Rachel S. Bolton-King* and Andrew R.W. Jackson.
School of Sciences, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DF.
r.bolton-king@staffs.ac.uk; a.r.jackson@staffs.ac.uk.
*Corresponding author at Science Centre, Staffordshire University, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DF, UK. Telephone number +44 (01782) 294367.
Abstract
The Forensic Science Society, as the professional body for forensic practitioners, has developed a model to endorse individual competence in a number of forensic disciplines; this is known as a Certificate of Professional Competence. This article discusses research undertaken in the UK on behalf of The Forensic Science Society, which aims to determine the need to extend Certificates of Competence into areas of firearms-related forensic disciplines. An extensive questionnaire was disseminated to practitioners and professionals working in the forensic firearms community to ascertain their opinions relating to personal competency testing, factors influencing completion of such testing and identification of areas in which Certificates of Competence could be developed in the future.
Respondents within the firearms community typically support The Forensic Science Society developing these certificates for a range of professionals including firearms examiners, technicians, GSR analysts, armourers, authorised firearms officers as well as, potentially, scene of crime officers. In the first instance, four discipline areas have been identified as a priority for certificate development. The Society is now liaising with professionals in the community to design the assessment content for the four proposed Certificates of Competence.
1. Introduction
In the UK, scientific quality standards are proposed and updated by the Forensic Science Regulator and professional standards within forensic science disciplines are promoted through The Forensic Science Society (FSSoc or referred to as ‘The Society’). Within the forensic firearms community a number of professions are supported by The Society including, armourers, authorised firearms officers (AFO), technicians, firearms and toolmark examiners, forensic ballistics experts and gunshot residue (GSR) analysts. A number of existing professional bodies offer membership to individuals within firearms related disciplines including the FSSoc, the Association of Firearm and Tool mark Examiners (AFTE), the Academy of Experts (Forensic Practitioner of; AEFP), the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Institute of Explosives Engineers (IExpE). Institutes can also become members of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and experienced individuals can serve on their subject specific working groups, for example Firearms/GSR Expert Working Group.
The terms proficient, competence and competency are typically used with respect to professional standards and are often done so incorrectly and interchangeably. The Cambridge British English dictionary [1] defines proficient as “skilled and experienced”, competence as “the ability to do something well” and competency as “an important skill that is needed to do a job”. Therefore, an individual working towards competency in any given discipline aims to become proficient in the specific skills and duties required by the role to which they aspire. To ensure clarity of the terminology used in this research, a more specific definition of personal professional competence is utilised:
“A single skill or function, … [which] includes the underlying knowledge, abilities and attitudes necessary for optimal performance, … performed to a specific standard under specific conditions.” [2 p.2].
Previously, the quality of casework undertaken by firearms, toolmark and GSR experts was assessed by the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP); however, this register of professionals was revoked in 2009 leaving no independent index for practitioners to illustrate their professional competence. Reporting level examiners could however register with the AEFP, a register for expert witnesses.
With the demise of the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS) in 2012, there has been a significant rise in the number of sole traders operating within the forensic science disciplines. Many of the existing sole traders came from organisations, such as the FSS, that offered internal competency assessments to maintain and monitor their competence; however, on becoming sole traders these assessments ceased to be available to them. Sole traders, who work alone, must rely on external competency tests, although, in the UK, the number and range of competencies assessed by these is currently limited within firearms-related disciplines. The most extensive provision of Certification Programs in the forensic firearms community are offered by AFTE in the examination and identification of firearms, toolmarks and GSR. However, to be eligible to complete any of their programs, individuals must meet specific pre-requisite eligibility criteria, including AFTE membership, a minimum of three years’ experience as a court qualified examiner and relevant university qualifications [3].
To extend the range of external competency testing in forensic disciplines, The Forensic Science Society has developed Certificates of Competence, which are validated by Staffordshire University. These are discussed in Section 1.1.
1.1. Certificates of Competence
The Society has developed a number of Certificates of Competence. These provide a mechanism by which individuals can demonstrate of their competency. Furthermore, they form a substantive part of one of the routes that allow the attainment of the Accredited Forensic Practitioner grade of membership of The Society [4].
