The IACA is a Broken Organization

The International Association of Crime Analysts (IACA) is in crisis. Over the past decade, its explosive growth has only amplified long-standing structural problems. Despite a larger membership, the IACA of 2025 is a shell of its former self, an organization that fails to serve the needs and interests of crime analysts. The policies and practices of the IACA's leadership are fundamentally flawed, and some individuals are exploiting the association for personal benefit. Here are some of the key areas in which the IACA has failed.

Listen to IACA Under Fire: Unpacking the Rules vs. Reality of Member Concerns

This 25-minute podcast episode is your guide to understanding the IACA's current controversies. We break down the organization's official policies and compare them directly to the concerns raised by members on this page. By the end, you'll be able to decide for yourself: Is it just drama, or are there real, substantive issues at play?

A Crisis of Leadership and Governance

The IACA's leadership consistently fails its members by not operating in a transparent and responsible manner. This behavior erodes member trust and damages the association's integrity. There is an urgent need for greater transparency and more complete internal policy and procedural documentation.

• Unaccountable Leadership: None of the current IACA board members were elected to their positions. Additionally, three of the last six IACA presidents have resigned, indicating deep-seated issues with the association's stability.

• Inadequate Training: IACA's board members oversee an organization of 7,000 people without any formal training in non-profit management. The IACA does not require ethics, compliance, or nonprofit management training for any leadership positions.

• Poor Decision-Making: A former IACA President made a controversial appointment in late 2024, deliberately bypassing the authority of the incoming president by filling a position that was not yet vacant. That action was a clear violation of the association bylaws and overtly disrespectful towards the incoming president and the members who elected her. The entire executive board was complicit in that action. Read more here.

• Lack of Oversight: Despite handling over a million dollars a year, the IACA has no audit committee, no formal oversight, no strategic plan, and no association budget.

• A Weaponized Code of Conduct: The Code of Conduct, which is the basis for ethics complaints, can be modified by the board without discussion or member consent. This "back-door" method has been used to negatively influence the ethics complaint process and silence dissent. In December 2024, when the IACA was embroiled in numerous ethics complaints, broad changes were made to the Code of Conduct without member review or approval. Two specific prohibitions were removed from the Code of Conduct: "Members will not...Solicit or accept any gifts in connection with official IACA duties in excess of $150.00 (USD)" and "Members will not...Solicit or accept any bribes in connection with official IACA duties". These clauses were removed from the IACA Code of Conduct sometime between December 17, 2024 and January 16, 2025. Modification to the Code of Conduct were also made so the IACA could police member-to-member communications, and they altered reporting requirements to require members to report members charged with "crimes of moral turpitude", not convicted.  The vague nature of this document has allowed bad actors to weaponize it for their gain. You can review the archived versions of these pages here: and here. The IACA leadership claims the move was done to consolidate language into one place (the Conflict of Interest Policy / Professional Standards). However, the edit weakened the policy in the process by replacing very specific language with very broad language that is subject to interpretation.

• Information Control / Manufactured Dialogue - IACA leadership has mastered the art of silencing dissent while maintaining a veneer of professionalism. Open dialogue? Not their style. Instead, they've assembled an impressive toolkit for shutting people up: ethics investigations weaponized against troublemakers, forum access mysteriously revoked, in-person meetings conveniently moved online, and breakout rooms deployed like isolation chambers to ensure inconvenient questions never reach the main stage. The result? A zero-tolerance policy toward criticism masquerading as governance. Every hint of disagreement gets treated like a five-alarm fire. Rather than engage with critics like adults, leadership defaults to labeling and dismissing them - a strategy that really showcases just how paper-thin their confidence is. Nothing says 'strong leadership' quite like being threatened by questions.

