values and beliefs that guide police discretion are
increasingly based on an ethos internal to the police, not on
community norms, and reflect the pressures and incentives of police
bureaucracies. In short, the greater the degree of
professionalization, the greater the effect of internally derived
values and organizational dynamics on police discretion.
The key to understanding the impact of police
professionalism lies, according to Brown, in understanding that the
reformers attempted to deal with the question of legitimacy by

bureaucratizing police work. The autonomy from local politics
sought by the reformers was predicated on the need to make the
police efficient and effective crime fighters. But as the reformers
clearly recognize, this entailed the necessity of establishing
stringent internal discipline within police departments. Such
discipline was not merely necessary to eliminate corruption or to
provide the trappings of efficiency and effectiveness in order to
bolster the state of the police. It was necessary, the reformers
believed, for developing a police force based on a set of
universalistic and formalistic values responsive to the community as
a whole. Autonomy from local politics and internal discipline are
thus the twin pillars of police professionalism. The price of
acting as a professional who services his clients, the citizens in
the community through a set of formal values, established by the
administrators is to become a bureaucrat subject to the coercive
inclinations of those same administrators.
The difficulty in all of this is that the vision of the
reformers, the faith in subordinate compliance as a pillar of
democratic control, breaks down with a department. Police reforms
have been predicated on bringing about a wholesale shift in the
values and outlook of the American police and imposing bureaucratic
controls on police discretion.
A shift described by James Q. Wilson a number of years ago
was a transition from a police force based upon a "system code to
one based on a professional code." Authority relationships within
the department were personalized and the legitimate authority of

supervisors depended on adherence to shared values such as the
pursuit of a good arrest. The task of law enforcement was treated
as an instrument to further group ends. For example, to maintain
respect for police authority and the use of informers, the pursuit
of graft and legitimacy of secrecy and violence prevailed. The
values of the professional code by contrast are universalistic.
Authority relationships within a department are based on the
legitimacy of rational-legal authority. The law is seen as a
substantive end to be pursued and enforced impersonally. And there
are expressed limitations on the use of informers, on discretion and
on the toleration of secrecy and violence. 1
Brown concludes that the conflict in contemporary police
departments between the values of the police culture and those of
professionalism intensify the pressures and stresses of police work
that form the basis of police culture, partly because of new demands
and because professionalism accentuates the separation between the
police and public. Brown sees efforts at professionalism as
effective in reinforcing central values of the police culture and
modifying others by superimposing a new set of values over the
Brown described contemporary police as "corporate
professionals because they combine the task-related values of the
police culture with the bureaucratic ethos of the reformers (Brown,
1981). However, these two value systems are not completely merged,
in part due to the persistence of police culture and the unresolved
issue of discretion vs. internal discipline. Patrolmen are caught

in a conflict created by different and often opposing organizational
goals. 7
Herman Goldstein, in his text Policing a Free Society,
states that most efforts to improve police functions have gone
forward on the assumption that the prevention of crime and the
apprehension of criminals are the primary tasks of police.
Goldstein feels that the entire reform movement in policing has been
shortsighted in focusing almost exclusively on improving the police
establishment (its organization, staffing, equipment and so on)
without having given adequate attention to some serious underlying
problems that grow out of the basic arrangements for policing in our
society. In short, he feels that we have been preoccupied with
building a superstructure without having laid an adequate
By making the assumption that the police's major task is the
prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals, the police
continue to perpetuate a myth. As a result, individuals are
recruited into the field who may possess the characteristics
required for dealing with criminals but not necessarily the
abilities that are essential for carrying out the multitude of other
police tasks. The training they receive, which in the past has
usually been based on the same stereotype of policing, does not
provide instructions on how to deal with the incidents that police
most commonly handle. Many other aspects of police operations and
management are affected by the same misconceptions.^ in focusing
on building the proper foundation, Goldstein suggests a return to

what he identifies as fundamental issues. This reassessment would
include a re-evaluation of some widely held assumptions regarding
the proper function of police in a modern society, including a
recognition of discretion as inherent and the establishment of basic
police values. Goldstein points out that the public must be helped
to develop realistic expectations of the function and ability of
police. Administrators must work to increase the capacity of the
police to carry out their responsibilities and to improve systems
upon which officers depend. Goldstein suggests that the fundamental
guiding principle in all police reform should be to improve the
quality of police service.^3
National Commissions
In revisiting blue ribbon national commissions regarding
professionalizing American policing, the observations can be made
that these blue ribbon commissions have played an important role in
an effort to bring about reform. In the ten years between 1963 and
1973 three major commissions studied the police, each producing a
report with specific "black letter" recommendations (President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1968;
American Bar Association, 1973, 1980; National Advisory Commission
on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, 1973). These three reports
continue to serve as basic reference points for discussions of
police reform. More recently, the Commission on Accreditation for
Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) has published its set of minimum
standards (CALEA, 1983) and the Panel on the Future of Policing has

completed a report with recommendations (1984). These recent
reports on the police have historical antecedents and are
supplemented by observations concerning the police in reports on
other problems. The Wickersham Commission published the first
national survey of American policing in 1931. One volume focuses
exclusively on police misconduct and another defined general
standards for police management (National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement, 1931). The Wickersham Commission was
preceded by several state and local commissions (see Cleveland
Foundation, 1922; Missouri Association for Criminal Justice, 1925;
Illinois Association for Criminal Justice, 1929).3**
The inherent problem with all blue ribbon commissions is the
absence of any enforcement mechanism and the consequent reliance on
voluntary compliance.36 In the end, the impact of blue ribbon
commissions on American policing remain ambiguous. As William
Geller points out, a direct cause/effect relationship cannot be
established. The blue ribbon commission reports serve to
articulate, disseminate, and endorse the accumulated wisdom
concerning minimum standards and new and often controversial
ideas. Their role is significant in stimulating and shaping reform
It appears that the law enforcement accreditation process
grew out of the work of these blue ribbon commissions. The National
Advisory Commission (1973) noted the absence of a document with
which a police administrator could establish and maintain an
effective police agency

Law Enforcement Accreditation
In 1970 and 1976 the IACP submitted proposals to LEAA
requesting funds to develop a comprehensive set of standards. Both
requests were denied. The present Commission on Accreditation was
established by a 1979 LEAA grant to the IACP and three other
organizations the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE), the National Sheriff's Association (NSA), and
the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), (U. S. Department of
Justice, 1979). The composition of the group is significant. Not
only does it deny the IACP the exclusive jurisdiction over
accreditation, but it includes two groups PERF and NOBLE that,
in different ways, have been critical of IACP. Indeed, PERF was
founded, as least in part, as an alternative to the IACP for
research oriented police executives. Inclusion of NOBLE, moreover,
lends significant visibility to an organization representing black
police officials. Three and one-half years were devoted to
launching the accreditation process. The initial phase involved
drafting and revising standards for particular aspects of policing
and then field testing these standards on selected agencies. CALEA
began accepting applications from agencies seeking accreditation on
October 1, 1983. In the first month, 33 applications were submitted
and within a year 175 had applied. On May 25, 1984, the 20 member
Mount Dora, Florida Police Department became the first law
enforcement agency tc be accredited by CALEA. '
Accreditation standards, like the recommendations of the

three blue ribbon commissions, may be important milestones on the
road to police professionalism* The historical record seems to
suggest that we can conclude on a note of cautious optimism.
Previous blue ribbon commissions have not, by any means, transformed
American policing, but they have made significant contributions to
police reform. Even in the absence of any enforcement mechanism,
simply by "setting the standards" they have shaped the thinking and
the efforts of all those individuals and groups who have pursued the
goal of the professional police in the free society.
Hopes to CALEA run high among national figures in law
enforcement. Harry S. Dogin, Administrator of the LEAA when the
initial grant to develop CALEA was awarded, called it "perhaps the
most dramatic program we've ever undertaken in the law enforcement
area" (Allison, 1980).^ James Cotter, CALEA's first Executive
Director, said in a Parade Sunday supplement that a department
achieving accredited status ". .is in an outstanding category that
it rightfully has an uncontested status and that its accreditation
is a guarantee that it conforms to a desirable standard" (Gavzer,
Contemporary efforts to improve American policing take many
different forms. Mastrofski cites the improvement of police
technology first of those currently popular. Police strategies such
as immediate call response, differential police call response,
preventive, foot, or single officer patrols, community policing,
domestic violence arrest mandates and civilianization are subject to
experimentation and scientific validation.

