Guest wrote:I am a Civilian CSI in North Carolina. There are more and more agencies here going the civilian route. The biggest thing for me is that I feel like I do not get the same respect as a sworn officer does and sometimes I feel like a second class citizens when I hear "we need to keep the sworn personnel happy."
Hello. You and I must work for the same agency. I hear the "second-class citizen" comment all the time.
When challenged about why CSIs (some with Master's degrees!) make so much less than a rookie officer (with high school diploma or GED), we were told "it's one of the benefits of being sworn".
I am sure this does not come to anyones surprise but I have seen sworn LPE's that were some of the best, and I have seen some sworn LPE's that were terrible.
I have also seen civillian LPE's that were some of the best, and I have seen some civillian LPE's that needed to go do something else.
I believe the biggest hurdle is the agencies themselves. If they set a Crime Scene Unit or Forensic Division up right, and fill it with individuals that care and are interested in doing the best job, then civillian or sworn makes no difference. But if an agency just does not know or care, then it does not matter who they fill the positions with, they will be terrible. I have seen CSU staffed with civillians where no thought was given to who to put in there and it was a terrible Unit. The same with sworn.
However most of my experience has been with departments who staffed their ID Section (or CSU) with sworn officers who could not make it on the street.
In a previous job I was the first civillian hired. They were going to replace the officers over a period of time. When I arrived they were obtaining about 480 latent cases a year and their hit rate was 2-3%. After five years when it was totally civillian, the number of latent cases a year had risen to 2,160 cases a year and the hit rate was 17-23%.
Is their still attitude out there after 32 years. Yes, some from sworn, some from civillian, some from highly educated, some from least educated, some from differnt disciplines, some from same disciplines, some from enemies,and even some from friends on occassions.
Attitude is an equal opportunity social disfunction.
Always do the best job you can even under the most extreme discomfort and you will never have to look back with embarassment. Treat people as you want to be treated. You may not always be treated the same, but you can be proud of yourself that you have tried and given life the best you had to offer.
I do not know why this post is still alive. Let us talk about fingerprints or latent prints or even talk to Dogma. This is all bad Karma. Speaking of Karma, it is time to go and watch "My Name Is Earl"
Perhaps understanding the job description and requirements for the position would be of benefit. The uniform officer is a line function and the CSI is a support function. Primary funding usually is for line functions and budgeting for the CSI does not have the same priority. Then consider what are the educational requirements for the CSI position versus the police officer (this varies from department to department) there are departments that pay higher to the CSI than the police officer, which has created problems in the past especially if there are police officers doing the same job and receiving less money than the CSI. This can result in the EEOC becoming involved. However having said that and being sworn working in CSI we too were treated as though we were second class citizens. This was not verbal but predicated on funding for the support function. Don’t take it to heart. All is not as you see on TV.
I am an enlisted member in the PSP Crime Lab. There is a big push to civilainize our enlisted positions in Latents, Ballistics, AFIS, and Documents.
I understand both sides of the arguments. We do need more enlisted personnel on the road. Honestly, my heart is still with the road. However, there are a lot of us who like what we do and want to stay in the lab. Lab personnel are very much a part of criminal investigation. Our work does solve crime. We are criminal investigators in a different capacity.
I understand the adminsitration's position on buget cuts and reducing costs of doing business while providing a better service to the Commonwealth. However, are we really going to effectively save money? One of the main arguements is how to keep trained qualified civilians in these positions. We are so close to Washington DC that it would not be hard for someone to be trained and qualified by the department as an expert witness within 2 years then leave for better pay working for the Federal government. So how does a department with a civilianize crime lab keep personnel from leaving for better paying jobs after being trained?
So will our department really save money by continually paying for replacements? That remains to be seen.
Your question is not easily answered but I can tell you that my former department had a crime scene unit consisting of 50 + CSIs. It was a combination of sworn (police) and non-sworn. Over the years this was a good working relationship. The civilians went through minimum standards training but were still classified for all intent and purposes as technicians (civilian). Through attrition police personnel replaced the technicians. The technicians did not have lateral or vertical promotion and lacked transfer opportunity. It started to result in burn out for them. Vice versa the police officer had promotional opportunities with transfer options back to road duties of the uniform police officer.
Many police officers performed the duties of a seasoned civilian employee. The civilians were paid more than the police officers. This resulted in animosity and EEOC ramifications equal pay for equal work. In retrospect this could be a two way street if the job classifications and duties are the same for whom ever is filling the position.
Crime scene personnel sworn or non-sworn are under the auspices of field investigators such as a homicide investigator. The CSI duties are the detection collection, preservation and transportation of evidence. They ultimately present their findings in a court of law. The laboratory bench personnel interpret the evidence. In essence the CSI is a technical function. This depends on the department and funding sources.
Police operations are divided into line function versus a support function. The line function is primarily arrest of felons, enforcement of laws, patrol, first responders etc. this receives primary funding. The CSI is a support function and in many instances receives less funding than the primary role of line function.
If you have spent any length of time as the uniform officer assigned to crime scene it would appear to me that it would be counter productive to retrain you for the road duties of a police officer versus hiring a civilian for your current position investigating crime scenes.
Even though you enjoy your current assignment there may come a time when you reach a saturation point and have your fill of blood and gore. As a police officer you have the option of returning to a uniform function the civilian on the other hand may not have a place to go to further (broaden) their horizon as the administration likes to say.
There is room for both civilian and police in CSI.
The Indiana State Police lab system has since its inception in 1950's has used sworn officers as LPE's, FA's, CSI's, PE's(polygraph) and Admin. I am a sergeant with 26 years with ISP, 16 of those as a LPE. I am retiring on Nov. 30, 2005. I will be replaced (some time) by civilian personnell. The primary reason is money and lack of manpower. This decision was made about, by those higher on the food chain than I, five years ago. I begin working for FDLE, Ft. Myers in Dec. 2005 as a civilian.