• Rogue Committees (More Information Control) - The mismanagement of the IACA and lack of oversight has led to committees making up their own rules in violation of the bylaws. The elections committee demands that candidates cannot speak about the IACA election anywhere except on leadership's approved platform. One has to wonder what kind of 'healthy' organization needs this many control mechanisms? This speech-stifling charade isn't just ethically bankrupt, it's against the IACA Bylaws. The only Bylaws requirement to run for an office is to be a member in good standing. It does not say you must agree to an arbitrary set of committee rules in order to run for a position. The committee calls them "guidelines", but their phrase, "...All candidates will be required to acknowledge the election guidelines. Failure to do so will result in their removal from the Elections process." is clearly a prerequisite and not a guideline. Also, candidates must sign this "gag order" "...once the Elections Committee verifies the candidate's membership status, and their ability to run". This hints at yet another unwritten rule the committee has made up. If the only requirement in the Bylaws is to be a member in good standing, then what else determines, "...their ability to run"?  The committee invents rules out of thin air and the board enables them to do so.

• Records Mismanagement: The IACA has systematically failed to preserve official records, establish a records retention policy, or make documents consistently available to members. Sharing official records is even grounds for an ethics complaint. This intentionally limited insight into IACA operations is troubling and undermines the trust that should be built through consistent and transparent governance.

• Loss of Core Mission: While it once collaborated closely with academics, created whitepapers, newsletters and shared the latest criminology research, it now lacks a strategic plan, vision, or direction. The association produces little meaningful work product, instead focusing on collecting member dues and offering a few training classes.

Poor Financial Oversight

The association's financial health is unstable, with a clear negative trend. The overall financial picture has deteriorated over the past five years compared to the prior five-year period. You can verify this for yourself with the IACA's official IRS financial filings 

• Reduced Auditing: Despite a four-fold increase in revenue over the last decade, the IACA has less financial oversight than it did a decade ago. The association's tax filings used to be reviewed by an independent accounting firm. Since 2020, they have either gone unreviewed or have only been reviewed by the IACA Treasurer. This reduction in oversight is deeply concerning.

• Deteriorating Financial Health: From 2014-2018, the IACA averaged a net income of $7,826 per year. In stark contrast, from 2019-2023, the association averaged a net loss of $20,131.20 per year. This demonstrates mismanagement and a clear downward financial trajectory.

• Significant Losses: The IACA reported losses of over $209,000 in 2022 and 2023, with a single loss of over $90,000 on the 2023 conference alone (glossed over on slide 7 of the annual report here). The only recent year with a significant net increase (2021) was when the in-person conference was canceled.

• Inconsistent Reporting: Financial reporting is so inconsistent that it is difficult to understand how association dollars are spent. Specific expense categories have been reported erratically or have disappeared entirely from filing to filing. At best, this is incompetence. At worst, malfeasance. The IACA's official IRS financial filings demonstrate this systemic inconsistency.

A Call to Action

Reforming the IACA will be a significant challenge. The only way to make it happen is through the collective force of its members. This will require members to do more than simply ask for change; they must demand it. The following actions must be taken to correct the problems in the IACA:

Three Mandatory Audits

Independent audits are a critical aspect of nonprofit management and a good governance practice for nonprofits. In this case, the IACA needs a comprehensive baseline audit since no prior audit has ever been conducted and because there are significant unanswered questions about how the IACA does business.

1. Independent Financial Audit: A third-party firm must review the association's finances and accounting practices to provide a transparent, objective report on its financial health.

2. Compliance Audit: An audit is needed to ensure the IACA is following all federal, state, and local laws, as well as all internal policies and bylaws.

3. Operational Audit: An examination of the IACA's internal systems, management structure, risk management, and resource allocation is required to ensure the organization is functioning effectively.

The IACA needs a comprehensive, independent audit to drive meaningful change. Currently, the IACA does not know what needs to be changed because it has never been audited. Without this kind of informed assessment, any proposed changes like creating a Senate, creating committees or changing policies, would be based on uninformed opinions. A top-down review of the IACA in the areas of finance, operations, and compliance is the key to understanding the association's strengths and weaknesses. Once the results of the audit are published, only then can members debate how to prioritize the auditor's recommendations and make changes to strengthen the association.

