State-by-State Review: The Spread of Law Enforcement Accountability Policies

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.

1. Introduction

The death of George Floyd in May 2020 at the hands of Minneapolis police ignited a nationwide movement for systemic change in American policing and a call to action to address incidents of police-related conflict, violence, and misconduct (Wu et al. 2023). In recent years, high-profile police use-of-force encounters of often unarmed individuals of color (e.g., George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin) have increased the long-standing scrutiny of the actions of law enforcement and deepened the mistrust between communities and police (Ortiz 2020; Collins 2021).

In response, a patchwork of local, state, and federal reforms has been pushed through to address police accountability and police officer safety and well-being. Examining the racial and ethnic disparities that exist within policing practices reveals persistent racial disparities, particularly in the use of force against communities of color (Bryant-Davis et al. 2017; Collaborators 2021; Zare et al. 2022b). With nearly 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies across the U.S. (Reaves and Hickman 1998), the push for comprehensive police accountability policies (PAP) has been encouraging. Still, as fatal police shootings in the U.S. remain steady (Levin 2020), many activists feel as if reforms have not gone far enough, particularly at the state level (Cass 2021). Historically, state law enables law enforcement agencies and officers to enforce criminal law with statutes, often with little oversight or accountability. With the changing environment for policing (Bayley and Nixon 2010), more states have passed policies focused on police use-of-force, body-worn cameras, arrest alternatives, and documentation of police operations (Subramanian and Skrzypiec 2017; NCSL 2018). Since the death of George Floyd, over 4500 bills have been introduced across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (D.C.), with over 3000 of those bills considered within 2020–2021 alone (NCSL 2021, 2022a). Of these 3422 bills, approximately 14% were enacted or adopted (NCSL 2022b).

This surge in legislative activity marks growing recognition of the role that state governments can play in the oversight of policing in the United States. However, not all states have successfully passed legislation to address police violence or to decrease racial disparities in policing behaviors. Despite extensive evidence of police misconduct, the gap between proposed and enacted legislation underscores the ongoing challenges in advancing meaningful reform—even as policymakers seek to reduce harm and improve outcomes for communities of color.

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of state legislation enacted in response to the death of George Floyd between 2020 and 2022. In addition to the legislative review, we gathered expert perspectives to identify the barriers and the facilitators influencing the enactment of law enforcement accountability policies. Drawing on qualitative methodologies, this publication offers a guide for state policymakers, social activists, and researchers seeking to implement similar reforms in their own jurisdictions.

2. Literature Review

Research highlights the disproportionate impact of policing on non-White communities, indicating that Black and Latino populations are more likely to experience excessive use of force, stops, and arrests (Geller and Fagan 2010; Fridell and Lim 2016; Edwards et al. 2018, 2019; Lytle 2014). This racial disparity remains even after controlling crime rates and neighborhood characteristics (Geller and Fagan 2010; Fridell and Lim 2016; Edwards et al. 2018, 2019; Lytle 2014).

Research suggests that fatal shootings have been positively associated with racial bias (Hehman et al. 2018), racial composition of the communities, social vulnerability, and income inequality at the community level (Zare et al. 2022b). The results further show the pervasiveness of racial disparities in law enforcement, with Black and Latino people disproportionately experiencing stops, excessive force, and arrests (Hehman et al. 2018). States have passed police accountability policies in an effort to close these gaps. For example, Colorado’s Senate Bill 217 (Garcia et al. 2020) requires body-worn cameras and the gathering of race data during police interactions with the goal of improving openness and accountability. Additionally, New York required all local governments to develop a plan to improve community-police relations through Executive Order 203. These laws attempt to lessen the effects of racial inequities in police by directly linking legislative action to those biases (Fridell and Lim 2016; Zare et al. 2022b; Lum 2011; Datawrapper 2021).

The “place” or geographic context has significant implications on how police function (Zare et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2025). Greater use of force and a more visible police presence are common in urban areas with higher rates of poverty and residential segregation (Zare et al. 2022a; Kent and Carmichael 2014; Carmichael and Kent 2014). Still, even when accounting for these systemic injustices like poverty, limited educational opportunities, and a lack of social services and the resulting differences in crime, communities of color are disproportionately targeted with violent enforcement tactics (Zare et al. 2022b). Several states have responded by passing legislation to address these issues (Tregle et al. 2019). In an effort to rein law enforcement practices in highly populated, high-crime urban regions, California’s AB 1506, for example, mandates that the state attorney general investigate all police shootings involving unarmed people. In the same way, some states have enacted laws against racial profiling or have mandated implicit bias training for law enforcement personnel, thereby tackling the racial inequities resulting from the misinformation surrounding crime in minority communities (Subramanian and Arzy 2021). The issue of excessive police presence in urban, divided areas is being directly addressed by these legislative initiatives (Subramanian and Arzy 2021).

Research indicates that police departments with more diverse representation tend to report fewer instances of racial profiling and use of force (Subramanian and Arzy 2021). However, the impact of diversity is not uniform across all contexts and often depends on the department’s culture and policies (Geller et al. 2021). This highlights the complex and multidimensional nature of racially biased policing and the need for comprehensive policy solutions.

Recognizing these disparities, in 2018, the American Public Health Association (APHA) declared law enforcement accountability as a public health issue (Violence 2018). The APHA has pointed to the misuse of policies and regulations as a factor in law enforcement accountability, as well as highlighting the limitations of current police violence interventions (e.g., training, body/dash-board cameras, and conducted electrical weapons (Violence 2018). In line with APHA recommendations and increased attention to police violence, legislation has been used as a tool to reduce both the incidence of police violence and the racial and ethnic disparities in policing. Similar policy approaches have proven effective in other areas of violence prevention, such as firearm regulation (Pollack Porter et al. 2018; CGVS 2013).

Effective public policy in this area is marked by the use of evidence-based decision-making, a focus on health equity, and the implementation of measures that promote transparency, reduce officer discretion, establish clear guidelines, and increase accountability (Hudson et al. 2019; Pollack Porter et al. 2018; Kahn and Martin 2020). State legislatures play a critical role in this process, offering insight into how different regions respond to racially charged issues and the effectiveness of those responses (Arora et al. 2019).

