Military Police contains information about military police functions in maneuver and mobility support, area security, law and order, internment/resettlement, and police intelligence operations.
Issue link: https://militarypolice.epubxp.com/i/115206
time, the agency must maintain compliance and submit annual reports. The accreditation cycle (including another successful on-site visit and commission hearing) is repeated every 3 years. Where Does CALEA Fit? The most important thing to note about CALEA accreditation is that it focuses on organizational standards, which are not so foreign to the Army. As an armed force, we recognize the need for standards, we codify them, we expect our Soldiers to follow them, and we take action against those who do not. A couple of examples of standards that provost marshal's of¿ces already follow involve the assignment of one weapon system for all Soldiers and a linkage with standardized national reporting systems. Accepting additional standards or slightly modifying existing standards would not be an issue for military police operations. Incorporating CALEA standards into the Army would mean striking a balance between aligning our provost marshal operations with national "best practices" and recognizing the fact that we are a unique policing entity. This would certainly be a challenging endeavor, but not an impossible one. Not everyone acknowledges the value of CALEA accreditation; however, some respected police associations recognize its merits. Many law enforcement agencies discovered that citizen complaints, insurance rates, and operating costs decreased once accreditation standards had been met.1 Although lowering insurance rates and operating costs may not be a provost marshal's main concern, these metrics signify a leaner, more ef¿cient organization. And in these times of heightened ¿scal concern and responsibility, cost-cutting measures are an important aspect of accreditation. Where Doesn't CALEA Fit? One of the biggest differences between civilian law enforcement agencies and Army provost marshal's of¿ces is the diversity in the size and location of operations across our installations. For the purpose of accreditation, civilian agencies are generally handled as single organizations, with visits to remote stations conducted as necessary during onsite assessments. But due to the decentralization of command, there is really no option to treat the Army in this manner. Installations operate independently of one another, and there is certainly no "standard" Army installation population. Due to population differences, standards that must be met by the provost marshal's of¿ce at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, may not necessarily be the same standards that must be met by the provost marshal's of¿ce at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. This situation would require a signi¿cant departure from the usual CALEA accreditation operations, but the problem could certainly be overcome. Another accreditation complication lies with the Army law enforcement command structure, which differs greatly from that of civilian agencies. The U.S. Army Installation Management Command is responsible for directing, manning, and equipping provost marshal's of¿ces. The director of emergency services reports to the garrison commander, who MILITARY POLICE . 19-13-1 is an Installation Management Command representative to the senior mission commander on the installation. The Of¿ce of the Provost Marshal General—an organization that, at least in title, could reasonably be compared to the headquarters of a civilian law enforcement agency—is not in command of the units that would be accredited. I'm not sure whether this situation warrants a change in the command structure of the provost marshal's of¿ces, but it does make the accreditation process more dif¿cult. Further complicating the matter, the Of¿ce of the Provost Marshal General has authority over policy—certainly nothing to be underestimated. A ¿nal problem with CALEA accreditation involves the cost of accreditation. CALEA charges are based on the number of "authorized, full-time employees" within the agency. This number is, of course, different for different installations (and a discussion regarding how rotating military police companies would be counted would be necessary). However, based on the average size of a provost marshal's of¿ce, the initial cost of accreditation is estimated to be about $10,000 per installation, with an additional annual fee of about $4,000 per installation. Without knowing how each provost marshal's of¿ce purchases insurance and handles the operating costs of the organization, I am unable to complete a cost-bene¿t analysis. However, I don't believe that accreditation would be a zero-sum proposition for the Army. What's the Verdict? After carefully weighing both sides of the debate, I believe that the Army should seriously consider adopting CALEA (or similar) accreditation standards. The unique complications related to Army accreditation could certainly be overcome. For example, it might be necessary for CALEA to produce a version of the standards speci¿cally for use by the Army (or perhaps military Services in general). However, considering the impact that CALEA accreditation could have on professional recognition and on the ability to enhance Soldiers' employment opportunities following military service, I believe accreditation would serve our provost marshal's of¿ces well. In speaking to the 16th Military Police Brigade at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Regimental Command Sergeant Major John McNeirney recently made a statement that really caught my attention. Although he was discussing the certi¿cation of military police Soldiers by state peace of¿cer standards and training agencies, I believe that his statement applies equally to the accreditation of provost marshal's of¿ces. He said, "Law enforcement agencies outside our installations are following these standards. Do our families deserve any less because they live on installations?" Endnote: 1 John Neilson and Danny O'Malley, "Accreditation Saves Money," CALEA Update, February 1999. Captain Jonas is the aide-de-camp to the chief of the Military Police Corps Regiment and commandant of USAMPS, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York. 29