Author
Listed:
- Hossein Zare
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
The School of Business, University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC), Adelphi, MD 20783, USA)
- Danielle R. Gilmore
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Khushbu Balsara
(Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Celina Renee Pargas
(Mathematica, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA)
- Rebecca Valek
(Oregon Health & Science University Gun Violence Prevention Research Center, OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, OR 97201, USA)
- Andrea N. Ponce
(Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Niloufar Masoudi
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Michelle Spencer
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Tatiana Y. Warren
(Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
- Cassandra Crifasi
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA)
Abstract
Purpose: Following George Floyd’s death, the push for law enforcement accountability policies has intensified. Despite robust legislative action, challenges in enacting and implementing meaningful reforms persist. This study analyzes police accountability policies (PAP) in the U.S. from 2020 to 2022, identifying barriers and facilitators through expert perspectives in enforcement oversight, policy advocacy, and community engagement. Methods: The study used a dual approach: analyzing 226 police accountability bills from all 50 U.S. states, D.C., and Puerto Rico via the National Conference of State Legislatures database, and categorizing them into six key areas such as training, technology use, and certification. Additionally, a survey was conducted among experts to identify the challenges and drivers in passing police accountability legislation. Findings: A legislative analysis showed that although 48 states passed police accountability laws, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Colorado have made significant strides by passing multiple pieces of legislation aimed at enhancing law enforcement accountability and ensuring better policing practices. The most common policies focused on training and technology, enacted by 16 and 12 states, respectively. However, crucial certification and decertification policies were adopted in just 13 states, highlighting the inconsistent implementation of measures critical for police accountability and transparency. The survey identified several barriers to passing PAP, including inadequate support from local governments (72.7%). Structural exclusion of poor and minority communities from policing resources was also a significant barrier (54.5%). Facilitators included community support (81.8%) and a cultural shift in policing towards viewing officers as “guardians” rather than “warriors” (63.6%). Conclusions: While some progress has been made in passing PAP, considerable gaps remain, particularly in enforcement and comprehensive reform. Resistance from law enforcement institutions, lack of community support, and structural inequalities continue to impede the adoption of effective PAP.
Suggested Citation
Hossein Zare & Danielle R. Gilmore & Khushbu Balsara & Celina Renee Pargas & Rebecca Valek & Andrea N. Ponce & Niloufar Masoudi & Michelle Spencer & Tatiana Y. Warren & Cassandra Crifasi, 2025.
"State-by-State Review: The Spread of Law Enforcement Accountability Policies,"
Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:483-:d:1718142
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:483-:d:1718142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.