1. University of Richmond Police Department
Accreditation
Chief Robert C. Dillard
University of Richmond Police Department
June 2003

2. Presentation Topics History of IACLEA Accreditation Progress To Date
Standards
CALEA/IACLEA Partnership
Process
Pilot Programs
Availability of Program to General Membership
Benefits To Department

3. Overview of Accreditation
History for IACLEA
First IACLEA Standards Manual written in 1995.
Written permission was obtained from CALEA (Commission on Accreditation For Law Enforcement Agencies) to use the standards that had already been developed as a basis for the IACLEA standards.
The Standards Manual was intended to act as a guide to campus police and security agencies to improve the professionalism of their operations.
(continued next page)

4. History (continued)
The Standards are also utilized by LEMAP Teams to conduct agency surveys.
In 1999, a needs survey was conducted and as a result, accreditation became recognized by IACLEA as a process and a priority.

5. Accreditation Committee
2001- An IACLEA accreditation committee was appointed. This committee was charged with the review and revision of the then current standards and the development of an accreditation process. The Accreditation Committee, as well as all other committees, reports to the Board.

6. Accreditation Committee
Robert Dillard: University of Richmond (Chair)
Aaron Graves: University of Southern California
Jason Powell: Central Conn. State University
John Carpenter: San Diego State University
Larry Slamons: University of Arkansas
Robert Cowper: University of Windsor
Scott Shelton: University of Missouri at Kansas City
Suzanne Dugan: Minnesota State University, Mankato
Michael Murray:University of Richmond (Advisor)
Tom Porter: IACLEA Staff

7. Progress to Date
Every standard has been individually reviewed and approved by the Committee.
IACLEA felt that it was very important to include all of its’ members, both sworn and non-sworn, in the accreditation process.
All member agencies, sworn and non-sworn, will be eligible for IACLEA accreditation.
A Standards Manual, an Accreditation Process Manual, and an Accreditation Instructional Manual have been written.

8. The Standards Manual This manual contains: Table of Contents
Standards which are divided into chapters by subject area.
Glossary

9. The Process Manual
This manual describes the basic step-by-step process a department will follow to become IACLEA accredited.

10. Accreditation Instructional Manual
Manual is written for the department to describe the development of a file system and the requirements and material to be included to prove compliance with the applicable standards.

11. The Standards
There are currently 305 standards in the IACLEA process. These standards are mandatory if applicable to the department.
Applicability of the standards to the department is determined by the functions that the department performs or should perform (as determined by IACLEA.) Traffic Chapter – By Function
Clery Chapter - All
Standards denoted by an “-A” were developed for non-sworn agency compliance in specific areas.

12. Sworn and Non-Sworn Agencies
Example
Sworn and Non-Sworn Agencies
The agency’s organizational structure is depicted graphically on an organizational chart that is reviewed and updated as needed. The chart is accessible to all personnel.
Commentary: The chart should coincide with the written description and reflect the formal lines of authority and communication within the agency.

13. Example
Sworn Agency
A medical examination is conducted, prior to appointment to probationary status, to certify the general health of each candidate for a sworn position.
Commentary: None.

14. Example Non-Sworn Agency
A A medical examination is conducted, prior to appointment to probationary status, to certify the general health of each candidate for a non-sworn position.
Commentary: None.
Non-Sworn positions are deemed to be first responders to emergency or general calls for service.

15. Chapter 1 Agency Role and Authority
1.1 Campus Law Enforcement, Public Safety and Security Role
1.2 Limits of Authority
1.3 Use of Force
Chapter 2 Agency Jurisdiction and Mutual Aid
2.1 Agency Jurisdiction and Mutual Aid
Chapter 11 Organization and Administration
11.1 Organizational Structure
11.2 Unity of Command
11.3 Authority and Responsibility
11.5 Goals and Objectives
Each chapter is divided into chapter sections.

16. Chapter 11 Organization and Administration
11.3 Authority and Responsibility
A written directive requires that:
*a. Responsibility is accompanied by commensurate authority; and
*b. Each employee is accountable for the use of delegated authority.
Commentary: The intent of the directive should be to establish a policy guide-
line for the delegation of authority. At every level within the agency, personnel
should be given the authority to make decisions necessary for the effective
execution of their responsibilities. The delegation of authority should be
consistent with the agency’s organizational values and mission statement.
A written directive states that supervisory personnel are accountable for the activities of employees under their immediate control.
Commentary: None.
* Bullets
Multiple standards may be grouped in these chapter sections depending upon a
similar subject matter of the standard.

17. Building Partnerships
CALEA
IACLEA
Building Partnerships

18. Building Partnerships
IACLEA and CALEA are presently in discussion with regard to forming a partnership.
CALEA’s Alliance Program
Designed for states (Florida and Oregon)
Contractual authority to use CALEA standards.
(continued next page)

19. Building Partnerships(continued)
Can incorporate CALEA’s recognition certificate program into our accreditation process for sworn agencies.
Candidate agencies can purchase CALEA’s ASAP software utilization to track standard compliance.
CALEA will train our accreditation managers at Regional and Annual Conferences.

