Poll: Are you Certified and why(not)?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Question of the Day: What's the point of certification?

Some things to consider (all of these are conversations I've had regarding certification):

Does it allow you to move between agencies for employment purposes and wage negotiation? (added after Dr. Boraccho's comment)

Does it allow you to answer the question 'Are you certified?' in court?
- Is this question really just bolstering your testimony?

Is it a test of competency/proficiency? If so, what are the standards for conclusions by which one is deemed competent/proficient?

Is it a test of excellence? What does that even mean?

Do examiners who are certified error less?


Full disclosure: I am not certified. In court, if asked why not, my verbatim answer is "Certification does not give me any rights or responsibilities that my agency does not already provide". My take is that certification is nothing more than a physical representation of 'training and experience', but as we've seen recently neither have anything to do with the basis for conclusions one is proffering in court.

[Dr. Borracho]

It's just kind of the thing to do, isn't it? And if you ever plan on changing jobs, doesn't certification enable you to apply to more places and ask for more money?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I updated my initial discussion points based on your sentiments. Being a lifer here, it wasn't something I had considered.

[NRivera]

Question of the Day: What's the point of certification?

Some things to consider (all of these are conversations I've had regarding certification):

Does it allow you to move between agencies for employment purposes and wage negotiation? (added after Dr. Boraccho's comment)

Does it allow you to answer the question 'Are you certified?' in court?
- Is this question really just bolstering your testimony?

Is it a test of competency/proficiency? If so, what are the standards for conclusions by which one is deemed competent/proficient?

Is it a test of excellence? What does that even mean?

Do examiners who are certified error less?


Full disclosure: I am not certified. In court, if asked why not, my verbatim answer is "Certification does not give me any rights or responsibilities that my agency does not already provide". My take is that certification nothing more than a physical representation of 'training and experience', but as we've seen recently neither have anything to do with the basis for conclusions one is proffering in court.

We have been having similar discussions here in recent days. IMO certification is simply an assertion by an unbiased third party that you meet certain established criteria in terms of knowledge, skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less. As we saw in the RS&A PT results and in the black box study and others, no one can pinpoint a correlation between being certified or not and an associated, quantifiable propensity for error. Personally, I've known certified examiners who were very "inconsistent" in their comparison skills and non-certified examiners with a scary good eye. The purpose of certification is not to bolster your testimony specifically, but to support your credibility on the stand as an expert witness.

The criteria for certification are not a secret and examiners as a community have the ability to influence what they should be. Even if you're not a member of the IAI, there is nothing preventing you from communicating with the cert board regarding legitimate issues (ethics complaints anyone?). Do I agree with the restriction on test conclusions to ID or exclusion only? Not necessarily because you are forcing a decision threshold on the candidate that they may not agree with. In doing this, the board seems to be saying that the prints on the test have "enough" information to support the correct conclusion. "Any competent examiner should be able to make this call." That's great, but you're putting the cart before the horse and assessing the evaluation without considering their analysis and comparison nor the fact that the criteria for ID's and exclusions are vastly different. The real skill lies in being able to correctly visualize, qualify, quantify and interpret the data present in the impression. Two competent examiners can disagree over whether or not there is sufficient reliable data to support an evaluation decision, but that should not be the case in relation to the data itself until you start introducing distortion interpretations and L3D. If an examiner is able to correctly examine what is there, yet still fails to reach an ID decision due to a perceived lack of sufficiency, the only option left is an exclusion, albeit an incorrect conclusion. Should that mean that an examiner is incompetent and unworthy of certification? Not necessarily. I bring you back to the infamous question: how much is enough? Now if an examiner analyzed a palm as a finger or vice versa and thus couldn't find it that's a whole different issue. My point is that the test is not assessing of the A or C in the ACE process. We, as a community, are reluctant to document what it is we think we're looking at (we all have cases to do right?). How many agencies out there are dropping dots on all their latents? How many use GYRO? How many are still "poking holes in photos"? How many are doing none of the above? The certification criteria and test are a direct reflection of that collective approach.

I will admit that aside from a couple of private conversations with members of the board about it, I have not made any attempt to voice a need for change. I've got tons of casework to do too! There is always a better way of doing things if the right brains come together to figure it out.

[Boyd Baumgartner]

IMO certification is simply an assertion by an unbiased third party that you meet certain established criteria in terms of knowledge, skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

Profit, stature in the criminal justice community and the politics of being gatekeeper of the sole certification in the industry are not unbiased motivations. The only reason I bring this up is the seeming lack of transparency of their records on who has failed the test. My internal proficiency tests are all discoverable. I will start adding this to my standard answer now that I think of it.

This is what I mean with regards to the seeming lack of transparency.

https://www.theiai.org/certifications/l ... nt/faq.php

8) Are my test results made public?
The only time the test results can be made public is in the case of an official court subpoena. In this case, any subpoena for results would first be discussed with the IAI Legal Counsel.

12) What if I made an erroneous ID on my test? How do I explain that to a court?
You will have only received notification that you did not pass the test. Whether at any point leading up to court you voluntarily choose to share the exact reason why is up to you. However, if you’re asked in court why you failed the test, you will have to answer honestly and it’ll be up to the court to decide whether you would be qualified to give evidence in your case. A good suggestion would be to inform your prosecutor in advance of the trial, so they can be prepared should this come out at trial.

I am a member, just because I like subscribing to the JFI, but I only read it for the articles...

EDIT: Steve seems to think there's an annual pass/fail rate published somewhere, or at least there used to be.

[NRivera]

Why are there no friction ridge certifications from AAFS? ABC? What is to stop some other entity from establishing itself as a certification provider?
Can I look up how many times it took a lawyer to pass the bar exam? A doctor to pass his/her cert? Can we even relate to these professions in that regard?

[josher89]

In my state (as in most, I think), barbers are required by the state to be certified. The most that a barber could do to my hair is cut it wonky and I'll just get it cut shorter (worst case, I'd shave it).

If we don't require certification in a profession/discipline that is relied upon to send people to prison or exonerate them, why are police certified? Would you be comfortable knowing that there may be cops out there that aren't certified to do their jobs?

I'm obviously adding another cog to the discussion but it's at least a fair question. There are so many other professions out there that have way less significance on day-to-day life and they are required to be certified but we aren't? I realize barbers (cosmetologists) are mixing up chemicals to dye hair and the safety concerns that come with the job so maybe that's why certification is required for them but what does certification mean to me?

It mirrors NRivera, mainly, it's an outside organization that says I met a particular threshold of knowledge, skills, and abilities. Could my own agency do this? I think so but does it mean more to have an outside certification? I haven't been around long enough but I think that the FBI (and other federal labs) used to certify their own examiners. I don't know if this practice is still occurring but I do know that more are getting IAI certified. Does being a certified examiner make you better or the lack thereof make you worse? Of course not.

As to why more aren't? They would have to get accredited to the ISO 17024 standard (accreditation for personnel certification bodies). I think ANSI might be the only accrediting body that does that. I'm probably wrong but someone will correct me. Anyway, it's lengthy and who knows if that would drive the price for certification up or down by the IAI. Competition drives change so who knows?