Effective public policy in this area is characterized by evidence-based decision-making focused on health equity, transparency, reduced officer discretion, and enhanced accountability (Hudson et al. 2019; Pollack Porter et al. 2018; Kahn and Martin 2020). State legislatures play a critical role in this process, offering insights into how different regions respond to racially charged issues and the effectiveness of those responses (Arora et al. 2019).

Despite the increasing recognition of the need for police accountability and the implementation of various strategies to enhance it (Archbold 2021), there remains a significant gap in research regarding the effectiveness of these measures, particularly in relation to disparities in policing. While the literature has primarily focused on legislative and policy measures (Walsh and Conway 2011) and use of technology (Murphy 2019; Wright and Headley 2021), few studies critically examine how collaborative efforts between police departments and community leaders can build trust and accountability (Pyle and Cangemi 2019). This lack of robust research not only complicates police executives’ decision-making regarding the allocation of resources but also presents challenges in implementing new policies, training, and new artificial intelligence technologies (Mansoor 2026), especially in jurisdictions facing budget constraints.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Legislative Review

For this study, we conducted a detail-oriented legislative review of PAP bills across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and D.C. Utilizing the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Legislative Responses for Policing State Bill Tracking Database, we reviewed 477 PAP bills enacted and adopted in state legislatures between May 2020 and December 2022. After removing duplicates, 226 bills remained for in-depth analysis. Using substantive coding, we identified key themes and categorized them into six categories that captured the most frequently mentioned and pertinent policy changes: (1) Training, (2) Use of technology, (3) Certification, (4) Improving community involvement, (5) Use of force, and (6) Reducing structural racism. See

Table 1. State policies on training and use of technology after the death of George Floyd in US states (May 2020–December 2022).

Category	Specific Policy	States	Number of States
Training	Training database and evaluations	CO, IN	2
	Training regarding policing of specified groups (i.e., sexual assault victims, those experiencing a mental health crisis or domestic violence, individuals with dementia, etc.)	AZ, CA, CO, CT(2), GA, ID, IN, LA, NH(2), NJ(3), OK(2), OR(2), PA, VA, WA, WV	16
	Crisis intervention training	CO, GA, IN, NC, NH, NJ(2), OK(3), OR(2), VA	9
	Establishment or expansion of training board or task force	CA, HI, IN, NH, NJ	5
	De-escalation and use of force training	CT, DE, GA, IN, NJ	5
	Medical emergency training	OR(2), NM	2
	Funding mechanism for training programs	AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, GA(2), HI, OK(2), OR, PA, WI	11
	Creates or expands minimum certification standards including training	CA(2), IA, MD, NJ, OK(2), TN	6
	Other	FL	1
Use of Technology	Requires or specifies use of body-worn cameras	AR, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NJ, NM, PA, TN	9
	Requires use of dash camera	TN	1
	Specifies facial recognition technology	AL, CO(2), KY, VA	4
	Requires submission, preservation, or release of body-worn and dash camera footage	DC, PA, NJ, UT	4
	Funding mechanism for new technology, i.e., body cameras	CO, AR, IL, NJ(2), PA, WI	6
	Disciplinary action for the failure to activate body or dash cameras or alter footage	NM	1
	Other	FL, OK, MA, NY(2)	4
Certification	Requires or allows for certification suspension or revocation	AL, CT(2), KY, LA, NH, NC OK, OR	8
	Requires reporting to the state: officer resignations, terminations, and misconduct	AL, AZ, CT, KY, SC	5
	Provision to report prior disciplinary record in the hiring process	AL, CA, IN, NE, NJ, SC	6
	Creates state-level database	IA, PA	2
	Creates or expands minimum certification standards including training	AL, CT, IN, NC, ND	5
	Mandatory psychiatric evaluation	AL, AZ, KY, IN	4
	Other	HI	1
Improving Community Involvement	Establishes or expands a community review board or task force	OK	1
	Hiring members of law enforcement to match the demographics of the community	CO, CT, MD, OK(2), OR, RI, SC, TN(3), WA	9
	Creates or expands use-of-force review board	NH	1
	Provision to report prior disciplinary record in the hiring process	OR	1
	Other	CA, CO(2), FL, GA, NY, NY, OK, VA	8
Use of Force	Requires reporting and/or investigation of use of force and deaths	AZ, CT(2), DC, NH, NM, UT	6
	Bans chokeholds and other neck restraints	DC	1
	Restricts chokeholds and other neck restraints	NM, SC	2
	Changes or clarifies fatal use of force policy	NM, DC, OR, WA(2)	4
	Restricts use of less lethal weapons during protests or arrests	DC	1
	Restrictions on the purchase or use of military weaponry	DC, NY	2
	Requires duty to intervene	OR, CT, KY, RI, UT	5
	Requires duty to render medical aid	DC	1
	Creates state level database	CA(2), SD	2
	Mandatory psychiatric evaluation	N/A	0
	Establishes consequences for failing to report/intervene	CT, DC, KY	3
	Requires duty to report	CT, NH, UT	3
	Other	CA, DC LA, OR, RI, SD, UT	7
Reducing Structural Racism	Evaluation of personal implicit bias	CA(2), CO, MD, OR	4
	Specifies disciplinary actions for bias-related incidents	OR	1
	Requires discrimination and implicit bias-related training	CO, MD, NJ, RI	4
	Requires the review or collection of data related to a specific race/ethnicity	CA(2), GA, OR, RI, VT, WA	6
	Support of specified racial and ethnic groups	NM, MD, RI	3
	Other	CA(2), CT(2), KY, NH	4

Notes: States with number of bills: Alabama (AL): 6; Arizona (AZ): 4; California (CA): 6; Colorado (CO): 5; Connecticut (CT): 6; District of Columbia (DC): 5; Delaware (DE): 2; Florida (FL): 2; Georgia (GA): 5; Hawaii (HI): 3; Iowa (IA): 1; Illinois (IL): 2; Kentucky (KY): 4; Louisiana (LA): 2; Maryland (MD): 4; Massachusetts (MA): 1; New Hampshire (NH): 4; New Jersey (NJ): 7; New Mexico (NM): 4; New York (NY): 2; North Carolina (NC): 3; North Dakota (ND): 1; Nebraska (NE): 1; Oklahoma (OK): 4; Oregon (OR): 6; Pennsylvania (PA): 5; Rhode Island (RI): 5; South Carolina (SC): 4; Tennessee (TN): 4; Utah (UT): 3; Virginia (VA): 3; Vermont (VT): 1; Washington (WA): 3; Wisconsin (WI): 2; West Virginia (WV): 1.

for more information. Categories were not mutually exclusive, and some policies were coded under multiple categories.