Mandatory Training

IACA leaders must be trained to manage a non-profit. The IACA is a 7,000-member organization handling over a million dollars a year, yet it is run by people with no formal training, no demonstrable expertise, and no meaningful exposure to common non-profit management practices. Every person in a leadership position should be required to complete at least 8 hours of nonprofit management training from an independent provider. Training provides accountability and builds trust. After documented training, IACA leaders can no longer play ignorant about basic nonprofit management principles.

Prepare for Resistance

The IACA leadership will resist efforts to implement substantive change. They will thwart any attempt at reform because they do not want to be told they are wrong. They do not think there are any big problems with the association and they just want the "drama" to go away (along with any reform-minded members). Here are some of the roadblocks and gaslighting efforts members should expect to see from IACA leadership. Many of these tactics have already been used by IACA leaders.

• Deliberate Lack of Transparency: The IACA's opacity is designed to limit members' ability to unite and oppose the leadership. 

• Emotional blackmail: Board members will imply you are a bad or unfair person if you don't agree with them because you don't know the "whole story" like they do. This tactic is used often by board members to avoid having a productive conversation with reform-minded members.

• Rejecting Audits: The leadership will claim audits are "too expensive" or "unnecessary." Proper audits may cost around $15,000. Spend the money and save the association. It's still a fraction of the money the board loses through mismanagement.

• Asserting Competence: The leadership will insist that the current leaders are fully capable of managing the association without external oversight. This is why there are currently no external audits of the association.

• Denying the Existence of Problems - They will insist "everything is fine",  that concerns are exaggerated, or that they have already fixed the problem. Examine all proposals the board presents with a healthy dose of skepticism.

• Interfering with the audit: The leadership will choose "friendly" auditing firms that are tied to law enforcement or friendly nonprofits like IALEIA to avoid impartial review. They will sell it as a commonsense choice, but the underlying goal is to prevent "too much" independent analysis of the association.

• "Compliance Theater": The IACA board will hire token auditors or consultants and will restrict their scope, cherry-picking the results, or bury their reports on the website.

• Reversing Blame - When members raise issues, leadership might claim it is the members themselves who are misinformed, disruptive, or "toxic," reframing criticism as the actual problem. "We're just volunteers", "We're doing the best we can", etc. These tactics are intended to make you feel bad for questioning their actions.

• Feigning Compliance: The board will act cooperative on the surface while quietly undermining reforms behind the scenes.  The board might create "feedback opportunities" or committees but control the rules, mute critics in meetings, or bury reports - then point to those processes as proof members were "heard." A good example is the comprehensive Ethics review report members were supposed to receive in May. It still hasn't been published.

• Delay Tactics ("Study Committees"): The IACA will create endless committees or "fact-finding" groups to stall action until reform momentum fades.

• Tightening Control of Communication Channels: Leadership will restrict access to newsletters, emails, or forums to silence reform voices. They are very aggressive when it comes to silencing reform-minded members. They cannot stand to be challenged by anyone for any reason and will do everything they can to "contain the threat".

• Changing Meeting Rules: The leadership will alter voting and quorum requirements or mute speakers to limit member participation and the spread of adverse perspectives.

• Legal Threats: The leadership will use attorneys or threaten lawsuits to intimidate reform-minded members. 

• Recasting Power Grabs as Normal Practice - When they violate the bylaws, they may argue such moves are "standard procedure," or "necessary", convincing members to question their own understanding. In the case of the recent President's bylaws violation (analysis here), it was positioned as a responsible & prudent choice by a forward-looking (albeit outgoing) board member. It was not.

• Selective Transparency: The leadership will release financials or records in unusable, confusing, or incomplete formats.

• Redefining Membership Categories: The leadership will create new tiers or restrictions that limit voting rights for reform-minded members. (Proposed by a 2025 candidate)

• Shifting Blame to External Factors: The leadership will blame financial and governance failures on inflation, travel costs, or broader external challenges. Nothing is ever their fault.

