MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3244060353
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 2076-0760 
024 7 |a 10.3390/socsci14080483  |2 doi 
035 |a 3244060353 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a 231631  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Zare Hossein  |u Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dgilmor7@jhu.edu (D.R.G.); nmassou1@jhmi.edu (N.M.); mspenc35@jhu.edu (M.S.); crifasi@jhu.edu (C.C.) 
245 1 |a State-by-State Review: The Spread of Law Enforcement Accountability Policies 
260 |b MDPI AG  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a 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 35 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. 
651 4 |a Puerto Rico 
651 4 |a United States--US 
653 |a Transparency 
653 |a Databases 
653 |a Police departments 
653 |a Resistance 
653 |a Technology 
653 |a Violence 
653 |a Health disparities 
653 |a Official misconduct 
653 |a Law enforcement 
653 |a Inequality 
653 |a Certification 
653 |a Community 
653 |a Police 
653 |a Legislation 
653 |a States 
653 |a Barriers 
653 |a Racial differences 
653 |a Deadly force 
653 |a Decision making 
653 |a Advocacy 
653 |a Minority groups 
653 |a Public health 
653 |a Police shootings 
653 |a Policing 
653 |a Accountability 
653 |a Polls & surveys 
653 |a Adoption of innovations 
653 |a Multiculturalism & pluralism 
653 |a Public policy 
653 |a Government agencies 
653 |a Training 
653 |a Racial profiling 
653 |a State legislatures 
653 |a Legislatures 
653 |a Firearm laws & regulations 
653 |a Guardians 
653 |a Local government 
653 |a Criminal law 
653 |a Legal reform 
653 |a Body cameras 
653 |a Cultural differences 
653 |a Reforms 
700 1 |a Gilmore, Danielle R  |u Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dgilmor7@jhu.edu (D.R.G.); nmassou1@jhmi.edu (N.M.); mspenc35@jhu.edu (M.S.); crifasi@jhu.edu (C.C.) 
700 1 |a Balsara Khushbu  |u Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; kbalsar2@jhmi.edu 
700 1 |a Pargas, Celina Renee  |u Mathematica, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA; cpargas@mathematica-mpr.com 
700 1 |a Valek, Rebecca  |u Oregon Health & Science University Gun Violence Prevention Research Center, OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Portland, OR 97201, USA; valek@ohsu.edu 
700 1 |a Ponce, Andrea N  |u Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; aponce4@jhu.edu 
700 1 |a Masoudi Niloufar  |u Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dgilmor7@jhu.edu (D.R.G.); nmassou1@jhmi.edu (N.M.); mspenc35@jhu.edu (M.S.); crifasi@jhu.edu (C.C.) 
700 1 |a Spencer, Michelle  |u Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dgilmor7@jhu.edu (D.R.G.); nmassou1@jhmi.edu (N.M.); mspenc35@jhu.edu (M.S.); crifasi@jhu.edu (C.C.) 
700 1 |a Warren, Tatiana Y  |u Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dr.tati@justtati.com 
700 1 |a Crifasi Cassandra  |u Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; dgilmor7@jhu.edu (D.R.G.); nmassou1@jhmi.edu (N.M.); mspenc35@jhu.edu (M.S.); crifasi@jhu.edu (C.C.) 
773 0 |t Social Sciences  |g vol. 14, no. 8 (2025), p. 483-507 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Social Science Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3244060353/abstract/embedded/J7RWLIQ9I3C9JK51?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3244060353/fulltext/embedded/J7RWLIQ9I3C9JK51?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3244060353/fulltextPDF/embedded/J7RWLIQ9I3C9JK51?source=fedsrch