Development of Specialized Accreditation for Emergency Management Degree
Programs

A Paper Presented by Alan G. Walker

for the

**Higher Education Project Conference**

**July 22-23, 1998**

# Emergency Management Institute 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Introduction

Emergency management is rapidly emerging as one of this nation's newest
and perhaps most vital academic fields. It seems at no time in recent
history has the need for leadership in the field of fire emergency
management been greater. This is due, in part, not only to the increased
volatility of nature, but also the complex and changing milieu that
reflects our society. This demands more highly skilled leaders who are
able to best position communities for times of crisis. Of the five
elements that characterize emergency management, today a greater
emphasis is wisely being placed upon preparedness and mitigation. One of
the essential elements to effectively mitigating this nation's level of
risk from natural and man-made disasters is to invest heavily in the
preparation of those who are entrusted to manage that risk.
Historically, our nation's colleges and universities have been
incubators for emerging leaders. Therefore, every opportunity to
strengthen and expand an academic area of study in a field so vital to
the public interest, should be vigorously pursued.

A cornerstone in the advancement of most professions and their
respective academic fields has been the development of specialized
accreditation. While it is necessary and appropriate that leaders in
emergency management and educators participating in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Higher Education Project focus on a number
of issues related to establishing and strengthening degree programs in
emergency management such as, needs assessment, course/program
development, and review of degree program models, the purpose of this
paper is to establish a framework within which this focus should take
place. Many times, evaluation of program quality through specialized
accreditation is an afterthought which follows development. For example,
fire-related degree programs have existed in large numbers for several
decades, and only now is this issue being addressed. The question of
quality and how it's to be assessed, must be an integral component to
the development of emergency management degree programs. Industry
standards and methods for measuring and improving program quality and
student learning outcomes (essential elements of specialized
accreditation) must be developed on a concurrent basis with curriculum
and programs. A specialized accreditation system for degree programs in
emergency management will provide the foundation needed for recognition,
viability and long-term strength and stability. Indeed, such a system
may also have a promulgating effect because it could provide some
guidance for those institutions that contemplate establishing new degree
programs in emergency management but lack a framework on which to base
such programs.

In order to provide a solid foundation for the future development of a
specialized accreditation system for degree programs in emergency
management, the purpose of this paper is to provide the following:

1.  A description of general principles of accreditation in American
    higher education.

2.  An overview of the history of postsecondary accreditation as well as
    the development of specialized accreditation (with specific examples
    from other disciplines).

3.  A description of the history and development of professional
    qualifications standards, certification and accreditation in the
    North American fire service.

[General Principles of Accreditation in American Higher
Education]{.underline}

The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) Handbook (1990)
describes accreditation as:

...a system for recognizing educational institutions and professional
programs affiliated with those institutions for a level of performance,
integrity, and quality, which entitles them to the confidence of the
educational community and the public they serve. In the United States
this recognition is extended primarily through nongovernmental,
voluntary institutional or professional associations. These groups
establish criteria for accreditation, arrange site visits, evaluate
those institutions and professional programs which desire accredited
status, and publicly designate those which meet their criteria. (p. 3)

In most other countries, the establishment and maintenance of
educational standards is the responsibility of a central government
bureau. In the United States, however, public authority in education is
constitutionally reserved to the states. The system of voluntary
nongovernmental evaluation, called accreditation, has evolved to promote
both regional and national approaches to the determination of
educational quality. Although accreditation is basically a private
voluntary process, accrediting decisions are used as a consideration in
many formal actions-by governmental funding agencies, scholarship
commissions, foundations, employers, counselors, and potential students.
Accrediting bodies have, therefore, come to be viewed as quasi-public
entities with certain responsibilities to the many groups which interact
with the educational community.

There are two fundamental types of accreditation practiced in the United
States: institutional accreditation and specialized accreditation.
Institutional accreditation granted by the regional and national
accrediting commissions of schools and colleges collectively serves most
of the institutions chartered or licensed in the United States and
accredits total operating units only (COPA, 1990). Committees or
commissions within national professional associations accredit
professional and occupational schools and programs within colleges and
universities. In describing the nature of specialized accreditation in
the United States, the COPA Handbook (1990) goes on to say:

> Specialized accreditation of professional and occupational schools and
> programs is granted by commissions on accreditation set up by national
> professional organizations in such fields as business, dentistry,
> engineering, and law. Each of these groups has distinctive definitions
> of eligibility, criteria for accreditation, and operating procedures
> but all have undertaken accreditation activities primarily to provide
> quality assurances concerning educational preparation of members of
> the profession or occupation. Many of the specialized accrediting
> bodies will consider requests for accreditation reviews only from
> programs affiliated with institutions holding institutional
> accreditation. Some specialized bodies, however, accredit professional
> programs at institutions not otherwise accredited. These are generally
> independent institutions offering only the particular specified
> discipline or course of study in question. (p. 3)

Specialized and institutional accreditation share common objectives
directed toward improving education. These include: (COPA, 1990):

-   Foster excellence in postsecondary education through the development
    of criteria and guidelines for assessing educational effectiveness.

-   Encourage improvement through continuous self-study and review.

-   Assure the educational community, the general public, and other
    agencies or organizations that an institution or program has clearly
    defined and appropriate objectives, maintains conditions under which
    their achievement is expected, accomplishes them substantially, and
    will continue to do so.