Second, professionalizing the rank and file, or what Muir
(1977) terms the development of an officer's capacity to make
empirical and moral judgment is cited as a popular movement. This
is accomplished through improved selection, education, training and
street supervision of officers.
The third area of attention focuses on efforts to improve
administration management and leadership in police. It is the task
of police administrators to effectively identify and articulate the
department's mission, goals and objectives. Administration must
balance the degree of discretion necessary to the varied tasks
demanded by the community with the effective control of individual
officers, and provide fair and effective police service within the
structure and demands of a democratic society.
Mastrofski goes on to state that during the first 15 years
we have seen a proliferation of efforts to enhance and assess the
technology of policingto determine what does and does not work in
reducing crime, handling disorder and providing other services.
There has been a fair amount of research on efforts to
professionalize the rank and file, particularly regarding the impact
of recruitment and selection and education background. The third
reform approach has also been the topic of considerable study,
although most of it has been historical, biographical or perspective
in nature. Despite the fact that the bulk of the contemporary
progressive agenda is directed toward administration and management
issues, there have been relatively few rigorous, empirical assess-
ments of the quality of police leadership and administration. A

renaissance in scholarly interest in this topic can probably be
dated to the publication of Herman Goldsteins Policing a Free
Society in which the author issued a critique of typical police
leadership and its approach to management. Almost a decade later, a
volume of collected works on the topic reiterates most of the
criticism set forth by Goldstein (Geller, 1985).
It is undoubtedly important to continue the intensive
research efforts at developing and validating police technologies.
And even greater efforts at developing true professional police
officers are also needed. However, nearly two decades of police
"revitalization show that the capacity and willingness of police to
undertake these tasks depends heavily upon police administration.
Many authors have shown that administrators provide the structure
and context that largely determines the organizations limits in
developing and implementing new strategies and tactics. And they
inspire or inhibit the professional growth of their officers. The
National Commission on Police Accreditation as a police administra-
tive reform has been institutionalized at a national level and has
as its purpose the standardization of what its proponents believe
constitutes "professional" police practice.
Setting standards is not new to police reform, but
installing a nationwide system of verifying department conformance
to standards appears to be a revolutionary concept. In an industry
known for its decentralized structure, CALEA's goal is "to improve
the delivery of law enforcement services" and specifically:

to increase law enforcement agency capabilities to prevent
and control crime, investigate crime, apprehend offenders
and recover stolen property;
increase agency effectiveness and efficiency in the
delivery of law enforcement services;
to increase cooperation and coordination with other law
enforcement agencies and with other agencies in the
criminal justice system;
to increase citizen and employee confidence in the goals,
objectives, policies and practices of the agency. (Cotter,
For those agencies who have undergone or are in the
accreditation process, a great deal of time, energy and money are
required to complete the accreditation process. Whether these
expenditures are good investments is a question admissible to
empirical inquiry. But data based on rigorous inquiry are currently
Second, CALEA, the program deliverer, lacks systematic
objective information on program strengths and weaknesses.
Suggestions from field assessors and field agencies completing the
accreditation process constitute the principle outside" source of
needs process and outcome assessment. While these are undoubtedly
useful, it is impossible for the commission to assess the empirical
basis of the suggestions. Additionally, these evaluators have a
significant stake in the program and must base their assessment on a
narrow range of experiences. Program improvement is currently based
on careful deliberation by a very professional bodywithout the
benefit of empirical feedback beyond the suggestive level. This is
particularly the case for agencies that do not provide feedback

because they remain unconvinced of accreditations value to them.**-*
Third, CALEAs program provides the opportunity to assess
accreditation as a mechanism for disseminating administrative rule
making as a means to enhance organizational control and account-
ability. Although it has many proponents, administrative rule
making has also been criticized as unrealistic in the context of the
police subcultures influence on discretion and administrators'
limited capacity to enforce rules anci offer incentives of
Fourth, it has become an axiom of police scholarship that
changing police administration is like "bending granite." Yet there
are recent indicators that police administrators have become more
receptive to change. From the program's perspective, it is
important to know how receptive administrators are to change. 1
Finally, the literature on organizational change in policing
shows that massive attempts to overhaul police organizations rarely
succeedat least to the extent and in the manner expected. Like
earlier attempts, accreditation is an ambitious, blue ribbon effort
but it is different in that it provides a detailed step by step
procedure that is readily adapted to local preferences and
situations. It is an artful compromise between the need for
professional standardization and sensitivity to the local
environment. Learning more precisely how it affects police
departments should be of substantial interest to both policy makers
and the research community concerned with efforts to professionalize
policing in the United States.

Direct opposition to the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies has been focused primarily in California.
California was one of a few states who had a "police standards
commission" in place when that recommendation was offered by the
1965 Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice. And over the years the California Commission on Police
Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) has been recognized as a
leader in establishing minimum state standards for the selection and
training of police officers.1^
James V. Cotter, the Executive Director of the Commission on
Law Enforcement Accreditation, stated in 1984 that ". .California
will realize the value of accreditation later on down the line. We
would expect that they too would begin to participate in large
Accreditation Research Efforts
Additional information about law enforcement accreditation
is in fact very limited, especially research that is critical of the
efforts of the National Commission. This is understandable as the
process of accrediting law enforcement is so new that researchers
who are interested have as yet not conducted research in this new
application of the overall accreditation process. Susan McCampbell,
William Matthews and Richard OConnell, in a 1986 edition of Crime
Control Digest identified four areas that the Commission must
acknowledge and confront if the Commission and its efforts are to be

1. improve marketing techniques
2. financial stability and independence
3. professionalism of the on-site assessors and
4. the future role of the four sponsoring associations.-^
To be ultimately successful the Commission needs to market
its concept to elected officials and city managers. The Commission
must also develop financial independence and acknowledge that the
fees paid by the agencies alone will not pave the way for the entire
process. The Commission must also be able to establish its
independence from ongoing federal funding. In short, the Commission
must become financially self-sufficient.
The Commissions group of on-site assessors needs to be
expanded to include command level personnel in addition to chiefs of
Finally, the relationship between the Commission and the
four founding agencies (IACP, NOBLE, NSA and PERF) needs to be
. *52
strengthened while maintaining the integrity of the Commission.
In June of 1987 David Abrecht, a Lieutenant with the Garden
Grove Police Department, Garden Grove, California, submitted a paper
to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) entitled What Is The Future of Accreditation For California
Law Enforcement Agencies.
Abrecht wanted to assess to what degree California police
chiefs opposed the National Law Enforcement Commission efforts
toward accreditation. The questions posed by the project were:

1) What is the future of an established national
accreditation program in California?
2) What is the future prospect of instituting a yet to be
determined state accreditation process that is devised
solely for California agencies? J
Abrecht's survey produced a 62 percent total response rate;
of the 411 surveys mailed, 254 were returned.
Sixty-six percent of the respondents Agreed and Strongly
Agreed with the statement that Accreditation, as a concept, is
applicable to the law enforcement profession today.
The statement that, "The concept of accreditation as a means
of ensuring compliance with professional law enforcement standards
is an idea whose time has come in California" elicited a divided
response: 49 percent of the respondents Agreed or Strongly Agreed,
37 percent of the respondents Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed, 14
percent of the respondents had No Opinion, 64 percent of the
respondents felt that- a state effort in California had potentially
the greatest benefit for California departments.
Fifty-four percent of the respondents had reviewed the
Standards for Law Enforcement published by the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., and 69 percent
indicated that all or a majority of the standards applied to their
Fifty-nine percent of the respondents said they would
participate in a voluntary accreditation process if the state of

California were to adopt one.-'
Abrecht goes on to say that the responses to his
questionnaire "indicate a strong preference for a statewide
accreditation program over a national one." However, Abrecht
believes that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the
role that California's POST serves and whether or not its role
duplicates what the Commission on Accreditation is offering to law
enforcement. J
In September, 1982, the Executive Board of the California
Police Chiefs Association adopted a resolution that "opposed the
programs put forth by the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies and did not recognize the 'commission' as a
standard setter for the state's police departments. At the time,
the objections to Accreditation were:
The membership of the Commission did not include a
police chief or sheriff from California.
Voluntary programs too often become mandated programs.
The composition of commissions frequently changes to
the detriment of the organization they are empowered to
direct or regulate.
The goals and objectives of the Commission are
duplicative of existing programs.
The participation costs are excessive.
The police executive may ultimately be forced to
surrender some of his authority and managerial
Abrecht concludes that the future of accreditation for
California law enforcement agencies rests with the acceptance or
rejection of the national accreditation program offered by the