• Defense, Defense, Defense - If you question their actions or decisions, they will be exceedingly defensive. Their hope is that you give up, go away and leave them alone.

• Leadership Turnover as a Pressure Valve: The leadership will identify a scapegoat to appease members while installing insiders who maintain the status quo. The 2025 Selection is a great example. Leadership decided Cole would be the scapegoat and the Chosen One would help them maintain the status quo.

• Weaponizing the Code of Conduct: The leadership may again change ethics rules without member input to target dissent or silence whistleblowers.

• Restricting Records Access: The leadership will maintain weak or absent retention policies so members cannot access documents to hold leaders accountable.

• Suppressing Member-to-Member Communication: The leadership will police conversations and limit forums where reform-minded members can organize.

• Undermining Whistleblowers: The leadership will use vague or overly broad disciplinary rules to punish those who raise transparency or ethics concerns.

• Financial Obfuscation: The leadership will continue inconsistent, incomplete, or misleading financial reporting to keep members in the dark about true spending.

IACA leadership feeds on the apathy of the membership. For the sake of the association, members must not give up. The IACA can only improve if its members stand up against this failure of leadership and demand change now.

Questions to Ask Your IACA Leaders

There are so many questions that deserve answers, but here are some to warm up the room:

Financial Accountability

1. Given the recent financial losses the board has caused, including the over $90,000 loss from the 2023 conference, what is the board's plan for addressing the IACA's negative financial trend?

2. Will the board commit to a comprehensive, independent audit of the IACA's finances, compliance, and operations, and share the full report with the membership?

3. Will the board commit to an annual financial review by a certified public accountant (CPA) and share the report with the membership?

4. The IACA's financial reporting has been inconsistent, with expense categories appearing and disappearing. What is the board's explanation for this, and what steps will be taken to ensure transparent reporting in the future?

Leadership and Governance

5. With none of the current board members having been elected and three of the last six presidents having resigned, what specific steps are being taken to restore stability and member trust in the association?

6. Why were significant changes, including the removal of prohibitions against soliciting bribes and gifts, made to the Code of Conduct in December 2024 without member review, discussion or approval?

7. What is the specific rationale for making sharing official IACA records like the logo a potential grounds for an ethics complaint?

8. Will the board commit to mandatory nonprofit management training from an independent, third-party source for all IACA leaders (board and committees)?

9. Will the board commit to creating an audit committee by December 31, 2025?

10. Will the board commit to implementing a whistleblower policy by December 31, 2025?

11. How is the board measuring the value the IACA provides to members, and what specific metrics prove that the organization is fulfilling its mission?

Any and every proposal this board offers, especially governance and fiscal proposals, should be supported by objective data and rejected when it is not supported by data. They will offer their opinions in place of facts. Remember: They have no formal training in nonprofit management. If they propose to modify the leadership structure and implement a 12 person Board of Directors, challenge them on what grounds they arrived at that determination. Counter their subjective opinions with objective, evidence-based reasoning. This will force them to justify their decisions with more than just an opinion.

Organizational Direction and Transparency

12. The IACA has lost sight of its core mission. What are the IACA's top three priorities, and what is the strategic plan to refocus on its mission of producing meaningful work products and research?

13. How is the board ensuring that all committee efforts are aligned and supporting a cohesive strategic vision for the association?

14. How will the IACA leadership ensure that committees do not enforce "rules" that violate the Bylaws?

15. Given accusations of deliberate lack of transparency and legal threats against members, how can the board earn back the trust of the membership and ensure that concerns will be addressed without fear of retaliation?

16. Given that a majority of board members today were also board members in the fall of 2024 at the height of these controversies, how can members reasonably expect the same group of people to fix the very problems they helped cause?

17. When can members expect to receive the comprehensive Ethics process review report that was promised in May?