-   Provide counsel and assistance to established and developing
    institutions and programs.

-   Endeavor to protect institutions against encroachments that might
    jeopardize their educational effectiveness or academic freedom. (p.
    4)

Accreditation works towards these objectives by requiring institutions
and programs to: "...examine their goals, activities and achievements;
consider the expert criticism and suggestions of a visiting team; and
determine internal procedures for action on recommendations from the
accrediting body" (COPA, 1990, p. 3). Periodic review of accreditation
status encourages institutions and professional programs to maintain
continuous self-study and improvement mechanisms. In describing
accreditation procedures, the COPA (1990) Handbook states:

The accrediting process is continuously evolving. The trend has been
from quantitative to qualitative criteria, from the early days of census
and data collection, then simple checklists to an increasing interest
and emphasis on measuring the outcomes of educational experiences. The
process begins with the institutional or programmatic self-study, a
comprehensive effort to measure progress according to previously
accepted objectives. The self-study considers the interests of a broad
cross-section of constituencies-students, faculty, administrators,
alumni, trustees, and in some circumstances, the local community. The
resulting report is reviewed by the appropriate accrediting commission
and serves as the basis for evaluation by a site visit team from the
accrediting group. The site visit team normally consists of professional
educators (faculty and administration), specialists selected according
to the nature of the institution, and members representing specific
public interests. The visiting team assesses the institution or program
in light of the self-study and adds judgments based on its own expertise
and external perspective. The team then prepares an evaluation report
reviewed by the institution or program for factual accuracy. The
original self-study, the team report, and any response the institution
or program may wish to make is forwarded to the accreditation
commission. The review body uses these materials as the basis for action
regarding the accreditation status of the institution or program.
Negative actions may be appealed according to established procedures of
the accrediting body. (p. 3-4)

Although accreditation is generally granted for a specific term,
accrediting bodies hold their member institutions and programs
continually responsible to their educational peers, to the constituents
they serve, and to the public. They carry out this aim by reserving the
right to review member institutions or programs at any time for cause
(COPA, 1990). Reasons for such a review typically include the following:
changes in program sponsorship; program mergers; complaints and evidence
of noncompliance; additions or major changes of program; and items which
substantially impact program policies, staff, curriculum, reputation,
financial, or legal status.

[History of Postsecondary Accreditation in America]{.underline}

The common ancestral event from which the present systems of
institutional and specialized accreditation descended can be traced back
to the establishment of the New York Board of Regents in 1784. This
organization had licensing, regulatory and planning authority over all
educational institutions in its jurisdiction (Gannon, 1993). It was the
first of its kind in the United States. Over the next two hundred years,
regional and professional associations developed voluntary systems for
approving programs, although states were involved to some extent.

The first professional association, the American Medical Association
(AMA) was founded in 1847. At about this time, states began enacting
licensing statutes intended to protect the professions, combat fraud and
the low quality of educational programs (Gannon, 1993). Concurrently,
following the lead of the AMA, other professional associations began
forming in fields such as architecture and veterinary medicine. One of
the primary activities of these new associations was to review
preparatory programs in colleges and universities (Gannon, 1993).

In 1867, the United States Bureau (later known as Office) of Education
was founded. Its primary function was to provide statistical information
such as numbers of colleges operating, and numbers of teachers and
students (Gannon, 1993). In 1885, the first regional association of
colleges and universities was formed (New England). Gannon reports that
the New England Regional Association, made up of high school and college
heads, was established to pursue interests common to colleges and
preparatory schools. The establishment of other regional associations
followed New England: the Middle States was founded in 1887; Southern in
1895; North Central in 1895; Northwest in 1917; and Western in 1924
(Gannon, 1993). The first regional accreditation of a college/
university was granted by North Central in 1910.

[Development of Specialized Accreditation.]{.underline}

The period of time from just prior to 1920 to the mid-1930s produced
many discipline specific national professional associations with
medicine, and the AMA in particular, emerging as the leader in
accreditation practices. Specialized accreditation was developed by
professional associations as a result of their concern over the quality
of educational preparation for entry into professional practice
(Stedman, 1980). National efforts to direct and improve the
accreditation process have continued over the years. In 1956, the
National Commission on Accrediting (NCA) began publishing a list of
recognized accrediting associations and adopted formal criteria for
recognizing accrediting agencies (Shawen, 1983).

In many cases, professional associations formed coalitions with
educators and/or regulators to develop and administer specialized
accreditation. For example, in 1942 the organization that accredits
medical education programs leading to a medical degree was founded as a
collaboration between the American Medical Association (AMA) and the
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (Kassebaum, 1992). This
was done in response to the emergency conditions brought about by World
War II. Kassebaum (1992) points out that prior to 1942, the AMA and the
AAMC tended to go their separate ways. The AMA represented the interests
of the practicing profession and the AAMC those of the educational
institutions. Kassebaum (1992) reports that the two organizations met in
1942 for some very specific reasons:

...to create a united front to protect medical students from the wartime
draft, to find economies in carrying out the profession's duties to
assure the quality of medical education, and to survey medical schools
that were being affected by pressure for continuous sessions and
accelerated medical training. (p. 85)

The original statement found in this work regarding the social
responsibility of medical education is still applied to accreditation
requirements today.

