While accreditation of emergency management programs has been available for more than two decades, very few emergency management programs are accredited, particularly at the local level. This study examined what may facilitate or hinder the pursuit and achievement of Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) accreditation by emergency management program leaders (EMs) in programs located in a United States city with a population over 300,000 (n=69). The multidisciplinary accreditation body of literature has not matured to the point of offering a theoretical or statistical model which could guide quantitative work on the topic. Additionally, accreditation is understudied in the context of emergency management. A qualitative approach to the research was most appropriate for these reasons. In-depth interviews with thirty EMs were conducted using the Responsive Interviewing Model (Rubin & Rubin, 2012) to gather rich data related to the research questions and analyze it. The study results in a series of key findings and recommendations related to practice and research. Findings related emergency management, suggest: a) perceptions of EMs are the most important facilitator or barrier of formal pursuit of accreditation, b) emulating The Emergency Management Standard (2019) is critical to understanding the commencement of formal pursuit, c) local emergency management compliance with structuring mechanisms does not result in compliance with The Standard, and the relationship between them is not explicit or otherwise apparent, and d) while most EMs interviewed as part of this study knew of The Standard and EMAP, and valued it, awareness could be improved. Related to the accreditation body of knowledge, the results suggest: a) program leaders may have more influence than the body of accreditation work might lead one to believe, particularly in the absence of extrinsic forces, b) some facilitators and barriers to accreditation may be heavily influenced by more than one category, c) a period of emulation was required and pursuit was delayed until the program leader believed accreditation would be achieved once the formal process got underway, and d) the period leading to formal instigation was that the most important to both pursuit and achievement.