Or just do away with some of that decentralization. Germany also has a federalized system and based on our historical experience, avoiding centralized control over security forces has high priority in our constitutional system. But we still have a quite well-structured system that consists of a couple of federal police forces designed for very specific purposes and state police forces (which are subordinate to state governments only), which are those that interact with citizens on a day-to-day basis. States have their own regulations and laws that govern police work, but they have a loose process of coordinating those among each other and have to work within a federal constitutional framework that sets some explicit boundaries. Having 18,000 police organizations is just asking for bad outcomes, imho, we have plenty of stuff going wrong with 20-30.
If you are concerned about "bad outcomes" in a decentralized system, why do you think consolidating power in a more centralized system would be an improvement?
The idea of minimizing and decentralizing power runs pretty deep in the US.
If the problem is that you want to enforce common minimum standards, improve transparency and training, my guess is that this would be easier to achieve on the more centralized end of the spectrum. If your goal is to maximize the dispersion of power to the local level, go ahead and give every community its own independently run police organization. To a certain extend these goals are in conflict with each other and you have to decide where your priorities are, would be my intuitive sense. For me personally, I feel most comfortable with a system where the police (who are carrying guns and are under certain circumstances entitled to shoot me) is run by institutions that have at least the theoretical capacity to properly finance, run and train those forces and which at the same time have a modicum of accountability to me. In my view that would be state governments, certainly not municipalities.