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
Abrecht's conclusion is based upon the unreal expectation that POST
will develop a state wide accreditation program. He goes on to
state that this is improbable and based solely on the reputation
that POST has developed with the law enforcement community in
California. Nearly 60 percent of Abrecht's survey respondents felt
that the development of a state wide accreditation program was not
economically or politically feasible in light of the work that went
into the development of the national standards. Also, the testimony
of two California law enforcement executives at a recent meeting of
the POST Advisory Committee studying the issue of state wide
accreditation was that such duplication was not worth the expense. 1
Finally, Abrecht indicated that the national program will
continue to attract agencies, particularly agencies in the western
United States. Since the first agency was accredited in 1984,
increased participation by agencies in the states of Colorado,
Texas, Arizona, Oregon and Washington has given credence to a
program that was believed to be initially "eastern based." "The
involvement of these states and major metropolitan areas in the
western United States will force the issue in California."
The literature pertaining to police and professionalism
reflects a general attempt at upgrading policing in America. This
can be seen in much of the work of the so-called blue ribbon
(Wickersham, President's Commission on Law Enforcement

and Administration of Justice, National Advisory Commission on
Standards and Goals, American Bar Association, 1973, 1980).
Staufenberger (1977) found selective indicators that seem to
reflect a move toward a more professional police. He cited
Organizational Arrangements, a community orientation, a movement
toward professional organizations, the growth of research efforts
and a greater emphasis on higher education as indicators of this
Price (1977) viewed the middle class as becoming more
professionalized in general. She based this on the attractiveness
of the features of the professions (independent judgment, esoteric
knowledge and immunity from outside criticism). However Price
perceives the police as falling short in that they lack a systematic
knowledge necessary to be defined as available for the occupation
with a limited evolution of police strategies and the formulation of
The second and third aspects where the police fall short of
being a profession according to Price, are its bureaucratic
organization (elaborate bureaucratic models that are built around a
centralized structure with a bent towards elaborate control systems)
and the current leadership structure that fosters special interests
and concerns that do not always further professionalization of the
Brown (1981) sees professionalism as being based on three
related elements. They are experts, they apply the results of
theoretical knowledge acquired during an extended period of training

to a specialized area of human endeavor and their actions and
fi 1
decisions are presumably governed by universalistic criteria.
The reformers attempted to deal with the question of
legitimacy by bureaucratizing police work. The autonomy from local
politics sought by the reformers was predicated on the need to make
the police efficient, effective crime fighters. This entailed the
necessity of establishing stringent internal discipline within
police departments. Autonomy from local politics and internal
discipline were thus the twin pillars of police professionalism,
according to the reform movement.
James Q. Wilson (1976) described a shift from a system code
to one based on a professional code. The difference being that a
system code is based upon shared values such as the pursuit of a
good arrest. A professional code is based upon the legitimacy of
rational-legal authority. The law is seen as a substantive end to
f p
be pursued and enforced impersonally. *
Brown (1981) goes on to describe contemporary police as
"corporate professionals" because they combine the task-related
values of the police culture with the bureaucratic ethos of the
reformers. However, he feels that these two value systems are not
completely merged, in part due to the persistence of the police sub-
culture, and the unresolved issue of discretion vs. internal
discipline. Patrolmen, according to Brown, are then caught in a
conflict created by different and often opposing organizational
Goldstein (1977) saw American policing as being preoccupied

with building a superstructure without having laid an adequate
foundation. Police leaders continue to perpetuate the myth of our
major task as being that of preventing crime and the apprehension of
criminals. He cites as an example that police training is still
based upon the same stereotype of policing. It does not deal with
or provide instruction on how to deal with the incidents that police
most commonly handle.
Goldstein is of the opinion that the police need to refocus
on fundamental issues. They need to rethink widely held assumptions
regarding the police function. Additionally, the police should
recognize the discretion inherent in police work and establish
values aligned with public expectations with an accurate assessment
of what the police can in fact accomplish.
Police departments also need to increase the capacity to
carry out their responsibilities and improve related systems upon
which they depend. And finally Goldstein sees the police needing to
improve the quality of police service.
In assessing the impact of the blue ribbon commissions
Walker (1985) found that the inherent problem with these commissions
was the absence of any enforcement mechanism, and the consequent
reliance on voluntary compliance. In the end, based upon that
criticism, Walker feels that their impact on American policing
remains ambiguous. They were, however, major chapters in the
history of police reform, and were occasions for the articulation of
minimum standards and in varying degrees, the vehicles for
disseminating and endorsing new and at times controversial ideas.

Accreditation it seems grew out of these blue ribbon
commissions. The National Advisory Commission (1973) noted the
absence of a document with which a police administrator can
establish and maintain an effective police agency.
Accreditation standards, like the recommendations of the
blue ribbon commissions, may be an important milestone on the road
to police professionalism.^ Mastrofski (1986) feels that current
efforts to improve American policing take many forms but basically
fall into three areas: improving police technology, professionalism
of the rank and file, and improving the administration.
Mastrofski points out, that administrators provide the structure and
context that largely determine the organization limits in developing
and implementing new strategies. They can also inspire or inhibit
the professional growth of their officers.
Mastrofski points out that setting standards is not new to
police reform, but installing a nationwide system of verifying
department conformance to standards appears to be a revolutionary
concept.^ Or as Goldstein remarked, the need to build a proper
foundation a verified national consistent foundation.
In the only research to date on law enforcement
accreditation, Lt. Abrecht of the Garden Grove, California Police
Department found that California is somewhat unique in that it is
one of only a few states that already has a state commission for
establishing state minimum standards for the selection and training
of police officers.^ Overall, Abrecht wanted to measure to what
degree California police chiefs opposed the national efforts of the

Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation, and second, what was
the future prospect of California developing a state accreditation
process for California?
What he found was a 66 percent agreement that accreditation
as a concept is applicable to the law enforcement profession today,
and that while 69 percent felt that a state effort had potential,
only 54 percent had reviewed the national standards. Sixty-nine
percent felt, on the other hand, that "all or a majority of the
national standards applied to their department." And finally, 59
percent stated that they would participate in a voluntary
accreditation process if the state of California were to accept
one.' California's official position still is one of opposition to
the national effort. Their position cites six specific reasons for
this opposition (see p. 42).
Abrecht concludes by citing several problems with a state
program of accreditation; his feelings that California's POST Board
can't politically or economically be successful in such an endeavor,
and cites unnecessary duplication as the major reasons why a state
effort in California really can't be successful.^
This study will show that the national movement for police
accreditation has moved beyond the blue ribbon panels of the past by
establishing a set of standards, testing them, and then providing
the format in which a police agency can evaluate itself in relation
to an accepted, tested body of knowledge. Through police
accreditation, we have moved into the action phase of operational
improvement. This certainly is a step toward professionalization.

