💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › fbiaug01.law captured on 2023-06-16 at 18:57:41.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
August 1990
ACCREDITATION:
A SMALL DEPARTMENT'S EXPERIENCE
By
Raymond E. Arthurs
Chief, Willowbrook, Illinois, Police Department
Over a decade ago, four major law enforcement associations
joined together to form the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). (1) The primary purpose of the
commission was to establish and administer an accreditation
process for law enforcement agencies. Accreditation was one way
to professionalize the police and to improve the delivery of law
enforcement services to the communities they served.
To this end, CALEA researched, tested, and approved
standards for law enforcement administration and operations.
These standards were then made available to agencies through an
accreditation program. Today, they still serve as the basis for
law enforcement agencies to demonstrate voluntarily that they
meet professional criteria.
This article provides a brief overview of the standards
approved by CALEA and the accreditation process. It then covers
the process and methods used by the Palos Heights, Illinois,
Police Department to achieve accredited status.
ACCREDITATION STANDARDS
CALEA adopted some 900 standards, which are organized into
48 chapters. The standards address six major law enforcement
topics. (2) Designed to reflect the best professional practices
in each of the six areas, the standards concentrate on the
``what to do'' and leave the ``how to do'' up to the individual
agencies.
Each standard is composed of three parts--the statement, the
commentary, and the level of compliance. Agencies must comply
only with standards applicable to the individual agency, based
on size and the functions it performs. For example, the
commission designated a number of standards that are not
applicable to smaller agencies. This is because small
departments cannot be expected to employ specialists and perform
certain functions that larger departments should and would be
expected to do.
Also, standards fall into two categories--mandatory and
nonmandatory. All agencies applying for accreditation must
comply with each mandatory standard, if it is applicable to the
agency. However, with nonmandatory standards, agencies must
meet only 80 percent of them, and only if they are applicable to
the particular agency. The commission staff usually determines
nonmandatory standards for each agency after reviewing its
application and documentation.
ACCREDITATION PROCESS
The accreditation process consists of five
phases--application, application profile questionnaire,
self-assessment, on-site assessment, and final review by the
commission. The process is designed to bring law enforcement
agencies into compliance with the established standards. CALEA
then awards accredited status to those agencies that meet or
exceed all requirements of the standards.
THE PALOS HEIGHTS EXPERIENCE
The Palos Heights Police Department initially applied for
accreditation and was accepted by CALEA in 1984. However, when
a number of staffing problems developed, the department put the
accreditation process on hold. Two years later, in March 1986,
the chief decided to seek accreditation again.
Application and Application Profile Questionnaire
To begin, the department requested information on
accreditation and an application package from CALEA. Once the
department completed and returned the questionnaire, the
commission sent the agency the Application Profile
Questionnaire. The department filled out the questionnaire and
provided all additional information requested by the commission.
After reviewing the completed questionnaire, the commission
confirmed the agency's eligibility and forwarded the
self-assessment package.
Self-Assessment
Before beginning the self-assessment stage, the department
developed a set of procedural guidelines. Then, the department
held meetings to explain and discuss the accreditation process
with all members of the department. These meetings also provided
a forum to seek input and assistance from all personnel in order
to complete the accreditation process successfully.
The first step in the self-assessment phase was to appoint
an accreditation manager, who was relieved of all official duties
in order to devote full time to the accreditation project. For
the entire period that it took to complete this stage of the
accreditation process, the accreditation manager served as the
focal point.
The accreditation manager's duties included preparing all
the necessary files, keeping a log of standards either being
worked on, reviewed and completed, and ensuring compliance with
all mandatory and nonmandatory CALEA standards. Other
responsibilities of the accreditation manager were to keep the
chief informed of the progress of the project and to obtain any
proof of compliance that might be needed from other city
departments, commissions, or criminal justice entities. Also,
during this phase, the accreditation manager served as liaison
with the CALEA staff member assigned to the agency.
Then, individual files were prepared for each standard
needed to achieve accreditation. Once this was done, the
accreditation manager assigned chapters of standards to
department members for review, revision, and level of compliance.