Not only were there scenarios where specialized accreditation developed
as a collaboration between practitioners and educators, in some cases
regulators played a role as well. For example, accreditation of
pharmaceutical education came about because of a tripartite effort on
the part of educators (American Association of Colleges of
Pharmacy-AACP), regulators (National Association of Boards of
Pharmacy-NABP), and practitioners (American Pharmaceutical
Association-APhA) (Hodapp, 1988). In some cases, the nature of the
relationship between educators, regulators and practitioners in an
organization that performed specialized accreditation was subject to a
variety of influences including recognition from third party national
organizations such as the National Commission on Accrediting (which
later became the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation). Changes in
these relationships influenced the nature of governance structure,
membership, policy issues, as well as ideology. For example, in 1954 the
National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) was
founded following discussions between key national educational
organizations. The intent of this effort was to establish a
semi-autonomous agency for national accreditation in teacher education
(Christensen, 1985). Prior to 1954, the accreditation of teacher
education was done by the American Association of Teacher Colleges
(AATC) as part of its membership requirements.

Christensen (1985) describes the initial efforts of NCATE to become
recognized by the National Commission on Accrediting (NCA-forerunner to
COPA). The first attempt failed because of the concern NCA had over what
it considered to be "... excessive representation from state legal
agencies in this private, nongovernmental accrediting agency"
(Christensen, p. 18). Christensen further states: "This concern about
state agency representation on accrediting bodies continues in the
accrediting community to this day" (p. 18).

Failure to achieve recognition from the NCA and the temporary withdrawal
of the National Education Association from NCATE in 1972 led to a
significant change in NCATE's governance structure (Christensen, 1985).
The significant loss of revenue that resulted forced NCATE to change its
governance structure in 1974, to that which is still in use
(Christensen, 1985). The American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE) now makes up a third of the council membership,
another third belongs to the NEA and the remaining third to other
organizations. Associate membership was also established during the 1974
reorganization. This category of membership had accrediting decision
power, but no policy, budget, procedure, or standards decision power
(Christensen, 1985).

One result of NCATE's reorganization was the emphasis placed upon peer
review and the role of professional associations in the accreditation
process. When NCATE was first established in 1954, the standards it
adopted were those used by the forerunner of the American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). At the time, the general nature
of the language used in the accreditation criteria was similar to that
of institutional accreditation (Christensen, 1985). Between 1954 and the
reorganization of NCATE's governance structure in 1974, AACTE continued
to have exclusive authority for evaluation, development and
implementation of new standards. In 1974, this role was transferred to
the Council. In the 1960s, accreditation criteria were revised to
include much more specific language. Some of the most significant
changes in NCATE accreditation criteria over the years include increased
emphasis and specificity on governance and responding to guidelines of
other professional organizations (Christensen, 1985).

In his review of changes that occurred in NCATE's procedures,
Christensen (1985) cites those related to site visits as being the most
significant.

...in 1954, the nature of accreditation was that of an institution
demonstrating to a group of peers (defined as persons from similar kinds
of institutions) that it was providing effective programs. In contrast,
NCATE accreditation is now a process by which an institution
demonstrates to a group of peers (now defined as persons from the total
teaching profession) that the program the institution offers meets
predetermined national standards. (p. 18)

Recognition that practitioners (as well as any other constituent) have a
legitimate interest in accreditation reflected the expansion of whom
stakeholders of accreditation were considered to be. This shift in
philosophy resulted in another NCATE change over the years-an emphasis
on site team member training (Christensen, 1985). Finally, the third
most significant change in the development of NCATE was the elimination
of interim provisional accreditation categories. Rather than providing
entities with conditional approval, NCATE adopted the practice of either
granting or denying accreditation, with no time for correction of
deficiencies (Christensen, 1985).

[Accreditation of Funeral Service Education.]{.underline}

Many of the milestones and characteristics associated with the histories
of national specialized accrediting bodies are also shared with funeral
service education accreditation. Its development illustrates the
tri-partite efforts between practitioners, regulators and educators;
changes to governance structure as a result of government influence and
fundamental principles of accreditation, such as peer review; and the
changing roles of educators, regulators and practitioners over time, in
the accreditation/governance process. A close review of the development
of accreditation for funeral service education is valuable because of
the potential model it provides.

Prior to 1946, there were three organizations that had some relationship
to, or interest in funeral education. These were: the National Funeral
Directors Association (NFDA), a professional association of
practitioners; the Conference of Funeral Service Examining Boards of the
United States (The Conference), organizations which had some
responsibility for regulating the industry at the time; and several
associations of schools and colleges (educators) concerned with funeral
service education (ABFSE, 1989). In 1946, the Joint Committee on
Mortuary Education was formed (changed to the American Board of Funeral
Service Education in 1959) as a result of joint resolutions passed by
The Conference as well as NFDA, with concurrence from the schools. The
Joint Committee was composed of three representatives appointed by NFDA,
three representatives appointed by The Conference, and three
representatives of the schools and colleges (ABFSE, 1993).

During this early organizational design, interests of the regulators in
the accreditation process prevailed since the three representatives
appointed by The Conference served as the association's accreditation
committee. The Joint Committee had authority to make and enforce its own
rules and regulations governing its procedure and conduct. It also had
the authority to formulate, promulgate and enforce rules and regulations
setting up standards concerning the schools and colleges teaching
mortuary science. The constitution of the Joint Committee gave The
Conference (its three representatives on the Joint Committee) the power
to accredit schools and colleges of mortuary science (ABFSE, 1989). The
Joint Committee established an Appellate Board that reported to the
Joint Committee. Rules and procedures for the Appellate Board were
promulgated by the Joint Committee. Schools and colleges of mortuary
science had the right to appeal decisions made by The Conference
(accreditation committee) to the Appellate Board of the Joint Committee.

