Crime Laboratories: Accreditation and Certification

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Comparison between Accreditation and Certification
Crime Labs in Arizona
Comparison between Accredited and Non-accredited Labs
References

Comparison between Accreditation and Certification

Crime laboratories usually receive requests from police agencies to analyze and report evidence collected from crime scenes. Such findings and expert testimony are often presented in court proceedings. Therefore, to guarantee the dependability and accuracy of their conclusions, crime laboratories are required to use specific quality assurance procedures (Burch, Durose, Walsh, & Tiry, 2016). The validity of each test and its capability to produce accurate findings is dependent on the creation and adherence to meaningful scientific standards by analysts. Both accreditation and certification play a fundamental role in enabling quality assurance.

These two terms are often confused; however, the word “accreditation” pertains to labs as a whole, while “certification” is concerned with individual forensic technicians and analysts. Accreditation is defined as a recognition process for crime labs that comply with distinctive standards for operations, management, security, and equipment. In the U.S., the four major accrediting bodies include the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Forensic Quality Services (FQS), and the American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT), though each body has its requirements.

Most of the crime labs fall under the bounds of the ISO/IEC 17025 (Kolowski, 2015). Moreover, currently, lab accreditation is deemed to be a voluntary process, but for ten states and the District of Columbia, accreditation is mandatory (Collins, 2018). Accreditation aims to promote standardization and quality control; therefore, if a lab is non-accredited, the results of evidence introduced to trial can be called into question as the reliability and credibility of their work is unsubstantiated. However, accreditation does not always guarantee sound science (Jamieson, 2016).

Crime laboratories seeking accreditation begin the process by conducting an internal organizational audit. If the inspection shows that the lab’s policies, procedures, equipment, and expertise, conform to the required standards, it can then submit a report to the accrediting agency. The accrediting organization then deploys a team of external examiners to verify the findings of the internal audit. They use the checklist criteria to ascertain that the laboratory characteristics comply with the accrediting’s body requirements. If any deficiencies are found, the lab is offered an opportunity to respond and correct them before receiving accreditation. The laboratory is then periodically monitored to ensure that they remain compliant (Collins, 2018).

On the other hand, certification is defined as the credentialing process for distinct technicians and analysts who comply with particular standards for education, training, and experience (Melbourn et al., 2019). There are many agencies providing certifications to forensic analysts on disciplines ranging from DNA to computer forensics. Every certifying organization has its specific prerequisite requirements; however, some are more rigorous than others (Melbourn et al., 2019).

For instance, the American College of Forensic Examiners International Inc. (ACFEI) requires potential forensic consultants to watch a 90-minute video and then pass a multiple-choice test to become accredited. External certification programs usually evaluate analysts through examinations, education evaluation, training and practical experience, proficiency testing, and adherence to the code of ethics (Department of Justice, 2015). Currently, certification is not required for forensic analysts (Melbourn et al., 2019). The FBI Quality Assurance Standards insists on only certified forensic DNA analysts to participate in the CODIS National DNA database, although several laboratory accreditation programs do not require certification (National Commission on Forensic Science, 2016).

Crime Labs in Arizona

North Carolina and ten other states, including the District of Colombia, are not the only ones working to ensure that all crime labs are accredited. Although the law has not been passed in Arizona, presently, all the 12 forensic laboratories in the state of Arizona 12 are accredited. They include the (ANAB, 2019):

Phoenix Police Department Laboratory Services Bureau that is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017, in various forensic disciplines such as fire debris and explosives, biology, firearms and tool marks, footwear and tire, crime scene investigation, seized drugs, fingerprinting, gunshot residue, trace evidence, and toxicology.
Mesa Police Department Forensic Services is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017. It has received accreditation for forensic testing such as toxicology, biology, seized drugs, bloodstain pattern analysis, friction ridge, crime scene investigation, footwear and tire and firearms, and tool marks.
Arizona Department of Public Safety (Central Regional Crime Laboratory) conforms to the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standards. It is accredited for conducting analyses on various scopes in forensic science (biology, toxicology, document examination, seized drugs, fire debris and explosives, friction ridge, and firearms and tool marks).
Tucson Police Department Crime Laboratory is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 in various fields of forensics, which include biology, trace evidence, digital evidence, toxicology, drug chemistry, latent prints, and firearms, and tool marks.
Arizona Police Department of Public Safety (Southern Regional Crime Laboratory) that is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard on forensic examinations such as biology, toxicology, firearms and tool marks, seized drugs, footwear, and tire, and friction ridge.
Scottsdale Police Department Crime Laboratory that is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standards on forensic analyses involving biology, toxicology, footwear and tire, seized drugs, and friction ridge.
Arizona Department of Public Safety (Northern Regional Crime Laboratory) is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard to conduct forensic tests involving biology, toxicology, friction ridge, and seized drugs.
Chandler Police Department Forensic Services Section, which is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard in performing forensic tests involving crime scene investigation, toxicology, drug chemistry, and latent prints.
Arizona Department of Public Safety (Western Regional Crime Laboratory) is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard. The accreditation covers several forensic tests, which include friction ridge, toxicology, and seized drugs.
American Express Digital and Multimedia Forensic Laboratory is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard in analyzing digital evidence.
Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of State Laboratory Services, which is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard in conducting forensic toxicology tests.
Scottsdale Police Department Crime Scene Section that is compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard in crime scene investigation.

