Police Accreditation

The Hartford Police Department is currently undergoing the self assessment phase of national accreditation. This labor intensive and comprehensive project is the final piece of the process before assessors are invited to visit Hartford and do their on-site inspection. Current plans are for the on-site to occur some time in late summer or early fall. Below is some basic information on the Accreditation process and its background.

Much of the process of accreditation is designed to bring many operations of the department more fully before the community and open our procedures to public view and understanding. Anyone who is interested in additional details of the project are encouraged to contact Chief Joseph Estey at 802/295-9425.

The voluntary accreditation program for law enforcement agencies is a joint effort of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., and law enforcement's major membership associations:

- International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP);

- National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE);

- National Sheriffs' Association (NSA); and the

- Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).

THE COMMISSION

The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. was formed in 1979 to establish a body of standards designed to (1) increase law enforcement agency capabilities to prevent and control crime; (2) increase agency effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of law enforcement services; (3) increase cooperation and coordination with other law enforcement agencies and with other agencies of the criminal justice system; and (4) increase citizen and employee confidence in the goals, objectives, policies, and practices of the agency. In addition, the Commission was formed to develop an accreditation process that provides law enforcement agencies an opportunity to voluntarily demonstrate that they meet an established set of professional standards.

The four founding membership associations joined forces to create the Commission and to appoint its members. The Commission is composed of 21 members: at least 11 law enforcement professionals, and the balance from other governmental areas and from private sector. The Commission reflects broad representation from state and local levels as well as from many regions of North America.

THE STANDARDS

Standards Manual Evolution

Following its first organizational meeting in December 1979, the Commission turned its attention to the development of standards. Each of the four associations contributed a staff to review pertinent literature and prepare draft standards for consideration by the Commission at its quarterly meetings. The final chapters of the draft standards were approved on May 1, 1982.

During this 28-month time frame, there were also organizational changes. The four associations incorporated the Commission as an independent, nonprofit (501[c]3) corporation in October 1980. In March 1981, an Executive Director was employed to begin work on program implementation and to form an independent staff to replace the four volunteer groups.

After approval of the draft standards in 1982, the Commission submitted its work to a field review. This accomplished the task of introducing the standards to the law enforcement community, while at the same time, yielding valuable feedback on the quality and value of the standards. Parallel to standards development, was the construction of an accreditation process, including all relevant policies, procedures, manuals, and forms necessary to administering and complying with the standards. This ingredient was a radical step forward from earlier standard-setting endeavors, which indulged users with the luxury of whimsically focusing on those standards which were easy or popular. Most of 1982 and 1983 was spent with field testing. The standards (Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies) and process received final approval from the Commission in September 1983.

Since initial approval, the standards have undergone many interpretations, adjustments, and amendments. These changes were reported in eight change notices issued between September 1983 and November 1992. In May 1987, the Commission reprinted the 2nd Edition of the Standards Manual in loose-leaf form and initiated an update service.

In 1990 the Commission prepared a special computer program called the Agency Self-assessment Automated Program (ASAP). ASAP is an extra option available to assist agencies to complete the accreditation process. The program provides many features for printing labels, standards, and forms, and includes tracking and reporting options, which provide valuable assistance for self-assessment and overall management. The software has been revised to keep pace with changes in the standards and accreditation program.

In March 1993, the Commission ordered a top-to-bottom review of the standards and accreditation process after nearly ten years of operation. A Standards Review Task Force, representing a wide cross-section of the Commission's user community, undertook an extensive, yearlong review of the standards. Following several drafts and a field review, the task force made a final recommendation to the Commission and the 3rd Edition of the Standards Manual was approved for March 1994. At the same time the Commission discontinued the upgrade service and reduced the period of accreditation from 5 years to 3 years.

In July 1997, the Commission ordered another review of its standards and process, motivated this time by a desire to foster periodic reviews of its own program consistent with the reassessments of participating agencies for reaccreditation. Following the same successful strategy, a 2nd Standards Review Task Force, with diverse representation, was commissioned. Their work culminated in final approval of the 4th Edition of the Standards Manual in July 1998. The evolutionary changes in this Edition are less revolutionary than previous Editions, represent the utility and relevance of standards to the profession, and reflected a democratic process for change. The manual took effect on January 1, 1999, following printing and distribution to all participating agencies. A policy for making the transition from the 3rd to the 4th Edition is noted in Appendix D.

Standards Development

Originally, the Commission defined 48 topics that the standards would address. Each chapter of standards was carefully reviewed, modified as needed, and tentatively approved. More than 1,400 standards were developed. This number was reduced to 1,012 after field review and again to 944 by the time of final adoption and printing of the 1st Edition.

A variety of Commission committees have been responsible for maintaining and interpreting standards since their inception. Committee decisions have resulted in many additions, deletions, and amendments. The total number of standards have seen reductions to 924, 902, and 897. In May 1987, the 2nd Edition was printed and in July 1990, Chapter 55 (Victim/Witness Assistance) was added to the Standards Manual, raising the number of topics to 49. In April 1994, the revolutionary 3rd Edition appeared. A Standards Review Task Force recommended sweeping changes, resulting in an approved manual with 436 standards consolidated into 40 chapters. The 3rd Edition was hailed as a major improvement to standard quality and process methodology.