1. Richard A. Staufenberger, The Professionalization of Police;
Efforts and Obstacles, Public Adminstration Review, Nov. 1977,
p. ^78.
2. Ibid., p. 679.
3. Ibid., p. 680.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Barbara R. Price, Police Professionalism, (MA: Lexington
Books, 1977), p. 7.
7. James K. Stewart, "Research and the Police Administration:
Working Smarter, Not Harder," ed., William A. Geller, Police
Leadership in America, Crisis and Opportunity, (IL, 1985), p.
8. Robert M. Regoli, John P. Crank, Robert G. Culbertson, and Eric
D. Poole, Linkage Between Professionalization and
Professionalism Among Police Chiefs, "Journal of Criminal
Justice", Pergamon Press, New York, Volume 16, Number 2, p. 89.
9. Louis A. Mayo, "Leading Blindly: An Assessment of Chiefs'
Information About Police Operations," ed., William A. Geller,
Police Leadership in America, Crisis and Opportunity, p. 397.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., p. 399
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. 400
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 401
17. Ibid., p. 402

18. Michael K. Brown, Working the Street. (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1981), p. 40.
19. Ibid.
20. Geller, William A., p. 354.
21. Susan 0. White, eds., Pogrebin and Regoli, A Perspective on
Police Professionalism: Police Administration Issues, (New
York: Associated Faculty Press, 1986), p. 222.
22. Ibid., p. 223.
23. Ibid.
24. Geller, William A., ed. Police Leadership in America. "Setting
the Standards: The Efforts and Impact of Blue-Ribbon
Commissions on the Police," by Samuel Walker, p. 354.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 364.
28. Ibid., p. 365.
29. Ibid., p. 365.
30. Timothy S. Jost, Boston College Law Review, "The Joint
Commission On Accreditation of Hospitals: Private Regulations
of Health Care and the Public Interest", Volume XXIV, Number 4,
p. 847.
31. Geller, William A., ed., p. 367.
32. Ibid.
33. Herman Goldstein, Policing a Free Society, (MA: Ballinger
Publishing Co., 1977), p. 8.
34. Geller, William A., ed., p. 355.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., p. 366.
38. Ibid., p. 396.

39. Ibid.
*40. Stephen D. Mastrofski, "Police Agency Accreditation: The
Prospects of Reform." Prepared for delivery at the 1986 Annual
Meeting of The American Political Science Association,
Washington, D.C., August 25-31, 1986.
41. Stephen D. Mastrofski, Assessing Police Agency Accreditation: A
Police Reform. October, 1986.
42. Ibid., p. 3.
43. Ibid., p. 4.
44. James V. Cotter, Administration, September, 1983, p. 19.
45. Stephen D. Mastrofski, October, 1986.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. David J. Abrecht, What is the Future of Accreditation for
California Law Enforcement Agencies. June, 1987, p. 3.
50. Accreditations Embryonic Empire. Interview with James V.
Cotter, Executive Director, Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies, Inv. in the Law Enforcement News, Volume
X, No. 21, December 10, 1984, p. 11.
51. McCampbell, Susan W., Matthews, William H., OConnell, Richard
J., "Law Enforcement Accreditation Reaches a Crossroads," Crime
Control Digest, Volume 20, No. 37, Washington Crime News
Service, Springfield, Virginia, September 15, 1986, p. 1.
52. Ibid.
53. Albrecht, David J., p. 1.
54. Ibid., p. 102.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid., p. 4.
57. Ibid., p. 86.
58. Ibid., p. 87.

59. Staufenberger, 1977.
60. Price, 1977.
61. Brown, 1981.
62. James Q. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior, (New York:
Atheneum, 1976).
63. Brown, 1981.
64. Goldstein, 1977.
65. Ibid.
66. Geller, William A., Ed. Setting the Standards, Samuel Walker.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Mastrofski, 1986.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. Abrecht, p. 3.
74. Ibid., p. 102.
75. Ibid., p. 86.

This study used a survey instrument to analyze the responses
to questions on the impacts of Law Enforcement Accreditation on
selected policies of law enforcement agencies that were accredited
prior to December 31, 1986. The questionnaire was originally
developed to measure how successful the Commission had been when an
assessment of their stated goals were used as the basis of the
research. Those goals, however, were written in such a manner that
it would have been difficult to conduct a meaningful empirical
evaluation of them. Therefore, an alternative direction was
The contents of the questionnaire in its final form was
developed upon the premise of measuring to what degree, if any,
accredited departments had been impacted in the areas of:
Law Enforcement Agency Role Did the organization have written
policies that, prior to accreditation, described the goals of
the department?
A series of questions in the area of agency role then are
pursued in an attempt to determine if the accreditation process did
have any impact on written goals, employee input into goal
development, measuring progress toward goal obtainment and benefits

as well as liabilities the agency head saw as being related to being
an accredited law enforcement agency.
Three additional topical areas were then selected by the
author to measure impacts of being accredited by the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. The areas selected were
Deadly Force, Patrol Chase Policy and the area of Collection and
Preservation of Evidence. These areas were selected based upon
their individual importance as well as the universal acceptance of
these areas as being relevant and necessary not only in all parts of
the country but to any size agency as well.
As one can see by examination of the survey instrument
(Appendix A), each area has a number of specific questions to
measure to what degree agencies had written policies in these three
areas prior to accreditation. Or, if they did, were those written
policies sufficient or, based upon the accreditation requirements,
were they found to be insufficient and thereby in need of content
changes in order to meet the intent of the specific standard
developed by the Commission.
Lastly, a series of questions are included regarding the
amount of time and employee commitment required to become
accredited, as well as questions regarding the cost, both hard and
soft dollar, and benefits, if any, to employees, citizens and the
agency that are, in the mind of the agency head, related to the
granting of Law Enforcement Accreditation status.
The agencies that were included in this research project
were those who had been granted accreditation by the Commission on

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (C.A.L.E.A.) as of
December 31, 1986. At that time there were 42 agencies across the
country, both large and small, that had received that status.
(Appendix B for specific departments)
The raw data obtained from survey respondents was then coded
and analyzed using Open Access II, the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (S.P.S.S.-P.C.+) and/or Epistat software. The
computer used was an IBM-compatible P.C.
Details about the methodology used in this research are
discussed in the following sections.
Studying the issue of professionalism in a general sense
points out, discipline by discipline, the requirements that at a
minimum are necessary for an occupation to meet the threshold of
organizational professional acceptance.
Professionals are experts, they apply the results of
theoretical knowledge acquired during an extended period of
training to a specialized area of human endeavor and their
actions and decisions are presumably governed by
universalistic criteria.
Or as Price (1977) found that features of professions
included independence of judgment, esoteric knowledge and immunity
from outside criticism.
The American College of Surgeons as early as 1912 was
attempting to professionalism by standardization.
This brief overview points out how far the police need to go
to be considered professional

The police have not, on a national scale, sought to embrace
the basic elements of professionalism, which are
- development of systematic knowledge base
- academic involvement and research orientation
- service ideals
- critical self-analysis u
- nonbureaucratic controls1*
This study was developed in an effort to explore the premise
The Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation,
through mandating compliance with minimum standards to
become an accredited law enforcement agency, can improve
law enforcement in those agencies accredited on a national
To prove this premise this study attempted to measure any
improvement in accredited agencies in the areas of goal and objec-
tive development, and improvement in the policy areas of Deadly
Force, Police Pursuits, and the Collection and Preservation of
If improvement of accredited agencies is observed in any or
all of these areas, then the efforts of the Commission to improve
law enforcement nationally have to some degree been successful.
By this improvement, if any improvement is observed, the
Commission, through mandating an in-depth organizational self-
analysis and required compliance with nationally developed
standards, will be impacting law enforcement agency efforts to
become professional. The criteria that address the issue of
professionalization are 1) organizational self-analysis (assessment)
and 2) compliance with universalistic criteria that insures
standardization nationally for accredited law enforcement agencies.

Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire had to be designed in such a manner that
the respondent did not feel that to respond would be too time
consuming. If the overall questionnaire were too long or too
complex, the response rate would be reduced. The questionnaire
which was used was 15 pages, including front introductory pages.
Dillman's "Total Design Method" (TDM) was used in developing
the strategy for mailing and obtaining responses. Dillman's system
involves proper packaging of the instrument, a specific approach,
and methods of follow-up. Dillman found that a questionnaire which
was longer than 12 pages or had more than 125 questions would have a
reduced response rate." The author's questionnaire contained 38
questions and again was 13 pages, plus the introductory pages. The
actual response rate (provided in later chapter) tends to support
Dillman's position.
The Questionnaire
The instrument was constructed with an introductory page
that briefly described the intent and requested of the department
head that his or her personal assessment was being requested. The
second page contained a detailed set of instructions that described
in what form the questions were to be answered. There were two type
of questions contained in the instrument, (Yes) or (No) questions
and questions requiring the respondent to write a response and/or
include copies of departmental policies. Lastly, a statement was