For example, the department's detectives received the chapters
concerning investigations, organized crime, juvenile operations,
intelligence, and internal affairs. In a small department, the
same two or three people basically handle these functions.
Therefore, they were tasked with completing the necessary work on
standards involving their area of expertise.
Personnel assigned to review departmental operations were
selected because of their experience in a particular area,
interest, availability, and assignment. For example, in the
Palos Heights Police Department, the shift sergeants worked on
chapters pertaining to patrol and traffic operations. The
evidence officer handled the chapters on evidence and property
management, while the accreditation manager completed the
chapters on personnel structure and processes and records and
communication. Chapter assignments on law enforcement roles,
responsibilities and relationships, as well as organization,
management, and administration, went to the patrol commander.
The accreditation manager kept track of the progress of the
review and set a time frame for completion. If problems
developed with standard compliance or with assigned tasks, the
accreditation manager held meetings twice a month to resolve
these problems. These meetings also kept the program on track
and served to hold the interest of members involved.
To assist with the self-assessment phase, the department
obtained copies of general orders and rules and regulations from
a number of accreditated agencies to use as resource information.
Personnel then reviewed current departmental rules and
regulations, general orders, and policies, as well as local and
State law, to determine agency compliance with the standards. In
many cases, the department had a rule or order on a particular
standard, but that rule or order needed to be revised or
substantially altered to bring it into compliance with
accreditation standards. In fact, soon after beginning the
self-assessment, police administrators decided to revise totally
the department's rules and orders into one new manual of general
orders.
At this stage in the accreditation process, it is extremely
beneficial to an agency in self-assessment to participate in a
local accreditation managers association, if one exists.
Unfortunately, when the Palos Heights Police Department was in
self-assessment, the local group for northern Illinois, the
Northern Illinois Police Accreditation Coalition (NIPAC), was
just forming. Since then, NIPAC expanded to become a statewide
organization now known as the Illinois Police Accreditation
Coalition (IPAC). The association is composed of accreditation
managers of those agencies in Illinois that are either
accredited, in self-assessment, or other law enforcement
professionals interested in police accreditation. The group
meets monthly to discuss problems experienced with accreditation
or compliance with standards. IPAC is currently assembling a
library of manuals from various agencies to assist law
enforcement agencies in the accreditation process.
To continue with its self-assessment, once the department
completed the new manual of general orders, the accreditation
manager reviewed the proposed new orders to ensure compliance was
met. Noted in the margin of each new order was the standard
number adjacent to the proof of compliance. Written
documentation also included the page, section, and paragraph
where the proof of compliance could be found.
After initial review by the accreditation manager, all
division commanders, shift supervisors, detectives, and the
police chief received copies of the proposed new general orders.
Each received a review sheet that was to be completed indicating
their review and incorporating comments regarding the proposed
new orders. The only specific requirement with regard to review
was that any comments or recommended changes must still result in
compliance with the applicable standard.
Also, supervisors were instructed to obtain feedback from
members of each shift. The benefit realized from having input
from all members of the department was acceptance of the orders
when they were finally issued. Allowing all department members
to review each new general order led to a high level of personal
involvement and a sense of accomplishment by all when the
department achieved accredited status.
After obtaining feedback, the accreditation manager
conducted a second review and prepared a final version for
distribution. At this point in the self-assessment phase, the
shift supervisors provided any needed instruction and training as
a result of the new general orders. Personnel were required to
document that they were advised of and understood the new orders
and that they received the necessary training. Then, the patrol
commander placed copies of these sign-off sheets in each
personnel file.
Once finalized, the folders for each chapter of standards
were then forwarded to the accreditation manager for one last
review before being entered into the permanent accreditation
files. If, during this final review, the accreditation manager
determined there was a problem with proof of compliance, the
chapter was returned to the member who initially worked on the
review with a request that the problem be corrected.
At this point, when the agency nears completion of the
self-assessment phase, a mock on-site assessment should be held
by a team of assessors from a local accreditation support group,
if one exists. Unfortunately, the Palos Heights Police
Department did not have this luxury, since the local
accreditation support group was just forming. However, a mock
on-site assessment gives a department an unbiased review by
police professionals who are familiar with the accreditation
process. This mock on-site assessment is basically an
abbreviated form of the real on-site review performed by CALEA,
with particular emphasis on accreditation files. It is better to
determine any problem or noncompliance with standards before
CALEA assessors arrive.