3.2. Survey Data Collection

In addition to the legislative review, we conducted a survey to gather expert insights on the barriers and facilitators to passing law enforcement accountability policies. The survey was administered via the Qualtrics web-based platform and distributed to a group of 55 experts. This group included scholars, policy advocates, members of police professional associations (e.g., American Correctional Association, National Criminal Justice Association), and community members involved in oversight efforts (e.g., Baltimore Community Oversight Task Force). Experts were identified through a preliminary literature review and professional listservs. The survey was conducted between 23 June 2022 and 1 September 2022, with four reminder emails sent to participants at 14-day intervals to encourage participation.

The survey included closed and open-ended questions aimed at identifying perceived barriers and facilitators to passing law enforcement accountability policies. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with various potential barriers and facilitators, such as community support, structural exclusion in policing, institutional backing, transparency, and public perception of accountability laws. In total, 14 experts completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 25.45%.

Participants and Data Collection

This study draws on data collected as part of a broader survey on police accountability policies.

Additionally, we performed in-depth qualitative analysis for open-ended questions. Participants included community activists, policymakers, and individuals with direct or indirect experience with law enforcement oversight systems. The survey comprised a combination of closed and open-ended questions designed to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to passing law enforcement accountability policies. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement on various potential barriers and facilitators, including community support, structural exclusion in policing, institutional backing, transparency, and public perception of accountability laws. Responses were collected via an online survey platform, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. Participants provided informed consent before responding. Given the small sample size, the study prioritized depth rather than breadth, with the goal of capturing rich, detailed insights into perceptions of police accountability. The survey contained open-ended questions designed to elicit perspectives on: (1) The role of community engagement in shaping police accountability; (2) Barriers and facilitators to effective oversight; and (3) Policy recommendations to enhance accountability mechanisms.

To identify themes, a systematic open coding process was applied to the data, allowing themes to emerge from participants’ perspectives. Initial codes were developed based on recurring phrases and concepts, which were then grouped into broader thematic categories. This iterative process led to the identification of four major themes, each representing a key aspect of police accountability as perceived by respondents: law enforcement oversight and accountability; legitimacy and perception of law enforcement; community-police collaboration; and policy and structural reform (

Table 2. Themes and supporting quotes.

Theme	Subtheme	Definition	Example Quote from Data
1. Law Enforcement Oversight and Accountability	Accreditation and Standardization	The need for formalized state or national-level accreditation systems to ensure law enforcement accountability.	“Look into State and CALEA accreditation. All of this could be solved with an accreditation mandate from the State or local level.”
	Preventing Officer Misconduct Transfers	Establishing a centralized national database to track officers with misconduct records and prevent them from moving between agencies.	“We badly need more agencies to participate in reporting to the National Decertification Index so that there is unification in systems and records…That would require a lot of resources and coordinated effort.”
2. Legitimacy and Perception of Law Enforcement	Interdependence of Legitimacy and Accountability	The interconnected nature of legitimacy (public trust) and accountability (structural oversight) in law enforcement.	“Accountability is post hoc—how does the community and local government structure address and make good on failures of law enforcement? Legitimacy is the fundamental set of structures and relationships that allow law enforcement to function in service to the needs of the community.”
	Community Understanding of Law Enforcement	The gap in public awareness of law enforcement policies and functions, leading to misunderstandings about accountability.	“Barriers: community understanding of law enforcement’s policies/functions, lack of social service connections in evenings/weekends to support police with non-enforcement solutions.”
3. Community-Police Collaboration	Community Responsibility in Public Safety	The necessity of community participation in fostering safe environments and working with law enforcement.	“This survey seems to focus squarely on the police for ‘accountability’ and does not address the responsibility of communities to partner with law enforcement to provide safer communities.”
	Co-Responder Models	The importance of partnerships between law enforcement and social services to handle non-enforcement situations.	“Facilitators—community review/input on police policies, co-responder models with law enforcement and social services.”
4. Policy and Structural Reform	Resource Disparities and Legislative Change	The uneven distribution of resources among law enforcement agencies and the need for legislative support to standardize police accountability measures.	“Varying resources in different size/geographically located law enforcement agencies…There would need to be federal and state funding support, perhaps some changes in state legislation, technical assistance needed, etc.”
	Investment in Officer Well-Being	The role of officer wellness programs and local recruitment in building sustainable and community-oriented policing.	“Officer health and wellness would go a long way to promote officer stability. Community efforts to recruit from the local level and invest and train officers would go a long way.”

).

The study protocol, including both the legislative review and survey data collection, was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.

4. Results

4.1. Legislation Analysis

From our review of 226 bills passed between May 2020 and December 2022, we found that policies across the twelve original coding categories were passed across the country; such policies were passed in 35 states. Table 1 details the types of policies within each category and the states in which these policies were passed.

4.1.1. Training

Twenty-six states, including D.C., proposed bills related to police officer training in the years following the death of George Floyd. Many of these bills mandated training on policing specific groups of people, such as those experiencing a mental health crisis or individuals with dementia; medical emergency training (e.g., Connecticut’s Public Act No. 21-108, requiring training in the use of an opioid antagonist); or other crisis intervention trainings. Many states also passed legislation regarding evaluation of personal implicit biases among officers and the review or collection of data related to a specific race/ethnicity.

4.1.2. Use of Technology

Our findings showed that from May 2020 to December 2022, nineteen states including D.C. passed legislation related to use of technology, including nine states that passed legislation on wearing body-worn cameras or requiring the use of dash cameras. Only one state required disciplinary action for failing to activate body or dash cameras or for altering footage.