Currently, Certificates of Competence are aimed at reporting level examiners in forensic footwear mark comparisons and forensic podiatry, with certification classified at postgraduate (Masters) level, but providing zero academic credits.
Provided that there is sufficient demand from practitioners, The Society plans to increase the number of Certificates of Competence so as to increase the range of forensic specialties covered and, if needs be, diversify the academic levels at which these certificates are available. This expansion will be achieved by working with discipline-specific practitioners and appropriate academic institutions.
The firearms community approached The Society in 2012 asking for competency testing within their disciplines and this article intends to not only inform those in that community about planned future endeavours, but to also provide a further example to other disciplines as to how The Society can work with professionals to allow them to demonstrate their competency.
The existing Forensic Science Society Certificate of Professional Competence framework comprises both theoretical and practical assessments with three stages that need to be successfully completed to attain a given certificate. These are:
i. pre-assessment through review of the applicant’s CV (curriculum vitae), including qualifications, publications and experience, and references;
ii. multiple choice tests on both the speciality (i.e. discipline) in question and general forensic issues;
iii. a practical exercise.
It is intended that any future Certificates of Competence developed by The Society and subsequently validated by an accredited university with specialism in the specific forensic discipline, will adhere to this existing framework and that a reassessment of each certificate holder’s practical skills and technical knowledge will be required periodically.
A key benefit of competency testing is that it assures employers, members of the criminal justice system and the public that practitioners who have passed such assessments are able to carry out work of sufficient quality to meet objective professional standards [5]. The development and widespread completion of such competency testing may also ultimately provide more accurate estimates for error rates within specific competencies undertaken within the community and support interpretations of evidence in court [6].
1.2. Research Aim
The primary aim of this research was to determine whether there is a quantifiable need to develop personal external competency testing in firearms-related forensic disciplines. If there is sufficient evidence to support such Certificate of Professional Competence development, the research will specifically identify the areas for competency test development and determine the level at which the competencies should be tested. The opinions of professionals in these disciplines will also help to identify typical personal benefits to practitioners completing the certificates, any potential barriers preventing individuals from undertaking external competency testing and inform The Forensic Science Society of the optimal marketing strategy to maximise the number of Certificate of Professional Competence candidates.
2. Method
An electronic survey was written by the authors, reviewed by an experienced firearms examiner and The Society. The survey was hosted within the internet-based Qualtrics software (available through subscription at www.qualtrics.com) and distributed by e-mail via an anonymous hyperlink to at least 60 professionals working in firearms-related forensic disciplines within the UK. Those initially contacted were primarily members of The Society, however, department heads/managers within relevant organisations were requested to disseminate the survey link to non-member colleagues; as a result, the exact number of contacted individuals is unknown. The roles in which contacted respondents were employed include forensic firearms and toolmark examiners, GSR analysts, technicians, armourers and authorised firearms officers.
The survey comprised a series of 35 questions; however, Qualtrics contains a function known as a display logic, which can allow the survey author to automatically control whether a respondent is asked a particular question, depending on their answer to a previous question. Display logics were applied to some questions and therefore, not all questions in the survey may have been displayed and subsequently answered by every respondent. If you would like to see a copy of the questionnaire, please contact the corresponding author directly.
3. Results and Discussion
A total of 37 respondents completed the questionnaire with a further 3 individuals completing more than 60 % of the relevant survey questions. This section discusses the results of the survey with respect to the respondent demographic (Section 3.1), opinions related to competency testing (Section 3.2) and the recommended competencies and corresponding assessment level that should be prioritised by The Society (Section 3.3).
3.1. Respondent Demographic
The modal demographic characteristics of respondents (Figure 1 and 2) were male (59 %), between 31 and 40 years (43 % of all respondents), working for law enforcement laboratories (68 % of all respondents) and exhibiting reporting level experience. This may be considered to be representative of the firearms community. However, female experts appear to be more frequently employed in law enforcement laboratories than males and of the 16 female respondents, 14 of these are less than 40, which may indicate a shift in the typical community demographic over the last 10 years. This shift could also be the result of increasing numbers of women studying science in higher education, specifically within the field of forensic science [7].
