In-house Certification?

[Peter Griffin]

Does anyone know of any agencies that "certify" their examiners? I heard the FBI used to do this (not sure if they still do). Most places I am familiar with simply say an examiner was trained to competency and approved for casework. I suppose it is really just semantics on how you are stating an examiner has been signed off to do casework, but that could make a difference here.

My agency is looking to deflect a little of the pressure from the attorneys that think non-certified examiners are not experts. Historically, my agency has only had certified examiners and the courts here now expect that. We have started training new examiners that are not certified, and there has already been an instance where an examiner did not qualify as an expert because they were not certified. This case was not even a comparison case; it was a processing case with no latents developed. My hope is that if a question about certification comes up, they could at least respond "I am certified by my agency to conduct processing and comparison casework. The certification process involved blah blah blah..." They will all eventually be taking the certification exam, but they will all soon be signed off for comparison casework and will mostly be testifying before they can be IAI certified.

Thanks,
PG

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I've only known of Federal Agencies to do it. The IAI recognizes that in their 180 Day Study Final Report. (2006)

Individual competency accepted and understood within the individual forensic discipline is an area that must also be addressed. As one of the survey respondents noted, officers are required to have a certification to operate equipment to detect alcohol impaired drivers and to operate radar equipment. It seems incongruous that those who practice in the forensic disciplines are not required to have any certification or other evidence of competency. With DNA as a notable exception, there is no universal requirement to ensure examiner competency. We recognize that some federal laboratories sponsor their own in-house certification programs available and applicable only to their personnel but that does not solve the larger problem. A movement toward mandatory certification over a period of time will go a long way to ensuring quality results from forensic examinations. An added benefit of certification is the mandatory training required to obtain and maintain certification. Typically forensic science certification programs require a minimum of 48 hours of continuing competency activities over a five year period. We have seen a successful example of this in the area of DNA and believe this model will be beneficial to other forensic science disciplines as well.

I'm not certified and when asked I just say point blank "Certification does not confer any rights or responsibilities on me that I have not already established through my agency." Furthermore, get them to answer whether it's a test of competence, proficiency or excellence. Then point out that they lack the quality assurance mechanisms and oversight to ensure certified examiners don't make mistakes.

Seems odd that someone would be disqualified for lack of certification, especially since most states' version of 702 only makes mention of specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in order to qualify as an expert witness. This should be demonstrable on one's CV or through voir dire and through the listing of or reference to training received/given, completion of a training program, proficiency tests and case work.