American law enforcement agencies should achieve and maintain accredited status. By adhering to national standards, operational effectiveness can be strengthened, liability can be reduced and public trust can be enhanced. Accreditation provides law enforcement agencies with the structure for adopting best practices, improving leadership and building or maintaining public trust (Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, 2024). Accreditation through national organizations helps agencies align their operations with well-researched professional standards. Policing in the United States continues to face heightened scrutiny. This is driven in part by public expectations of transparency, accountability, consistency and professional excellence. Accreditation can help meet these expectations.

Accreditation is widely accepted and expected across multiple professional industries and has been for many years. An examination across several of these industries reveals that the health care industry, aviation industry and the fire/emergency medical services (EMS) industries have parallels with policing that are significant. All face expectations of professionalism, transparency and accountability, while operating in high-risk environments with high liability. Research on health care accreditation consistently shows that accreditation is directly related to increased communication decreased mortality rates and improved documentation (Shaw, et. al., 2014). Fire/EMS accreditation research has shown that it results in improved response consistency and resource allocation (Carter & Rausch, 2019). A lack of accreditation or standards is known for resulting in a wide variety of training quality, inconsistent service delivery, higher rates of citizen complaints, increased liability, and difficulty establishing professional legitimacy and public trust.

In policing, accreditation emerged in response to concerns about accountability, professionalism, and public scrutiny in the mid-1900s. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice was formed in 1965 and produced a report in 1967, highlighting the need for formal standards to improve police training, quality of services and other administrative practices. These needs were supported again by the “High-Performing Policing Movement” of the 1970s, which placed emphasis on the need for managerial competency, standardized procedures and organizational benchmarks (Kelling & Moore, 1988). In 1973, a commission appointed by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration suggested standards to increase effectiveness and to provide guidance and structure to agencies to improve their own operations (“A History of CALEA,” n.d.).

This led to the formation of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), which produced its first standards manual in 1983. For law enforcement agencies with a detentions function, the American Correctional Association (ACA) established the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections in 1974 and published the standards for adult local detention facilities, which apply to jails operated by police and sheriff agencies, in 1981 (“The History of Standards & Accreditation,” n.d.).

Despite the existence of law enforcement accrediting bodies for many years, it is estimated that less than 5% of the nearly 18,000 local and federal law enforcement agencies in the United States are accredited. It is also important to note that, until 2020, it does not appear that there were any laws making law enforcement accreditation mandatory.

However, since 2020, there have been several states that have passed reform-related legislation requiring law enforcement accreditation. There are also now over 30 states that have developed their own accreditation standards and review bodies. To date, accreditation remains a largely voluntary process, and there has been very little citizen-level demand for their law enforcement agencies to achieve and maintain accreditation. However, the number of nationally accredited agencies has grown, demonstrating a shift toward evidence-based policing and external accountability (Walker & Archbold, 2019).

Why accreditation matters

• Accreditation enhances all administrative and operational aspects of law enforcement by refining processes, reducing redundancy and streamlining workflows (Willis, Mastrofski, & Weisburd, 2007). It also provides functional clarity and improved coordination, communication and collaboration. This results in more efficient and effective organizations.
• Accreditation requires that agencies implement best practices in training, readiness and officer safety. This results in fewer injuries and safer outcomes in high-risk encounters (Alpert & Durham, 2004).
• Standardized response protocols increase agency performance during critical incidents, use-of-force incidents, internal administrative investigations, etc., because of consistency and increased professionalism that accompanies accreditation (Reaves, 2015).
• Accreditation helps agencies secure grant funding opportunities due to accredited agencies being prioritized because of their demonstrated accountability and performance reliability (U.S. DOJ, 2023).
• Accreditation brings stability during leadership changes due to the standardization in policies, procedures and expectations. Agencies are more easily able to avoid policy reversals, confusion about expectations, and administrative and operational disruptions (Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, 2024).
• Independent review and verification are critical due to the high-risk nature of law enforcement. The external assessments provided through accreditation identify gaps in policy, shortfalls in training and other operational weaknesses. These are issues that may be overlooked with internal or local reviews (Walker, 2005).
• Accreditation requires agencies to maintain higher standards for selection, training, evaluation and leadership development (Cordner, 2020).
• Research links increased quality policy development, which is required for accreditation, with improved performance and a reduction in misconduct (Hickman & Piquero, 2009).
• Accreditation supports risk management by requiring proper reporting and supervisory activity. This, along with clear written directives and robust training systems, significantly reduces civil litigation and operational errors (Terrill & Paoline, 2017).
• Accreditation aligns well with the principles of evidence-based policing by mandating that agencies regularly evaluate their policies, collect and analyze data, and implement research-based strategies (Sherman, 1998). This helps agencies adopt crime reduction strategies and community policing models that are supported by empirical results.
• Arguably, the most important benefit is that accreditation requires transparency, accountability and unbiased enforcement. This results in better community engagement and collaboration (Kelling & Moore, 1988). Transparency, accountability and external oversight significantly improve public confidence, public trust, satisfaction and cooperation (Skogan, 2020). Credibility and legitimacy are enhanced with the community, governing bodies and partner organizations due to the outside verification that agencies meet national or international best practice standards. Law enforcement agencies perceived as fair, transparent and accountable enjoy greater public cooperation and community support (Tyler, 2006). Accreditation is not just a certificate on a wall. It communicates to the public that the agency adheres to objective, professionally developed and continuously reviewed standards, reinforcing internal and external legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

Research into accreditation reinforces the role of structured improvement in law enforcement performance. Agencies that adopt systematic oversight frameworks demonstrate reductions in misconduct, improved legitimacy and stronger organizational outcomes (Lum & Nagin, 2017; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). Accreditation is among the most effective ways for implementing and maintaining such a structured framework.

---

References

A History of CALEA. (n.d.). Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. calea.org/our-history.

Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (2004). Understanding police use of force. Cambridge University Press.

Carter, H., & Rausch, E. (2019). Emergency services accreditation and its impact on operational performance. Fire Service Journal, 12(2), 45–59.

Cordner, G. (2020). Police administration (9th ed.). Routledge.

Hickman, M., & Piquero, A. (2009). Organizational justice and performance in policing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 71–76.

Kelling, G., & Moore, M. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on Policing, 4, 1–15.

Lum, C., & Nagin, D. (2017). Reinventing American policing. Crime and Justice, 46, 339–393.

Reaves, B. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices. U.S. Department of Justice.

Shaw, C., Groene, O., & Botje, D. (2014). The effect of hospital accreditation on quality of care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 26(1), 15–23.

Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing, 1, 1–15.

Skogan, W. (2020). Community policing: Past, present and future. Oxford University Press.

Standards for law enforcement agencies. (2024). Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.

Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003). Procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. (2017). Police use of force: A review and analysis. Police Quarterly, 20(1), 3–31.

The History of Standards & Accreditation. (n.d.) American Correctional Association. aca.org/certifications-and-accreditatrion/the-history-of-standards-accreditation.

Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). Grant eligibility guidelines for law enforcement agencies. Office of Justice Programs.

Walker, S. (2005). The accountable police. CQ Press.

Walker, S., & Archbold, C. (2019). The new world of police accountability (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice.

Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2007). Making sense of Compstat. Policing: An International Journal, 30(3), 471–497.