In 1962, the authority to accredit funeral service institutions/programs
was transferred from The Conference to the American Board of Funeral
Service Education (ABFSE, 1993). This provided more balanced
representation in the accreditation process from practitioners and
educators. In keeping with the principle of accreditation by peers, the
ABFSE amended its constitution and bylaws in 1970 to provide for the
establishment of a Commission on Schools within the framework of a
restructured board.

The Commission was charged with the following responsibilities (ABFSE,
1993, p. 3): (a) prepare for, and certify to, the American Board,
criteria and procedures for accreditation; (b) receive reports from a
Standards and Criteria Committee and to certify to the American Board
those schools that met the criteria and were to be accredited; and (c)
establish, in cooperation with the American Board, appellate procedures
on accreditation certifications of the Commission. Under this system,
the American Board accepted the certifications of the Commission and
would then make official statements of accreditation.

Finally, in 1978, in reaction to and in accordance with recommendations
made by the United States Office of Education, the American Board of
Funeral Service Education appointed an ad hoc committee for the purpose
of restructuring the board (ABFSE, 1993). At this time, the Commission
on Schools was renamed and became an autonomous standing committee of
the Board. The resulting relationship between the functions of the board
and accreditation is similar to many other national specialized
accrediting bodies. Many of these organizations are made up of a board
and a separate committee on accreditation that reports to the board.

[History of Standards for the Professional Development. Certification
and Accreditation in the North American Fire Service:
1972-1990]{.underline}

The first organized effort identifying a need for fire service
professional qualifications can be traced to a symposium of national
fire service leaders in 1966. Sponsored by the Johnson Foundation, this
event became known as the Wingspread conference, named after the
conference center at which it was held in Racine, Wisconsin. The
conference identified the need for professional status and career
development in the fire service and produced a report offering 12
statements of national significance to the fire problem. Six of the
statements dealt directly or indirectly with professional status and
development for the fire service. They included the following (Gratz &
Barr, 1988):

-   Professional status begins with education.

-   The scope, degree and depth of the educational requirements for
    efficient functioning of the fire service must be examined.

-   Increased mobility at the executive level of the fire service will
    be important to the achievement of professional status.

-   The career development of the fire executive must be systematic and
    deliberate.

-   Governing bodies and municipal administrators generally do not
    recognize the need for executive development for the fire officer.

-   Fire service labor and management, municipal officers and
    administrators must join together if professionalism is to become
    reality. (p. 1)

Gratz and Barr (1988) comment that: "Wingspread I became the catalyst
for national dialogue on fire service professionalism. However, four
years were to pass before the dialogue would be translated into action"
(p. 1).

[The Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations.]{.underline}

In 1970, Charles S. Morgan, then President of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), conceived the idea of calling together
the chief executives of principle national professional fire service
associations. The objective was to establish a line of communication to
discuss issues of mutual interest (Gratz & Barr, 1988). The Joint
Council of National Fire Service Organizations (JCNFSO-commonly referred
to as the Joint Council) met periodically to review developments in the
fire service and to identify areas of common interest where cooperative
efforts of member organizations could be used for maximum results (Gratz
& Barr, 1988). The members of the Joint Council consisted of the
following organizations (Gratz & Barr, 1988):

-   Fire Marshals Association of North America (FMANA)

-   International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI)

-   International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters
    (IABPFF)

-   International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)

-   International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)

-   International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA)

-   International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)

-   International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI)

-   Metropolitan Committee of the International Association of Fire
    Chiefs (IAFC)

-   National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

-   National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). (p. 2)

One of the principle providers of training for the American fire service
(state fire service training agencies) was not formally represented on
the Joint Council. This was due to the fact that at the time the Joint
Council was established, the National Association of State Directors of
Fire Training and Education (NASDFTE) had not yet been founded. However,
some state fire training directors met together as a section of the
International Society of Fire Service Instructors.

[Development of National Fire Service Professional Qualifications and
Certification.]{.underline}

In 1971 the Joint Council, produced a statement of "National Goals for
the United States Fire Service." First among the seven goals was the
need to develop a recommended program for national certification. A
committee was appointed by the Joint Council to develop such a program.
The committee spent several months developing a proposed system and its
report was submitted to the Joint Council in 1972. The report
recommended that the professional qualifications system include two key
components (Gratz & Barr, 1988).

The first of these key components was that there be four (4) technical
committees established to develop standards of professional competency
for the fire service. These committees included peer group
representation from among the constituent members of the Joint Council
as well as other individuals nominated by the Joint Council. The four
technical committees developed professional qualifications standards for
fire fighters, fire inspectors and investigators, fire service
instructors and fire service officers. These technical committees
functioned within the standards-making procedures of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA). This arrangement provided a mechanism to
formalize the development and adoption of standards within a system
already established and accepted world-wide (Gratz & Barr, 1988). The
NFPA also had a well organized administrative structure which they
offered to support committee activities. Under this system, all
technical committee appointments had to conform to the routine NFPA
standards-making procedures under the direction of the NFPA Standards
Council, which has final authority on appointments to the technical
committees (Gratz & Barr).

