Vol. 6, No.
1, April 2003
COMM ENTARY/Certification Failure: 27-02-01-06/0304
AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC DOCUMENT
EXAMINERS CERTIFICATION — THE BOSS’ DILEMMA 1
What happens when you hire uncertified personal to train only to have them fail voluntary certification
programs several years after working in the profession.
by Nancy Berthold1
REFERENCES: Berthold, N., "American Board of Forensic Document
Examiners Certification: The Boss' Dilemma," The International
Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 2003, pp.
1-2.
ABSTRACT: The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
certifies voluntary applicants who comply with the Board requirements.
"Certification is based upon the candidate's personal and professional
education, training, experience, and achievement, as well as on the results
of a formal examination process." The application itself is quite daunting
and by design keeps out incompetents and graphoanalysts. The practical
problem portion, which includes some multi-faceted problems, is much
more subjective and there is no "answer sheet. This is one of the problems
associated with the certification process. Another is politics. One
well-known American government laboratory steadfastly refuses to render
definitive determinations when dealing with photocopies. There is a
general absence of standardization in the forensic document profession
which affects the value of the certification process. This is further
compounded by the fact that the tests are not validated, though the Board
has been working on it. There is subjectivity in the evaluation process.
What is a supervisor to do when they encourage their staff to participate
in such certification programs at their own expense only to have them fail?
Should the supervisor reconsider the examiner's standing in the lab?
KEYWORDS: ABFDE, certification, document examination.
What is the ABFDE?
The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners was
incorporated in 1977 to "establish, enhance, and maintain standards of
qualification for those who practice forensic document examination." [1]
It also certifies voluntary applicants who comply with the Board
requirements. In this way, it is felt that the judiciary and the public can
readily identify competent examiners.
"Certification is based upon the candidate's personal and professional
education, training, experience, and achievement, as well as on the results
of a formal examination process."[2] The American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, and
the Canadian Society of Forensic Science are all sponsors of the ABFDE.
One of the stated purposes of the board is "to cooperate with the several
branches of federal and state governments. ..and to secure general
recognition and acceptance of certification by the American Board of
Forensic Document Examiners." [3] This is an important point that this
discussion will return to later in the paper.
What are the basic Qualifications for 'diplomate' status?
Applicants must be of "good moral character, high integrity, and good
1
Presented at the GFS conference in Bingen, Germany, June 2001.
2
Chief Forensic Examiner, US Immigration and Naturalization Service,
ABFDE Director. INS/FDL, Suite 325,8000 Westpark Drive, McLean,
VA 22102, USA; nancy. berthold@usdoj.gov.
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
repute," but there is no background check done. Applicants must be
permanent residents of the US, Canada, Mexico or their territories and
possess a baccalaureate degree "from an institution acceptable to the
Board." [4] A transcript is required along with $250.00 (US) when the
application is filed.
Another interpretive area is that the applicant must show evidence
of a full-time training period of at least 2 years. The applicant also
must supply the names and addresses of 3 document examiners as
references. The applicant needs to be active in the field and
demonstrate a record of "appropriate professional activity." Then the
applicant needs to pass the test.
What does the Test consist of?
After the Credentials Committee has verified the facts as
presented, they submit a recommendation to the Chairperson.
(Applicants may request an appeal of this decision. In fact, as with the
testing itself, anything less than unanimous vote by a committee results
in an automatic appeal.)
The Testing Committee will contact the applicant and request a
desired date to start the process. The entire process must be completed
within 2 years but extensions have been granted. The first part of the
test consists of 50 multiple-choice questions. A passing grade is 70%
or above. The second part is completion of a set of practical problems,
usually 5, to be completed within 30 days (excluding mailing periods).
The candidate must work each problem from notes through to
making demonstrative exhibits. Each committee member reviews the
test results and submits his or her recommendation. Successful
candidates will then need to take the oral examination. The panel must
be composed of 3 diplomates, one of whom shall be a Director. The
candidate is told which 3 problems they will need to present; however,
it is understood that questions may be asked regarding all 5 problems
and any other questioned document questions which would be raised
in a court hearing. The protocol [5] states that the oral examination
should only last between 60 and 90 minutes. After the candidate's
performance is critiqued, the panel deliberates and conveys to the
candidate what their recommendation will be. A full vote of the Board
is required in order to certify a candidate.
Where are the problems with such a system?
The pivotal 'wash-out' point appears to be in the practical problem
area. The application itself is quite daunting and by design keeps out
incompetents and graphoanalysts. The requirement for 3 questioned
document references familiar with one's work can only be
accomplished by an applicant well placed in the field. (Many
applications are initially held up because one of their references failed
to mail in their form.)
In addition, the requirement for a documented 2-year training
period and a 4-year college degree would also exclude all persons with
only a pastime interest in the field. The written test has definite
answers and is easy to grade. However, the practical problem portion,
which includes some multi-faceted problems, is much more subjective
1
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners
and there is no "answer sheet."
There is no requirement that the problems be related to what exams the
examiner routinely performs. In other words, all examiners are assumed
equally proficient in all different sorts of case types and skill areas.
