October 17, 2024
The Necessity and Challenges of Quality Assurance in Fingerprint Analysis
Quality Assurance relies on the continual re-evaluation of processes to ensure quality and consistency. Through this systematic approach, laboratories can adjust their goals to mitigate risks and to meet the expectations of stakeholders in an ever-changing world. Few people question the benefits of quality assurance measures; however, establishing and maintaining effective quality controls can be difficult. This is particularly so for the fingerprint discipline.
This is not to say the discipline is wholly unscientific nor that quality of results have never been a concern. In fact, ACE-V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation – Verification) is widely recognized and accepted as the process for conducting fingerprint comparisons. This process recognizes the importance of verification, which can be viewed as a final quality control check to bolster and support the examiner’s conclusion. In other words, it has long been recognized that quality control is a necessary part of the process.
It is also not for a lack of desire that the discipline has yet to reach the highest levels of scientific validation as a methodology. Rather, it is simply that the ACE-V process itself and its reliance on human perception and decision making is what makes scientific validation an impossibility. As long as the comparison process requires the use of human interpretation, it will have to contend with the inconsistencies that are a natural aspect of various human factors. This inability to validate ACE-V scientifically makes it all the more necessary to evolve the process through the adoption of quality assurance measures.
Overcoming Practical and Logistical Challenges
Despite there being both an understanding of the need and a desire to improve the process, there is still difficulty in adopting new protocols. The challenges faced by labs hinge on the practicality and logistics of putting the procedures in place. Change often brings a temporary disruption to the regular flow and output of casework. New procedures require additional training and practice before implementation. This commitment of time can be perceived as overwhelming if not impossible. There never seems to be a good time in which disruptions can be minimized. This issue is further compounded by pending deadlines, rush cases, and the expectations of departmental heads.
Challenges like these are formidable but not insurmountable. As is often the case, the solution becomes readily apparent when there is a shift in perspective. Looking at procedures that incorporate technology, add to quality assurance, and allow for increased quality control is the very thing that optimizes casework processing time. Streamlining the workflow and providing increased consistency are the practical aspects that truly make it worth the effort to implement quality assurance tools.
Consistency, one of the direct effects of quality assurance, is often overlooked as a time-saving measure. Although quality assurance focuses on the accuracy of results, it achieves this by providing consistency through measurable controls. Forensic labs that experience an increase in consistency across latent print examinations also reap the benefit of a streamlined workflow. With increased consistency there are fewer disagreements between examiners. This means less time spent kicking work back and forth, mitigating conflicts, or deciding on how best to report a result out. These everyday occurrences can add significant time to a lab’s output. Minimizing their occurrence through increased consistency creates small changes that save time.
Leveraging Technology for Enhanced Quality Assurance
One helpful time saving tool is creating a fully digital workflow for fingerprint comparisons. A digital workflow allows examiners to capture and document the ACE-V process with clear data in real time. This makes it possible to insert quality controls at varied intervals and allow for the strategic use of these tools. For example, simply documenting the initial analysis before proceeding with a comparison gives the examiner the ability to objectively demonstrate their thought process and visualize any changes to that process. If utilizing a visual tool such as GYRO, this real-time documentation can be extended beyond the initial analysis and carried through the full ACE process. These are excellent tools for the examiner to check their own work as well as allowing supervisors to monitor their employees’ progress to determine if additional training is needed. Another example of the benefits of a digital workflow is the ability to remove contextual information and implement truly blind verification. Without a digital workflow, the documentation of the ACE-V process is time consuming, if not impossible.
Some of the most exciting and useful time saving tools are found when implementing software-assisted matching systems such as CSIpix Comparator Pro or Case AFIS. These tools help cut down the most time-consuming aspects of fingerprint comparison work: finding a starting point and making the determination of exclusion. The CSIpix Comparator Pro, for example, can be utilized for quality assurance as the first step when comparing palm impressions. Due to the larger size of palms and the potential lack of distinctive ridge flow patterns, this procedure would greatly reduce search times by allowing the software to provide a starting point for the comparison. Comparator Pro can also be used as a final quality control check for comparisons, prior to finalizing an exclusion or inconclusive decision. Since the software searches in fine increments over 360 degrees, it can help to catch erroneous exclusions that sometimes occur due to incorrect latent orientation. In a similar fashion, Case AFIS can be used as a final quality control by quickly batch checking all non-identified impressions against all subjects related to the case. Case AFIS can also help as an initial triage search against officers on scene or the victims, leaving only the remaining unidentified impressions requiring additional effort and work. These examples illustrate how technology can resolve the issue of implementing quality assurance while also reducing the amount of time required to process casework.
Summary
It is critical for forensic labs to embrace change and expand quality assurance measures. This can be achieved through the implementation of well-defined standards and quality controls. Advancements in technology have made it possible to allow for the implementation of quality controls that also decrease processing time. This is a welcome advantage for not only ensuring the accuracy of results but also streamlining the approach to casework. In a world that is ever-evolving, there is a choice to be made: either embrace change and find new ways of improving the process or rely on familiar ways of working and risk becoming stagnant, or perhaps more importantly, missing out on the benefits discussed above.
Written By
Nicole Osborn (CLPE) with twenty years of working for the Los Angeles Police Department, played a pivotal part in developing the Latent Print Unit’s training and testing materials. They have trained over 40 individuals to competency in latent print comparisons and are currently using this experience and knowledge to develop external training programs to help other agencies throughout the world. Nicole is an active member within their discipline and their communities. They are currently serving as Past President on the Executive Committee of the California State Division of the International Association for Identification and regularly present on latent print matters.
Maximize Accuracy with CSIpix Comparator Pro for Quality Assurance and Workflow Optimization
Download a free 30-day trial here or request your free training session by emailing info@csipix.com
CSIpix’s suite of forensic software has been helping 700+ forensic labs in over 40 countries digitally streamline their case workflow and search in minutes.
Sign up to receive CSIpix blogs, updates and industry insights.