SWGFAST

[Charles Parker]

This was in last weeks detail and it deviated from the OP but I wanted to address some thoughts on this. This is the tail end of a conversation held by several LPE on sufficiency issues. I wanted to address on how I think change can be effected.

Examiner 4: It seems to me that this is the group to start setting some of these standards and presenting them to the organizations that rule the science. It wouldn’t be easy I know but there has to be some level on which we agree. I hope someone is writing this stuff down.

Examiner 7 who has been watching from the sidelines: This goes to the heart of "sufficiency" and reporting, and these exchanges are being documented and will be presented to SWGFAST when thes topics arise. In fact, I write this from SWGFAST this week! However, neither of these sections are open for edit at this time.

Examiner 4: And so we continue blindly down the path waiting for someone to do something but never taking the reins ourselves. It will have to be several States or group entities to get something looked at on a National level. One person or one state won't be enough to get a push. It has to be us. This group needs to be the driving force.

Now I may sound critical of SWGFAST on occasions but actually I think it is a great organization. I may not agree with everything in their documents but for those in SWGFAST if they cannot stand someone disagreeing with them, then they are in the wrong group.

Examiner 4 states about setting standards and I think SWGFAST is doing that. They have been around since the mid 1990’s. They are government funded and they represent from my POV a reasonable expertise from the latent print community (although when one retires I think they should step down—my POV).

But this post is about affecting change and developing standards, guidelines. If SWGFAST has a document that really rubs you raw, that is not SWGFAST’s fault, but those of us standing on the sidelines just complaining about it and not commenting on it. They have a method of affecting change and we should take advantage of that method.

First I would suggest everyone in this business go to the SWGFAST site and make it one of your FAVORITES. Every month check that site. They have on their site a method for feedback. If something they have published and you think it is wrong, then let them know.

Now if you just write to them to complain that they are wrong and should be disbanded and do not provide any substance to your complaint then you are probably not going to go anywhere with that. You need to state what part you believe is wrong, why it is wrong, and your recommendation for change. Now for just one person making a change is not real common, but it does happen. But if you have 2-4 others that agree with you, then write it up and all of you sign it and submit it. If you can find 25 people that would sign off on your suggestion get them all to sign on the resolution and submit it. Just imagine if a change resolution was made up and 100 people signed off on it. I would think they would have to pay attention to it.

SWGFAST is the group to set standards and guidelines, but we need to let them know in what direction to go. Get involved and tell them what you think (nicely of course).

I do not recommend a state or multi-state group. We already have a group and we need to work with that group.

For those SWGAST members reading I think more Position Papers are needed. A Position Paper on the “One Discrepancy Rule” or simultaneous prints or combined weight. Once I have my third cup there are other topics that a Position Paper would be nice to have.

[David L. Grieve]

Charlie, once again you have used your uncanny insight and cut to the chase reasoning to describe what is the essence of SWGFAST. We do take comments seriously, and devote considerable time and effort to understanding the concerns expressed. The hope each time we post a draft for comment is that we will be overwhelmed by responses, but that seldom happens.

There are only two things I would add. Achieving consensus is not easy, for 100 years has allowed for plenty of variation in methods, understanding and terminology. The glossary project took years to accomplish. We weren't necessarily speaking different languages, but there sure were plenty of dialects to deal with. Concrete definitions of what constitutes sufficiency, or even what is a discrepancy (a needed factor in the one discrepancy rule) required many hours of heated discussion, and in some instances, the definition is ill defined One obstacle seems to be a given, that is, people who have been doing things a particular way for a long time are reluctant to change. Consensus on one issue may not seem much different to the way things have always been, while on another, the general agreement almost appears radical. We are charged with the responsibility to raise the bar, but that only leads to how high and how soon. We have differing opinions on this.

I cannot recall any comments received that were not discussed during our deliberations, only the majority was not swayed by the argument. Revisited, the comment may add weight to the previous argument to make a change, and in some instances we have done exactly that. So much depends on getting this type of feedback, and as you put so well, not that we are a bunch of knuckleheads who don't live in the real world but that we failed to consider a matter of consequence properly. Most of SWGFAST do live in the real world, and our representation strives to be balanced, but sometimes we miss the mark. Comments give us much needed feedback, and I wish we had more.