included that all definitions were taken from the Standards Manual
for Law Enforcement Accreditation.
The first portion of the questionnaire, The Introduction,
contained a series of demographic questions followed by questions
with regard to when the agency entered the accreditation process,
and the specifics regarding time in the various steps in the
process. The section also contained a series of questions regarding
rank of the accreditation manager and the time commitment of others
involved directly in the process. The final portion of the
introduction dealt with the issues of whether or not a departmental
policy and procedure manual existed prior to accreditation and if
so, who were given copies.
The next section of the instrument was entitled Law Enforce-
ment Role and Authority. This section was comprised of questions
dealing with whether or not written goals and objectives existed and
were distributed to every member existed prior to accreditation.
Also in this section were questions concerning a code of ethics and
whether officers were required to abide by that code. Questions
then addressed the issue of if written goals and objectives were
developed, was employee input used ar.d whether a written directive
established a procedure for that type of input. Lastly, benefits
and liabilities regarding written goals and objectives were
The first of three specific subject areas regarding written
policies being in place prior to accreditation was the area of
Deadly Force. In this section specific information was asked if

there was a written directive in place prior to accreditation
regarding the use of deadly force. This question was followed by a
series of questions that asked for specific information regarding
the content of written directives on the use of deadly force. These
questions were related to specific accreditation standards that
addressed needed elements of a completely acceptable deadly force
The second section was related to Police Chase policy.
Again, initial questions related to what type of written policies,
if any, existed prior to accreditation. Following were content
related questions that asked for specifics as to the content of
written policies both before and after accreditation.
The third area dealt with the Collection and Preservation of
Evidence. Again, the focus was initially directed toward what types
of written policies were in place prior to accreditation. In this
area questions then were asked (based upon specific standards) as to
what existed in this area as far as compliance with these standards
in the area of evidence collection and preservation.
In all of these areas, questions were also asked having to
do with what benefits or liabilities were found based upon
compliance with each area.
The final section of questions were generally related to
changes in the agency based upon accreditation the value of
accreditation from an agency, employee and citizen perspective.
What was the greatest benefit, followed by the cost of becoming
accredited, both in hard as well as soft dollars. An attempt was

made here to have the respondent cite examples of other hard and
soft dollar costs. The final questions dealt with whether or not
the agency would seek to be re-accredited and if so, why.
Survey Procedure
After the survey instrument was developed and approved by
the committee chairman, the distribution process began.
As a first step a complete mailing list of the 42 accredited
departments was obtained from Mr. Dick Kitterman, a senior staff
member of the Commission. Also, a letter of introduction addressed
to each law enforcement executive was signed by the Executive
Director of the Commission, Mr. Ken Medeiros. These letters were
individually prepared on official Commission stationery. A second
letter was prepared by the author on City of Aurora stationery
asking, from one law enforcement executive to another, that they
cooperate in the preparation and timely return of the instrument. A
self-addressed, postage-attached return folder was included as
well. The completed packets containing the instrument, the two
letters, and a stamped return envelope were then mailed on December
2, 1987, to all 42 accredited law enforcement agencies.
A second mailing containing a follow-up identical
questionnaire with a second letter from the author, along with a
stamped return envelope, was mailed to those departments that had
not returned the completed questionnaire on February 8, 1988. In
the second letter a deadline of February 29, 1988 was established so
that a cut-off date could be identified. Copies of the mailing list

and examples of the letters sent from both mailings can be found in
Appendix B.
As the questionnaires were returned a numberings system was
assigned to indicate in what order the questionnaires were returned.
Coding System
Completed questionnaires were coded for data entry to the
computer using four methods.
1. For questions which were answered with a check mark for
"Yes" or "No," responses were coded as "1" for "Yes" and "0"
for "No."
Questions for this type are: I, K, M, 1-4, 7-14, 17-18h,
21-26, and 37.
2. For questions which were answered with a numeric figure, the
actual figure was used, all converted to months.
Questions for this type are:
F sub-divided into Fa Self-Assessment
Fb On-Site Assessment
Fe Entire time in process
H Numeric response multiplied by 100. Thus, "80?" was
entered as "80." Some respondents entered percentages for
people, but then specified a length of time. For those
responses, the entry was prorated over the entire time in
process (Question Fe). All others were assumed to span the
entire time in process.
J Percentage multiplied by 100.

35 - Dollar amounts were entered. Where ranges were
entered, the median figure for the range was used. In some
cases, notes reveal that the respondent included "soft"
dollar expenses in this question.
36 - Dollar amounts were entered. The median of ranges was
3. For questions which asked for a date, the actual date was
entered into the computer. One of the functions of Open
Access II software is the ability to calculate the number of
days between two dates. In some cases, respondents gave
only a month, season or year. These responses were all
coded for the earliest possible date in the range.
Questions which called for dates are: D and Fc.
4. For questions which called for a narrative response, a data-
base was created using Open Access II software. An attempt
was made to identify a key word or short phrase which
captured the meaning of the response. Some yielded multiple
key words and phrases, which were all entered.
Questions which were coded using this method are: Gb (Rank
of Accreditation Manager), L, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 38.
Additional Data
Certain data elements are included in the findings of this
study which were gathered, not from the questionnaire respondents,
but from Crime in the United States, (1986), U. S. Department of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Data for 1986 were used
due to the fact that the agencies considered in this study were all
accredited by the end of 1986. Twenty-four of the thirty-six
agencies considered were actually accredited in 1986.
Population, Offenses (Part I), Number of Officers, and Total
Personnel were gathered from this publication.
Created Fields
Much of the analysis of these data is based on created
fields. Especially for the "Yes/No" questions, which yield only a
binary response, answers for a series of questions were totaled to
create a new field of data. For this type of question specifically,
the "Yes answers were counted, divided by the number of responses
from that section, then multiplied by 100 to yield a cumulative
numeric score between 0 and 100 inclusive. Means and standard
deviations were calculated for the cumulative data. Means,
converted to a percentage of cases with a positive response, were
calculated for individual "Yes/No" questions.
Other fields created and used in the analysis are merely
arithmetic manipulations of two other data fields, such as dividing
the total reported expense by the population to obtain the "Cost per
Once the questionnaires were coded, they were analyzed using
basic descriptive statistics. The next chapters contains a
description of the methods which were used to make the comparisons
of the responses obtained and a reporting of the results.

1. Michael K. Brown, Working the Street. (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1981), p.
2. Barbara R. Price, Police Professionalism, (MA: Lexington Books,
1977), P. 7.
3. Timothy S. Jost, Boston College Law Review, "The Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals: Private Regulations
of Health Care and the Public Interest, Volume XXIV, Number 4,
p. 847.
4 Abraham S. Blumberg and Arthur Niederhoffer, The Ambivalent
Force, (The Dryden Press, Hindsdale, IL, 1976), p. 19.
5. Don A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys, The Total Design
Method, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).

This chapter reports the findings based on the data
collected from the questionnaire. Chapter IV contains information
about the response rate, how the respondents answered the questions
contained in the instrument and comparisons between different
variables. The conclusions, if any, that can be drawn from an
analysis of the findings are found in Chapter V.
Response Rate
Of the 42 law enforcement agencies that were mailed the
questionnaire in December of 1987, 29 or 69 percent had responded by
the end of January, 1988. A second mailing was completed and mailed
to those non-reporting agencies in the first week of February,
1988. As of the deadline of February 29, 1988, 7 more
questionnaires had been received. Thus, the overall response rate
to the questionnaire was 85 percent.
Questionnaire Introduction Findings
Table 4-1 provides an overview of the agencies that
responded to the questionnaire. Included in that overview is a
breakdown of agencies by type (1 = Municipal, 2 = Sheriff's
Department, 3 = State Police, 4 = University Police). Population
figures for municipal agencies were included. The source of these

figures was Crime in the United States, (1986).^ Figures in Table
4-1 also reflect sworn, non-sworn, and total employees.
Case Class Pop. Ofcs Civ Pers
1 4 9,095 27 0 27
2 1 158,714 247 49 296
3 1 119,410 207 89 296
4 1 104,743 146 84 230
5 1 290,230 648 186 834
6 1 92,343 111 45 156
7 3 1446 498 1944
8 2 47,766 71 19 90
9 1 16 7 23
10 1 19 6 25
11 1 22,457 44 9 53
12 2 43,146 77 15 92
13 2 176 62 238
14 1 57,551 103 40 143
15 3 1696 573 2269
16 1 30,821 48 12 62
17 1 163,614 367 107 474
18 2 829 251 1080
19 2 1453 151 1604
20 2
21 1 124,482 209 101 310
22 2 1075 567 1642
23 1 56,281 87 32 130
24 1 14,930 31 7 38
25 1 25,923 46 15 61
26 1 28,184 41 15 56
27 1 27,341 39 15 54
28 1 32,353 55 24 79
29 1 31,566 60 18 78
30 1 17 7 24
31 1 11,119 16 4 20
32 1 109,902 220 101 321
33 1 12,669
34 1 40 10 50
35 1 256,667 435 221 656
36 2 634 925 1559
Mean 77,971 316 126 442
Minimum 9.095 16 0 20
Maximum 290,230 1,696 925 2,269
Std. Dev. 76,448 460 209 630
Count 36 24 34 34 34

