Why I am not certified
Boyd Baumgartner
Latent Fingerprint Examiner @ King County, WA | AI Software Development Enthusiast
I’ve been asked why I am not certified as a latent print examiner. When asked on the stand, I give a simple answer, ‘It does not offer me any rights or responsibilities that my agency does not already afford’.
I tend to lean critical of various organizations in the field of fingerprint examination for one reason, I don’t care for politics. It usually involves egos and agendas attempting to gatekeep some aspect of the job that ultimately just gets in the way of doing the work. Problems end up getting more perplexed and perpetuated instead of resolved. As it relates to certifications, I find that politics and certifications while theoretically diametrically opposed, are unfortunately intimately intertwined. In contrast, I like evidence, epistemology and articulation, and I find that those qualities are lacking in politics as well as certification.
I did obtain my Ten Print Certification many years ago when I was a Ten Print Examiner.? I found the test to be largely disconnected from any work I was actually doing.? I needed to answer questions about plant anatomists from the 1800’s, perform Henry Classification, a process long out of date, and then finally I got to compare some fingerprints.? I passed and got an extra $20 per paycheck or some such amount, but all it allowed me to do was answer ‘Yes’ on the stand to the question ‘are you certified?’.? It didn’t mean anything and no one asked why it was important. Then I realized...its not.
Simply stated, it seemed the credential was more important than what skill and experience was required to get it or what it required or forbid me to do or say. This is a phenomenon known as credentialism. So, when I became a Latent Print Examiner I didn’t bother to pursue the credential.
In 2015, I attended the 100th International Association for Identification in Sacramento. A coworker and I saw someone intimately affiliated with the organization and we struck up a conversation about the meaning of certification.
If you look at the IAI’s own webpage regarding certification, it states that the original purpose of the test was ‘to validate a practitioners expertise in the science of fingerprints through a rigorous testing process’
Ok, that’s competence, which you see reiterated when they say, ‘The objective of the board was...to certify as qualified specialists, those voluntary applicants who comply with the requirements of the board. In this way, the board is able to make available to the judicial system and to the public, a practical and equitable system for readily identifying those persons professing to be specialists in latent print examination who possess the requisite qualifications and competence.’
But now we see they’ve added a compliance qualifier. What if I don’t agree with the board’s requirements, will I be forced to comply under threat of revocation of my certification? That is politics.
What if I don't agree with their position on a topic like a critical analysis by a government agency? Must I agree due to my status as a certificate holder? That is politics.
At that same IAI Conference I referenced earlier, during the business meeting there were to be open discussions about the use of probabilistic language in testimony that was shut down based on the invocation of some Robert's Rules of Order, even though discussion is precisely what was needed. That is politics.
Also, even though the board says it creates standards, there are no standards for what counts as an identification or exclusion on the tests.? That seems odd.??
Reading on we see that, ‘Since its inception, the I.A.I.'s Latent Print Certification Board has proficiency tested thousands of applicants, and periodically proficiency tests all IAI Certified Latent Print Examiners (CLPEs) as part of the recertification requirement every five years.’
Is this a proficiency test, or a competency test? They aren’t the same thing.? Competency is having the requisite or minimum set of skills and experience whereas proficiency is most often denoted as having an advanced skill set.? Anyone in the discipline knows that not all latent comparisons are the same.? In notable performance studies, more difficult comparisons, ones often defined as complex, being characterized by having a lack of clarity or presence of distortion can result in differing conclusions. (https://noblis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/WhiteBox_SufficiencyForID_PLOS_Corrected_withSI.pdf) A proficiency test would at least be able to distinguish between more difficult latent prints and incorporate them into the test.
Lastly, if we look for clarifying information on the Latent Print Certification page we are met with this statement.?
‘I.A.I. CLPE status is considered by many identification professionals to be a measurement of excellence. During the past three decades, I.A.I. Latent Print Certification has become a prerequisite for journeyman fingerprint expert positions in many U.S. state and federal government forensic laboratories, and also enjoys a high reputation in many international agencies.’
领英推荐
We have been told that this test is a competency test then a proficiency test and now we are told it is a measurement of excellence.? Wouldn’t a test of excellence be a level higher than a proficiency test?? Also, if it is a test of competency which it states, why would it be a prerequisite for journeyman positions? Aren’t journeymen people who have already demonstrated competency? Can the test discriminate between a journeyman and an apprentice?