But the most important thing I would add to your assessment and recommendations is the need for those who care about the science is to become part of the group. I would definitely include you in the list of those who can help SWGFAST achieve its goals. Just like you can't rely on the other guy providing SWGFAST with comments, you can't rely on the other guy to participate in the effort to meet community needs. Better than providing feedback is providing input in the development.

We are in the midst of transition, for many of the long time members have resigned recently. Some of these are recently retired, while others just feel it is time to get some new blood into the group. I have mixed feelings about having an automatic departure upon retirement, for so much depends upon the individual and what he or she does during retirement. Many stay active in the field in some capacity. I think someone doing instruction who sees first hand what is going on in the trenches is an asset. I will face that decision at the next meeting, and I can't tell you what I will do. Members serve according to terms, and requests for renewal should be viewed according to the individual's contribution to the group's activities, not past membership.

My personal feeling is that the list of issues that are deserving of being addressed far exceeds the time we have, for we are having trouble just keeping up with the most pressing issues. Simultaneous impressions have been discussed and a draft for comment will be posted soon. I urge everyone to read them carefully and comment on what you don't agree with. Any guidance is appreciated. I think you might be pleased with how this subject is handled, and the manner in which this topic is presented is the direction SWGFAST is headed.

[Charles Parker]

David, thanks for the additional information on SWGFAST. I agree that involvement either by comments on draft documents or joining the group. Whether new blood or old blood is inmaterial to me but what level of experience, knowledge and open mindness they bring to the group. As for me it is just not in the hand I am dealt with at this time.

However I wanted to broach something different. In the last four days I have been involved in more disscussions on standards and guidelines with other people in and outside my office than I have in a long time.

In these discussions the comments made are that "SWGFAST documents are vague"; "the latent community is not buying in to it"; "the standards are not representative"; "SWGFAST does not represent the consensus of the discipline"; and "the agencies they know do not adopt SWGFAST standards and guidelines".

I found myself defending SWGFAST. Sorry SWGFAST I did the best I could.

But since that 3 day discussions with probably 6 different people I have been thinking. Could they be correct. Is the latent community not buying into it? Are the standards and guidelines not a consensus and descripitive of the discipline?

One of the points made about a non-consensus is the comments made on this forum. My response was that there is a silent majority signed up on this forum and a lot more read it but not registered. To gauge whether something is truly representative by the comments here is not very accurate.

I wish there was a poll that asks:

Does your agency adopt SWGFAST guidelines

Yes---100%
Yes---50%
Yes---25%
No---Not at all

Does your agency or you make comments to "draft documents".

I believe most agencies do have in their SOP's some things that are in agreement with SWGFAST, but I do not know how many or the percentage?

What documents are in the biggest disagreement?

Just some questions I do not know the answer to?

[David L. Grieve]

I think a fair criticism of SWGFAST is that many of the guidelines are vague and difficult, at times, to interpret. In a way, that was by design, for achieving consensus required compromised language. A strange thing happens during that process, for I sometimes realized later that such compromise resulted in such watered down wording that the intent became difficult to ascertain. Sure, we are influenced by the discussion and debate, but unfortunately a transcript of these arguments and explanations are not published with the document. Often these discussions included specific examples, but these were not included in the document. I think we are realizing these deficiencies and hopefully the newer documents will be more enlightening and beneficial.

What I have experienced is that an individual or agency may agree with the majority of a guideline in so far as they could determine, but encountered one section or subsection that seemed too extreme or unattainable, thus the entire document was rejected. Yet when the draft of that guideline was available for comment, nothing was received to express that dissatisfaction or suggest modification. I'm not suggesting that the failure to speak up during the comment period is justification to ignore such complaints, for valid comments are indeed that. And SWGFAST has a mechanism to open up a guideline for review if there is good reason. I do urge people to voice their complaints, and not just about draft documents.

