textfiles/law/fbiaug01.law

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.