This information reflects that a broad cross-section of
departments as well as different sections of the country are
represented in the respondents. It also appears that represented in
the departments are several large as well as several very small
The first area of interest address from the Introduction
section of the questionnaire is the actual time in the accreditation
process. Of the 33 agencies that responded to this question, the
mean was 653 days. The minimum time in the process was 312 days
while the maximum was 1,767 days. Table 4-2 also reflects this time
in months. This analysis was done to verify the dates provided by
the respondents. Initially the figures supplied in specific days
were calculated. Those days were calculated in months. It appears
that the days and months, when compared, are consistent. It may be
easier to deal with months in understanding the impact of time to
the process of accreditation. The mean for the entire process from
formal contract signing to the granting of accreditation status was
21 months, the minimum being 10 months and the maximum being 48
months. Thirty-three agencies responded to these questions.
The self-assessment phase reflected that the mean of
agencies reporting was 15 months. The minimum was one month and the
maximum 36 months. Very likely, agencies that completed self-
assessment in one month began preparing long before they formally
entered the self-assessment phase.

Table 4-2
Case Date-Ent F-Slf/Ass F-T Time Acc. Date Tot-Days
1 9-1-S3 24 30 3-9-86 920
2 8-23-84 16 16 3-9-86 563
3 3-1-84 18 24 2-1-85 337
4 4-27-84 5 10 5-4-85 372
5 8-1-84 26 20 3-9-86 585
6 6-1-84 12 15 3-9-86 646
7 5-1-85 15 21 11-9-86 557
8 1-1-82 1 48 6-15-86 1626
9 2-1-84 15 16 5-3-85 457
10 11-1-84 12 20 3-9-86 493
11 1-1-82 18 24 ?n?
12 1-1-83 10 11 11-2-84 671
13 6-24-84 24 29 11-9-86 868
14 5-1-85 15 15 3-9-86 312
15 10-15-84 10 26 6-1-86 594
16 11-14-83 2 11-2-84 354
17 3-4-85 13 22 11-8-86 614
18 2-2-84 6 14 5-3-85 456
19 1-1-80 12 11-2-85 1767
20 12-20-83 7 12 11-2-84 318
21 7-25-84 15 21 6-15-86 690
22 2-25-85 6 25 3-9-86 377
23 7-1-85 24 28 11-9-86 496
24 1-1-85 30 30 11-9-86 677
25 10-1-83 12 18 3-1-85 517
26 3-1-85 10 15 6-15-86 471
27 5-1-83 36 36 11-9-86 1288
28 12-1-84 17 23 11-9-86 708
29 1-16-85 16 18 11-9-86 662
30 ?n?
31 2-1-85 16 21 11-9-86 646
32 20 21 6-15-86 ?n?
33 5-1-84 10 12 5-5-86 734
34 11-1-84 21 24 11-9-86 738
35 1-1-84 6 24 3-1-85 425
36 10-1-84 18 20 6-16-86 623
Mean 3-28-84 15 21 2-8-86 653
Min. 1-1-80 1 10 11-2-84 312
Max. 7-1-85 36 48 11-9-86 1767
Std.Dev. 412 8 7.7 265 334
Count 34 35 33 34 33

The next area addressed was that of the Accreditation
Manager, and his or her time devoted toward the process. Table 4-3
reflects this information. Of the 36 agencies that responded to the
questions regarding the rank of the Accreditation Manger, there does
not appear to be any trends other than some rank appears to be
fairly consistent. Six managers were Assistant Chiefs or Division
Chiefs, nine were Captains, six were lieutenants, six were
sergeants, four were majors, and two were civilians.
As to whether or not the Accreditation Manager was a
fulltime commitment, of the 36 department, the mean of the
Accreditation Managers* time spent on the process was 78 percent of
his or her time. The minimum time of the manager was 20 percent
while the maximum was 100 percent. Sixteen departments indicated
that their Accreditation Manager position was fulltime (44 percent).
To determine the total commitment of time as reflected in
the agency responses, the time was added based upon the percent of
time indicated per fulltime equivalent (F.T.E.). Therefore, a
figure of 200 would reflect 2 FTE*s. This information is shown in
Table 4-3. The total time commitment then of the Accreditation
Manager and others is reflected using the same method of combining
time 100 equaling one FTE. Table 4-3 reflects this total time
category as well. The total average or mean for personnel committed
to the Accreditation process including the Accreditation Manager is
a little over 2 FTEs (205 as reflected in Table 4-3). The minimum
was a little under three-quarter time (73) and the maximum was a
little over three and one-half FTE's (360).

Table 4-3
Case G-Rank H-FTE's J-Jtime Tot FTE
1 Sgt 100 90 190
2 Capt 200 100 300
3 Civ 100 ?n?
4 Capt 100 75 175
5 Major 265 95 360
6 Lt 147 100 247
7 Col 415 ?n?
8 Lt 130 50 180
9 Capt 20 100 120
10 Sgt 100 ?n?
11 Capt 50 ?n?
12 Major 80 75 155
13 Ast Chf 250 50 300
14 Sgt 160 100 260
15 Civ 120 90 210
16 Capt 120 100 220
17 Lt 191 100 219
18 Lt 85 100 185
19 Capt 200 100 300
20 Ast Chf 130 50 180
21 Capt 35 ?n?
22 Major 270 30 300
23 Capt 100 60 160
24 Lt 90 70 160
25 Agent 145 35 180
26 Major 33 40 73
27 Sgt 134 100 234
28 Ast Chf 55 100 155
29 Ast Chf 120 60 180
30 Sgt 25 100 125
31 Chief 110 75 185
32 Capt 145 20 165
33 Lt 110 100 210
34 Sgt 60 100 160
35 Div Chf 100 80 180
36 Cpl 115 100 215
Mean 135 78 205
Minimum 20 20 73
Maximum 415 100 360
StdDev 81 26 64
Count 32 35 31

The next area of interest was that of prior to entry into
the accreditation process did your department have a written policy
and procedure manual and were these policy and procedure manuals, if
they existed, made available to both sworn and non-sworn employees?
All 36 respondents answered these questions, 89 percent had
a written manual and 81 percent made that manual available to both
sworn and non-sworn employees. This information is reflected in
Table 4-4, a Yes response is coded as 1 and a No response is coded
as 0.
Table 4-4
Case K-Prior M-PolAvl
1 1 0
2 0 1
3 1 0
4 1 1
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
8 0 1
9 1 1
10 1 1
11 1 1
12 1 1
13 1 1
14 1 1
15 1 1
16 0 0
17 1 1
18 1 1
19 1 0
20 1 1
21 1 1
22 1 1
23 1 1
24 1 1
25 1 0
26 1 1

Table 4-4 (Continued)
27 1 1
28 1 1
29 1 1
30 1 1
31 1 1
32 1 1
33 1 1
34 0 0
35 1 i 1
36 1 0
Mean 89$ 81$
Count 36 36
Additionally the question was asked as to what other type of
written directives were used prior to the departments entry into the
Accreditation process. This question, , as with others that called
for a narrative response , was evaluated by establishing a separate
database using Open Access II software. An attempt was made to
identify in each response a key word or phrase which captured the
meaning of the response. If multiple key words and/or phrases were
used then they were entered as well. Table 4-5 reflects these key
words or phrases listed alphabetically by key word or phrase. There
does not appear to be a common procedure prior to accreditation for
other forms of written directives. It appears, (Table 4-5) that the
most common other forms in place prior to accreditation were General
Orders (9 responses), Memoranda (10 responses), Rules and
Regulations (11 responses), Special Orders (7 responses) and
Training Manuals (7 responses) were the most common forms of "Other
Directives" that were in place prior to accreditation.