Nature and Scope of the Standards

The Standards Manual contains 439 standards organized into 38 chapters, or topic areas (see Contents). In the Commission's view, the standards reflect the best professional requirements and practices for a law enforcement agency. The standards' requirements provide a description of "what" must be accomplished by the applicant agency but allows that agency wide latitude in determining "how" it will achieve its compliance with each applicable standard. This approach allows independence and is the key to understanding the universal nature and flexibility of the standards approved by the Commission for this manual. Compliance should never be limited to a single means of achievement. Consequently, compliance is always attainable.

The Commission expects accredited agencies to maintain compliance and live by the letter and spirit of the standards. There is a presumption on the part of the Commission that agencies operate in compliance with their written directives. Successful agencies, then, focus single-mindedly upon complying with standards in a manner that most effectively meets the needs of their individual agency and the citizens they serve. The agency must consider its mission, its legally mandated responsibilities, and the demands of its service community in determining which standards are applicable to it and how it will comply with applicable standards. A set of Guiding Principles for applicant agencies and assessors is provided in Appendix B.

Each standard is composed of three parts: the standard statement, the commentary, and the levels of compliance.

The standard statement is a declarative sentence that places a clear-cut requirement, or multiple requirements, on an agency. Many statements call for the development and implementation of written directives, such as general or special orders, standard operating procedures, or other documented communication, either in hard copy or electronic form, which articulate the agency's policies, procedures, rules, and regulations.

The commentary supports the standard statement but is not binding. The commentary can serve as a prompt, as guidance to clarify the intent of the standard, or as an example of one possible way to comply with the standard. Since the agency has the latitude to determine "how" it will comply with applicable standards to effectively meet its needs, and since the burden of proof to verify this compliance is also the responsibility of the agency, it can choose to ignore the commentary and comply with the standard on its own terms. For example, standard 41.1.3 (frequency and procedures for shift briefings) dictates "what" must be accomplished. The commentary suggests four basic tasks for inclusion in shift briefings and clarifies applicability to those who do not report to a facility for shift briefings. The agency may follow these suggestions in whole or in part, or choose an entirely different method conductive to its particular situation.

The levels of compliance denote the relative importance assigned to each standard, if applicable, based upon agency size. For each of four agency-size categories, the levels of compliance indicate whether a given standard is mandatory (M), other-than-mandatory (O), or not applicable due to size (N/A). Standards dealing with life, health, safety issues, legal matters, or which are considered essential law enforcement requirements are classified as mandatory. Standards dealing with important or desirable law enforcement requirements or with exemplary activities are classified as other-than-mandatory. Standards not required of agencies because of their size are classified as not applicable.

Standards are grouped in chapters by subject areas. Each chapter begins with an introduction. In much the same way as the commentary, each introduction may provide important guidance to an agency regarding the subject area, its applicability, or the related standards. Key terms used throughout the Standards Manual are defined in the Glossary (Appendix A). The importance of the glossary cannot be overstated. Many terms in law enforcement are universal; some are not. The glossary defines terms in the manual to correspond with the Commission's intent on "what" is required by a standard and to guide the agency in determining "how" it will comply. An important example is found in Chapter 1 (Role & Authority) where identifying the roles and responsibilities of all agency personnel is critical and is related to requirements in successive chapters.

Applicability of the Standards and Compliance with Them

As noted above, some standards may not be applicable to an agency because of its size. In addition, standards may or may not be applicable depending on the functions performed or not performed by the agency. Each agency starting the accreditation program must review all standards to identify those that are not applicable to its responsibilities. Standards that fall into this category are considered to be not applicable by function: neither those standards nor their corresponding level of compliance would be applicable to the agency. For example, a police agency may not have the responsibility to provide court security (Chapter 73) in its jurisdiction because this function is performed by the county sheriff. If the police agency were the applicant agency, all standards in Chapter 73 would be considered "not applicable" because this agency does not perform the function addressed by the chapter. On the other hand, if the sheriff's office, in this example, were the applicant agency, the standards in Chapter 73 would apply and the levels of compliance would become relevant. This example illustrates why a standard may be applicable to one agency and not applicable to another even when the agencies are the same size. Further information on applicability is found in the Guiding Principles.

When the applicant agency has eliminated those standards that do not apply, the balance becomes the list of "applicable" standards whose requirements must be complied with in order to achieve accredited status. An agency applying for accreditation is expected to comply with all applicable mandatory (M) standards (except in rare instances when the Commission grants a waiver) and at least 80 percent of the applicable other-than-mandatory (O) standards. The agency is free to select the applicable other-than-mandatory standards to include in the 80 percent group.

If the level of compliance based on the agency's size category is (N/A) for any standard; the agency is excused from complying with the standard's requirements. (Exception: if the agency voluntarily chooses to perform the function or activity required by the standard, it becomes applicable regardless of agency size and the requirements must be met. The agency treats the standard as if it were other-than-mandatory in this situation.) Assessors verify the status of all standards while on-site.

If an agency is prevented from complying with an applicable mandatory standard because of circumstances beyond its control, e.g., labor contract, court decree, it may ask the Commission to "waive" the obligation to comply. The request must be made in writing during the self-assessment phase. If the Commission accepts the request, the agency is given conditional approval to proceed with its self-assessment. However, the assessors will be given the responsibility to verify the waiver conditions during the on-site assessment. A final determination for waiving applicability will be made by the Commission at the accreditation hearing.

Animal Control | Homeland Security | Accreditation | Job Openings