4.1.3. Certification

Seventeen states passed legislation related to certification, the majority of which focused on requiring or allowing certification suspension or revocation and creating minimum training standards for certification. Fewer states passed legislation to create or expand a centralized decertification board or create a state-level database.

4.1.4. Improving Community Involvement

Fourteen states engaged in legislative efforts aimed at enhancing community involvement within the policing system. Notably, 11 states passed legislation to ensure that the demographics of law enforcement personnel align more closely with those of the communities they serve, a strategy seen as essential for building mutual trust and understanding. Additionally, these bills frequently mandated the inclusion of community members on review boards, promoting transparency and accountability.

4.1.5. Use of Force

Our analysis reveals that legislation addressing the use of force was enacted in 12 states and D.C. during the examined timeframe. These states introduced laws to change or clarify policies concerning fatal use of force and mandated the reporting and investigation of use-of-force incidents and deaths. While several states implemented policies related to the creation or expansion of use-of-force review boards, policies establishing centralized decertification boards or requiring reporting of prior disciplinary records in the hiring process of police officers were less common. A limited number of states have enacted laws to restrict the use of less-lethal weapons during protests (e.g., rubber bullets) and the acquisition of military-grade equipment.

4.1.6. Reducing Structural Racism

Our analysis shows that 10 states have passed legislation aimed at reducing structural racism within policing. The focus of these legislative efforts often centered on mandating discrimination and implicit bias training. For example, Assembly Bill No. 3099 and No. 846 in California mandated training for local law enforcement on engaging with Native American communities and assessing bias against various identities, including race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, and sexual orientation.

4.2. Section 2: Survey Data Analysis

4.2.1. Themes and Participant Perspectives

Law Enforcement Oversight and Accountability

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the analysis was the need for ‘standardized oversight mechanisms’ to ensure accountability within law enforcement agencies. Several participants highlighted the ‘lack of a unified system’ for tracking officer misconduct and emphasized the need for ‘greater institutional transparency’. One respondent, for instance, stressed the role of ‘accreditation mandates’, suggesting that accountability could be strengthened through ‘state or local-level certification requirements’ for police agencies.

They stated:

“Look into State and CALEA [Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies] accreditation. All of this could be solved with an accreditation mandate from the State or local level.”

Another participant echoed this sentiment but focused on ‘the issue of officer misconduct transfers’, highlighting the need for a ‘centralized national database’ to prevent officers with a history of disciplinary actions from moving from agency to agency undetected:

“We badly need more agencies to participate in reporting to the National Decertification Index so that there is unification in systems and records… That would require a lot of resources and coordinated effort though—there would need to be federal and state funding support, perhaps some changes in state legislation, technical assistance needed, etc.”

These responses illustrate a growing concern over the ‘lack of systemic tracking and accountability’ for law enforcement personnel, reinforcing calls for legislative and structural reforms at both the ‘state and federal levels’ (Bennell et al. 2021).

Legitimacy and Perception of Law Enforcement

Closely tied to oversight was the issue of ‘police legitimacy’, or the extent to which communities perceive law enforcement as fair, just, and accountable to the public. One respondent underscored the ‘interdependence of legitimacy’ and ‘accountability’, arguing that ‘accountability is inherently reactive’, while legitimacy is a ‘proactive foundation’ for effective policing:

“Accountability is post hoc—how does the community and local government structure address and make good on failures of law enforcement? Legitimacy is the fundamental set of structures and relationships that allow law enforcement to function in service to the needs of the community.”

Beyond structural oversight, several participants highlighted the ‘public’s lack of understanding’ regarding law enforcement policies and procedures as a key barrier to legitimacy. One respondent noted that ‘community members often lack knowledge of law enforcement’s internal workings’, which can contribute to distrust and resistance:

“Barriers: community understanding of law enforcement’s policies/functions, lack of social service connections in evenings/weekends to support police with non-enforcement solutions.”

This perspective points to the importance of ‘public education, transparency, and outreach initiatives’ as critical components of ‘building police legitimacy’ (Nix et al. 2020).

Community-Police Collaboration

Several participants emphasized that ‘accountability is not solely the responsibility of law enforcement’, but rather a ‘shared obligation between police agencies and the communities they serve’. One respondent criticized the tendency to ‘focus solely on law enforcement in discussions of accountability’, arguing that communities must also play an active role:

“This survey seems to focus squarely on the police for ‘accountability’ and does not address the responsibility of communities to partner with law enforcement to provide safer communities.”

Others pointed to ‘co-responder models’, which integrate ‘law enforcement with social services’, as an effective way to ‘bridge gaps between communities and police officers’:

“Facilitators—community review/input on police policies, co-responder models with law enforcement and social services.”

These responses suggest that ‘successful police accountability measures must be rooted in collaboration’ rather than ‘strictly punitive approaches’ (Scott et al. 2023).

Policy and Structural Reform

Finally, participants discussed ‘the need for systemic policy changes’ to address resource disparities and improve accountability frameworks across different jurisdictions. One participant noted the ‘uneven distribution of resources’ among law enforcement agencies, arguing that without ‘federal and state-level support’, many departments lack the infrastructure to ‘implement meaningful accountability policies’:

“Varying resources in different size/geographically located law enforcement agencies… There would need to be federal and state funding support, perhaps some changes in state legislation, technical assistance needed, etc.”

Another emphasized ‘the importance of investing in officer well-being’, arguing that ensuring ‘police stability and mental health’ is critical to ‘enhancing accountability and professionalism’:

“Officer health and wellness would go a long way to promote officer stability. Community efforts to recruit from the local level and invest and train officers would go a long way.”

These insights highlight the ‘intersection between officer well-being, public trust, and institutional accountability’, suggesting that accountability reforms should extend beyond punitive measures to include ‘investment in police personnel and departmental resources’ (Castell 2024). Please see Table 2 for more information.

4.2.2. Descriptive Analysis of Survey

Most Common Barriers

The assessment of barriers to passing law enforcement accountability policies revealed several significant challenges. The top barrier identified was inadequate support from local governments, with 72.7% of respondents agreeing that this lack of support hinders accountability efforts, highlighting the vital role of local governance in facilitating reform. Following this, both unestablished relationships between police departments and the public and the belief that new laws would imperil public safety were equally recognized as significant barriers, each garnering 63.6% agreement.

