Tenprint accreditation question

[Michele]

I’m wondering about 2 types of agencies getting accredited. Does anyone know of any tenprint units that are accredited (or working towards this)? Do the accrediting bodies offer this? The second type of agency I’m wondering about are latent units that do many of the functions that are typically thought of as tenprint functions. This would mean that these functions are considered for their accreditation. Does anyone know of agencies like these?

[Michele]

People have asked me what type of tenprint functions I was referring to so I thought I'd give more information. I was thinking about the verification process. As far as I'm aware, a lot of tenprint units don't have everything verified. For accreditation purposes, I wouldn't think this is a problem as long as you have SOP's on this and follow them.

I didn't intend on bring the SWGFAST Draft for Methodology into this but I just looked and it states:
4.22 A conclusion of individualization shall be verified.

Doesn't this apply to both tenprint and latents? Does this mean that all tenprint units should have their ID's verified? Are most tenprint units doing this?

This is a good time to remind people that comments on this draft are due soon (preferably in the next week or two).

[Bill Schade]

Well, now that you mention it, We probably have to "define" what we mean by Verification.

I think that verification as we think of it in a latent identification shop is rare in a ten print unit.

Maybe we can define verification in Tenprint work as Identifying one of the fingers in the record and verifying the ID by looking at a second finger of that record. I think that is preferable to saying that the ID was verified by the AFIS system.

I admit that I am one of the dinosaurs that think ten print work is very different from latent print work.

I don't think this would be an accrediation issue as long as SOP's clearly state expectations.

[Dan Perkins]

Hi Michelle,

the organisation I work for has ISO 9001 accreditation covering Tenprint processing. As for the verification question, all tenprint identifications are compared by at least two people.

Dan

[Michele]

Dan,

Which company offers ISO 9001? ASCLD\Lab, FSQ, A2LA. or is it another company?

[Charles Parker]

The following are the thoughts of the author and not those of any professional or government organization.

I have to agree with Bill that being an old dinosaur I have to think that 10-Prints and Latent Prints should be separate. Now before I get blasted like I did two years ago let me list some qualifiers:

1. I came from the 10-Print World and they have a most important job for the Criminal Justice System.

2. I think they are underpaid.

3. They see more fingerprints and work with more individuals than most latent print examiners do.

4. They need to have their own SWG and not be piggybacked to Latent Prints.

5. They need to sit their own standards, rules and training programs.

6. How are you going to verify (review) identifications from a lights out operation?

7. Regardless of what might be said I do not believe the majority operate the same as a latent print operation.

Ten print operations and latent print operations are two sub-disciplines under the Friction Ridge umbrella.

[rmcase]

Hi Michele,

Here I am to give you the UK perspective again.

Up until about 10 years ago the vast majority of processing tenprints in the Fingerprint Bureaux of England and Wales was carried out by fingerprint officers who were training to become experts. This gave them experience in making comparisons. All their work would usually be verified by an "expert" (person qualified to present court evidence).

When automation was introduced nationally as part of the National Livescan Roll Out, forces saw the benefits of differentiating the roll of fingerprint (latent) officers and tenprint officers. These new tenprint officers could be paid less than latent officers, and their comparisons were always verified by experts.

It is now becoming clear that these tenprint officers are as competent and professional as their latent counterparts and are experts in their own right; and forces can now elect to "turn off" the expert verification procedure on the National Computer, if the force can show that it has implemented a number of measures to minimise any potential risk.

All but one of the 43 fingerprint bureaux in England and Wales are accredited to ISO9001, but this standard is quite generic and doesn't cover specific work processes the way that 17020 / 17025 will.

I hope this helps and doesn't muddy the water any further.

[Michele]

Rmcase,

I understand. That’s explains things very well.

I’ve heard from many people on this topic and there are several different views. Some people think tenprint ID’s need to be verified. Others think this isn’t needed. Some have told me that verification is needed if a report is being sent out, which they say isn’t done with tenprints. I’d argue that having something added to a rap sheet (or even notifying the jail that the person is the correct person) is a form of ‘reporting’. I’ve also heard that verification is done to ensure scientific methodology is followed. Is verification required for a scientific methodology? If so, does it matter if the verification step is confirmation, a reproduced result, or a review? I haven’t seen anything that supports this but would love a reference if anyone has one (I'm actually looking for a reference from outside of the fingerprint discipline). I was trained that verification was done in case the original examiner wasn’t able to go to court.

I think verification, in any form, is a good quality assurance measure and when people’s liberties are on the line, it’s important to have good quality assurance measures (as rmcase explained so well). I’m aware of quite a few errors from tenprint units. If verification is being done to prevent errors then maybe it’s a good QA measure for both tenprint units and latent print units (but I do recognize that tenprint units have the ability to have other QA measures that aren’t as feasible for latents).

Michele

[tenprint]

Speaking as a tenprint examiner, I can say that we do (at least in my office) much more comparisons than just fully rolled tenprint cards. I know there is a major lack of understanding in the latent community of what kind of comparisons tenprint examiners do. For example, in my office we search deceased prints (usually faxed over and poor quality), as well as many other documents with only one fingerprint. These documents are usually very poor quality (not a rolled print, just a quick flat impression on a document) and we search them using a latent search. I have hit on single latent prints with extremely low scores and where the computer wasn’t saying it was a hit. I believe that those type of comparisons should have verifications with them. These are the type of comparisons that seem to go to court more often in our office than a fully rolled tenprint cards.
I wouldn’t call what we send out a report (although, my office does), but we do send out information that states what our findings regarding comparisons are. Often times this information is concerning alias information, etc.
I would say that I have been extremely disappointed (when I have gone to comparison training) with the comments regarding what latent examiners think of tenprint examiners. Tenprints examinations are obviously easier than latent examinations. However, that doesn’t mean the we only look at “lights out” quality!
I wish that everyone would realize that you don’t have to put down others jobs to make yours seem more important. Your job can be harder and more difficult without it meaning that other jobs do not have their challenges and difficulties. Since both tenprint and latent make bum-ids, I would say that verification would be needed on both sides. Tenprint may fall more under a records function , but when we verify something, if it is wrong, it can have devastating effects to the wronged individual. Both Tenprint and Latent are important functions in the Criminal Justice System.

[Bill Schade]

I don't think anyone on this thread was "putting down" the job of ten print examiners. Pointing out the differences is not intended to minimize the role of Ten Print Examiners

It sounds like you are doing what most agencies would consider Latent Examinations.

One of the issues in our "field" is that job titles can mean anything an agency wants them to. Job descriptions are agency defined and they are all over the map regarding duties and responsibilities.

I think you have made the case that regardlesss of title, we need to provide appropriate training for the duties expected and have proceedures in place that address the responsibilities of the position, not the title of the position.

Which is exactly what accreditation is all about "Say what you do, and do what you say"

[Michele]

I agree with Bill. The misunderstandings, as noted in the NAS report, is that the work different units handle is extremely varied! We really shouldn’t judge anyone’s knowledge or abilities by their title. Some agencies (both tenprint and latent units) do very difficult work while others only have time to work with the pristine prints. I know tenprint people who understand fundamental principles better than many LPE’s.

This thread wasn’t meant to put anyone down, it was just trying to get an idea of units that may do both tenprint and latent work (I was surprised by how many agencies I heard from that do both within the same unit) and if those agencies use the same procedures for both functions and how differences (if they had any) worked under accreditation.

What I found is that if SOP’s are worded well then it works very easily. If any agency is working towards accreditation, I suggest they use this chat board to find other agencies who have already done the hard part and worded their SOP’s well. They say that copying is the best form of flattery