If true, it appears to me to be a woeful political attempt at crime management ("close enough is fine if the budget is maintained"). I think this quote is very interesting:
These CSIs won't be analyzing or trying to solve the cases, which the department says minimizes the possibility of lawsuits, but they will be adding to the crime lab, and, hopefully the number of solved cases.
Amongst other things, are they forgetting the GIFT principle? (Get It First Time - or forget it!). Sadly, it seems to be a step backward for forensic science.
I too saw the article. My perspective is that "Denver" is continuing to be "Denver". To clarify- The Denver PD has a long and sad history of being "out of step" with the "rest of the world". Over the years, the Denver PD has repeatedly taken, what to most of those who are familiar with her, appear to be regressive steps rather than progressive steps.
My observations took place over a span of 32 years, while I served with the Lakewood, CO (metropolitan Denver suburb and 4th largest city in the state) Police Department. I retired 5 years ago as the Manager (commander) of the Criminalistics Unit (crime lab). So, I feel that I had a birds eye view of what occurred.
What appeared to be classic missteps in the past included replacing the Captain in charge of Denvers Crime Lab with a "street officer" instead of a criminalistics oriented and trained officer, when the previous Captain (commander) retired. This step was followed by successive efforts from other "street oriented" officers; downgrading the position of the head of the Lab in rank; initially forbidding their latent print examiners from taking the certification test, from which they finally relented; to replacing a very professional photographic lab staff of sworn officers with civilians. Not that there is anything wrong with that, however, they chose to recruit unexperienced, "entry" level personnel to fulfill the positions to save money rather than recruiting the best qualified and trained candidates. The last example I would offer was their reticence and outright refusal to authorize any advanced training for the vast majority of their lab personnel. There are other examples, but I think that you get the idea.
Thus, this latest move should not surprise any of the local observers. Particularly, when the historic direction is towards more highly trained, experienced and qualified professionals to staff such an essential function. Essential to the law enforcement profession, the citizens they serve and the judicial system which relies more and more on the physical or forensic evidence presented in trials. I always knew that there were highly motivated, and skilled practicioners within Denvers lab. There still are. However, the quality and breadth of the evidence which they will be asked to examine cannot, in my opinion, help but suffer from this latest mis-step.
Oh yah, and how about the many hours of on-call for, and actual trial time and testimoney when a case may eventually come to the attention of the judicial system? I'm sure that the jury will be favorably impressed with the credential of an insurance man, meter reader or grocery clerk testifying to evidence recognition and collection.
However, that's only one man's (this one's)opinion.
Doug Monsoor
The Denver PD is to be admired for their efforts to provide a service that many large city agencies have forgotten or abandoned. Law enforcement agencies bear the responsibility to investigate all crimes. It is a travesty when investigative services are limited due to budgetary constraints. For crime victims, regardless of the severity of the crime, receiving any help from a Law Enforcement agency is a service that goes beyond the simple resolution of the crime. There is a very real human element that Scientists may overlook as they conduct analysis in a clean Laboratory environment. I have been involved in the Criminal Justice System both as a volunteer, and professionally for over 20 years. I have seen many cases that were "solved" through the use of appropriately trained volunteers. I have also watched careers develop and become possible because of volunteer experience. Denver PD seems to have done their research on volunteer use in other agencies and made the effort to discuss the legalities with their DA. Unless your area is different than most of the world, the majority of evidence you receive for analysis comes from the patrol level officer. Denver PD stated that they will train their volunteers to the Detective level at minimum. This seems like a well thought out program. Well done Denver!
As someone who has little exposure to the concept of volunteers to do CSI work, I'm sure you can understand my scepticism at this stage. I do appreciate that Denver is trying something new in an attempt to add to their armory, however, I personally have doubts about this idea.
I am curious to know more about this system if you will be so good as to help me out.
For instance - How long does it take to train a volunteer to detective level? Do they have the option of becoming a sworn officer after this? Are they considered as scientists after this time, or moreso a technician? What responsibility or accountability do they have? Do you find a high drop-out rate amongst volunteers after training is completed?
On another tact - do you think that this in any way undermines the progress that forensic science has made in being recognised as a field that requires skill and expertise to conduct? And as Doug has pointed out - how is this justified by, or how does this affect your quality system?
The motives of an agency can serve as a predictor of the efficacy of any program they initiate. Take, for example, the massive civilianization of crime scene and fingerprint functions over the last thirty years. In some agencies, functions were switched from sworn officers to civilians primarily in order to save money. In line with that philosophy, many of those departments scrimp on training and pay wages so low there is a high turnover of crime scene and fingerprint people. In most cases, expertise and morale both remain low among the employees and that fact is reflected in the evidence they develop. In other agencies, civilianization was done to foster expertise and avoid turnover due to officers transferring to other bureaus in the department. In most of those agencies, long-term civilians in forensic science positions earn more money than sworn officers and receive extensive training. Not surprisingly, morale and expertise are high and turnover is low. It has also been my observation that in the first case, the officers show little or no respect for the crime scene and fingerprint people. In the latter situation, the officers respect the civilians and view them as a valued part of the law enforcement team.