Facilitators for Passing Law Enforcement Accountability Policies

In evaluating facilitators for passing law enforcement accountability policies, several key elements emerged. Support from the community was identified as the most significant facilitator, with 81.8% of respondents emphasizing its importance in promoting accountability measures. Additionally, support from local governments was recognized by 63.6%, highlighting the need for collaboration between law enforcement and local governance. A cultural shift in policing, where officers view themselves as “guardians” rather than “warriors,” also received 63.6% support, indicating that changing mindsets within police departments can positively impact community relations and accountability efforts.

Importance of Addressing Various Issues in Law Enforcement Accountability Policy

When assessing the importance of various issues in law enforcement accountability policy, three critical areas emerged. Inadequate de-escalation training and inefficient disciplinary action were highlighted, with 81.8% of respondents emphasizing their importance. This underscores the need for enhanced training to prevent escalation and effective measures to hold officers accountable. Additionally, human resources, particularly hiring officers that reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of communities, was acknowledged by 72.7% of participants. This highlights the critical role representation plays in fostering trust and effectiveness in law enforcement.

Effectiveness of Various Policies in Supporting Law Enforcement Accountability

In evaluating the effectiveness of various policies supporting law enforcement accountability, three critical measures garnered strong endorsement. The creation of use-of-force data collection and reporting systems was deemed particularly effective, with 90.9% of participants recognizing its importance, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in police actions. Additionally, both the database of all officers involved in shootings, including non-fatal incidents, and initiatives addressing socio-economic disadvantages in segregated neighborhoods received 81.8% agreement. This reflects the perceived effectiveness of data-driven strategies and targeted interventions in fostering accountability and enhancing community relations.

Actions That Local Governments Can Take

In assessing actions local governments can take if unable to pass law enforcement accountability regulations, three key measures emerged as beneficial. First, improving officers’ engagement in community policing received unanimous support, emphasizing the necessity for police to build strong, trusting relationships with communities. Additionally, enabling greater collaboration between police and social services also garnered unanimous agreement, reflecting the importance of holistic approaches that integrate social support in policing efforts. Furthermore, creating a structure for meaningful community engagement and oversight was recognized by 90.9% of respondents as vital, underscoring the need for community involvement in oversight processes.

In summary, the responses indicate that inadequate support from police departments is a significant barrier to passing accountability policies, highlighting the need for internal departmental backing for reforms. Additionally, strong community support is essential for fostering accountability measures, emphasizing the importance of community engagement in effective policing. Inadequate de-escalation training emerged as a key concern, pointing to the need for improvements in police-civilian interactions. The creation of use-of-force data collection and reporting systems was recognized as an effective policy, demonstrating the importance of transparency in building public trust. Furthermore, there was unanimous support for improving officers’ community policing skills, reinforcing the crucial role of strong relationships between law enforcement and the community. These insights suggest clear pathways for enhancing law enforcement accountability through collaborative support, effective policies, and targeted training (see

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of barriers and facilitators to the enactment of law enforcement accountability policies from the viewpoint of scholars and experts.

	No. (%)
	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Which of the following items do you agree are barriers to the passing of law enforcement accountability policy in your state?
Unestablished relationships between police departments and the public	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)	2 (18.18)
The belief that new laws would imperil public safety	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)	2 (18.18)
Law enforcement agencies with limited transparency measures	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)	2 (18.18)
Inadequate support from local governments	8 (72.73)	0	3 (27.27)
The belief that new laws would negatively impact police recruitment and retention	7 (63.64)	1 (9.09)	3 (27.27)
Poorer communities are structurally excluded from good policing	6 (54.55)	0	5 (45.45)
The police wage system is a structural factor that excludes poor people and racial and ethnic minorities from policing resources	2 (18.18)	3 (27.27)	6 (54.55)
Inadequate support from the community	3 (27.27)	1 (9.09)	7 (63.64)
Which of the following items do you agree are facilitators to the passing of law enforcement accountability policy in your state?
Support from the community	9 (81.82)	1 (9.09)	1 (9.09)
Law enforcement agencies with transparency measures	6 (54.55)	4 (36.36)	1 (9.09)
Support from local governments	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)	2 (18.18)
The belief that new laws would improve public safety	6 (54.55)	3 (27.27)	2 (18.18)
Implicit bias, diversity, and inclusionary training for police	4 (36.36)	5 (45.45)	2 (18.18)
Support from police departments	6 (54.55)	2 (18.18)	3 (27.27)
Cultural shift in policing where officers see themselves as “guardians” rather than “warriors”	7 (63.64)	1 (9.09)	3 (27.27)
Cohesion and solidarity between the racial composition of police and the community	4 (36.36)	3 (27.27)	4 (36.36)
Established relationships between police departments and the public	6 (54.55)	1 (9.09)	4 (36.36)
Using federal tools to change local practice	5 (45.45)	2 (18.18)	4 (36.36)
Voluntary accreditation of police departments	2 (18.18)	3 (27.27)	6 (54.55)
Do you agree or disagree that the following are important to address in law enforcement accountability policy?
Inadequate de-escalation training	9 (81.82)	1 (9.09)	1 (9.09)
Shortage of efficiency in disciplinary action	9 (81.82)	0	2 (18.18)
Addressing race/ethnicity of victim/police officer in collecting data	6 (54.55)	3 (27.27)	2 (18.18)
Inadequate diversity and inclusion training	6 (54.55)	2 (18.18)	3 (27.27)
Inadequate human resources, specifically the employment of police officers from the same race/ethnicity, considering the racial composition of communities	8 (72.73)	0	3 (27.27)
Being more equipped with new technology, such as body cameras	7 (63.64)	1 (9.09)	3 (27.27)
Adding more financial resources	6 (54.55)	1 (9.09)	4 (36.36)
Do you agree or disagree that these policies are effective in supporting law enforcement accountability?
Creation of use-of-force data collection and reporting systems	10 (90.91)	0	1 (9.09)
Database of all officers involved in shootings, including those that do not result in death	9 (81.82)	1 (9.09)	1 (9.09)
Ameliorating concentrated disadvantages in segregated neighborhoods	9 (81.82)	1 (9.09)	1 (9.09)
Implicit bias, diversity, and inclusionary training for police officers	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)	2 (18.18)
Adjusting the racial composition of police officers by the racial composition of communities	8 (72.73)	1 (9.09)	2 (18.18)
Mandating police technology, such as body cameras	8 (72.73)	1 (9.09)	2 (18.18)
Banning of physical force maneuvers, such as chokeholds and neck restraints, when using force or making an arrest	8 (72.73)	1 (9.09)	2 (18.18)
Disclosing of police misconduct investigations	9 (81.82)	0	2 (18.18)
Create National Standards for Training and De-escalation	9 (81.82)	0	2 (18.18)
Democratization of policing	2 (18.18)	7 (63.64)	2 (18.18)
Establishment of a civilian police oversight agency	7 (63.64)	1 (9.09)	3 (27.27)
Agency policies that address the drawing and pointing of firearms	8 (72.73)	0	3 (27.27)
Limiting the use of conducted electrical weapons	6 (54.55)	1 (9.09)	4 (36.36)
Prohibiting the use of military materials by police	7 (63.64)	0	4 (36.36)
Organized cop watching (similar to a civilian review board but a group of activist organizations)	3 (27.27)	2 (18.18)	6 (54.55)
Reduce the size of local police forces	2 (18.18)	3 (27.27)	6 (54.55)
Do you agree or disagree that the following actions are beneficial for local governments to take if they are unable to pass law enforcement accountability regulations?
Improve officers’ ability to engage in community policing	11 (100.00)	0	0
Enable greater collaboration between police and social services	11 (100.00)	0	0
Create a structure for meaningful community engagement and checks on police power	10 (90.91)	0	1 (9.09)
Create a more robust system of civil support for social inclusion	8 (72.73)	2 (18.18)	1 (9.09)
Reconciliation by intentionally bringing police and communities together to build trust	10 (90.91)	0	1 (9.09)
Expect private entities that want extra security to hire staff through private firms	3 (27.27)	1 (9.09)	7 (63.64)
Use private security officers for neighborhood observation and suspect tracking, but they need to contact public police to conduct searches and arrests	2 (18.18)	0	9 (81.82)

