SWGFAST, ASCLD-LAB, et al

[Ernie Hamm]

The recent discussions on ASCLD-LAB accreditation and actions of SWGFAST stirred the old memory banks back to an editorial of a colleague of many years, Dr. R.J. Davis, formerly of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory, London. A recent lunch in London with Roger caused me to re-visit his comments in the Journal of the Forensic Science Society of some 16 years ago and share them with this forum.

This is the closing paragraph of the Editorial and I have added the emphasis to the last sentence:

“Scientists need to be concerned with quality, no more so than in that peculiar hotch-potch of analytical sciences that has come to be known as forensic science. Few would dispute that our citizens have the right to expect uniformly high quality from a public service. Fine, but an individual will generate true quality from within, not as result of external pressure to conform to “quality” standards. A conscious fostering of professional pride, commitment, experience and enquiring minds must go hand-in-hand with formal accreditation. Otherwise, quality in forensic science will be like a veneer, having more to do with keeping up appearances than the pursuit of excellence.” Roger J. Davis, Editorial, Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 31:4 (1991)

Back to the tar pit.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Ernie, as frequently happens when we visit, you sum up my thoughts better than I myself can.

Much of what is happening in ASCLD/ISO accreditation seems to me to be each new bureaucrat adding new regulations to prove that he/she is sharper than the last bureaucrat. Many of the new requirements add nothing to the quality of the work we do, but only take away from the amount we are able to accomplish during our work week. Taping and sealing each individual latent print envelope, for example, is attempting to "fix" something that is not now and never has been broken. The only "security" it adds is in the mind of the bureaucrat who dreamed up that silly idea in the first place. Did any lab ever have a problem with lifts falling out of the envelopes, getting lost, getting shuffled up, getting stolen, or getting altered? I don't think so! -- at least not in the labs where I have worked.

Likewise with most of the new documentation requirements. It seems to me that a lot of the information we have to track nowadays is required because there is virtually unlimited memory on computer hard drives and some computer geeks somewhere spend their work weeks thinking of new data fields to add. The new LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) on the market this year has more data fields than last year's model, therefore it MUST be better than the old system. We buy the new software and suffer through the learning curve so we can record all sorts of new information that, again, adds nothing to the quality of the work product, but simply takes up more of our time. But WAIT!!! There's a brand new LIMS coming out next month with even more complex data fields.

As most people know, I have been on SWGFAST for a few years. During that time, it has been my observation that the objectives of SWGFAST are shifting. Originally, we tried to write guidelines for the best practice of the science, as determined by consensus within the group. I am sad to report that it appears to me the objectives of the group are shifting to writing "standards" for the practice of our science that will be in agreement with everything ASCLD/ISO will require. There is a drastic difference between a "guideline" and a "standard," and I am not sure I like the change. Likewise, the old guidelines were meant to apply to all agencies, whereas the new standards are designed for laboratories seeking accreditation.

In the past, SWGFAST guidelines could be adopted or not, without penalty to the agency as long as they could explain why they did not comply with the guidelines. But when everything becomes a "standard," there is little way to avoid compliance without penalty. By "penalty," I do not mean a criminal penalty, but merely the "penalty" that accrues from attacks by our critics, both in and out of court. In other words, in court I used to be able to explain why a certain guideline was not applicable to my department, my job, this case, etc. But once everything has been codified as a standard, I must either comply or be prepared to take my licks in court.

The other problem I see with SWGFAST adopting standards that fit hand in glove with ASCLD/ISO requirements is that accredited labs may be able to refer to SWGFAST standards in writing their policies and procedures, but non-accredited ID Units will have no choice but to comply or, most likely, close. That could spell the end of the small and medium sized agency having a couple of fingerprint examiners, and it could mean a major shift of the work load to State labs. Since the FBI has cut back on services to small agencies in minor cases, the State labs will be caught with increased work loads coming from both directions.

My personal feeling, and one I express often during SWGFAST meetings (regretably, I had to miss last month's meeting due to court), is that SWGFAST should address the needs of small agencies that are NOT striving for ASCLD/ISO accreditation, and let the larger agencies simply refer to the ASCLD/ISO requirements when writing their policies and procedures. Unfortunately, my voice is in the minority in SWGFAST. This fact makes it even more critical that those who do not like the direction SWGFAST is going let their opinions be known.

