A Senate bill that would establish national standards for commander-level law enforcement training prompted Police1 readers to question who should set the standard and whether training alone can produce better leaders.
The Promoting Police Leadership Act would require the U.S. attorney general and Department of Justice to create a framework for training curricula designed for officers in command positions. It would also establish a voluntary certification process for programs that meet the federal standards.
According to an announcement from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the legislation is intended to improve police operations, officer accountability, wellness, resource management and community relations.
The bill passed the Senate unanimously in June.
|LEADERSHIP: Inside the FBI National Academy: How 10 weeks at Quantico shapes police leaders
After Police1 reported on the legislation, readers were asked whether nationally certified training programs would better prepare officers for command roles.
The responses were not a simple split over whether more training is needed. Readers questioned who would write the curriculum and whether it could work across states with different laws and policing philosophies. Several pointed to programs already in place, while others saw value in creating a baseline that states could adapt to their own agencies.
On Facebook, the discussion shifted to whether agencies are mistaking courses and credentials for proven leadership.
Here’s what readers said.
Who sets the national standard?
Some Police1 readers supported establishing consistent requirements for command training, particularly when leadership development varies widely among agencies.
“A national framework for all police positions should be established,” one Police1 reader wrote. “Each state has different criteria; a required standard is needed in modern law enforcement to ensure all police positions are qualified.”
Another reader said a voluntary certification could help address shortcomings in how agencies prepare officers for supervisory roles.
“There are currently too few highly competent law enforcement leaders in the country for various reasons,” the reader wrote. “True leadership, tactics, planning and organization are often left out of many agencies’ promotion processes and training programs for leaders.”
That reader said standardized acceptance of training could work similarly to licenses recognized across jurisdictions in other professions.
Others were skeptical that the federal government should have a role in setting the standard.
“This is not a good idea,” one Police1 reader wrote. “The states have vastly different laws, ideas and means of enforcing the law.”
The reader questioned who would select the curriculum and whether the training would be supported by individual states.
Another reader said a national program could work only to an extent. General command topics could be standardized, the reader said, but states should remain responsible for training that reflects their own laws and expectations.
“Each state, being in control of its own leadership training but still having certain criteria that need to be met, would better suit each individual agency and thus better suit each community,” the reader wrote.
Readers point to programs already in place
Several readers questioned whether a new certification is necessary when advanced command programs are already available through the FBI, states and law enforcement organizations.
“Many states have advanced training, and so does the FBI,” one reader wrote.
Others said those existing programs could provide the model for a national standard.
“FBI-LEEDA should be the model for this,” one Police1 reader wrote.
Another reader called the FBI-LEEDA Trilogy the best law enforcement training the reader had attended in more than 25 years in the profession. The reader said a similar national program could work if it stayed focused on leadership instead of state-specific law.
NEXT: What I learned from completing the FBI LEEDA trilogy
“I’m not sure how a nationally certified training program would work,” the reader wrote. “I think this would be very difficult, as state law varies by state.”
Another reader pointed to the National Incident Management System, which already requires law enforcement officers and other emergency personnel to complete standardized training.
That reader argued that creating separate national training for police commanders could pull law enforcement further away from the shared command structure used during emergencies.
“Historically, law enforcement’s participation within the incident command system and structure has been subpar, so developing something ‘specific’ for them does not make any sense,” the reader wrote. “This would further silo the respective industries and put the nation back to pre-9/11 disorganization.”
One curriculum may not fit every agency
Agency size was another sticking point.
One reader called the proposal “a noble idea” but said the training would have to account for the difference between a rural department with 10 officers and an agency such as the Los Angeles Police Department.
“What’s germane to an urban 1,000-officer department is quite different from a command-level person in a rural 10-person department,” the reader wrote.
The reader also questioned whether a curriculum developed by a national organization would reflect approaches to command training used in other parts of the country.
Commanders from large departments already have access to established programs, the reader noted. Smaller agencies may have fewer opportunities because they cannot afford to lose personnel to lengthy training.
“It is the smaller agencies that suffer the lack of this level of training due to budgets and staffing,” the reader wrote.
That difference became a major point of discussion on Facebook.
“How do you create training that is standardized for ‘commander’-level training when 90% of agencies in the U.S. are 10 officers and smaller?” one Facebook commenter wrote.
The commenter, who said there are several one- and two-officer departments in rural Oklahoma, argued that a chief in one of those agencies will lead differently than a commander with the Oklahoma City or Tulsa police departments.
Another Facebook commenter said the program would need to be funded so cash-strapped agencies could participate.
Facebook commenters focus on mentorship
While responses submitted directly to Police1 largely focused on the structure of the proposed program, Facebook commenters questioned whether command courses can compensate for a lack of mentorship inside an agency.
“Very few leadership courses and command courses truly prepare people for those positions,” one Facebook commenter wrote.
The commenter said the disconnect between commanders and line officers often stems from a lack of mentorship among agency leaders, their peers and subordinates.
Another put it more directly: “Send your guys to as much leadership training as you want. If you aren’t mentoring, it’s wasted money.”
One commenter said course content and execution would determine whether the program was useful. The general subjects could remain consistent, the commenter said, but parts of the curriculum should be developed regionally to account for differences among states.
Others questioned whether completing a course demonstrates that an officer is prepared to command.
“I can attend and successfully complete almost any training available to me,” one Facebook commenter wrote. “Most don’t require testing, and none require you to heed the training once completed. Humans will still make decisions, good and bad, trained or not.”
Not every commenter dismissed the value of national training. One who attended the FBI National Academy described the experience as “fantastic” and said it helped him recognize that he was as capable as officers who would go on to command departments with thousands of personnel.
| TRAINING: Inside the FBI National Academy: 10 weeks that changed my leadership forever
Even so, he suggested that developing another training standard may not be the best first step.
“A statewide or national promotional process is probably a better place to start,” he wrote.
Some warn against ‘credentialism’
Several Facebook commenters said adding another certification could further complicate promotional processes without improving the quality of agency leadership.
One commenter described the trend as “credentialism,” arguing that graduates of well-known programs can favor others who have earned the same credentials.
“Education and training are always good, but relying on paper credentials over actual experience, proven leadership ability and meritocracy creates the issues so many agencies face today,” the commenter wrote.
Another commenter said the profession already has commanders who have attended advanced leadership courses and earned academic degrees but have not proven themselves as leaders.
“However, our profession still can’t find quality leaders to teach, train, mentor, coach and develop those under their command,” the commenter wrote.
The commenter argued that effective leaders are developed through field experience and by working under supervisors who pass along what they have learned.
“Quality supervision and leadership doesn’t start with legislation,” the commenter wrote. “It begins in the trenches with those who have solid blue-collar work ethics and white-collar minds.”
Readers did not dispute the need for better police leadership. Their disagreement was over whether a national certification could solve what many see as the deeper problem: how agencies choose and develop future commanders.