Source: The study collected data.

for more details).

5. Discussion

In response to the death of George Floyd, 35 states passed legislation characterized within at least one of the six main categories of PAP defined in this analysis. In this study, we performed an in-depth legislation analysis review between May 2020 and December 2022 to capture policy changes across the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia in six main areas: (1) Training, (2) Use of technology, (3) Certification, (4) Improving community involvement, (5) Use of force, and (6) Reducing structural racism. Our findings showed that 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.

Complementing the literature on best practices with this categorization of the mechanisms of PAP most commonly passed across states may help lawmakers, activists, community members, police organizations, and experts to identify types of PAP models that may be successful in their communities. Some of the most common mechanisms identified across the policy categories included improving policy accountability; facilitating social contact between police and community members; creating structural reform; using technology to increase transparency; building public trust; requiring trainings; and ensuring community safety.

5.1. Improving Police Accountability

Both the legislation and survey analyses emphasized the importance of police accountability. The most prominent theme of scholars’ opinions, law enforcement oversight and accountability, revealed a strong consensus among participants that structured oversight mechanisms are essential to maintaining transparency and preventing misconduct. Survey respondents advocated for external accreditation processes, national decertification tracking, and independent review boards, emphasizing that accountability should not rely solely on internal departmental procedures. This aligns with existing research that finds external oversight bodies to be more effective than internal mechanisms in promoting police accountability (Samuel 2006). Additionally, participants voiced concerns about the reactive nature of current accountability measures, which are often triggered only after misconduct has occurred. This perspective is consistent with studies indicating that most reforms focus on disciplinary actions rather than proactive, preventive strategies (Walker and Archbold 2018; White and Fradella 2016). However, the emphasis on inter-agency mobility of officers with misconduct records is an area that has received less attention in prior research, suggesting that further study is needed to assess how mobility influences accountability gaps.

Implementing strategies to improve police accountability requires purposeful thought and effort. At the organizational level, the police department, police culture, and police day-to-day activities should be considered (Santos 2020) in striving for fair and transparent accountability processes and policies to address administrative, personal, and community challenges (Triola and Chanin 2023; Archbold 2021). To ensure the safety and security of all community members, several PAP should be further examined, including using the crime analysis system to identify and prioritize violent crimes and address them realistically; improving contribution within and between police departments and police officers to make police accountability policies an essential part of police responsibility; and addressing expectations by being transparent and fair inside and outside the police department (Santos 2020; Archbold 2021; Chanin and Espinosa 2016).

5.2. Facilitating Social Contact Between Police Officers and Community Members to Improve Community Involvement

Improving community engagement is another key area highlighted by legislation and scholars. As the second most prevalent theme, the theme of community and law enforcement collaboration emphasized the role of partnerships between law enforcement agencies, local governments, and community organizations in shaping accountability and managing community-oriented policing (Mansoor 2026). Many participants highlighted the need for co-responding models, in which social service professionals work alongside law enforcement to address public safety concerns in a non-enforcement capacity. Research supports these models, showing that police collaborations with mental health and social service providers can improve crisis response and reduce unnecessary arrests (Shapiro et al. 2015; Watson et al. 2017; El-Mallakh et al. 2014). Additionally, respondents stressed the importance of community involvement in shaping law enforcement policies, arguing that formal mechanisms for community input—such as advisory boards or structured policy reviews—are critical for fostering trust. While prior research has acknowledged that community-oriented policing improves relationships between police and residents, there has been less emphasis on the specific governance structures that enable meaningful community oversight (Modise 2023; Roché and Varaine 2024; Fairley 2020). The findings of this study reinforce the importance of structured and sustained engagement rather than one-time initiatives.

