(Quoted from another thread - referring to the FBI procedures)
If there is not a unanimous opinion as to a particular conclusion, the supervisor institutes conflict resolution procedures according to Standard Operating Procedures.
I’ve seen that people have different perceptions of this idea and I’m looking for a little clarification (not on FBI policies but on everyone’s understanding of this).
Version 1: The statement above makes it sound like all ‘differing’ conclusions go to conflict resolution. This included one person making an identification but another person states ‘no ID effected’ or even a conclusion of exclusion. The SWGFAST statements seem to support this view. This implies that ‘different’ conclusions are the same as ‘conflicting’ conclusions.
Version 2: I recently heard from a supervisor of an ASCLD/Lab accredited agency and he stated that ‘differences are ok as long as they aren’t conflicting. Differences can be due to ability and/or tolerance levels’. This implies that there’s a difference between ‘differing’ and ‘conflicting’ conclusions.
Do more people side with the first view or the second? Does ASCLD/Lab have a view on ‘differences of opinions’ v ‘conflicts’ (I’m not from an accredited lab, that’s why I’m asking)? Do all differences (even minor oversights) have to go to conflict resolution? If Examiner #1 excludes and the verifier finds the ID and brings it back to Examiner #1, who now sees that in fact it is an ID, can’t this just be noted or does it still need to go through a conflict resolution?
If agencies have polices stating that ‘all conflicts need to go to conflict resolution’, does that mean ‘all differing conclusions’ go through conflict resolution? Does each agency define a ‘conflict’ differently or is there one general accepted meaning and the supervisor above (in version 2) misunderstands the common usage?
This could even be taken a step further, if someone makes an ID and then the verifier shows them why it's not an ID (an erroneous Identification), is this only a problem if the original examiner stands by their decision (making conflicting conclusions)? And it's not a problem if the original examiner changes their conclusion (making this more of an oversight than an error)?
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
For some reason I'm drawn to the concepts of quality assurance and quality control as they relate to differences and conflicts. I think part of my interest stems from involvement in several such cases. I have missed ID's and found ID's others have missed, but we would probably all argue this eventually happens to us all. I have been the examiner that found an erroneous identification and I have seen an erroneous exclusion on a good identification that I made. In both of these cases, the examiners are still employed in active casework - I think the day of sacrificing the examiner for a single mistake are over and that instead we are turning to standard procedures and policies that guide our actions. Although I haven't made an erroneous identification, I have pushed too far into what I later considered to be a gray area of sufficiency that I should have stayed away from. Since then I have seen examples of other high profile "identifications" that have also pushed way too far into this area where in fact there isn't sufficient quality/quantity to disprove the claim of "identification"... but there isn't enough there to justify it either.
It is impossible to look into this variety of non-standard scenarios and attempt to further break them down into acceptable / unacceptable, or major / minor. SWGFAST has taken the approach that anything other than unanimity deserves at least a quality review. And in defining quality review, they allow for what most would consider the bare bones - review the documentation (which anyone would do anyway), re-examination (which would occur anyway), Determination of a conclusion to report (which would also naturally occur), determination of the seriousness and corrective action if appropriate, and Determination of the root cause of the conflicting conclusions. For the simplest case, the root cause might simply be the inexperience of the inconclusive examiner. For difficult cases, establishment of the root cause might be extremely time consuming and center on specific distortions or similarities within the impressions (Mayfield comes to mind), inadequacy of the agency's training program, failing eyesight or expired eyewear prescriptions, or any host of other things.
Having been in a supervisory position, I appreciated knowing about non-standard issues. If two examiners worked something out amongst themselves without my involvement I considered that fine, as long as I knew about it. SWGFAST states that each element of the quality review must be documented. This gives the administrator the information or duty to find the information necessary to make an informed decision about corrective action. Mind you, there is no guidance on corrective action - just that it should be considered and administered as deemed appropriate by the supervisor or agency in that particular case.
In one of your examples, you mention Examiner 1 excluding, the verifier finding it and taking it back to Examiner 1, who subsequently sees it and agrees with the ID. As a supervisor, I consider each one of the SWGFAST elements important to see noted in such a case. I would definitely be interested in Examiner #1's thoughts on the cause of the miss, how seriously they took it, etc. I would also be interested in the reviewer's thoughts on whether corrective action was necessary, how serious they thought it was, etc. Over time, trends within these "notes" (which are really QA documentation) could potentially lead the identification of root causes not previously considered, and could prompt appropriate corrective action that would have otherwise been overlooked.
Documentation of the seriousness of the situation also addresses your last scenario involving sustained conflicting conclusions. Both examiners would probably rate more serious the scenario where they remained conflicted than where they ended up agreeing. Of course each examiner would document differently the conclusion they thought should be reported, so identification of this scenario would be pretty obvious if the agency required each examiner to complete and document a short quality review.
I am also unfamiliar with ASCLD/LAB views, but if this issue is like most others, they simply look at your policies and establish whether you follow them. If you use more than one word in your policies and procedures to define non-standard results, then you should have clearly defined documentation, quality review, and corrective actions for each one. I think the ASCLD/LAB supervisor you spoke with personally considered less (or no) documentation required when an inconclusive determination was involved. But the personal consideration of an ASCLD/LAB supervisor is very different from what they would require of your agency when assessing whether your policies and procedures are being followed. That same inspector upon seeing your definition is supposed to grade you based on that, not his/her preferences.
I also think that decisions involving inconclusive determinations can be abused by employees if clear policies are not in place. I have heard of examiners taking the easy way out and employers having no recourse due to the inadequacy of their policies and procedures in this area. If everything is set up correctly, I think the SWGFAST model provides for the identification of trends necessary to support corrective action up to and including disciplinary action and termination. This brings up the 3 D's... documentation, documentation, and documentation.