The self-assessment phase is the most critical stage in the
accreditation process, and it takes the longest amount of time.
Locating proofs of compliance, writing new rules and orders or
revising them, distributing new orders, and training personnel in
new procedures developed to comply with standards require a
substantial amount of time and effort.
On-site Assessment
When the department completed its self-assessment, it
notified the commission staff in writing. CALEA then requested
that certain random standards with proofs of compliance be
forwarded for its review. The random standards requested vary
from agency to agency, but usually deal with the critical issues
facing law enforcement today. If CALEA determines that there are
no perceived problems with the standards submitted, the on-site
assessment begins.
For the on-site assessment, CALEA identifies a team of
assessors and then allows the candidate agency to review those
selected to avoid possible conflicts of interest. For Palos
Heights, the on-site team consisted of three out-of-state chiefs
of police. Then, the commission sets a date for the assessment.
The department and the commission's staff jointly prepared
for the on-site assessment. Departmental staff members arranged
for transportation and lodging. Also, a commission staff member
joined the team at the assessment site to train the assessors and
to participate in the on-site assessment. The accreditation
manager provided the assessment team and commission staff member
a tour of the facilities and the community and gave them access
to a department vehicle. Following the tour, the assessors and
staff member conducted a review of the accreditation files as
part of the assessors' training.
Then, the actual assessment began with a meeting between the
assessors and the chief of police. The assessors started with a
more extensive review of files and by conducting whatever
interviews and inspections that were needed.
On the first evening of the actual on-site assessment, a
public hearing was held. A public hearing is now mandatory,
although this was not the case when Palos Heights was going
through the accreditation process. In addition to the public
hearing, hours were set during a 2-day period for assessors to
hear telephonic comments from the public. Times for the public
hearing and call-in comments were advertised by the agency
through the printed and electronic media. The telephone number
used for public comments was an untapped line and one that could
be answered directly by the on-site assessment team leader or a
designate.
At the conclusion of this phase, the assessors conducted an
exit interview with the chief of police and the accreditation
manager. Any problems found that could not be corrected through
issuing or revising an order to bring an agency into compliance
with a standard, or changes in the facility or operation, were
discussed. By the completion of the exit interview, the agency
had a good idea of what work needed to be done within the next 10
days before the assessment team report was sent to CALEA.
Once completed by the team leader, the assessment report was
forwarded to the commission staff for review. Because the team
determined the department to be in compliance with all applicable
mandatory standards and at least 80 percent of nonmandatory
standards, CALEA notified the agency to appear at its next
scheduled meeting to be presented for accreditation.
Commission Review
The department's chief executive officer and the
accreditation manager attended the commission meeting when the
department was presented for accreditation. Through a telephone
hookup, the on-site assessment team leader participated in
discussions of the final report and the candidate agency's
consideration for accreditation. During this meeting, any
questions regarding the final report and any other topic
regarding accreditation may be posed to the chief executive and
the accreditation manager by commission members. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the commission for accreditation voted
to award accreditation to the Palos Heights Police Department.
CONCLUSION
The Palos Heights Police Department received accredited
status in July 1987, approximately 16 months after the process
began. The move toward accreditation involved input from the
entire department. The process required many procedural changes
to meet the standards of the commission, but these changes
benefited the entire agency. For this department, accreditation
was a process to professionalize, review, and improve the agency
and its ability to provide law enforcement services to the
citizens and community it serves.
FOOTNOTES
(1) The four associations were the International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), the National Sheriffs'
Association (NSA), and the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF). The 21-member commission is composed of 11 law
enforcement professionals and 10 representatives from the public
and private sectors. Commission members are appointed for 3-year
terms by unanimous consent of the president and executive
director of each of the four law enforcement associations.
(2) The standards address the role, responsibilities, and
relationships with other agencies; organization, management, and
administration; personnel administration; law enforcement
operations, operation support and traffic law enforcement;
prisoner and court-related services; and auxiliary and technical
services.