Table 4-5
Case Question Answer
20 1 Administrative Regulations
15 1 Bureau Manuals
3 1 City Ordinances
35 1 City Ordinances
17 1 City Rules and Regulations
15 1 Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Manual
2 1 Directives
22 1 Directives
15 1 Division Manuals
21 1 Division Manuals
19 1 Emergency Plans
7 1 Executive Orders
4 1 General Orders
16 1 General Orders
18 1 General Orders
19 1 General Orders
23 1 General Orders
24 1 General Orders
26 1 General Orders
30 1 General Orders
31 1 General Orders
19 1 Juvenile Manual
15 1 Laboratory Procedures
36 1 Legal Bulletin
15 1 Lesson Plan
15 1 Management Directive
2 1 Memoranda
3 1 Memoranda
6 1 Memoranda
10 1 Memoranda
12 1 Memoranda
21 1 Memoranda
23 1 Memoranda
24 1 Memoranda
31 1 Memoranda
36 1 Memoranda
8 1 None
25 1 Official Information Bulletin
5 1 Operating Manual
15 1 Operating Manual
28 1 Operating Manual
22 1 Orders
20 1 Performance Appraisal Manual

Table 4-5 (Continued)
14 1 Personnel Manual
19 1 Personnel Orders
28 1 Personnel Orders
11 1 Personnel Policies
33 1 Personnel Policies
25 1 Police Manual
7 1 Policies and Procedures
22 1 Policies and Procedures
29 1 Policies and Procedures
33 1 Policies and Procedures
7 1 Procedure Manual
14 1 Procedure Manual
22 1 Procedures
18 1 Regulations
22 1 Regulations
18 1 Report Writing Manual
19 1 Report Writing Manual
20 1 Resource Handbook and Plans
5 1 Rules and Regulations
11 1 Rules and Regulations
14 1 Rules and Regulations
17 1 Rules and Regulations
22 1 Rules and Regulations
27 1 Rules and Regulations
28 1 Rules and Regulations
29 1 Rules and Regulations
30 1 Rules and Regulations
34 1 Rules and Regulations
35 1 Rules and Regulations
10 1 S.O.P.s
18 1 S.O.P.s
19 1 S.O.P.s
20 1 S.O.P.s
23 1 S.O.P.s
35 1 S.O.P.s
9 1 Same as accreditation
4 7 Special Orders
7 1 Special Orders
12 1 Special Orders
19 1 Special Orders
24 1 Special Orders
25 1 Special Orders
28 1 Special Orders
3 1 State Law
7 1 State Law
15 1 State Law
24 1 State Law
35 1 State Law
17 1 Supervisor's Manual

Table 4-5 (Continued)
24 1 Town Code
7 1 Training Manual
4 1 Training Manuals
20 1 Training Manuals
25 1 Training Manuals
28 1 Training Manuals
32 1 Training Manuals
36 1 Training Manuals
13 1 Written Directive
34 1 Written Directive
Law Enforcement Agency Role
In the first topic area developed to measure the impact of
accreditation, Law Enforcement Agency Role, the following
information was obtained. Prior to Accreditation, was a written
statement that contained the goals and objectives distributed to all
personnel? The respondents, by their answers to this question,
indicated only 39 percent had, prior to Accreditation, written goals
and Objectives (Table 4-6).
Question number 2 in this section asked whether or not the
agency required progress reports from each organizational component
toward goal attainment. Of the 36 respondents, 53 percent answered
Yes (Table 4-6).
The third question in this section asked whether, prior to
Accreditation, the agency required all sworn officers to abide by a
written code of ethics. Of the 36 agencies responding to this
question 94 percent said Yes, they did (Table 4-6).
Question number 4 was written to determine if, prior to
Accreditation, did the agency have a written directive that

established procedures for obtaining input on the development of
agency goals and objectives from all agency personnel? Of the 36
responding agencies, only 31 percent did require input via a written
directive (Table 4-6).
Six agencies answered all four of the questions in the
section Yes (16 percent). Of the fourteen agencies who answered
affirmatively to question number 1 having to do with written goals
and objectives, 13 also were able to answer question number 2 which
dealt with required progress reports from organizational components
on goals and objectives obtained in an affirmative manner as well
(92 percent). Of those answering questions 1 and 2 with a Yes
answer (13), twelve of those agencies also answered question 3,
which dealt with an enforced code of ethics, with a Yes answer (92
percent). Seven agencies answered all four questions in this
section with a Yes response (19 percent). The individual breakdown
of agency responses to these four questions is contained in Table
Table 4-6
Case 1-Goals 2-PrgRpt 3-Code 4-Input TotAgc
1 0 0 1 0 0.25
2 0 1 1 0 0.50
3 0 1 1 0 0.50
4 0 0 1 0 0.25
5 1 1 0 1 0.75
6 1 1 1 1 1.00
7 0 1 1 0 0.50
8 0 0 1 0 0.25
9 0 0 1 0 0.25
10 0 0 0 0 0.00
11 0 0 1 0 0.25

Table 4-6 (Continued)
12 0 0 1 0 0.25
13 0 0 1 1 0.50
14 1 1 1 0 0.75
15 0 1 1 1 0.75
16 0 0 1 0 0.25
17 0 1 1 0 0.50
18 1 1 1 1.00
19 1 1 1 1 1.00
20 1 1 1 1 1.00
21 1 1 1 1 1.00
22 0 0 1 0 0.25
23 0 0 1 1 0.50
24 1 1 1 1 1.00
25 0 1 1 0 0.50
26 1 1 1 0 0.75
27 0 0 1 0 0.25
28 1 1 1 0 0.75
29 1 1 1 0 0.75
30 1 1 1 1 1.00
31 1 0 1 0 0.60
32 1 1 1 0 0.75
33 0 0 1 0 0.25
34 0 0 1 0 0.25
35 0 0 1 0 0.25
Mean 3956 53% 9456 3156 0.54
Minimum Maximum Std.Dev Count *36 36 36 36 0.00 1.00 0.30 36
Question 5 in this section, which is a narrative question
that asked for benefits derived by the agency from the accreditation
process which established written goals and objectives, the most
often used key words were awareness (5), understanding (5),
participation (3), and direction (3). (Table 4-7).

Table 4-7
Case Question Answer
35 5 Accountability
1 5 Assess Effectiveness
17 5 Awareness
20 5 Awareness
22 5 Awareness
31 5 Awareness
33 5 Awareness
34 5 Awareness
27 5 Blueprint
34 5 Clear Guidelines
5 5 Commitment to Participatory Management
6 5 Common Purpose
30 5 Common Purpose
17 5 Communications
20 5 Community Concern
33 5 Consistency
3 5 Creativity
18 5 Definition
35 5 Definition
16 5 Direction
18 5 Direction
23 5 Direction
21 5 Emphasize importance of goals/objectives
14 5 Encourages input
4 5 Everyday practices
26 5 Functional goals
11 5 Guidance
18 5 Guidance
16 5 Guidelines
10 5 Insurance
24 5 Insurance
8 5 Involvement
7 5 Knowledge
1 5 Made adjustments
10 5 Mandated review
20 5 Measurement
23 5 Measurement
30 5 Morale
31 5 Morale
22 5 Motivation
19 5 None
28 5 None
32 5 None

Table 4-7 (Continued)
2 5 Participation
3 5 Participation
36 5 Participation
6 5 Positive Direction
10 5 Professionalism
20 5 Quality of Service
11 5 Reference for City Officials
15 5 Refinements of planning process
35 5 Review
29 5 Solid foundation
26 5 Specificity
13 5 Understanding
14 5 Understanding
24 5 Understanding
25 5 Understanding
36 5 Understanding
12 5 Uniformity
9 5 Unknown
27 5 Yardstick
29 5 Yardstick
Question 6 asked for any liabilities the agency had incurred
from the accreditation process that mandated written goals and
objectives. (Table 4-8). Only four responses were noted. They
were: cost prohibits some goal meeting, difficult record keeping,
loss of credibility when goals not achieved, and points out
deficiencies. Of the 36 responses only 4 or 11 percent remarked
that a liability existed. Of those responses there doesnt appear
to be any pattern.