I have co-workers that are certified and have taken both the initial test and the re-certification test, which is being billed as a proficiency test by at least one reading of the website.? The complexity of the prints does not vary between the initial test and the recertification test. While I don’t know if the Latent Print Certification Board even grades latents, these are experts as deemed by the certification test and they can’t tell the difference.?
That being said, even though the Certification test is billing itself as a proficiency test, laboratory accreditation requires yearly proficiency testing of examiners, so there are companies accredited in their own right to do just that.
At least one of these testing services posts their results and incorporates data about errors paired with certification.? If certification is a measure of excellence, certainly we’d see that reflected in the error rates on the yearly proficiency tests, right?
https://www.ronsmithandassociates.com/pdf/Proficiency%20Documents/19101%20LPC%20Summary%20Report.pdf
https://www.ronsmithandassociates.com/pdf/Proficiency%20Documents/22101%20LPC%20Summary%20Report.pdf
While these tests, the latents on them and who takes them varies year by year, these results show that ‘error rates’ (defined as inconsistent results because there’s no way to determine if these were typos or legitimate errors) can occur at similar rates between Certified Examiners and Non-Certified Examiners.
About 5 years ago, a group of Latent Print Examiners got some latent prints on the Latent Print Certification test removed precisely because it contained prints that were causing errors.
This seems to line up with what Christopher Czyryca, President of Collaborative Testing Services, said about proficiency tests in the forensic industries, ‘"Easy tests are favored by the community."?
In the end, a credential is only as good as the standards that produced it, and the integrity of the person who holds it. It does not necessitate a correct conclusion or good judgment. In other words, a credential may demonstrate the competency to pass a test, it does not ensure quality work or a depth of knowledge.
Forensic DNA Expert
11 个月I realize this post is specific to you, but many examiners, like myself, are no longer affiliated with laboratories. In the state of Florida, there is absolutely no oversight for people who work in the forensic private sector, not affiliated with a testing lab. Certification is an important way I bind myself to an ethical code. That's the reason I am a member of professional bodies as well. Next, present day accreditation and proficiency are completely insufficient to ensure quality. Third, in states without Commissions, incidents like this would largely go unidentified and unaddressed. You cannot rely on the word of your colleagues that you're doing something correctly as a measure of my competence because misinformation in a crime lab is usually systemic. Because impressions are hard and people are flawed and Dunning-Kruger is a real thing. Many practitioners in cases with flawed forensics just didn't know enough to know they were doing something wrong. Certification provides an avenue to pursue that. https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457617/fir-complaint-2216-rsa-latent-prints-as-of-12623.pdf
Lieutenant at Tarrant County Sheriff's Administration
11 个月The standards have been increasing steadily since my introduction to fingerprint comparison back in 1993 when Richard Long came to our agency to teach Henry Classification. Interacting with the examiners of other agencies helped us to have a better understanding of the standards. Classes help also, classes like CARDPACT and instructors Like Ron Smith, David Grieve, Pat Wertheim and David Ashbaugh. This kind of knowledge and experience are really priceless. Is certification necessary?
Senior student BS, Forensic Anthropology Major, Earth Science Minor, AAS in Criminal Justice (High Honor)
11 个月Agree with you. The skills are more important than a piece of paper.
Co-Founder of Visionations, Developer of CrimePad
11 个月This is an interesting perspective that might speak more specifically to LP certification and its implementation rather than certification overall. If you look at it from the criminal justice perspective, those outside of forensic science have no barometer on which to gauge qualifications other than taking the word of a CV or the agency they come from. Having an independent body administer a minimum standard can provide such a barometer. There is no doubt these need strengthening but their absence threatens the system’s reliance on expert testimony. There are far too many charlatans out there and that presents one of the greatest threats to our field at the moment. Great post to catalyze the discussion!
Member - Ideal Innovations Advisory Board
11 个月Interesting! I appreciate the point of view and the comments. The IAI is in the midst of trying to strengthen its certification programs to an accreditation worthy level. Certification isn't for everyone but many agencies still require it and having it was one of the many recommendations of the 2009 NAS report. Thanks for posting.