Could anyone share a Quality Review Checksheet for completion by examiners involved in a non-unanimous style "conflict"?
Is there a difference between declaring that I am unable to determine that certain features that I would have to resolve for the print to have value represent specific describable details and declaring that those features are so poor that they cannot be identified? We see that kind of conflict arise in complex impressions. It may also be a question of interpreting a latent to determine if some details are part of a single impression or not, to the end of deciding if they do or do not exclude a source. As I recall, these sorts of discussions came up during work on the Mayfield print. The resolution issue is important, I think, because it can introduce factors of official hierarchy and unofficial hierarchies of seniority, experience, and status.
As stated somewhere else, we learn by considering the explanations of more experienced examiners. I may well look at that and say, "Yes. I see that now." I might also say, "I see what you're saying, but I still don't agree, because..." This might be a difference between two examiners or among several who render opinions. Will there be a resolution expressed as an official report declaring one or the other result? Or will both be reported? If an ultimate authority decides that the Inconclusive will not be reported, is that or is that not an active bias toward an identification? The authority will obviously respond that the decision was made by considering the relative merits of the examiners and the arguments put forth. The next question would be, "Okay, but doesn't it happen to work out so that you nearly always resolve these in favor of identification?"
I think this takes on perhaps more importance in latent print examination than in some other forensic fields, because it is not so usual for defense experts to be provided for latent print evidence. Were they hired (and we know that experts are often hired for their known tendencies to interpret one or another way or to be conservative or liberal in their analysis), they would likely be the ones to question the value of the print. Is there a responsibility to recognize that the law enforcement latent unit will likely be the only latent print expertise presented and to report differences of opinion? Or is it to be viewed in the pure adversarial way that would hold that, if they want another opinion, they need to try to get one?
I suppose this really comes down to whether one views all identifiable latent prints as having equally great weight or whether one accepts that differences in opinion of value among examiners means there may be differences among latents as to their weight as evidence. That's not so different from some other forensic fields in which experts are perfectly comfortable reporting differing opinions and explaining their decisions in court.
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
I understand that some differing conclusions can be resolved by the employees without a formal intervention system and some need a different plan of action. I’m just having a hard time articulating when a difference is due to an oversight and when it’s due to laziness. Is the reason determined in the conflict resolution process? If so it seems like a waste of time for EVERYTHING to go through conflict resolution? And I doubt that conflict resolution could determine the cause in most cases. Right now I’m still at the point of saying “I know an oversight compared to laziness when I see it” and I know this is a bad place to be.
I know that ASCLD/Lab has everyone write their own policies and then makes sure they follow them, what I don’t understand is why this is acceptable? I must be looking at this wrong because the way I see it, this is like saying, “We have standards, we just all have our own standards”. Isn’t this the same as saying that as a profession, we don’t have a common standard (on what the difference is between a difference of opinion and a conflict).
Any thoughts?
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
I doubt we could even say it is either laziness or oversight. If there is a fundamental difference between those two factors - and I'm not at all sure there is - do they call for different responses? Resolving the differing conclusions can only do just that - decide which is the correct conclusion. In other words, declare who is wrong. If we are talking about an actual difference in conclusions, between identification and exclusion, the response is a management response, not a part of the examination process, and it's not hard to work out what might be some rehabilitative management processes. I'm not much troubled by the differing conclusions problem. I'm more troubled by how a difference between identification/exclusion and inconclusive is resolved. That difference does not imply oversight or laziness or competency difference and may be not a matter for ultimate resolution, since having to chose to resolve to either outcome invites all sorts of evils.
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
I am not sure this post will answer your question. The latent print discipline has undergone so many revisions over the years since I left public service with the conditions set forth by Daubert, certifications, ASCLD-LAB, dogma of TWGFAST (spelling intentional), 3 D’s (documentation-documentation-documentation)(?), ACE, ACE-V, emergence of ACE-BV, ACE-DBV (where will it end?), note taking of EVERYTHING and general chaos.
First, history: There was a time when a latent examiner received evidence, examined the evidence for latent prints, developed latent prints, made their comparisons, reported their results (including identifications) and returned the evidence to the agency. This was all done in accordance with a SOP (not as catchy of a term but the acronym in use before ACE) without ANYONE else involved in the process. Novel idea, huh! If a defense had a problem with results in which their client disputed an identification of a latent print, they could get their own expert. These were not as readily available as they are now, but the option was still there for them to exercise.
Fast forward in time to when verification of identifications (ACE was still in wings as we were still working with SOP's) was made a standard practice in latent print examinations. I am now going back to how your question on "conflict resolution" in this new environment was handled. The policy in my area was there was a designated verifier (examiners could not have a 'preferred' verifier) that rotated through the examiners on a pre-set schedule. A secondary verifier was also designated to cover any absences of the primary verifier. If there was an occasion when an examiner would not get an expected verification, the latent identification would be referred to the supervisor. The final decision would then be made by the supervising analyst. There was no "decision by committee". There would be no conflict. It is the responsibility of the supervising analyst to insure the accuracy of reports being submitted by their agency and analyst, while nurturing the analyst in a positive and advisory manner. That is why they get the big bucks (yeah, right).
I am not sure this completely answers your concern as you also asked about ASCLD/LAB's interpretations of "conflict vs. differences". That aspect will have to be addressed by current members of ASCLD/LAB as my inspection days ended a long time ago. I am only providing what was a simple ‘conflict resolution’ procedure in practice in my time.
Tar pits are warm and cozy and no one bothers you.