No matter how good a system purchased the following factors will determine accuracy

In my earlier blog, I discussed accuracy issues inherent in all automated fingerprint identification systems. Now I’d like to discuss what many states fail to realize, system accuracy it is not based solely on the hardware purchased. The factors that most influence system accuracy and performance are usually determined by the choices made by the agency representative(s) during the development of the RFP. There is no doubt that the FBI system is the gold standard in automated fingerprint identification systems, based on the high standards of fingerprint quality they can require for submitted fingerprint cards. Lets look at some of the other factors which significantly impact system accuracy:

The training and experience of the individuals processing the arrest cards. The FBI and NYS have excellent training programs which include in-service, proficiency and remediation training, after the ten print examiner has completed a basic pattern recognition/verification course. Not all states have formalized training programs with many states only requiring the basic course. Agencies should be pro-active in requiring training( in-service, proficiency and remediation programs) to insure the work being produced and entered into the database is accurate.

Staffing and work flow is another area that will impact the accuracy of a system. State production standards and work flows are designed to get the maximum number of fingerprint cards through the system as fast as possible. This means that many systems are designed to default to a hit/miss determination with just a click of the mouse, not requiring the examiner to pause before making the critical decision. An examiner pushing to surpass production targets is prone to error. Contrast this with a latent examiner who can spend a few minutes or a few hours making a determination on a possible identification.

Single vs. double verification of an identification. The FBI and NYS systems initially used a single verification when processing fingerprint cards in the automated fingerprint identifications systems. Both systems moved to a double verification after the error rate using the single verification procedure led to dramatic increases in bad identifications. Many states however rely on a single verification in ten-print processing, these systems are prone to error. I would also point out that as states continue to increase the number of non-criminal cards processed, $ liability exposure for the state increases.

Database maintenance, the FBI makes available to the state records that may be discrepant. While these discrepant record lists are useful, not all states follow-up and reconcile these records. Since the FBI does not have all the state cards (poor quality and many app’s) the FBI list is only a partial reconciliation list. States should have a database reconciliation plan to insure the integrity of the database records. I know of one system where there were 1,200 records with only fingerprint images, no alpha-numeric data (no name,dob,date fingerprinted, reason fingerprinted) but the fingerprints were part of the search database. NY state by contrast has a program that runs regularly scheduled computerized checks of the database to locate and correct discrepant records, in addition to monthly reconciliation with the FBI list of discrepant records.

What I am amazed at is there are no minimum training standards from the FBI for state ten-print examiners, these examiners through the state system are actually entering fingerprints into the national database. All of the factors described above could be addressed at very little, if any additional, cost to agencies. The training, proficiency and remediation costs for ten-print examiners could be handled by any agencies current training budget, it would only require a knowledgeable person setting it up the training/remediation programs. The double verification at agencies with a small staff could be accomplished using lights out technology, and slight adjustment to the current work flow. Agencies pushing production, need to realize how consequential ten print errors can be, the devastating and dramatic effect on public safety as well as the liability exposure to the agency. We’ll discuss latent searches in more detail in the future, but remember the ten print database integrity is critical to latent searching and accuracy (GIGO).

Note, what I have found is an agency that utilizes people with a limited knowledge of how the automated fingerprint identification system works, in the end, spend more money on a more unreliable system.