Establishing a new social contract between the police department and communities may work as an effective approach to implementing police accountability policies (Jonathan-Zamir et al. 2023). Utilizing a community-based approach can assist police in identifying and controlling crime. Santos reported “community-oriented policing” as a well-known strategy for addressing public safety issues (crime, disorder, and fear of crimes) by using partnership and problem-solving techniques proactively and immediately (Santos 2020; Gill et al. 2014; Kondo et al. 2015). This approach requires “developing relationships and partnerships” with communities to respond to community crime and improve legitimacy and trust in the police; strategies such as establishing civilian oversight and community-oriented policing may help to improve public trust in policing and reduce racial bias in policing (Ali and Pirog 2019; Hope 2021; Murphy 2019; White and Fradella 2016).

Police transparency and the flow of information to and from the community are two key indicators for an effective community-based approach to policing (Triola and Chanin 2023; Elphick et al. 2021; Kochel and Skogan 2021). Walking and talking to residents, having coffee with police, a neighborhood watch, etc., may facilitate communication with law enforcement and improve the relationship and collaboration with police departments. At the same time, considering the communities’ culture, racial composition, and gender distribution when hiring and maintaining police officers is another strategy to improve collaboration with communities (Peyton et al. 2022; Riccucci et al. 2014).

The racial composition of law enforcement can be a predictor of police fatal shooting (Tregle et al. 2019; Fryer 2019; Menifield et al. 2019; Cesario et al. 2019). In addition to the racial composition of law enforcement, racial biases and police perspectives have been positively associated with police using fatal force (Fryer 2019; Hoekstra and Sloan 2022). For example, the accuracy and speed of weapon identification were negatively associated with racial bias (Payne 2006) and unarmed Black men were more likely to be shot than armed White men (Swencionis and Goff 2017; Correll et al. 2007; Holmes et al. 2019). Some studies have tried to link these racial biases to time pressures, work-related factors (afraid and tired police) (Correll et al. 2014; Danziger et al. 2011; Goff and Rau 2020), victims and police gender, and police stereotypes (Correll et al. 2014; Danziger et al. 2011; Goff and Rau 2020; Cuddy 2005; Cuddy et al. 2007). Treating violence is a multidimensional issue that needs more study at all socioecological levels (CDC 2021). There is an urgent need for strong support from the local government and policymakers to facilitate the process and to construct a new social contract between the police and the community.

5.3. Policy and Structural Reform

Both scholars and literature emphasized targeted reforms as another key theme, with scholars emphasizing the need for legislative support, funding, and technical assistance to ensure the success of accountability measures. Many respondents pointed to resource disparities across law enforcement agencies, arguing that well-resourced departments are better equipped to implement accountability measures effectively, while underfunded agencies struggle to comply with oversight requirements. This finding builds on research demonstrating that police departments in wealthier municipalities often have stronger accountability structures than those in under-resourced communities (Archbold 2021; Pacewicz and Robinson 2021). Additionally, participants called for greater investment in officer wellness programs and mental health resources, arguing that sustainable reform must include both increased oversight and internal support systems for officers. While prior studies have examined the relationship between officer well-being and use-of-force incidents, there has been limited research on how wellness programs intersect with accountability measures—an area that warrants further exploration.

5.4. Police Transparency Using Technology

Both legislation and scholars emphasized police transparency as an essential strategy to improve community collaboration and trust in police departments (Vora et al. 2024; Prince et al. 2021).

Wearing body-worn cameras and releasing information at the right time foster dialogue between police departments and communities, in addition to making police officers responsible and accountable for their actions in enforcing the law. After the death of George Floyd, more than 19 states passed legislation requiring or specifying the use of body-worn cameras, dash-camera release of body-worn and dash-camera footage and requiring disciplinary action for the failure to activate body or dash cameras or alter footage. Although there is no agreement on the impact of body-worn cameras on police behaviors (Pyo 2021; Yokum et al. 2017), studies have found them to be an effective strategy to improve police accountability (Kahn and Martin 2016) and to protect police from false claims (Braga et al. 2017; Peterson and Lawrence 2021). In addition to body-worn cameras, citizens’ use of recording devices and social media, open data provided by police agencies, and oversight agencies (Community Relations Services Toolkit for Policing 2022) explore how technology can contribute to police accountability in the United States. More studies are needed in this area to clarify the real impact of body-worn cameras on reducing disparities in police behaviors and to promote transparency and police accountability (Kochel and Skogan 2021).

5.5. Public Trust

Legitimacy and perception of law enforcement focused on the importance of public trust as a prerequisite for effective policing. Scholars described legitimacy as a function of perceived fairness, transparency, and responsiveness, consistent with the well-established procedural justice framework (Hamm et al. 2017; Mazerolle et al. 2013). However, some scholars raised concerns about potential biases in public discourse, suggesting that media coverage and political narratives shape public perceptions of law enforcement in ways that may not always align with on-the-ground realities. This nuance is not widely explored in existing literature, which tends to focus on public trust as an outcome of police behavior rather than as a construct shaped by external influences. These findings suggest a need for further study into the role of media and political discourse in shaping public perceptions of police accountability.

Historically, people come together during disasters like the COVID-19 pandemic. However, its impact on policing could either lead to increased militarization and division or foster a compassionate, procedurally just response that rebuilds police legitimacy (Jones 2020). The latter promotes trust, while the former risks deepening the divide between police and communities. Additionally, the pandemic has contributed to heightened alcohol and drug use and increased mental health crises (Galea et al. 2020), leading to more conflicts with police (Schuck 2019). Consequently, communities may feel unequal, perceiving that police are inequitable in their administration of justice (Jones 2020). There is a need for more transparency to gain community trust after any pandemic, including COVID-19.

5.6. Training

Our findings showed that some states introduced various types of training for police officers after the death of George Floyd, including (1) training regarding policing of specified groups (i.e., sexual assault victims, those experiencing a mental health crisis or domestic violence, individuals with dementia, etc.); (2) crisis intervention training; (3) establishment or expansion of a training board or task force; (4) de-escalation and use of force training; (5) medical emergency training; and (6) the creation or expansion of minimum certification standards for training. To implement any new procedures and policies in a police department, it is essential to train officers. Research indicates that highly trained officers have better-managed use of force (Smith 2015; Wood et al. 2020; Kahn et al. 2017).