Figure 1 – Demographic of respondents by employer organisation type and gender.
Figure 2 – Demographic of respondents by age and current job title (multiple options may be selected) within their fields of expertise; firearms and GSR.
The experience of the respondents in the forensic community ranged between less than one year and 50 years. The modal service period was 21 to 30 years (eight respondents), although four respondents had been working in this community for less than a year, slightly skewing the mean duration of service to between 11 and 20 years. However, this finding should not ultimately bias the interpretation of responses based on level of experience.
As represented in Figure 2, there is a significantly greater proportion of individuals working in the discipline of forensic firearm examination (33 respondents) than GSR analysis (12 respondents), with six individuals working across both disciplines. Responses made within survey, such as “[the] number of people working in the GSR field is so small”, also provide evidence from the firearms community that support this finding. With respect to the job title/role of the individuals completing the survey, there appear to be a significant number of responses from reporting-level practitioners as well as those currently undergoing training. Those who indicated ‘Other’ typically did so in addition to indicating that they had current reporting level duties or were individuals who are currently academics in the field following previous practitioner experience. There is no quantitative published evidence to inform comment on how representative the survey reported here is in terms of the various experience levels of its respondents. However, the range of responses does indicate that the interpretation within this report takes into account opinions from all experience levels within the field and should not be biased towards either end of the ‘experience’ spectrum.
Only 50 % of respondents were members of any professional body; eight respondents were only members of The Society and four were members of both the FSSoc and AFTE. Of the GSR experts, two were only members of the RSC and two were members of both the FSSoc and RSC. Fewer respondents held memberships for ENFSI, AEFP and IExpE. Interestingly, where individuals have professional body membership, the survey suggests that they are more likely to be members of more than one such body (12 of 20 respondents). Lack of professional body membership within the respondents is of some concern to both The FSSoc and the authors. This finding may be for a number of reasons. For example, individuals may not see the personal benefit of professional body membership or another could be that if professionals are employees of a larger laboratory rather than sole traders, the provision of professional body publications within a ‘library’ may result in lower individual membership within the organisation. The low level of professional body membership amongst respondents and the possible reasons for this need to be kept in mind when considering their opinions on personal competency testing (see Section 3.2.
It is the opinion of the authors, that the range of individuals who responded to this survey suitably represent the population of professionals within the forensic firearms community with respect to age, experience, position in the employment hierarchy and sub-discipline specialism (GSR and non-GSR). As a result, the results obtained and discussed in further sections are likely to be representative of the opinions in the wider forensic firearms community in the UK.
3.2. Opinions about Certificates of Competence
The majority opinion from survey respondents was in support of The Forensic Science Society developing further Certificates of Competence within the field of firearms examination and/or GSR analysis with 63 % showing interest in undertaking such qualifications.
In the survey, respondents were provided with 17 different statements/reasons that may have influenced their interest in undertaking such Certificates of Competence. For each given statement, respondents were asked to indicate the degree of influence that it had on their decision; the most influential reasons are because the respondents:
i. can see the personal benefit of undertaking the certificate;
ii. currently have a reporting-level position;
iii. believe the certificate would give them an advantage in future employment opportunities;
iv. attain self-assurance of their personal competence through re-testing;
v. believe it will enhance existing career options.
Amongst those who were not interested in undertaking such a certificate in this field, the most influential reasons for this opinion are because they:
i. believe internal laboratory testing is sufficient;
ii. believe it is unlikely to affect the number of cases they are asked to undertake;
iii. are unsure of the personal benefit of undertaking the certificate;
iv. do not believe it will enhance their existing career prospects;
v. are unsure as to the time requirements for undertaking a certificate.
Our research therefore highlights the importance in ensuring that the reasons for and personal benefits of undertaking specific external competency testing are publicised to potential applicants, as well as ensuring that the time required to undertake testing and potentially the frequency of re-testing is suitably clarified during the design stage.
