Community Policing and Accreditation: A Content Analysis of CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) Standards (From Quantifying Quality in Policing, P 243-261, 1996, Larry T Hoover, ed. -- See NCJ-158093)

• NCJ Number: 158105
• Author(s): G W Cordner; G L Williams
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 19 pages
• Grant Number(s): 92-IJ-CX-K038
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Sale Source: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
• Publication Type: Guideline
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This content analysis of the standards used by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) is part of a larger study of the compatibility of community policing and police agency accreditation.

Abstract

The 897 standards in effect as of February 1993, following issuance of Change Notice No. 8 to The Standards Manual of the Law Enforcement Agency Accreditation Program, were analyzed. The analysis included both the standards and their commentaries. Each standard was coded on 27 variables that reflected four major dimensions: community policing, problemsolving, organization/management, and overall assessment. The community policing and problemsolving variables were major elements of these strategies as identified in the literature. The analyses assessed the standards for their relevance to community policing, community input, community reciprocity, geographic responsibility, reoriented operations, civilianization, broadening of functions, problemsolving, level of analysis, empirical analysis, collaboration, evaluation/assessment, and the nature of problems. Eleven variables measured the effects of the CALEA standards on organizational structure and management process within police departments, and four variables reflected overall assessments of the accreditation standards. The hypothesis that the police agency accreditation standards were directly contradictory to community policing principles received little support; only one standard out of 897 was judged to be in overall conflict with community policing, and only a few clashed with specific elements of community policing. No standards opposed community input or community reciprocity. The hypothesis that the standards supported, or at least complemented, community policing received more support. More standards favored community input, community reciprocity, geographic responsibility, reoriented operations, civilianization, and broadening of functions than opposed these characteristics of community policing. Taken as a whole, however, the standards reflected greater concern with internal organization issues than with substantive community problems. In this regard they may have reinforced the efficiency orientation of the professional model rather than the effectiveness orientation of community and problem-oriented policing. 13 notes