Table 4-8
Case Question Answer
13 6 Cost prohibits some goal meeting
16 6 Difficult record keeping
14 6 Loss of credibility when goals not
1 6 None
2 6 None
3 6 None
4 6 None
5 6 None
6 6 None
7 6 None
8 6 None
9 6 None
10 6 None
11 6 None
12 6 None
15 6 None
17 6 None
18 6 None
19 6 None
20 6 None
21 6 None
22 6 None
23 6 None
24 6 None
25 6 None
26 6 None
28 6 None
29 6 None
30 6 None
31 6 None
32 6 None
33 6 None
34 6 None
35 6 None
36 6 None
27 6 Points out deficiencies
Deadly Force
The area of deadly force was the first of three specific

sections that were selected because of their individual importance
to the field of law enforcement as well as the universalistic
acceptance of all three areas in both large and small departments
through the country as being important.
The first question in this section, number 7, asked whether
prior to Accreditation a written directive was in place that
established that only the force necessary could be used to effect
lawful objectives. All 36 respondents answered all questions in the
use of force section. On question number 7, 92 percent answered
Yes, that the directive was in place prior to Accreditation.
Question 8 asked whether, prior to Accreditation, did the agency
have a written directive that stated an officer could use deadly
force only when the officer reasonably believed the action was in
defense of human life, including the officers own life, or in
defense of any person who was in immediate danger of serious
physical injury? Seventy-eight percent of the respondents answered
this question Yes. Question 9 asked if, prior to Accreditation, did
the agency have in place a written directive that specified that the
use of deadly force against a fleeing felon could only be used under
the conditions outlined in question 8, they are only when the
officer believes the actions are necessary in defense of human life,
including the officers, or in defense of any person who is in
immediate danger of serious physical injury? Sixty-one percent of
the agencies were able to answer this question with an affirmative
response. Question 10 asked that if, prior to Accreditation, did
your agency issue to all sworn employees copies of the departmental

use of force policy? The survey reflected 81 percent of the
respondents answered Yes. Question 11 asked if, prior to
Accreditation, did your agency require that all sworn officers be
given instructions regarding the departmental use of force policy.
Eighty-six percent answered Yes. The next question, number 12,
asked if, prior to Accreditation, did your agency have a written
directive in place that required each sworn officer to qualify at
least annually with any firearms the officer was authorized to
use? Regarding question 12, 92 percent of the departments answered
Yes. Question 13 asked if, prior to Accreditation, did your agency
have in place a written directive that required a written report be
submitted whenever an officer takes an action that results in an
alleged or actual injury or death or another person, or applies
force to any person through the use of non-lethal weapons. The
respondents answered the first part of question 13 with 92 percent
Yes answers. On the second portion of this question, 78 percent
answered Yes. The final question in this section, question 14,
asked if, prior to Accreditation, the agency had a written directive
in place that established a procedure for reviewing incidents in
which there was an application of force through the use of a weapon
by agency personnel. Seventy-two percent of the agencies answered
this Yes. The final column in table 4-9 reflects how the agencies
answered the use of force questions with 1.00 depicting answering
all questions yes. Twelve agencies could answer all in that manner
(33 percent). Twenty-one agencies answered all but one of the use
of force questions with an affirmative reply (58 percent). There

doesnt appear to be any pattern as to which one question of those
agencies was not answered with the exception that all 21 answered
question 7 Yes. Three categories in this section fell below an 80
percent affirmative response rate. Those questions were 8, having
to do with a policy that outlined under what circumstances could an
officer use deadly force, question 13b, requiring a written report
when non-lethal weapons were used, and question 14, which inquired
as to a procedure that required a review of all incidents where
there was an application of force through the use of a weapon.
Table 4-9
Case 7 Force 8 Life 9 Flny 10 Plcy 11 Instr 12 Qlty 13a INJ 13b NLW 14 RevU TotFrc
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.89
3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.88
4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
6 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
8 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0.67
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
10 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.56
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.67
12 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
14 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0.56
15 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.67
16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.89
17 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.78
18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
19 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
22 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0.89
23 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 i 1 0.89
24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
26 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0.56

Table 4-9 (Continued)
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
28 1 0 0 1 i 1 1 1 0 0.67
29 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.67
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0.89
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
33 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0.33
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
35 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0.78
36 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.78
Mean 92 $ Minimum Maximum 78$ 61$ 89$ 00 89$ 92$ co 72$ 0.82 0.00 1.00
StdDev 36 36 36 36 35 36 36 36 36 36
The final two questions in this section are the narrative
questions which have been reversed as to their order in this
section. Question 15 asked what liabilities did the agency incur
from meeting the standards dealing with the use of deadly force
section. Table 4-10 reflects the answers. Only 5 responses, two
having to do directly with training. Additionally, a concern for
"Administrative Workload," "A concern from rank and file over
constraints," and lastly, "Liability if policies not enforced."
Table 4-10
Case Question Answer
12 15 Additional Training
23 15 Administrative Workload
5 15 Concern from rank and file
16 15 Liability if policies not <
1 15 None
2 15 None
3 15 None
4 15 None
6 15 None
7 15 None
8 15 None

Table 4-10 (Continued)
9 15
10 15
11 15
13 15
14 15
15 15
17 15
18 15
19 15
20 15
21 15
22 15
24 15
25 15
26 15
27 15
28 15
29 15
30 15
31 15
32 15
33 15
34 15
35 15
36 15
23 15
Question 16 asked what benefits has your agency derived from
meeting compliance with the standards regarding deadly force. The
responses to question 16 reflect 5 agencies seeing clearer
guidelines, and several groupings of two seeing fewer instances of
use of deadly force, guidelines which could mean the same thing as
clear guidelines and two that saw understanding as being a benefit.
Table 4-11
Case Question Answer
25 iff Affirmed procedures
14 16 Better reports
15 16 Clarification

Table 4-11 (Continued)
8 16 Clear guidelines
26 16 Clear guidelines
28 16 Clear guidelines
33 16 Clear guidelines
35 16 Clear guidelines
23 16 Compliance
24 16 Consistency
2 16 Decreased use of deadly force
34 16 Discontinued use of some non-lethal weapons
23 16 Documentation
29 16 Every officer has manual
26 16 Fewer complaints
35 16 Fewer instances of use of deadly force
36 16 Fewer instances of use of deadly force
29 16 Guidelines
36 16 Guidelines
10 16 Insurance
17 16 Less likelihood of litigation
11 16 Mechanism for monitoring conduct
3 16 None
7 16 None
9 16 None
18 16 None
20 16 None
21 16 None
22 16 None
27 16 None
31 16 None
32 16 None
6 16 Not identified
15 16 Policy adopted
4 16 Policy more clear
4 16 Policy more restrictive
19 16 Protection
13 16 Responsiveness from reporting process
16 16 Safeguards
34 16 Trained personnel
5 16 Understanding
14 16 Understanding
Police Pursuit Policy
In this topic area the first question, number 17, asks if
prior to Accreditation, did your agency have a written directive
that governs pursuit of motor vehicles. Of the 36 agencies that

answered this question, 92 percent stated they had such a policy in
place prior to Accreditation. Since there are so many different
issues that can impact a pursuit policy, the second question in this
area was divided into eight specific areas to address the content of
these pursuit policies. Only 33 of the 36 agencies answered
question 18. Their responses are as follows. 18a asked the
question, if a chase policy existed prior to Accreditation, did it
include a component that addressed the issue of the pursuing officer
evaluating the circumstances. Of the 33 agencies that answered
question 18a, 82 percent answered affirmatively. 18b asked that if
pre-existing policy contained criteria that addressed the initiating
officers responsibility. Ninety-one percent said Yes. 18c asked
if this pre-existing policy contained the secondary unit's
responsibilities. Seventy-three percent said Yes. Part d of
question 18 asked if the pre-existing policy contained that
described the dispatcher's responsibilities. Eighty-two percent
answered Yes. Part e asked if supervisor responsibilities were
addressed. Eighty-five said Yes. Section e asked if forcible
stopping was addressed in their policy. Seventy-nine percent
answered affirmatively. Part g asked if the chase policy addressed
the issue of when to terminate the pursuit. Eighty-eight percent
said Yes, their policy addressed termination of pursuits. The final
part of question 18, section h, asked if their policy addressed the
issue of inter- or intra-jurisdictional pursuits. Seventy-seven
percent answered Yes that their policy did address that issue.
Table H-'iZ reflects the data regarding patrol chase policies.