As outlined in Section 1.1, The Society has a pre-existing Certificate of Professional Competence framework which could be expanded to meet the needs of the forensic firearms community. However, to ensure relevance to that community, a short questionnaire may be distributed before this is done to ascertain opinions regarding testing location, duration and type of practical exercise undertaken as well as the nature of specialised equipment required to complete assessment.
Reasons that appear to have little influence in the decision to undertake competency testing include:
i. whether individuals have previously been asked in court if they have completed such testing;
ii. any potential saving to personal professional indemnity insurance;
iii. employers’ support for undertaking external competence testing;
iv. the detrimental effect on personal credibility in court if individuals do not pass the certificate.
However, statements that had some influence on whether an individual undertakes a Certificate of Professional Competence include:
i. future requirement to complete such an assessment by a professional body;
ii. relevant content of the certificate to the trained individual;
iii. the cost associated with completing the certificate;
iv. completion of other organisation’s external competence tests.
In addition to the opinions raised above regarding competency testing, 14 of the respondents knew about external competency tests: Of these, five had undertaken certification programs in firearms (3), toolmarks (2) and/or GSR (1) and all but one of these individuals were Senior Reporting Officers. As previously identified in Section 1, some external competency testing is offered outside the UK by AFTE (primarily in the USA) and ENFSI (Europe), for example. Therefore, these 14 individuals were subsequently provided with 18 different statements/reasons and asked to indicate how influential each of these were on their decision to undertake such external competency testing. The sub-set of results indicated stronger factors for deciding to undertake the test than deciding against. The most influential reasons to complete testing were that individuals:
i. were able to undertake practical aspects of the test in the UK;
ii. met the specific criteria required to undertake the test;
iii. undertook all aspects of the test within their current role.
The remaining factors that appeared to have less influence on their decision to complete testing were similar to those previously highlighted in this section, however, a further possible reason for not undertaking these tests relates to the potential cost associated with taking the test outside the UK. These results highlight the importance in designing competency tests that can be undertaken in convenient locations.
For those who decided against undertaking such external testing the two most influential reasons were the cost and time associated with undertaking the testing, although these aspects were classified only as possible rather than definite factors in the decision making process.
Of some concern to the authors and The Society is that three of nine respondents who decided not to undertake existing external competency testing indicated that their employer would not support their decision to undertake testing. If internal competency testing was to a sufficient standard within the community then employers should be positively encouraging employees to undertake external and independent competency testing. Surely, such external testing should be seen to complement and reinforce the internal training processes and practices of the employers?
3.3. Proposed Certificates of Competence
Professionals in the firearms community can be required to undertake a wide range of activities as part of their job description. The opinions of the authors, supported by those of the respondents voiced previously in this section, therefore highlight that any certificates developed for this community need to be flexible to some extent, developed in key yet potentially niche areas and be cost-effective to ensure that certificates are marketable and applicable to the range of professionals within the community. As a result, The Society intends to target specific duties in the first instance. To determine which duties/areas of competence should be prioritised in future certificate development, respondents were asked the following three questions.
i. In which areas of forensic toolmark/firearm examination and/or GSR analysis do you have experience?
ii. Rank the following duties according to the frequency they are undertaken in your role.
iii. Rank the following areas in order of priority for generation of Certificates of Competence to you as an expert in this field.
Personal internal competency testing appears to be commonly undertaken with re-testing typically occurring annually (13 of 27 respondents) although some externally based re-testing, such as AFTE Certification Programs, occurs once every five years. Five of the respondents may never have their competence re-tested and surprisingly a third of total respondents have not completed any such testing in their current role.
As shown in Figure 3, our research suggests that half of the sole traders typically undertake external competence testing, with the other half not having undertaken any such testing yet. Law enforcement laboratories predominantly provide testing that is set and delivered in-house. The drivers that lead to this practice may include the wish to tailor the test to the roles of the employees, the greater numbers of individuals within the laboratory who require testing and/or the costs associated with external testing. Whilst the authors see the value and logistical benefits of internal competence testing, one must consider how comparable such tests are between laboratories and whether, in the absence of independent external input, there is sufficient evidence that they are fit-for-purpose. Provision of formal qualifications, based on external tests set and marked by experienced professionals within specific areas of the discipline, accredited by The Society and validated through an academic institution could be a way to introduce cost effective, independent competency testing, the standards of which are assured and are same for all who take them.
