Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[ Silence ]
[ Applause ]
>> That is a tough act to follow, Salyards.
I don't have any fancy animations or anything.
Good morning.
For those of you who don't know, I'm Robin Jones.
I'm a criminal justice management consultant at IFSD
within the National Institute of Justice.
As Ken referenced earlier in his presentation,
I'm the Executive Secretary
for the Standards Interagency Working Group.
And so one thing that came to mind as I heard Ken
and Mark giving their introductory remarks was I think
there was an emphasis that while this was --
this effort was established in an outcropping
of the actual NAS report, there has been some commentary
that we need to view that as a catalyst to identify
and establish this framework.
So I don't think that personally that we're limited by the things
that come up in the report
but rather it is a jumping off point for us.
That having been said,
I did point out some specific references
within the report throughout the Recommendations,
and there are numerous Recommendations
that actually specifically reference standards and some
of the questions that arise.
How do we define what these terms mean
because clearly they are variable depending
on your perspective, your experience.
So, in what areas are we looking at?
Are we talking about technical procedures?
Are we talking about report writing?
So those are just some of the questions that come
up when we look at some of the Recommendations --
establishing the standards
and the mandatory accreditation issues.
So, who develops the standards?
What is the process by which the standards are developed?
And what's the enforcement mechanism?
Is it accreditation?
Is it linked to accreditation somehow?
Some of those are some additional questions
to consider.
The standardized terminology is a really
big issue.
Clearly, match is consistent with identical.
You know some of the proposed report writing language is
currently supported through your scientific working groups,
but those are sort of --
they're different in how they have gone into the depths
of defining what those terms might mean
for their particular disciplines that they represent.
And again, what is the enforcement mechanism
for people implementing those terminologies
and what they're doing on a daily basis.
And again, another issue that the report --
the NAS report cites is this mandatory issue
and most disciplines still lacking best practices.
And I think that most
of us might actually take issue with that.
But again, coming back to those specific references.
So, establishing protocols for examinations,
methods, and practices.
And it's interesting how they start
to interchangeably use the terms standards and best practices
in collaboration with accreditation
and certification training.
So they're starting to kind
of bring these main issues together.
But again, what is the development process
and frankly what is the impact for implementation?
If we are as a community recognizing
that we might have some gaps,
how do we address those issues on the ground level?
So where do we go from here?
Part of, obviously, the work we're doing is,
trying to define what will constitute a robust standard.
Again, what is the development process?
Who is contributing?
Clearly the constituents, the practitioners.
But what are the minimum criteria?
And should this be uniform across all standards
that are implemented and is there a review process?
We all recognize that you don't want
to standardize yourself into a box.
So, do you make the standard at a minimum level,
or do you build a robust standard
and then have a really great review process
so that it can be amended and updated as needed and as
by identified by the community.
And interestingly what should be standardized?
We have to determine, your techniques,
your reports, the language, the discovery information
that you might provide --
frankly that might help you given some of the stories
that I've heard -- and evidence management
and these sorts of things.
All considerations for what -- where we're going.
So part of the framework that, you sort of try
to establish for how you're going to tackle this beast.
Let's identify first who are these organizations
that develop standards.
Well, again, how do you define a standard?
There's a lot of organizations, frankly,
that do develop standards, and we can reference,
a process like the ASTM.
But there are also, you know, other organizations
that develop standards or best practices or guidelines
and so we have collected information casting the net
as widely as we can because I think that's an
important process.
And then doing this inventory.
And that's where it gets difficult
because sometimes standards are only issued
to a specific individual.
And so -- and I think it's important though
to identify once you have this inventory, where,
doing some sort
of comparative analysis is important
and then analyzing the standards once you have them in place.
How do they meet the needs of the practitioner
and of the criminal justice community?
And what are those needs, frankly?
We have to take a step back and really figure
out what needs are to be met.
And doing the gap analysis again that's pretty straightforward
doing the analysis.
But this one is gonna be really interesting --
the process which can be designed to determine
which standards to use and how they should be implemented.
That's really a practitioner issue which brings us back
to the notion that this is -- when we say 'we' it's everyone
in this room and all the practitioners throughout the
country who are actually going to be impacted
by some of these issues.
And developing the cost estimates I think is a pretty
significant issue as well.
Are we looking towards, ,
the SWGS that are currently in place?
Again, ASTM.
Are these mechanisms working?
Are there other mechanisms?
Are there fields such as the medical community
that we can look to in their processes to learn something
and perhaps interject some new energy and a new perspective
into helping us figure out the answers to these questions.
And then again, what is the fiscal impact
of adopting amended or new standards
within the practitioner community?
And access we've found is a pretty significant issue again
as we're trying to inventory these issues,
are we looking at, and you as a community will have to decide,
uniform and equal access of all standards
that are published perhaps through ASTM.
That's a question that we can consider.
And this enforcement issue as Mark referenced earlier,
when you talk about policies and how are we going
to support implementation appropriately is one
that is certainly significant
because if you're doing all this work on the front end
and there's no way to enforce it
or support the implementation then that's something
that would be a significant loss.
And again, I want to just take a step back,
we talk about especially within this -- the trace community,
crime labs a lot, but there are a lot
of forensic service providers that do operate outside
of a controlled laboratory environment that aren't subject
to an accreditation program if you will.
So, just recognizing that we see,
the whole -- all forensic service providers not just crime
laboratory practitioners as part of the community.
So again, here's the information for the co-chairs
for the Standards, Practices, and Protocols Working Group.
And that's the end of my show.
Thank you.