The second major component recommended by the committee's report was the
creation of a nine (9) member independent body to oversee the national
professional qualifications system (Gratz & Barr, 1988). This body
became the National Professional Qualifications Board (NPQB), popularly
known as the "Pro Board" (Thomas, 1990).

The Pro Board was responsible for the following (Gratz & Barr, 1988):

-   Supervising a nationally coordinated professional development
    program for the fire service, responsive to the needs and opinions
    of all groups involved with the fire service.

-   Identifying and defining levels of professional progression.

-   Correlating, reviewing, and approving draft standards prepared by
    the technical committees.

-   Accreditation and supervision of any national programs of
    certification and coordinating with implementing agencies. (p. 5)

The nine member Pro Board was appointed by the Joint Council. The
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Fire Protection
Association and the International Association of Fire Fighters each
nominated two individuals to sit on the Pro Board. The remaining three
members were nominated by the Joint Council as a whole. Although members
of the Pro Board were nominated by national fire service professional
associations, the intent was that they also be selected on the basis of
interest, experience and reputation. Individuals serving on the Pro
Board were to do so as independent professionals rather than on behalf
of any organization, irrespective of their affiliation, nomination or
selection (Gratz & Barr, 1988).

The Pro Board directed the development of professional qualifications
standards and the identification of terminal performance objectives
(Gratz & Barr, 1988). These standards were considered the minimum
necessary for a person to be competent at carrying out fire protection
activities at the respective level and in the role specified by the
standard, no matter where that person served. These statements of
performance objectives were not intended to be a training program
outline. It was expected that a number of instructional steps would
typically be required for mastery of many of the objectives (Gratz &
Barr, 1988). It was thought that teaching outlines would be more
detailed and extensive, as a single objective could require many hours
of instruction and might interrelate to instruction for other
objectives. Throughout the standards, various levels were developed to
denote increasing degrees of responsibility: e.g., Fire Fighter I, II,
III, the lowest or basic level being I. A similar sequence was used for
each standard where appropriate. These performance objectives were also
intended to be minimum standards and it was expected that in many cases,
jurisdictions would find it necessary to require additional knowledge
and skills to meet local needs (Gratz & Barr, 1988).

It was also intended that the standards be designed so that members of
the fire service could achieve each level by various means, including
participation in state and local training programs, self-study,
attendance at colleges offering suitable courses, or through a
combination of these means. This was made possible through controlled
testing procedures with which personnel could be officially certified
when they demonstrated their competency. A principle function of the Pro
Board was to review the validity and quality of testing procedures
established by state and local authorities and to accredit such
procedures (Gratz & Barr, 1988). It was the philosophy of the Pro Board
that the establishment of standards and testing procedures would not, by
themselves, ensure that all personnel achieved the required levels of
competency. They recommended that training programs be developed to
prepare members of the fire service to acquire the skills and knowledge
necessary to achieve the terminal performance objectives of the
standards (Gratz & Barr, 1988).

It was the intent of the Pro Board that upon adoption of any standard,
the authority having jurisdiction classify its existing ranks,
qualifications, and appointments to determine equivalency with an
appropriate level of the standard (Gratz & Barr, 1988). This reflected
the board's strong belief that the standards not have the effect of
rendering invalid any rank, qualification and appointment acquired prior
to the adoption of a standard. The Pro Board also stipulated that an
incumbent established in a position prior to adoption of a standard be
considered qualified and eligible for future progression in accordance
with the standards.

After four years of work, the first national fire service professional
qualifications standard was adopted by the Pro Board. This standard was
known as standard 1001- Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications. Then
in 1975, the Pro Board completed a study on certification for the Joint
Council leading to the adoption of criteria for implementing a system to
accredit agencies (Thomas, 1990). Two years later, the Joint Council
authorized the Pro Board to undertake a two-year pilot test of proposed
certification criteria and procedures. In 1978, the Pro Board selected
Iowa State University's Fire Service Training Institute, the Fire
Service Training program at Oklahoma State University, and the Fire
Service Training program in the State of Oregon as pilot test states
(Thomas, 1990). In 1980, the National Professional Qualifications System
completed the pilot testing program and the Joint Council approved full
implementation of the accreditation system in August of 1980. The
following year, the Pro Board officially accredited the state fire
service training certification programs in Oregon, Oklahoma, and Iowa.

[National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control Report.]{.underline}

While the Pro Board continued to work on additional fire service
professional qualifications standards and conducted pilot tests of the
certification programs, in 1979, a special report entitled,
*Accreditation in Fire Training and Education,* was completed by the
Advisory Committee on Fire Training and Education of the National
Academy for Fire Prevention and Control (later known as the National
Fire Academy) and sent to the administrator of the United States Fire
Administration of the United States Department of Commerce. This report
addressed the desirability of, and mechanism for, establishing
accreditation procedures for fire-related training and education
programs in the United States and examined the appropriate role of the
National Fire Academy in such a process. It also considered the
appropriateness of accreditation for the academy itself. The members of
this advisory committee included a number of individuals active on the
Joint Council and/or Pro Board.

