Gordon Abner and Jung Hyub Lee
One of the main roadblocks to increasing uptake of national police accreditation (i.e. accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)) is…
Abstract
Purpose
One of the main roadblocks to increasing uptake of national police accreditation (i.e. accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)) is concern among some in law enforcement that promoting national standards for policing would undermine local control. The purpose of this study is to assess whether CALEA-accredited police departments are more (or less) likely than non-CALEA-accredited police departments to utilize information from resident surveys to inform agency operations.
Design/methodology/approach
This study utilizes data from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey and cardinality matching, a quasi-experimental approach, to estimate the relationship between CALEA accreditation status and utilization of information from resident surveys among municipal police departments.
Findings
We find that agencies that subscribe to national police accreditation are more likely to use resident surveys to prioritize crime/disorder problems, evaluate officer or agency performance, guide training and development and inform agency policies and procedures compared to matched agencies that do not subscribe to national police accreditation.
Originality/value
While there is research on the effects of national police accreditation on traditional policing outcomes, there is a paucity of research on whether national police accreditation undermines the ability of local residents to affect policing standards. The findings from this study suggest that national police accreditation may enhance the power of local residents to affect policing.
Details
Keywords
Examines work investigating the impact of the crisis on social welfare policies two Asian countries — Hong Kong and Korea, and argues that these two states were not prepared for…
Abstract
Examines work investigating the impact of the crisis on social welfare policies two Asian countries — Hong Kong and Korea, and argues that these two states were not prepared for the crisis. States that Hong Kong is adopting a neoliberal approach to social welfare, contrasting this with Korea taking unprecedented steps to restructure the social security system, after its economy nearly collapsed, taking a more developmental approach to social policy. Posits that only time will tell whether Korea’s momentum of change can be sustained, while in Hong Kong social security policy will still be dictated by a neoliberal agenda in the near future.