Figure 3 – Type of personal competency testing undertaken by individuals of various organisations within firearms disciplines.
Currently, there are a number of organisations who provide external competency tests within forensic firearms-related disciplines: Collaborative Testing Services [8], National Ballistics Intelligence Service, AFTE [3], ENFSI [9], FSSoc (Firearms Post-Graduate Diploma [10]) and the Association of Forensic Science Providers. The competency tests available are not comprehensive; they predominantly involve assessment of macroscope and/or microscope skills for firearms and toolmark identification, although there are a few tests assessing ammunition classification, serial number restoration and GSR analysis.
Interestingly, attendance at training seminars and completion of university degree courses were also listed by respondents as providers of competency assessment. However, insufficient information was given in such responses to ascertain whether the classification of these as assessments of personal professional competence was correct.
The CRFP provided assessment of competence through individual casework review. This approach to competency assessment may be preferred or more highly regarded by some professionals than competency testing. The current procedure for the attainment of AcFP status requires candidates who wish to take a Certificate of Professional Competence to go through a prior selection procedure, which is based on their CV, and, after passing the Certificate of Professional Competence, a structured professional interview. Arguably, this combines the benefits of approaches based on casework review with those founded in competency testing.
Based on the research presented in this paper, The Society has identified a range of Certificates of Competence for possible future development. It has considered the likely academic level for each of these based on knowledge of specific individuals’ roles in the forensic firearm community. Academic levels are defined as follows: Level 3 is comparable to A Level (or equivalent), Levels 4 to 6 represent the three consecutive years of a typical full-time Bachelors degree as studied in England and Wales (with Level 5 indicating second year of undergraduate study); Levels 7 and above are equivalent to postgraduate qualifications [11]. Again, due to the commercially sensitive nature of the information gathered during this market research the specifics of these are not detailed in this article.
Our research failed to identify external competency tests for a number of duties undertaken in the forensic firearms community. Furthermore, our research revealed that practitioner opinion is that such testing should be provided to demonstrate personal development and ability. In the first instance, The Society will aim to develop new certificates in four areas for a range of firearms-related professionals. Bearing in mind the extensive range of testing related to some areas of competency that is already available, it is possible that The Society may work with existing providers to adapt their existing competency tests to the format of the existing Certificate of Professional Competence framework.
The final aspect to be addressed and discussed relates to the individuals eligible to undertake the proposed Society certificates. Our research suggests that the majority of professionals (17 respondents) in this community believe certificates should definitely be offered to everyone in the community, ranging from those in training to those who interpret evidence and report as expert witnesses in court. A further 10 individuals indicated that the certificates should only be offered to reporting level officers and eight individuals indicated that such certificates should potentially only be offered to reporting level officers. Understanding the demographic of responses further, it was expected that those undergoing training would typically be in support of offering certificates to all professionals, although it was interesting that those in experienced roles of reporting officer and above also typically supported the certificates being open to all professional levels (Figure 4). When respondents were asked to justify their decision, it was highlighted that not all practitioners in the community professionally progress to reporting level positions and professional competence should be illustrated by all individuals involved in casework regardless of their role in the discipline. A number of individuals also discussed undertaking individual Certificates of Competence as a method to illustrate professional development during their career progression and therefore these certificates should again apply to all roles.
Where individuals were definite that only reporting level officers should undertake the certificates, typical justifications were because individuals in these roles present expert testimony of evidence interpretation in court and therefore the ability to illustrate their interpretive competence is essential. These respondents also mentioned that if those being assessed had not reached reporting officer status through internal assessment then there was potential danger in those individuals providing sub-standard quality of evidence interpretation in future casework. As a result, as previously outlined in Section 1.1, The Society will continue to assess the relevance and background experience of each individual applying to undertake a Certificate of Professional Competence and the area of competence being assessed needs to be taken into account during this process. For example, if a competency such as function testing does not require an individual to be capable of interpreting evidence then an eligible applicant does not need to be of reporting level, but should be able to illustrate practical experience and knowledge of function testing and, potentially, restoration of firearms.