In its report, the committee made a distinction between fire service
training and fire- related education, treating these two issues
separately in their remarks regarding accreditation. The committee
defined fire service training as "...particularly concerned with the
development, maintenance, and upgrading of skills, knowledge, and
procedures relevant to the operational fire service, whereas
fire-related education is more academic in nature and usually leads to a
degree" (National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control, 1979, p. x).
The committee commented on the wide diversity of fire-related degree
programs and expressed a concern that student expectations were not
being met in some cases. The committee identified two important needs:
(a) documentation and evaluation of the knowledge required for specific
careers in the fire service; and (b) development of minimum criteria in
order to evaluate academic programs for the fire service and related
professions (National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control, 1979, p.
xi). In addition, the committee recognized the need for a specialized
program of accreditation oriented to fire-related education programs in
fire science, fire technology, and fire administration/management. The
committee believed that such an accreditation system should follow the
general pattern of specialized peer group accreditation used by other
professional academic programs (National Academy for Fire Prevention and
Control, 1979).

Based upon these findings, the committee made the following three
recommendations regarding fire-related education programs (National
Academy for Fire Prevention and Control, 1979):

1.  An independent organization should be established that is charged
    with the implementation of a specialized (programmatic)
    review/evaluation process directed to the accreditation of
    fire-related education programs with professional career objectives
    in fire science, fire technology, and fire administration and
    management.

2.  The organization should meet the recognition requirements of the
    Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) and of HEW's Office of
    Education, Bureau of Postsecondary Education, Division of
    Eligibility and Agency Evaluation.

3.  The National Fire Academy should not undertake, or be involved in,
    the recommended accreditation program. The Academy, however, should
    play a lead role in seeking to establish an appropriate
    accreditation organization, in establishing it charter, in securing
    financing, and in assisting it through the formative stages of
    determining an operational format, establishing criteria and
    standards, and evolving an organizational structure. (p. xii)

The committee's report also identified nonacademic training needs of the
fire service and provided an analysis of the capability of local, state
and federal agencies to meet these needs. The committee lauded the work
of the National Professional Qualifications System (NPQS) and its
ongoing efforts to develop professional qualifications standards for the
fire service, and pointed out the need to develop curriculum that would
support the standards being developed and the preparation of individuals
for certification examinations. However, the committee (1979) also
concluded that accreditation of a nature similar to that used in
traditional professional academic programs:

...does not appear suitable for application to fire service training
programs for a variety of reasons, including: the extremely large number
of fire service organizational entities having fire training
responsibilities; the fact that fire service training requirements are
uniquely associated with a local situation in terms of need and
objective; and the wide diversity of fire service job classifications.
(p. xv)

Even so, the committee agreed that some kind of evaluation and
recognition system for training programs was needed so that acceptable
standards and objectives could be met (1979, p. xv). It was felt this
would improve the quality and consistency of training programs and that
the vocational or avocational needs of participants would be better
served. The committee also believed that an evaluation system for
training programs should examine specific program content and
objectives, the quality of the instruction provided, and the facilities
used. In its report, the committee determined that the standards used to
evaluate fire training programs should be developed by an independent
peer group, participation should be voluntary, and participants should
be recognized for successful achievement. Consequently, the committee
(1979) made the following recommendations:

1.  A voluntary evaluation process directed to the recognition of fire
    training programs should be established.

2.  That the National Fire Academy would provide the initiative and
    funds to organize appropriate peer groups that would, with Academy
    advice and assistance, design and maintain an evaluation system.

3.  The National Fire Academy should promote and encourage the adoption
    of a system for the recognition of an individual's successful
    completion of a fire training program. (p. xvi)

The final section of the committee's 1979 report to the United States
Fire Administration contained comments and recommendations regarding the
accreditation of the National Fire Academy (Academy) itself. Two
possible affiliation options were discussed: affiliation with a single
accredited institution, or affiliation with several accredited
institutions on a wide geographic basis. The committee (1979) identified
three primary benefits to Academy affiliation with one or more
institutions of higher education:

1.  Such arrangements could be initiated almost immediately, and could
    proceed concurrently with the development and implementation of the
    short- and long-range plans of the Academy;

2.  Academy courses, delivered at the Academy, would be accepted by the
    affiliated college or university toward one or more of its degree
    programs; and

3.  courses taken at the affiliated college or university could be
    integrated into the academic/training programs of the Academy. (p.
    xviii)

In addition to their recommendation that the National Fire Academy seek
affiliations with colleges and universities, the committee also
concluded that specialized accreditation was not appropriate for the
Academy. However, the committee did not rule out the possibility of
seeking institutional accreditation contingent on the future nature of
the Academy as it developed.

[Operation of the Pro Board System.]{.underline}

To promote the national fire service professional qualifications system
and its accreditation program, in 1982 the Joint Council established 14
national goals for the fire service. One of the goals was to encourage
all fire service personnel and agencies to implement the certification
provisions of the National Professional Qualifications System, thus
providing uniform performance standards for all fire service personnel.
This system was completely voluntary. Then in 1983, the Pro Board issued
a report on the first ten years of its operation and recommended
expanding the system to include nonuniformed specialists who work in
fire service positions but are not part of the career development path
of the uniformed service. The Pro Board also recommended restructuring
the technical committees as initial development of standards was
completed (Gratz & Barr, 1988).

By 1984, 7000 fire service personnel had participated in fire service
certification programs delivered by agencies accredited by the Pro Board
(Gratz & Barr, 1988). The Joint Council and the Pro Board agreed that
some standards should be reorganized to permit their application as
separate stand-alone standards. The objective of this determination was
to provide performance standards that could be used for the increasing
number of lateral entries into specialized positions, especially into
public fire safety education. For example, NFPA professional fire
service qualification standard 1031 originally encompassed performance
criteria for inspectors, investigators and public education officers. In
1985, it was reorganized into three separate standards.