Comparison between Accredited and Non-accredited Labs

To be accredited, a crime laboratory has first to prove 100% compliance with the policies, operations, and equipment standards set by the accrediting body (Jamieson, 2016). However, non-accredited institutions are not required to be 100% compliant with the laboratory characteristics before-mentioned. There is a relatively small difference in terms of reliability between the results obtained from an accredited lab, and that from a non-accredited lab. This is because being accredited does not guarantee that the lab will never make a mistake, hence reliable results (Jamieson, 2016). Nevertheless, it certifies that they have proper mechanisms in place to identify deficiencies and quickly rectify them. Therefore, in comparison with a non-accredited lab, the results of their findings have a relatively equal measure of accuracy.

Detroit Police Department Crime Laboratory

The Detroit Police Department Crime Laboratory was entirely closed in 2008 and reopened in 2013 as the Metropolitan Detroit Forensic Laboratory. The original lab was accredited as the audit conducted was used to compare the lab’s characteristics with the criteria of the ASCLD/LAB program. Moreover, the new laboratory, which is the Metropolitan Detroit Forensic Laboratory, is accredited and compliant with the ISO/IEC 17025:2002 standard (ANAB, 2019). It has accreditation for conducting forensic testing in areas of drug chemistry and firearms and tool marks, among others.

Reasons for Non-accreditation

There are several reasons why crime labs might not be accredited, and they are mainly centered on the degree of compliance with the required criteria relating to the management and operations, personnel, and physical infrastructure of the laboratory (Jamieson, 2016). In non-accreditation, deficiencies in the before-mentioned laboratory characteristics might arise before the lab being granted its initial accreditation or during the other successive periodic audits. The flaws comprise poor laboratory administrative policies and procedures, poor evidence handling, limited space allocation, inadequate security, deficient analysis protocols, and lack of or insufficiency of qualified personnel.

Future of Accreditation

In the future, all labs will have to be accredited. The Forensic Sciences Act of 2011, mandates that all local crime laboratories have to be accredited, and a bill, that is, the Senate Bill 2020, was introduced in 2013 to extend the deadline of accreditation for the local crime labs in the U.S. (other than the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory) to 2020 (Department of Justice, 2015). However, the policy does not pertain to digital forensic laboratories.

References

ANAB. (2019). Directorate of accredited organizations. Web.

Burch, A., Durose, M., Walsh, K., &. Tiry, E. (2016). Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories: Quality assurance practices, 2014. Web.

Collins, J. (2018). Accreditation. In HR management in the forensic science laboratory: A 21st century approach to effective crime lab leadership (Chapter 26). Web.

Department of Justice. (2015). Justice Department announces new accreditation policies to advance forensic science. Web.

Jamieson, A. (2016). Laboratory accreditation. In A. Jamieson & S. Bader (Eds.), A guide to forensic DNA profiling (pp. 80-82). Glasgow, Scotland: John Wiley and Sons.

Kolowski, J. (2015). The challenge of accreditation for forensic laboratories within the good/fast/cheap performance management paradigm. Forensic Research and Criminology International Journal, 1(1), 1-2. Web.

Melbourn, H., Smith, G., McFarland, J., Rogers, M., Wielnad, K., DeWilde, D., … Quarino, L. (2019). Mandatory certification of forensic science practitioners in the United States: A supportive perspective. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 161-169. Web.

National Commission on Forensic Science. (2016). Views of the Commission Certification of Forensic Science Practitioners. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!