Faced with allegations of systemic corruption, a law enforcement organization must undertake the daunting task of rebuilding
its institutional integrity, not only within the ranks of its officers but also in the eyes of the citizens it serves. In such a situation,
the organization will undoubtably perform a critical review of its self-policing process. What went wrong? What fixes are possible? How could it have been prevented in the first place? Maintaining a high level of institutional integrity represents the key to preventing corruption within any organization. Law enforcement officials must understand how institutional integrity interrelates with the concept of self-policing.

Citizens bestow great power and authority upon their law enforcement organizations. They expect and deserve accountability
from their law enforcement public servants and demand that these organizations display a high degree of institutional integrity. Because of this, the law enforcement community remains particularly sensitive to acts of employee misconduct.

Traditionally, law enforcement organizations have addressed employee misconduct through the concept of self-policing and have encountered a myriad of legal, contractual, and social issues. Differences in local and state regulations and the existence of internal factors, such as collective bargaining contracts, hinder the development of a standard model for selfpolicing that would work for every department. Consequently, internal disciplinary programs vary greatly throughout the law enforcement community.

Although the self-policing process differs in every department, all internal disciplinary programs share four common elements: establishing a code of conduct; conducting internal investigations; adjudicating misconduct; and reporting on the disciplinary process.1 Agencies should examine how these four