|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accreditation Study by Stan Crowder
In 1983 when I left the streets and returned to the military full-time, I had not heard of CALEA or accreditation. It was not until I decided to return to school in 1996 and pursue a doctorate degree that I learned of the accreditation process for law enforcement agencies. What I discovered was a process that required management to do the right thing! I read everything I could on CALEA and the accreditation process. Dick Kitterman (then Executive Director) and the CALEA staff provided insightful information, as well as, printed material. I was inspired by Dr. Jerry Williams' 1988 dissertation, Law Enforcement Accreditation: An Effort to Professionalize American Law Enforcement. I found officers throughout the country that had completed a master’s thesis on accreditation. Each officer I contacted provided wisdom and direction. Super people like Major Steve Templeton of the Bristol, Tennessee, Police Department, and Major Charles Wiley of the Charleston, South Carolina, Police Department sent me copies of their papers and encouraged me. I attended the CALEA meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio in July 1997, where I received formal training and observed the agency accreditation review. I was impressed. It had been nearly ten years since Dr. Williams' study of accreditation, so I decided to replicate parts of his study, add some new questions, and attempt to determine if accreditation had professionalized American law enforcement. I sought membership in the Georgia Police Accreditation Coalition, to learn what was happening in the Georgia accreditation movement. Upon acceptance for membership, I presented my proposed survey instrument at the October 1997 monthly meeting. Approximately 25 members reviewed the questionnaire I had developed and offered suggestions for improvements. Critical reviews by accreditation managers, police chiefs, and a Ph.D. at the Atlanta, Georgia, Police Department resulted in a vastly improved product. The final details of the questionnaire were completed when I mailed the instrument to my new friends in law enforcement that I met at the Cincinnati meeting. Corporal Todd Shepard of the South Burlington, Vermont, Police Department, Captain Ed Nixon of the Huntsville, Alabama, Police Department, and Chief Danny O'Malley of the Xenia, Ohio, Police Division provided the needed input to ensure the questionnaire was not too "regionalized" by the Georgia review. The final 9-page questionnaire contained ten administrative questions, ten training questions, eleven use of force questions, twelve pursuit questions, and eight questions on the "value" of being an accredited agency. Included with the questionnaire were two letters of introduction concerning who I was and what I was attempting to do. Mr. Kitterman's letter validated that I was a legitimate researcher. A memorandum from Mr. Bob Hightower, Director of Public Safety for Cobb County, Georgia revealed that I was a former civilian police officer and I was completing a doctoral internship with Cobb County Police Department. In November 1997, questionnaires were mailed to the latest I00 agencies receiving accreditation through CALEA as of August 1,1997. Although my doctoral committee had been concerned about what the return rate might be, I was convinced that the CEO's and accreditation managers would assist a former police officer in his educational endeavors. Seventy-three valid questionnaires were completed and returned as of March 1,1998. A seventy-three percent return rate was excellent. Fifty-six police departments, six sheriffs’ offices, six university police departments, and five other type agencies responded. The other type agencies included: a marshal's office, a state highway patrol, a river and bay authority police department, a contracted law enforcement agency for the federal government, and an airport police department. The law enforcement agencies ranged in employees from four to 1,417. The purpose of this study was to determine if compliance with nationally accepted standards, as determined by CALEA, professionalized American law enforcement. By measuring improvements in accredited agencies in the areas of training, use of force, and pursuit, the author hoped to prove that compliance with established standards resulted in professionalization. Improving law enforcement can be measured by changes implemented to comply with the standards of CALEA. Policy and procedures for law enforcement officers ensures an understanding of the expectations and requirements from management, therefore, changes or additions to those policies and procedures to comply with nationally accepted standards reveals improvement in the way law enforcement is conducted. Although improvement is not a characteristic of professionalization, accreditation is. The agencies of this survey did change, improve, and move toward professionalization because of undergoing the CALEA accreditation process. After two years of study, research, and analysis of the survey, I concluded that accreditation is a very important part of the trek to professionalism for law enforcement. The program and process provide a win-win situation for citizens, law enforcement officers, and law enforcement managers. Citizens win because their law enforcement agency has taken the initiative to comply with a set of national developed standards. CALEA compliance provides an agency, which is more open and responsive to citizen input. Citizens like someone from the "outside" looking at their agency; accountability is viewed as a positive. Citizens can have confidence that the agency management team has set forth a quality set of rules, regulations, policies, and procedures which address operational readiness issues. Law enforcement officers win because almost any circumstance in which an officer may find himself or herself has a set of established guidelines and a methodology for solutions. It is the author's firm belief that most officers want to do the right thing and to do so often requires guidance from management. Law enforcement managers are the biggest winners in the accreditation process. Accreditation makes management do what it should have been doing all along-- ensuring that adequate guidance is provided to the operational level employees! Accreditation forces management to stay on top of the many changes in law, judicial decisions, and civil litigation. What was proper guidance last year may very well be outdated today. Accreditation results in a focus on continuous improvement. CALEA Conference Online Dr. Stan Crowder invites you to join him in an Internet conference on accreditation. Sponsored by MCB University Press and Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Dr. Crowder is hosting the conference entitled "CALEA Accreditation and its Effect on Professionalism." The themes for discussion are: departmental improvements as a result of CALEA accreditation, personnel improvements as a result of CALEA accreditation; policy changes in training, use of force and pursuits, as a result of CALEA accreditation; perceived value of CALEA accreditation on the community and the department; and reasons to seek reaccreditation. You will find Dr. Crowder's doctoral dissertation Law Enforcement Accreditation: Has It Professionalized American Law Enforcement? Abstract and the Executive Summary at the conference site. These tools are used to "kick-off" the discussions. You may join the conference site, which will be available through the summer at: http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/feb99/calea/
|
|
|