So my thoughts on the use of volunteers for any function in the department would be to inquire into the motives and plans behind the move. Not just the announced motives and plans, but the REAL ones.
I'm not sure what criteria Denver has in selecting the volunteers, I just hope they have some schooling/background in forensics or evidence technology.
Over the last 10 years, our laboratory in San Diego has had a very successful student internship program. The students work in our Latent Print Development Section processing evidence items for prints. The cases are non-suspect, property crimes. There has never been an issue from any detectives or the courts.
There are criterias for the internship, they go through a thorough background check and are in a training program for 8 weeks. The internship lasts for approximately one year. Not only is our lab getting the help from them, they are gaining valuable experience for possible future jobs. I'll be more than happy to share our program with anyone who might be interested.
Having been an agency planner and having been involved in designing volunteer adjuncts to policing, I think I can see what they're up to. Law enforcement (well smart law enforcement, at any rate) stays very aware that the public view of the department has little to do with actual clearance rates. It had very much to do with how each individual who calls for service evaluates that service according to expectations. The primary expectation is that the agency makes an effort. Everyone's crime is the crime of the year, no matter if it's only a car burglary. Few people have the unrealistic expectation that their crime will be solved. The do, though, expect some effort and attention.
Volunteer programs can accomplish things the agency just could not otherwise do. In a police department, we couldn't really provide on-scene and follow-up victim services that would both meet expectations AND have the practical effect of getting through the investigation and through trial with victims in better and more productive shape. And there was no way to do it with paid personnel. No one anywhere was doing what we wanted, so we invented it and developed a rigorous volunteer academy for the volunteer victims' team. Big pay-off, and it's still working after about 15 years.
There's no reason to think this isn't the goal in Denver. People do, especially now, know what can be done on a scene and expect, or at least want it. Denver can get both a public perception that someone actually did something about their minor crime, besides knock off a brief report, AND they get the practical benefit of maybe just solving some, where NOTHING was going to happen otherwise.
I think it's just that simple. Frtom what they imply they'll be doing, I don't think it's saving any money that was going to be spent otherwise.
Does it undermine some notion that it takes an elaborately trained professional to do conduct a basic crime scene? Let's not get too caught up ourselves in the CIS myth. What these people will be doing will be well within what can be trained for in a reasonable time. There are some skills and knowledge, but it's hardly science, rocket or otherwise.
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
Regarding your inquiry into training levels and so forth, each agency has their own standards for training and position descriptions. For specific details, please contact the Denver PD. I am sure they would be happy to share that information with you. That said, the volunteers I have worked with and currently supervise are required to complete the same training program as a Forensic Scientist for the duties they are assigned. Upon completion of the training, they are competency tested with the same test a paid employee would receive. Upon successful completion of the training and competency test, they are still considered volunteers, as assignment of a department title is restricted to paid employees. Their work is conducted and approved step by step under the direct supervision of a department employee. Accountability/quality issues are handled according to department policy. The volunteers I have worked with take their work seriously, and value the experience as a critical step in their career path. We have a low "drop-out rate"; however, we have had a number of our volunteers hired into local and state Forensic Laboratories. I believe that with the appropriate level of training and coaching, and through the application of the same quality system used for paid employees, the forensic community is bolstered by the end product. Does the Denver PD meet this standard? Call them and find out. I am guessing that your input would be well received.
On another tact; volunteer/Intern programs are an integral part of most College and University Forensic Programs. Many programs require a certain number of volunteer hours to complete the respective degree. I find that with little effort, volunteers can be solicited from the upper levels of Academic programs already possessing a level of formal education that many "old school" Forensic Scientists lack. This tends to promote rather than undermine the current goals of the Forensic Community.
An interesting post. I would have to say that I agree with everyone that has posted from Mr. Monsoor and Mr. Wertheim that it is an Administrative thing, to Mr. Clough that it is a PR thing. I have to lean the most with Mr. Utah. He is right that some agencies have forgotten or abandoned some aspects of police work to concentrate in other areas that whether we agree or not, they believe is more important (diversity, community policing, SWAT, communications, etc).
For me it is like this. You have two choices, in that you can send someone out to the scene in the chance of obtaining some evidence that might assist in solving the crime, or you can let it set and do nothing. I would rather shoot at the target 10 times and only hit it once rather than not shoot at all. Several years ago an agency that I am familiar with were only receiving about 120 latent cases a month. They changed their approach by hiring 20 specialized persons, gave them 3 months training with 3 months OJT, and then set them loose on the property crimes. One year later that same agency was receiving over 800 latent cases a month. You would be hard put to convince me that before the turn around that evidence was not being overlooked by the primary responder.
