
Police standards and training are managed on a state by state basis in the United States. Each state is, or can be, individual in how these standards are maintained, whom they report to, whom they are managed by, and the authority they have over the Law Enforcement Community in their specific state varies dramatically.
In the United States, there is no single national standard for policing. Every state manages its own system of Peace Officer Standards and Training known as POST. These commissions decide who can wear the badge, how officers are trained, and what happens when that trust is broken.
Because each state writes its own rules, the results vary dramatically. Some POST commissions have genuine power to hold officers accountable, investigate misconduct, and set high standards for policing. Others serve mainly as advisory boards with little enforcement authority. The strength of a POST commission often determines whether accountability is a standard—or a slogan.
State oversight of police training and certification ranges from strong and independent to weak and symbolic.
States like Massachusetts and Oregon empower their POST commissions to regulate agencies, accredit departments, and independently investigate misconduct. Others—like Texas and New York—limit oversight primarily to training approval, leaving discipline to local departments.
The difference between a strong and weak POST often comes down to power, representation, and resources.
• Power: Whether the POST can enforce its rules or only recommend them.
• Representation: Whether the board includes public voices or is dominated by law enforcement insiders.
• Resources: Whether it’s funded and staffed well enough to do its job.
Who decides how police are trained—and how misconduct is punished—isn’t a bureaucratic issue. It’s a question of democracy.
When oversight is strong, POST commissions serve as a shield between the public and abuse of power. When oversight is weak, that shield becomes paper-thin. Accountability should not depend on your zip code.
Real reform begins with transparency—knowing who sets the standards, how they’re enforced, and who’s watching the watchers.
Below you’ll find a state-by-state list of the agencies responsible for police standards and training across the United States. Each operates differently, but together they define the framework for professional policing—and our collective expectation that those who enforce the law must also be accountable to it. Following that, feel free to use us to send your grievance to people responsible for these tyrants and abusers amongst us!
This platform doesn’t just connect individuals to government — it builds collective momentum. With every mailed letter, the pressure grows. With every update to the counter, the will of the people becomes harder to dismiss. In a digital age where real voices are often buried by algorithms and inbox filters, we’re bringing civic engagement back into the physical world — where it has weight, friction, and undeniable presence.
Our only goal is to facilitate this objective by making it easier to exert pressure using physical paper to express dissatisfaction when the government actors that we pay to serve us, are extorting, abusing, and violating the rights of WE THE PEOPLE. If you are so inclined to print and mail this yourself, please feel free to do this. We are not gatekeepers, only facilitators! If you feel the weight of this logistical challenge, for less than the price of adding air to your tires, we will: print, fold, stuff, stamp, and USPS mail your grievance on your behalf.
All pressure is good pressure, feel free to copy and paste our grievance into an email if you're not concerned with exerting the physical weight of a paper document on your public servants.
Copyright © 2025 More Perfect Union Accountability Network - All Rights Reserved.
FAIR USE NOTICE: The videos and other contextual material linked within mpuaccountabilitynetwork.com may be protected by copyright and/or may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.