Laserfiche WebLink
;:y <br />• V • .j <br />■:-wH <br />•'V'1 <br />•j <br />..-.U <br />:yi <br />Q UE8II0NS ABOUT THE <br />S^TAM^i¥^A:RE>S^ <br />Q What are the sta idards desit^ied to <br />accomplish? <br />The standards were developed to help lau <br />enforcement agencies achieve the following: <br />• Increase agency capabilities to prevent and <br />control crime. <br />• Enhance agency effecnveness and -•fficienc^ in the <br />delivery of law enforcement sen- ices. <br />• Improve cooperation and coordination with other <br />law enforcement agencies and with other compo­ <br />nents of the criminal justice system. <br />• Increase citizen and staff confidence in .he coals, <br />objectives, policies, and practices or the agency. <br />^Accreditation is assurance of excellence <br />to our local governing body and the citizens <br />we serve. In addition, we can demonstrate <br />that we adhere to national standards, a <br />testament to our insurability. <br />Chief William C. WehoUi <br />Indian Hill. Ohio <br />Q WTiat areas do the standards cover? <br />The standards address si.x major law entorcemem <br />‘opics; (1) role, responsibilities, and relationships <br />with other agencies; (2) organization, management, <br />and administration: (3) personnel administration; (4) <br />law enforcement operations, operational supptirt. and <br />traffic law enforcement; (5) prisoner and court- <br />related seivices; and (6) auxiliary and technical sen - <br />ices. Designed to reflect the best professional prac­ <br />tices in each of the si.x .ircas. the standards deal w itn <br />the “what to.” leaving the decisions o' tu” up <br />to the agency. <br />Q How were the standards developed <br />and bv whom? <br />Ir.itiaily. the standards were drafted b> staffs of <br />the four law enforcement asscnations mentioned <br />earlier. Each assumed responsibility for developing <br />portions of the standards, which were then reviewed <br />at group meetings attended by represenDtives from <br />all the as.sociations. Proposed standards were <br />amended, as necessary, and sent to the Commission <br />for initial approval. <br />The Commission-approved standards were then <br />submitted to law enforcement agencies and indi- <br />viduai for e.xaminauon and comment. Standards <br />were aiso subjected to a structured field review by <br />over 300 law enforcement agencies of vanous types <br />and iizes in all 50 states. Field test results were <br />reviewed bv' the four pamcipating associations. To <br />the extent that changes in the standards were advis ­ <br />able. thev' were forwarded to the Commission for <br />approval. The end result of this process was promul­ <br />gation by the Commission of more than 900 stan­ <br />dards. Reflecting nesv '»■ improved practices, new or <br />revised standards are _ veloped by the Commission <br />from time to time, with the advice and counsel of <br />agencies already accredited and of the four participat­ <br />ing law enforcement associations. <br />Q Must law enforcement agencies <br />comply with all the standards? <br />.No. First, the accreditation program is and will <br />continue to be a voluntary one. so an agency may <br />choo.se not to apply for accreditation. <br />Second, those agencies that do seek accreditation <br />are required to comply only with standards specifi­ <br />cally applicable to them; applicability is based on <br />agency size and the functions it performs. For e,xam- <br />ple. the Commission has designated a number of <br />standards as not applicable fer smaller agencies, <br />wh>‘.:h cannot be expected to employ the range of <br />^^The accreditation program has airtady <br />increased the departments productivity and <br />professionalism. With standards that are <br />consistent, we look forward to lowering the <br />city’s liability and to enhanced community <br />services as byproducts... <br />Chief Steven R. Harris <br />Redmond. Wishington <br />- y . <br />r -V