I think it is sad that they have to use volunteers instead of coming up with the money to pay employees, but that is the reality of a number of law enforcement agencies (not all).
I have no problem with volunteers/interns, as my agency uses a number of them. None yet to work property crimes, but they certainly work in other areas where evidence is maintained.
Gerald talked about Victim Services. A lot of volunteers here work in Victim Services and they must have a Psyc. Degree to do so plus they receive some good training. They provide a valuable service in an area that requires some strength and ability to handle people who have lost a loved one, or have been physically harmed.
You stated that it appeared to you as a “woeful political attempt at crime management”. I would have to say to that is better to ATTEMPT than do nothing at all.
You stated that it “seems to be a step backward for forensic science”. Maybe, but I would also think that it is a step forward in solving crime and serving the public we have sworn to protect and serve.
In closing I would like to say that the volunteers have one advantage over paid employees. Since they are not getting a salary, they are generally motivated with some high initiative. If someone does not get in their way and micro manage, they will do very well. That is one person’s opinion (mine).
Thank you very much to everyone who has contributed to this post. I am especially grateful that the different viewpoints have been discussed in a professional manner.
While I am still not convinced by the idea of a volunteer program, I am appreciative of the opportunity to see both sides of the fence on this issue. I also hope that the necessity for volunteers is negated in the future by greater financial recognition for forensic science by governments around the world. Best of luck to those involved in such programs.
I get lots of call of people wanting to volunteer for my unit because they find it is hard to even get an interview with a lack of hands on experience for crime scene jobs. I turned down many requests due to I was a one person unit and didn’t feel I had time to train someone and still keep up with my work load.
I finally gave in after admin type work started building up. I called one of the most persistent prospects and explained that I would train them in exchange for filing and other admin type duties.
An extensive background was done and a training program with testing was laid out for this volunteer. 20 hours a week and six months later this individual was working lab cases and on a few occasions going on scene to work property crimes. She attended some classes at her own expense and excelled to the point where I and the department became dependent on her as a valued employee. I too was worried about court issues, this is why I had her document every hour of training and experience along the way. In her testing it was not multiple choice but long answer coupled with court room training generating the needed skills had she been summoned to court.
After about 16 months a problem came up with this volunteer, another agency hired her away from me! All this time I had try to get a paid position for her but was unsuccessful. About six month after her absence I was given a second position for the crime scene unit. Getting this position was a direct result of the success I had with this volunteer.
I had brought in two others volunteers since, but after a couple months they were just not working out and I let them go, I think my first experience set a standard that will be hard to live up to by others. It takes a special person to fill this type of position and to quote Mr. Parker you just have too find the ones that are “motivated with some high initiative”.
During a 10 year period at a previous jurisdiction I had the privilege to train and work alongside several volunteers. 1 didn’t work out, wasn't there long and was soon gone. 4 are now gainfully employed in the Criminal Justice System around the globe.
Most departments have no problem teaching Patrol Officers and Cadets how to use black powder and a camera in the academy. My guess is a couple of days (tops) are devoted to this training. Soon they are processing all but the most extensive property crimes. Having looked at their prints in the laboratory the results are a mixed bag. Some have a real knack for it and others don’t.
Most volunteer crime scene programs require the volunteer to work alongside an employee. As their skill level grows they are given more freedom. By the time our volunteers were done they did all the clerical work, ran the darkrooms and rolled on every crime scene including homicides as an extra pair of hands. They completed latent print identification training far past the novice level. Naturally they were not expert material for they had not been allowed to venture that far. They received no outside schooling unless they paid for it themselves. They were heaven sent as far as I was concerned. Since the employee was primary it was never necessary for a volunteer to testify.
I’m not knocking a Patrol Officer from working these crimes, especially since two graveyard shift Cops were so devoted they kept me from getting called out of my bed. They were working property, robberies and rapes. Their skill level increased because they wished it so. They spent the extra time with Crime Scene so that they could do everything but lab processing in which case they would tag the property in for us to process. My experience is that these men and women are not the norm.
I would like to push the Patrol Officer/Cadet issue which is accepted almost countrywide and ask would you rather have them processing your property crimes or someone who had reached a skill level so high that all were either hired by our department or hired right out from under us?
I do feel that volunteers should not work beyond the technician level unless they are a retired examiner. I don’t think the courts would have a problem with a volunteer doing technician work when they are so well trained. I do feel they would have a problem with them making identifications and rendering expert testimony unless they had the education and the years of experience that the rest of us should have. The liability is so great. Without this the volunteer, the department, innocent people and the science would be endangered.
In a perfect world, municipalities would have unlimited funds and a fully trained CSI would roll every time a bicycle was stolen. As the commercial says, we don't live anywhere near perfect.
As many here say, this is just my experience and just my opinion. Thanks, Vick