Consequently, an examiner may work a certain type of case for the first
time on the test as a practical exam problem. Some government labs
specialize in certain areas but the Board refuses to accommodate these
specialty areas.
Other concerns, such as note taking, have also entered into the testing
process over time. Simply arriving at the correct answer(s) is not enough.
Politics also enters into the process. One well-known American
government laboratory steadfastly refuses to render definitive
determinations when dealing with photocopies. One of their examiners'
answers reflected this stance and because of this was unable to pass the
practical problem part.
Unlike court (where mistakes are exposed in real life), the committee
does not pass on to the oral exam segment any 'problem' problems. If an
examiner does poorly on a particular problem, he or she receives little to
no direction. He or she may get the same problems returned or new
problems, similar to rejected one(s), to work.
The test is not validated, though the Board has been working on it. The
testing committee does not take the test themselves. However, no 'real'
problems are used anymore so the answers are known. During the last test
group, only 2 out of 6 applicants passed [6]. A change in the rules two
years ago allows examiners to apply right out of training. (Years ago more
experienced examiners were taking the test and this may be contributing
to the poorer showing.)
What is the boss' dilemma?
There are really several dilemmas. The first is recognizing that
certification is beneficial to the organization and deciding to encourage
one's staff and provide funding for its adoption. Unfortunately, the Federal
government "prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the purchase of
professional licenses" [7] and, considering Board certification as a license,
will not reimburse its employees. Yet, certification is not a job
requirement. Since employees can apply for job openings without being
certified and because there are so few qualified people in questioned
documents work in America that uncertified examiners will be hired
regardless, there is little economic incentive to pursue it.
Part of the encouragement a supervisor may provide is in allowing the
employee to complete the testing tasks during work hours. Successful
candidates report that they spend 70 to 80 hours (almost 2 full weeks) on
the practical problem part. Unsuccessful candidates purport to spend 130
-150 hours (three to four weeks) doing their practical problems [8]. The
average manager would be hard pressed to spare any staff for anywhere
from 2 to 4 weeks and this does not include the time spent in written test
study or oral exam preparation! The salary cost involved is also
phenomenal.
The most significant dilemma encountered occurs if, and when, an
examiner, otherwise considered competent and doing good work, fails the
sent back or new set of practical problems. Should the boss reconsider the
examiner's standing in the lab? Should the examiner be dismissed? Will
they ever be 'made whole' either confidence-wise or in court testimony?
Won't they always need to testify to this failing? How, will it affect their
credibility?
When this possible downside is considered, is it any wonder that an
examiner with journeyman level experience of 15+ years has serious
doubts about the benefit of certification? Obviously, such an examiner has
been accepted in court and has been working in the field quite
successfully. They may even be a supervisor themselves. The Board claims
that they do not reveal the names of applicants who fail but, for whatever
reason, the news travels throughout the QD community. In the future, the
Board will probably need to retain the tests rather than destroy them. Then,
2 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
a record will exist forever and will be discoverable.
Another possible decision will be to test the approximately 50%
of diplomates who were never tested. These "grandfathers" will
probably seriously consider retirement ifthis proposal passes. One
thing is for sure, though, that if the test remains in its current form, and
they do not wish to retire, the grandfathers risk losing their
certification.
During the last testing year, 2 of our staffers passed the test; one
recently obtained his certification. However, 3 of our best staffers have
had their tests 'kicked back' and one must withdraw his application or
he will fail. Clearly, as the chief examiner, I need to keep sending the
work out. This situation forces me to sideline certification.
My reasoning is that the process must be flawed if well trained and
productive examiners have failed. Since I am one of the directors, I
need to convince my Board peers that the process is flawed and to fix
the process. So far, I have been unsuccessful in this effort. Because of
this, I have decided to not push certification with our more senior
examiners. They have too much to lose right now.
The Future
"Our forensic examiners testify for the Government as expert
witnesses in criminal court, and it significantly strengthens the
Government's case to be able to say that our forensic examiner is
certified. If not, the defense attorney often challenges whether our
examiners are truly experts in their field. It definitely plants a seed of
doubt with the jury." [9] I still want all 14 of our examiners, 4
contractors and 3 trainees to become certified or maintain their
certification. The annual board meeting is next week and therefore, I
need to take a 'wait and see' approach. The courts will continue to
question the very existence of questioned documents as a science.
Now, more than ever, we need expansive cohesiveness to survive.
Hopefully, the Board will vote for survival.
References
[1] ABFDE Rules and Procedures Guide, "Background, Functions,
and Purposes," p. I-I.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., pps. II-I and 2.
[4] Ibid.,p.I-2.
[5] Ibid., p. 1-15.
[6] Panhorst, Fred. Personal communications to Board directors,
January, 2001.
[7] INS Financial Policy based on Comptroller General Decisions
(Government Accounting Office/OGC-91- 51 /page 4-196-197).
[8] Panhorst, Fred. Post cite.
[9] Sheehan, Kathryn, personal communications, April, 2001.