20. Alliance Programs
There are currently 95 core CALEA standards (Recognition Program) in IACLEA’s standards manual.
Of the 95 included, 32 standards refer only to agencies with holding facilities.
There are 18 “-A” standards in the IACLEA manual.

21. Request for Information
The Process
Request for Information
Review
Application
On-site
Preparation

22. 1. Request for Information
The department requests information about the IACLEA accreditation process.
Department purchases the IACLEA Standards Manual.
IACLEA sends information to include welcome letter, application form, and Department Profile Questionnaire (DPQ).

23. 2. Application Department makes decision to join process.
Department submits application fee.
Department submits completed forms- application and Departmental Profile Questionnaire (DPQ).
After review, IACLEA sends applicant department accreditation contract and an additional Standards Manual.

24. 3. Preparation
Applicant Department completes accreditation contract and submits with fee.
IACLEA receives completed contract and fee. Applicant department is now considered a Candidate department.
Department must develop directives or policy manual that verifies agency compliance with IACLEA’s Standards.

25. 3. Preparation (continued)
Candidate department sets up files and compiles proofs of compliance for all applicable standards. (Instructional Manual)
Candidate department performs a mock on-site by knowledgeable assessors.
Candidate department notifies IACLEA of readiness for on-site assessment.

26. 4. On-Site
*IACLEA selects assessors. (3 ½ day visit)
Candidate department submits schedule of on-site review. (Process Manual)
IACLEA makes arrangements for assessors.
* One assessor will be selected from CALEA’s approved list of assessors.

27. 4. On-Site
(continued)
Assessors conduct review of standards to include observations, interviews, and file review.
Assessor reviews are documented and collected by Team Leader. Assessors conduct exit interview with Department Head and related staff.

28. 5. Review
Final on-site report is submitted to Accreditation Committee.
Accreditation Committee reviews findings of report at annual conference. Candidate Department may be present.
Committee makes decision by vote.
Department is recognized at annual conference and given letter acknowledging accredited status.
Framed certificate is sent to department.

29. Compliance
If an agency fails to meet all of the applicable standards, the agency is given 90 days to comply with standards found not to be in compliance.
Agencies will submit an annual report to certify on-going compliance with the standards during the 6 year period.
On-going compliance includes time sensitive reports and maintenance of files.

30. Benefits to the Agency
Improved law enforcement, security or public safety services to the community.
Improved level of professionalism and training to departmental employees.
Authenticates the need for the department in the institutional setting. Documents formalizing guidelines of what you do and how you do it.
Creates accepted, uniform practices, internationally, for campus law enforcement, public safety or security departments.
(continued next page)

31. Benefits to the Agency (continued)
Identify and legitimize the need for equipment.
Accreditation encourages grant-funding sources to support program initiatives. Demonstrates a past history of departmental professionalism and the ability of the department to successfully and effectively administer the grant.
Increased morale within the department. Department expectations of employees are clear and constant.

32. Benefits to the Agency (continued)
Development of written policies and procedures that give clear guidance to departmental personnel.
Reduction in liability issues.
Increased level of recognized professionalism by peers, local law enforcement agencies and the community.
Program support - model policies, procedures, etc.

33. Benefits to the Agency (continued)
Allows the department to hire and retain a higher caliber of employee.
Maintenance (reviews and revisions) of written policies and procedures.
Improved record keeping.
Written reporting requirements keep managers informed regarding departmental operations.

34. Benefits to the Agency (continued)
Improved maintenance and tracking of evidence and property.
Provides department and institution a checklist for Clery Act compliance.
Provides a “yardstick” by which you can measure your department.
The implementation of accreditation within a department creates a stable, well-organized and efficient operation.

35. Pilot Programs
Wake Forest
Drexel
San Jose State
Kenyon College

36. IACLEA has begun its accreditation pilot programs.
IACLEA has chosen to utilize 2 sworn departments and 2 non-sworn departments in the program. Traits of potential pilot departments are:
Departments that are presently known to be professional and run accordingly.
Have appropriate staff and financial resources to devote to compliance with the standards.
A commitment to devote the resources to complete the process in a timely manner.
CALEA accredited agencies in close proximity that can advise and give assistance.
Wake Forest : Private - Sworn
Drexel : Private - Non-Sworn
San Jose State : Public - Sworn
Kenyon College : Private - Non-Sworn

37. Availability of the Process to the General Membership
18 months ???
Obtain an IACLEA Standards Manual.
Begin compliance with standards.
Join State CALEA accreditation organizations if available.

38. We must blend IACLEA and CALEA processes if an agreement can be reached.
We are also evaluating the IACLEA process for not only the smooth flow of information to the pilot agencies, but also the standards we are requiring compliance with.
This is a learning process for IACLEA as well as the pilot agencies.
Avoid State Accreditation Organizations that don’t include CALEA members.

39. Questions?

40. Robert C. Dillard Chief of Police University of Richmond Police Department (804)