The issue of centralized versus decentralized police organization may be the most important police decision facing the nations of the world. On the one hand, centralization is viewed as a danger to personal freedom; on the other hand, decentralization is viewed as fragmented an inefficient. A review of studies from around the world shows the advantages and disadvantages of each structure. The author has worked with and observed the centralized police service of Taiwan for over 10 years. This included visiting police and corrections academies and interacting extensively with their personnel in and out of the classroom. The author concludes that Taiwan has one of the best training programs in the world. Both academies emphasize the development of the whole person. Given the changes that are occurring in Taiwan, centralized policing makes sense. The country is moving through democratic change while undergoing the demographic transition from rural to urban and from agricultural to industrial economic and social lifestyles. According to some observers, standards of morality have deteriorated, and new social orders have yet to emerge. Crimes such as drug abuse and violence have increased and become more serious. Crimes have become more instrumental, planned, violent, organized, and with strong motivation. To deal with change and social disorganization, a centralized police service makes sense, so long as the police are well-educated and officers are viewed as professional specialists. The weight of the research shows that college education in criminal justice departments or liberal arts curricula have the desirable effects: higher aspirations, decreased dogmatism, decreased disciplinary problems, fewer community complaints, better treatment of minorities, more use of discretion, and greater willingness to accept new techniques and procedures. Perhaps the focus of police policies should be on the quality of individuals selected and the training they receive rather than on the police structure. 24 references