By the end of 2022, more than half of US states had not passed any policies on police training; there is a need for training policies across all states, specifically prioritizing states with higher rates of Black and Hispanic populations. Studies have reported that racially minoritized populations were disproportionately stopped (Geller and Fagan 2010), experienced a higher probability of arrest (Brown and Frank 2006), and were more commonly subjected to police use-of-force (Edwards et al. 2018, 2019; Pierson et al. 2020; Fryer 2019). Proper training of law enforcement is the first step for many states to reducing instances of disproportionate policing.

5.7. Ensuring Community Safety

Enforcing laws and regulations requires power and, at times, even the use of physical force, but these practices also have the potential to be abused (Noble and Alpert 2008). There is a long history of police abusing power inside and outside the United States, primarily because of the failure to implement and develop procedures to ensure police accountability. To improve police accountability and responsibility, researchers suggested (Boba and Santos 2015; Reisig 2010; Hinkle et al. 2020; Kassin et al. 2025) (1) implementing the proper procedures; (2) collaborating with communities and researchers to identify and modify policies that negatively affected citizens’ quality of life; (3) taking appropriate action for a few officers who are not following the police department mission and negatively affect the reputation of police agencies; and finally, (4) protecting police by detecting false accusations against police through fair, thorough, and accurate investigations. The state of North Carolina provided a great example of collaboration between police departments and communities by introducing Civilian Advisory and Review Boards as focal points of police accountability policies (Walker and Archbold 2018).

Key findings from our legislative review show that training and the use of technology were the most commonly addressed areas, with related policies passed in a broad range of states. For instance, 26 states enacted policies related to training on policing specified groups, and 19 states enacted policies related to technological advancements such as body-worn cameras. However, policies around certification and decertification, critical for holding officers accountable through rigorous training standards and disciplinary mechanisms, were less prevalent. For example, only 17 states passed laws related to certification suspension or revocation. Similarly, while many states mandated body-worn cameras, only New Mexico required disciplinary action for failing to activate these devices or for tampering with footage. This discrepancy highlights a critical gap between policy adoption and effective enforcement, underscoring the need for more comprehensive approaches in several states.

The survey of experts provided further insights into the barriers and facilitators of passing PAP. Inadequate community support (63.6%) and structural exclusion of marginalized groups from policing resources (54.6%) were frequently cited as barriers. Additionally, inadequate support from local governments (27.3%) further complicated the implementation of reforms. Experts also pointed to concerns over public safety and fears that new laws could negatively impact police recruitment and retention as significant challenges.

On the other hand, the survey identified important facilitators, such as the voluntary accreditation of police departments (54.6%) and building established relationships between police departments and the public (36.4%), as helping to advance accountability policies. Moreover, a cultural shift in policing—encouraging officers to see themselves as “guardians” rather than “warriors”—was seen as an important factor for fostering accountability and rebuilding public trust. Technological measures, like body-worn cameras, were also regarded as valuable tools for enhancing transparency, though their effectiveness depends on proper usage and enforcement.

In summary, the main challenges to passing law enforcement accountability policies stem from a lack of institutional and community support, concerns over the public’s perception of these reforms, and persistent inadequate transparency between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Addressing these barriers will be essential to the success of any future legislative efforts aimed at improving police accountability. The findings of this study provide a deeper understanding of police accountability by identifying the key factors that shape oversight, public trust, and law enforcement–community relationships.

Implications for Future Research. Future research should concentrate on evaluating the long-term effects of PAP, identifying the most effective strategies for implementation, and overcoming the practical challenges that hinder their enactment and enforcement. Such studies should aim to ensure that these policies transcend symbolic gestures, addressing these inequities entrenched in current law enforcement practices comprehensively. Furthermore, expanding research on the relationship between exposure to violence and the risk of adverse health outcomes is essential for addressing the intersection of public health and policing (Haile et al. 2023; DeVylder et al. 2020). Such studies can illuminate how police violence impacts not only those directly affected but also the broader community’s well-being. Understanding these health consequences can inform policies that promote both public safety and public health, ensuring that law enforcement practices consider the community’s health needs. By integrating health perspectives into policing strategies, stakeholders can develop comprehensive approaches that mitigate the adverse effects of violence, foster community resilience, and improve overall public health outcomes. This shift towards a health-informed approach can ultimately enhance the effectiveness of policing in promoting safety while addressing the vital health concerns of populations affected by violence. By fostering collaboration between policymakers and researchers, there is an opportunity to develop innovative solutions that promote enduring and significant improvements in policing practices across the United States.

Limitations. Some aspects of this study need explanation. First, this review does not aim to provide an extensive listing and analysis of every police-related bill passed between 2020 and 2022, but rather the six above-mentioned main categories selected were intended to capture legislation that best represented the most frequently implemented police reform. Second, many pieces of legislation included in the review made distinct changes in multiple of the categories included; in this instance, the bill was counted under all relevant areas of reform. Third, our study did not examine the responsibilities of communities to work with law enforcement to promote safety, as the survey focused solely on the accountability of police. Fourth, the survey had a low response rate and small sample size. As such, we focus on a qualitative analysis of survey responses, identifying key themes from the responses. Future studies may use a more broadly disseminated survey to elicit feedback from a larger sample of experts. Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced the passage of bills during the 2020–2022 period, coinciding with the data collection for this study.

6. Conclusions

This study highlights the intricate challenges involved in passing and implementing law enforcement accountability policies throughout the United States. Despite notable advances in certain regions, substantial obstacles remain, including structural exclusions and deep-rooted institutional resistance. To overcome these barriers, policymakers must actively involve communities, law enforcement agencies, and subject-matter experts in the policy design process, ensuring that initiatives foster transparency, accountability, and equitable justice.

The pivotal role of community support and the necessity for cultural shifts within police departments cannot be overstated; these elements are essential for the success of future reforms. Building trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the communities they serve is critical, requiring consistent effort and open dialogue.

The survey of experts identified significant barriers to passing police accountability policies, such as inadequate community support, along with resistance from local governments. Yet, key facilitators like broad community support, changing police culture from “warriors” to “guardians”, and the implementation of technologies such as body-worn cameras offer tangible pathways forward. These insights emphasize the importance of fostering accountability and rebuilding public trust through comprehensive and effectively enforced reforms.