In 1988, the Pro Board conducted its first national conference on fire
service certification and accreditation with approximately one hundred
conference attendees. By 1989, the Pro Board had accredited
certification programs administered by thirteen state fire service
training agencies and four other organizations.

[End of the Pro Board.]{.underline}

In early August of 1989, events began to unfold that dramatically
altered the direction of accreditation in the American fire service.
Having concluded that all its business was either completed or could be
completed competently by individual organizations, the Joint Council of
National Fire Service Organizations voted to disband (Joint Council,
1990). The Council established a select committee made up of volunteers
from within the Council to determine the future of the Pro Board
(Thomas, 1990). During October of 1989, the select committee met and
prepared a Request for Proposal to review the Pro Board system and
determine what direction should be taken in the future. During the
meeting the select committee decided to make the following
recommendations to the Joint Council (these were subsequently approved
at the December 1989 Council meeting) (Thomas, 1990):

-   Certificates would continue to be issued to students completing
    certification programs from accredited agencies;

-   the accreditation conference that had been scheduled for April 1990
    would be canceled; and

-   accreditation activities of the Pro Board would be suspended.

In response to the Pro Board's RFP, during January of 1990, the American
Council on Education (ACE) was selected as the successful bidder to
conduct a Phase I review of the Pro Board system (Thomas, 1990). This
review consisted of interviews in Washington D.C. with representatives
of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the International
Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA), the International Society of
Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI), and the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA). During the Phase I review, ACE gathered information
regarding the Pro Board system, the nature of programs administered by
individual organizations within the Joint Council and Pro Board, and
opinions regarding the direction the Pro Board system should take in the
future (Thomas, 1990).

In February 1990 ACE submitted its first report and was subsequently
given approval to continue with Phase II of the review, which was to
include recommendations as to the future of the Pro Board. The American
Council on Education submitted its second report in April 1990 during
the annual Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC). The select
committee rejected the final recommendations made in the Phase II report
and decided to continue to pursue a solution without the services of
ACE. The report itself was never made public (Thomas, 1990).

Eventually, the Pro Board reformed, incorporated and became the National
Board on Fire Service Professional Qualifications (NBFSPQ). It was made
up of representatives from International Association of Arson
Investigators (IAAI), International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the International
Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI) and the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA). Until this occurred, however, the future
of the fire service accreditation system was in question. In response,
the National Association of State Directors of Fire Training and
Education (NASDFTE) hosted a conference in August 1990 which led to the
establishment of the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress
(IFSAC). The IFSAC essentially engages in the same activities as the
NBFSPQ, however, IFSAC system of governance differs significantly and it
now offers accreditation to fire-related degree programs.

[Summary/Conclusion]{.underline}

Accreditation in the United States is a voluntary, nongovernmental
activity performed by associations that recognize educational
institutions and programs within institutions (COPA, 1990). Specialized
postsecondary accreditation in the United States is typically carried
out by national or international professional associations (COPA, 1990).
Many professional associations, such as the American Medical
Association, existed prior to their involvement in accreditation
activities.

While the individual histories of specialized accrediting bodies are
shaded in different ways, societal expectations, economic conditions,
technological advances, and federalism represent the canvas on which
they are all painted. Given this broad context, the collective
literature related to the histories of national specialized accrediting
bodies can be refined to provide models for the development of a
specialized accreditation system for emergency preparedness degree
programs. For many professional associations such as the American
College of Surgeons, the American Medical Association and the
Association of American Medical Colleges, a particular event or
milestone in the organization's history acted as the catalyst for the
development of accreditation. In some cases, these were external
influences such as the threat of encroachment or other actions from the
federal government, national emergencies such as war, or damaging public
revelations (Averill, 1982; Kassebaum, 1992). For some professional
associations, accreditation activities had their origin as program
review and approval for membership purposes (Christensen, 1985). The
adoption of mandatory continuing education laws in Florida and Kansas
represented important milestones in the development of accreditation for
continuing pharmaceutical education (Hodapp, 1988). Another example of a
major event or milestone in the historical development of an accrediting
body was the withdrawal of the National Education Association from the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in 1972
(Christensen, 1985). This action resulted in significant changes to the
governance structure of the NCATE. Finally, a report of the Carnegie
Commission in 1923 was a major milestone in the development of an
accreditation system for library education because it led to the
formation of a board that developed the first set of standards to be
used for evaluating programs (Kimmel, 1987).

The history and development of many associations conducting specialized
accreditation include changes to policies, programs, and governance
structure, which occurred for a variety of reasons. Some changes
resulted from reorganizations and/or consolidations of two or more
preceding organizations with an interest in a particular discipline. As
in the case of accreditation of funeral service education, many times
change involved associations representing practitioners merging or
forming a partnership with associations representing regulators and
educators/schools (American Board of Funeral Service Education, 1993).
The historical development of organizations that accredit medical
degrees, continuing pharmaceutical education, teacher education, and
hospitals, all experienced a similar evolution (Averill, 1982;
Christensen, 1985; Hodapp, 1988; Kassebaum, 1992).

