1. Crime Laboratory System
New York State Police
Crime Laboratory System
NYCLAC Report Standardization Project
Ray Wickenheiser

2. Outline Guidance and Oversight Structure for New York Crime Labs
Report Structure
Standardized Definitions
Standardized Report Wording
Spectrum of Conclusions
Inconclusive – clarifying statements

3. NY State Crime Lab Guidance and Oversight
Commission on Forensic Science
DNA Subcommittee
DCJS (Department of Criminal Justice Services)
NYCLAC (NY Crime Lab Advisory Committee) – Directors of each of 19 crime labs in New York State
TWGs – Technical Working Groups for each of 10 scientific disciplines, plus a QA and a Backlog TWG

4. NY Uniform Reporting Initiative Start
- NAS “Strengthening Forensic Science” Report released February 18th, 2009 recommended establishing terminology to be used in reporting on and testifying about results of forensic science investigations
Also recommended establishing model lab reports for different disciplines and specify the minimum information that should be included
Minimum report requirements: Methods and materials, Procedures, Results, Conclusions (with a scale to indicate level of confidence), Uncertainty of Measurement (where appropriate)

5. NY Uniform Reporting Initiative Start
- Report should have enough guidance to allow the non-scientists reader to understand what has been done and permits informed, unbiased scrutiny of the conclusion
At a meeting of the New York State Justice Task Force in early 2010 it was requested that labs look at making reports more understandable
in response, NYCLAC initiated a “voluntary” Uniform Reporting Initiative
Consider “do this on your own terms rather than be forced to do it under someone else’s” as a proactive measure

6. The Request
- Reports did not contain enough information on methodologies and technologies used
Reports on the same type of evidence vary across the state
Technical terminology was difficult to understand
Conclusions and terms used varied and were inconsistent
NYCLAC met and tasked TWGs with standardization project
At various TWG meetings, individual protocols were collected, compared and discussed
Project structure was established

7. The Goal
- Come up with a standardized reporting system with defined terms and report conclusions that make reports more readable and understandable to our customers

8. The Challenges Labs vary from 3 to 350 employees
Wide customer bases (some multiple Das, others 1 DA, urban, rural, state, local)
Separately evolved systems of nomenclature and reporting
If it works why should I change?
Avoid making reports so unwieldy that the main purpose of the report is lost

9. We need an Easy Read Report!

10. Tasks – Project Structure
- Area I – Standardized Report Components
Area II - Standardized Reporting Language and Statements (qualifiers and disclaimers when necessary)
Area III – Standardized Terms and Definitions

11. Project Area 1: Standardized Report Components
- Unique case identifier on each page (such as lab number)
Title of report (such as “report of laboratory analysis”)
Identification of the laboratory
Submitting agency
List or explanations of items examined
Indication of methodology utilized
Results/conclusions
Date issued, pagination
Signature and title of examiner

12. Statements
- Statement that report does not constitute the entire case file or equivalent
Statement that definitions of terms used in the report can be accessed on the following DCJS website:
Additional discipline specific components:
Locus or amplification system
Disposition of evidence
Quantitative or qualitative interpretive statements

13. Project Area 2: Standardized Report Language/ Statements

14. Project Area 3: Standardized Terms and Definitions

15. Process
- TWGs met numerous times in person and by phone to hammer out differences and produce a set of recommendations
NYCLAC reviewed, consolidated and sent recommendations back to TWGs
Modifications made to document
Document resubmitted for approval to NYCLAC
Accepted for implementation October 01, 2015, with labs to track issues and reconvene in 2015 to review and improve

16. If we wait for consensus…

17. My experience as facilitator
- TWG Trace – former trace evidence examiner
As a member of NYCLAC, I was given the mandate to reduce wording options by working directly with the TWG
Once defined that several words mean the same thing, “pick one or we will pick for you”
Known as a “burning platform”
Consensus at gunpoint

18. Spectrum of Conclusions
- Positive identification or association
Included with some amount of weight
Inconclusive
Negative

19. Examples of refining terms
- Inconclusive (will frequently have a qualifying statement to elaborate)
Not detected/not identified/not present/negative
present/positive/identified/contains/confirms/detected
indistinguishable/consistent/similar/alike/correspond
could have come from/could have originated from/could share a common source/origin with the source
K is not the source of Q / Q could not have been made by K / K is excluded/eliminated as a possible source of Q

20. Definitions
Determined the practicality of offering a link versus including on individual lab websites or with each report

21. The Product:
A work In Progress

22. Acknowledgements
- Bob Adamo, Director of Westchester County Forensic Science Laboratory
NYCLAC
DCJS

23. Thank-you for your kind attention!
Questions?

24. Ray Wickenheiser
NY State Police Crime Lab System
1220 Washington Ave., Building 30
Albany, NY 12226