I can only speak for my agency, and while according to SWGFAST's by-laws, I do not represent them as a member, I do evaluate each proposal to determine if we already comply, or what is needed to reach compliance. I have encountered few problems or the need to make changes. But I am well aware that what we do is not what everyone else does, and that is why I think SWGFAST must have as broad a membership as possible. We rely upon members from smaller or local agencies to tell us how it is. If the issue is budget, we can only hope the guideline will help get the money to comply. That may be wishful thinking, but worth a shot.

Is SWGFAST relevant to the community at large? As much as I would like to believe we are, I simply don't know. I think there are many misconceptions about SWGFAST that are used as rationalizations to consider SWGFAST irrelevant, thus reason enough to ignore the guidelines. We just encountered one. A recent document from the IAI referred to SWGFAST as not much more than a rubber stamp for the FBI. Perhaps we should videotape our meetings to demonstrate how wrong that is, and a few FBI members have the lumps to prove it.

How effective we are or how we are perceived are important issues, but I have been convinced that the decision as to having or not having a SWGFAST is the critical question. With a SWGFAST, we have a chance to make how we do our jobs more uniform and consistent. Without a SWGFAST, we do not. We have the most dedicated and conscientious people in the business tackling some matters that the community itself has not resolved in a hundred years. We may not be satisfying everyone, but we are doing something to address these hot topics. Compliance to the guidelines is voluntary, and for those who do not, there is no penalty. All one needs is a good reason to disregard. I've heard reasons, but many of these have been not so good. I just have this crazy notion that I would like to leave an honorable profession better than when I found it.

[Heidi Fraser]

Does your agency adopt SWGFAST guidelines

...

Does your agency or you make comments to "draft documents".

I'm not sure this first question is the most pertinent question to be asked. I believe there are a number of agencies that adopt SWGFAST guidelines because they are the guidelines that are available and we all sort of understand that to follow them is a good idea. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we agree the guidelines represent us and our goals perfectly. I think a lot of agencies are following the guidelines because they feel they ought to, but still would like to see them changed in one respect or another to more accurately reflect what they believe is right, for whatever reason.

In response to the second question, is there some place where new draft documents are announced? I know that I personally would love the opportunity to look over draft documents and comment on them, but I am not generally aware when they become available for review.

[Steve Everist]

Heidi,

SWGFAST posts their drafts for comments on http://www.swgfast.org/ . I think a better question would be, "what happens to comments after they've been submitted?" Are they reviewed only during the time in which SWGFAST meets, or do they get reviewed prior to the meeting so that someone on SWGFAST is familiar with them and can present them to the others when the relevant draft and comments are presented?

Or further - do those submitting comments ever receive any feedback on their comments to find out if their points were valid, being considered, or maybe they misunderstood something so they were off the mark?

[Heidi Fraser]

Steve,

I agree. Those are all good questions.

I recently learned that the drafts are posted at the SWGFAST site, but I still don't know when. Do they come out the same time every year? Is there an announcement posted somewhere? I honestly don't see myself checking the SWGFAST page every day, just in case something has been posted. It would be helpful to know when something new is there for review.

[David L. Grieve]

Steve, unfortunately any comments received are not disseminated before the meeting, although we do devote considerable time to reviewing these comments. This is a limitation that we should address. However, sometimes the suggestions are difficult to fully appreciate regardless of advance notice, and I think we will always suffer from our inability to understand the complete meaning of a written reply or the inability of the author to convey his or her concerns. Sometimes the comments merely express dissatisfaction without any recommendation for improvement. While we do try to understand the reason for the complaint, that is not always possible.

I don't have any remedy for the notification that a draft document is posted other than to recommend periodic visits to the site. I should mention that often a draft document is discussed in a open forum at the IAI annual conference, and comments from the audience are recorded and included in discussion at the next SWGFAST meeting. I recognize that is a limited audience, but SWGFAST has no budget. While the FBI does reimburse travel expenses, we have no operating funds, not even for the web site. Our webmaster graciously maintains the site for free.

SWGFAST is composed of conscientious people who do have sincere dedication to the betterment of the profession. Most have a personal philosophy of inclusion, and want to hear what others think about where we should be going. As I mentioned before, concerns about any document should be voiced and if these have merit, the topic will be revisited. Our aim is to provide practical guidance to the profession, and if we miss the mark, we need to know that.