It is well established that different states have different needs based on their populations.  Localized or regional accreditors are better able to reflect the needs of individual states when compared with an overarching centralized accreditor such as CACREP.  The leaders of accrediting bodies need to come from the local communities.  It is insanity to argue that one type of graduate program is better than another based on a central accreditor's viewpoint. 

Interaction between universities at a local or regional accreditation level runs smoother.  Bureaucratic organizations such as CACREP try to take over from local decision makers who know better their local populations.  CACREP cannot possibly set standards and be aware of the diversity issues involved at the local level (see CACREP’s 2009 and 2016 standards draft on the LGBT population and how CACREP's reports remain vague regarding this population).   CACREP seeks to dictate policy rather than listen.  We need competing local and regional accreditors to improve standards.  The last thing states should adopt is a centralized bureaucratic trashcan to dictate standards based on a one size fits all mentality.