The history of some specialized accrediting bodies also included changes
in the nature of accreditation criteria, accreditation status, and
definitions of membership. As in the case of the NCATE and accreditation
of library education, accreditation criteria experienced changes in
emphasis from the use of quantitative to qualitative language and from
institutional-type criteria to more program specific criteria
(Christensen, 1985; Kimmel, 1987). The history of organizations such as
the NCATE also included changes in membership eligibility like that
which occurred in 1974 when associate memberships were introduced
(Christensen, 1985). This change came as a result of a restructuring of
the NCATE and provided associate members accrediting decision powers,
but no policy, budget, procedure, or standards decision power. Some
specialized accrediting bodies have also experienced changes to their
operational practices, such as those involving provisions of conditional
approval for accreditation. While some organizations have evolved from
the practice of granting or denying accreditation (with no time for
correction of deficiencies) to establishing interim categories of
conditional approval, other organizations, such as NCATE have moved in
the opposite direction (Christensen, 1985).

In some cases, changes occurred regarding the manner in which national
professional organizations are organized in relation to their
accrediting activities. The history and development of most specialized
accrediting bodies resulted in organizational structures, such as the
American Board of Funeral Education (1993), where accreditation
activities are performed by a subunit (committee) within the
organization reporting to the executive or governing board. In other
situations accreditation is performed as a result of a standing liaison
(committee/commission) that exists between two or more autonomous, or
semi-autonomous organizations (particularly if consolidation was not
full-function and the effort more closely resembles a consortium). Such
efforts involved fusing separate interests towards common goals. An
example of this was the merger of the American Medical Association with
the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1942 to form the Liaison
Committee on Medical Education (Kassebaum, 1992).

Organizations that administer specialized accreditation have experienced
common challenges as well as those unique to their respective
organizations. For example, interagency arrangements have posed unique
challenges impacting upon the governance, nature of interactions and
decision-making processes of accrediting bodies (Averill, 1982). In some
fields such as ambulatory health care and the fire service, decisions
made during the evolution of specialized accreditation resulted in
competing accreditation systems on a national level (Averill, 1982,
Walker, 1998). Attempts to establish a greater emphasis on outcomes
based learning measures represent another challenge faced by many
specialized accrediting bodies (Walker, Westhoff, 1993, January). A
major challenge faced by the National Council for Teacher Education
(NCATE) came when recognition from the National Commission on
Accrediting was denied because state agencies were found to be over
represented in the NCATE (Christensen, 1985).

Because the development of emergency management as an academic
discipline is in its formative stage, leaders in this industry have a
unique opportunity not only to build and strengthen existing degree
programs, but also to simultaneously provide a sound basis for these
programs which will earn them the public's trust. This can be achieved
through specialized accreditation.

References

American Board of Funeral Service Education (ABFSE). (1993). *American
Board of Funeral Service education accreditation manual.* Cumberland, ME

Averill, B. (1982). Accreditation of college and university health
programs---Why have it and who should do it.
*Journal-of-American-College-Health, 30*(5),221-23*.*

Christensen, D. (1985). NCATE: The Continuing Quest for Excellence.
*Action-in Teacher Education,* 6(4), 17-22.

Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. (1988). *COPA Handbook,* pages
3-4.

Gannon, A. (1993). *Thoughts on the History of COPA.* The Council on
Postsecondary Accreditation, pages 1-4.

Gratz, D. B., & Barr, R. C. (1988). *History-Organization-Status of The
National Professional Qualifications System for the Fire Service:*
1972-1988. National Professional Qualifications Board for the Fire
Service, pages 1-10.

Hodapp, W. J. (1988). *The Development of Accreditation and
Certification in Continuing Pharmaceutical Education.* American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education. Volume 52, number 4, pages 372-374.

Kassebaum, D. G. (1992). *Origin of the LCME, the AAMC-AMA Partnership
for Accreditation.* Academic Medicine, Volume 6, number 2, pages 85-87.

Kimmel, M. M. (1987). *The Committee on Accreditation: What It Can and
Cannot Do,* Top-of-the-News. Volume 43, number 2, pages 143-148.

National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control. (1979). *Accreditation
in Fire Training and Education: The Final Report of the Advisory
Committee on Fire Training and Education of the National Academy for
Fire Prevention and Control.* United States Department of Commerce,
United States Fire Administration, pages x, xii, xv, xvi, xviii.

National Association of State Directors of Fire Training and Education.
(1990). *Fire Training and Certification Program Accreditation
Conference* (brochure).

Shawen, Neil. (1983). *The Evolution of Regional Accreditation in Higher
Education: The Role of the North Central Association,* 1895-1934.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Volume 8, number 1, pages
1-18.

Stedman, Carlton H. (1980). *Accreditation and Licensing: Origins and
Current Status,* pages 1-13.

Thomas, Jan. (1990). *Review and Discussion of Fire Service
Certification and Accreditation Issues: Report on the Fire Training and
Certification Program Accreditation Conference.* National Association of
State Directors of Fire Training and Education, pages 8,
10-19,20-23,24-34,36-39,41-43,46-51,57,58.

Walker, Alan G. (1992, November). *Membership of the International Fire
Service Accreditation Congress in the Council on Postsecondary
Accreditation (COPA): A Feasibility Study.* University of Kansas.

Walker, Alan G., Westhoff, W. (1993, January). *Report on COPA
Recognition Hearings.* International Fire Service Accreditation
Congress, Oklahoma State University.