SWGFAST does not rubber stamp everything the FBI wants, even though the FBI does pay the bills. And SWGFAST does listen to complaints and comments. I have seen some of the old guidelines completely overhauled, in one memorable case because a single person wrote a letter with a simple concern that none of us had considered when passing the guideline. So my advice is to look at the "Drafts for Comment" when they are posted. Go to the SWGFAST presentations and panel discussions at the regional IAI conferences and the parent body conference. Write letters about the things you think should be written differently. And nominate yourself for membership in SWGFAST if you think you have something to contribute and would like to be a more active participant. New members are elected by the membership in attendance every year or so. Those with the best chance of getting elected are people who are active outside their own agencies, people who present at conferences, people who teach (other than at basic police academy classes), and people who write and publish articles. People who put in their 40 hours at work without doing any of the above, and who are not known outside their own department, stand little chance of getting elected. Election is not a popularity contest, but the feeling of the group has always been that the more active a person is in the field, the more he or she can contribute to the goals of SWGFAST.

I liked things the way they were back in the 1970's when I started doing fingerprints, but I have to admit that much of what we do today is better by far than it was then. At the same time, I do not like the way some things are going. Change is usually painful, but even more so in this case when it adds to neither the quality or the amount of work I can do. The new folks starting today will most likely accept things the way they are during training, but they will have a harder time undoing the unnecessary than we would have had avoiding it in the first place. To the readers of this forum, don't just accept the changes you don't like. Be vocal. Complain. Write letters. Question the changes. Become a voice. Be active in the community outside your department. And good luck! You'll still be doing this long after all us old dinosaurs have retired.

[Charles Parker]

Pat you are right. As usual Ernie can say in a few words and get to the heart of the matter.

Thanks Ernie.

My personal feeling, and one I express often during SWGFAST meetings (regretably, I had to miss last month's meeting due to court), is that SWGFAST should address the needs of small agencies that are NOT striving for ASCLD/ISO accreditation, and let the larger agencies simply refer to the ASCLD/ISO requirements when writing their policies and procedures. Unfortunately, my voice is in the minority in SWGFAST. This fact makes it even more critical that those who do not like the direction SWGFAST is going let their opinions be known.

Pat I agree totally. Not everyone is going to go ASCLD/ISO. Not everyone works for the federal government. Not everyone can work for a state. We need to do something for the smaller agencies but I am at a loss of just what and make it agreeable to most of bigger agencies.

We either continue in the direction we are going and cut them out or try to see the big overall picture for what it really is. Overall the smaller agencies do a heck of a job with what they have. From my observations they are more conservative and when they see a storm on the horizon or have something they cannot handle most will call for or ask for help.

I am just at a loss of what to do?

[Ernie Hamm]

Gentlemen,

Not my words, but those of Roger Davis.

I am just the messenger. I appreciated Dr. Davis' thoughts on the subject and HIS way of expression.

Ernie

[Bill]

Ernie,

No one will argue that the public has the right to expect the highest quality foresic services, but this same public seems unwilling to pay for it and their elected officials have numerous other pet projects to fund. It usually takes a train wreck to get anyone's attention.

The biggest gripe I hear about ASCLD, etc, etc, is it takes twice as many people to do the same amount of work. Quality talent is already in short supply and smaller agencies, such as ours, cannot compete with the federal government in salaries and benefits, escpecially over the long term.

The bottom line is, who is going to pay for it???? The city councils and the county boards all say the same thing, they cannot compete with the federal government and they throw their money at higher visibility police issues that are broad on image and skin deep on substance.

Forensics will never be high on the radar screen in local agencies--at least not while I am still working. Perhaps two or three generations from now.


Bill

[Ann Horsman]

Bill,

You took the words right out of my mouth, very well written. I would only ad that some forensic disciplines will be better funded and staffed than others. These come off as more important and or more glamorous than fingerprints. Which is very unfortunate.