Figure 4 – Opinion of whether all future FSSoc Certificates of Competence should only be offered to reporting level examiners compared to respondent’s most senior role in their current employment.
Based on this research, it is apparent to The Society that it is vital to ensure that relevant practitioners and professionals are aware of the competence tests available to them and it is imperative to illustrate to these individuals the benefits of undertaking such external competency assessment for their continual professional development.
4. Conclusions
The main aim of this research was to determine if there is a need to develop Certificates of Competence in areas of firearms-related forensic disciplines. This was achieved through dissemination of an extensive questionnaire to individual practitioners and professionals working in the forensic firearms community to ascertain their personal opinions relating to personal competency testing, factors influencing completion of such testing and identification of areas in which Certificates of Competence could be developed in the future. Corporate opinions of UK forensic science providers have not been sought during this research.
The overall consensus from respondents within the firearms community is in support of The Society developing these certificates for a range of professionals including firearms examiners, technicians, GSR analysts, armourers and AFOs as well as, potentially, SOCOs. Although a number of areas of competence have been identified by the survey, four of these will be prioritised in the first instance.
Although the design of these certificates is outside the scope of this market research, the opinion given by the professionals, and strongly supported by the authors and The Society, is that the content of all competency tests should be designed by experienced practitioners with practical expertise related to the specific disciplines of assessment. The content of the certificate will be supported by subject specific academics to ensure certificates are academically validated and credible to those who undertake them. Testing also needs to be representative of case scenarios, cost effective and able to be completed in a location convenient to the applicant. In areas of competence where no interpretation of evidence is required, there will be no requirement for the applicant to be a reporting level officer before being allowed to undertake the assessment. However, The Society will consider the applicant’s professional experience prior to accepting a candidate onto one of the Certificates of Competence.
To ensure that Certificates of Competence are completed by professionals in this community, it will be vital that the personal benefits of undertaking such external, independent assessment are promoted by The Society and employers. It will also be important to highlight the value of the Certificate of Professional Competence in the attainment of the AcFP grade of membership within The Society.
Following this research, The Society is now liaising with professionals in the community to design the four Certificates of Competence that are proposed in the first instance. Any experienced professionals interested in working with The Society to develop Certificates of Competence in specific firearms related disciplines or other forensic disciplines are requested to contact The Society directly (e-mail info@forensic-science-society.org or telephone +44 (0)1423 506068).
5. Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The authors would like to thank David Pryor (Forensic Firearms Examiner at Manlove Forensics Ltd.) for his insight, expertise and practical experience in working within this professional community together with Brain Rankin (Teesside University) and Carol Ostell (The Forensic Science Society) for their advice and assistance in devising the strategy for developing future Certificates of Competence and their input to this article.
References
[1] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Dictionaries Online [Online], (2013), available at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british, accessed on 05/09/2013.
[2] AAPA, Professional competence, American Association of Physician Assistants (AAPA), Alexandria, 2010, 2.
[3] AFTE, AFTE Certification Program [Online], (2013) available at http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_certification.htm, accessed on 05/09/2013.
[4] FSSoc, AcFP – Accredited Forensic Practitioner [Online], (2013), available at http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Membership/Accredited, accessed on 05/09/2013.
[5] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Guide for the development of forensic document examination capacity, United Nations, New York, 2010.
[6] M.J. Saks & J.J. Koehler, The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science, Science 309 5736 (2005) 892-895.
[7] C. Welsh & M. Hannis, Are UK undergraduate degrees fit for purpose?, Science & Justice 51 3 (2011) 139-142.
[8] CTS, Firearms and toolmarks [Online], (2013), available at http://www.ctsforensics.com/store/main.aspx?DepartmentId=34, accessed on 10/09/2013.
[9] ENFSI, Quality and Competence Committee [Online], (2013), available at http://www.enfsi.eu/about-enfsi/structure/standing-committees/qcc, accessed on 10/09/2013.
[10] FSSoc, Diploma Information [Online], (2013), available at http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Qualifications/Diplomas, accessed on 10/09/2013.
[11] QAA, The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), Mansfield, 2008.