Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links
Publications

What We Do Police HMIC

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Fingerprint Bureau: Primary Inspection 2000

3. Resources

3.1 Impact on Service Provision

3.1.1 HMIC found that a backlog has accrued in scene of crime work awaiting attention by fingerprint experts. This includes 703 cases from 1998 (1 July to 31 December) and 1957 cases from 18 February 2000. Efforts were being made to address this but these have now been suspended. This is to allow staff to focus on cases from the current year (2000) in an attempt to stop a similar backlog accruing. At December 1998 the backlog was 7500 cases.

3.1.2 In March 1999, SCRO returned 995 cases to forces for searching locally. Four forces; Central Scotland Police, Fife Constabulary, Grampian Police and Tayside Police, began searching their own AFR cases from April 1999, following the purchase of three AFR terminals, two located at Perth and one at Aberdeen.

3.1.3 In June 1999 SCRO asked forces for further assistance, which they were unable to provide at that time.

3.1.4 In December 1999, Grampian Police, having cleared a backlog previously returned to them from SCRO in respect of their own cases, accepted 57 Northern Constabulary cases. Some of these were 1998 cases and at the time of pre-inspection, HMIC found that this work was almost complete.

3.1.5 Lothian and Borders Police fingerprint bureau is currently dealing with the 'Enigma cases' which had been sent to SCRO. These cases involve scenes of crime marks from a group of serious and undetected cases of violence in England and Wales. They were forwarded to SCRO for special searching against the Scottish database.

3.1.6 The above situation with backlogs has developed over a period where the number of cases received at SCRO has fallen by 11%. Although this reduction is in part due to the four forces previously named undertaking their own AFR searches since April 1999, it is also the result of a 7.7% reduction in the number of cases submitted by Strathclyde Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary.

3.1.7 As a result of insufficient fingerprint experts at SCRO to cope with the current caseload, various other short-term strategies have been implemented in an effort to address this situation. This has had a significant impact on the extent of service provision. Examples of the approaches that have been tried include the following:

• Marks from non-serious crimes are now deleted from the AFR database after 3 years

• Suspension of Tenprint to Mark searches for recidivists. (Mark to mark searches were already limited to those specifically requested by investigating officers.)

• Single searching only of volume crime, thus the mark is not 're-launched' at the database.

• Telephone results only for serious crime. (When an identification was made and confirmed, then in the past staff at SCRO used to telephone the force and notify officers of the identification before confirming it in writing )

3.1.8 A redefinition of work practices and processes has resulted in other steps being taken in an effort to maximise the availability of experts for expert work. Despite these measures (and not all are acting in favour of victims and the efficacy of the criminal justice system) the demands continue to outstrip the capacity of the organisation to service them. HMIC recommends that the APRT scope the demands now and into the near future to determine the staff levels required. This exercise should include maximising the value that fingerprint evidence has for the prevention and detection of crime and take full account of available and emerging technological advances.

3.2 Budget

3.2.1 SCRO is a common police service which is funded 50% by central government. The other 50% is provided on a pro rata basis by Scottish Police Forces. The budget for SCRO for 2000/2001 is £5.082m. Figure 3 above shows the proportion of contributions by each of the eight Scottish forces to the SCRO budget.

Figure 3

3.2.2 The budget is administered by the Deputy Director and the out-turn is monitored on a monthly or more regular basis as required. The budget allocation leaves SCRO little scope for manoeuvre and any large-scale project tends to be centrally funded.

3.2.3 The Strathclyde Police auditors on behalf of the Scottish Executive carry out financial audits in respect of SCRO. The Executive committee is presented with financial information, with day to day management of the budget devolved to the Deputy Director.

3.3 Establishment

3.3.1 There were 29 fingerprint experts employed within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau at the time of the inspection. This represents about 41% of the total number of fingerprint experts employed by the police in Scotland. The breakdown of the current location of these experts is illustrated in Figure 2 in Chapter 2, page 21.

3.3.2 During 1998/99, the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau had 26 fingerprint experts, which is eight experts short of the figure previously regarded as its 'authorised establishment' figure of 32, a deficit of 26%. In addition to staff leaving, nine experts were re-deployed on Livescan work. As the SCRO Annual Report for 1998/99 highlighted, this combined loss resulted in a reduced strength of 55% in respect of experts available to undertake crime scene mark examination. At the time of the inspection, the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau had 29 fingerprint experts.

3.3.3 Although the identified shortage relates to a previous 'authorised establishment', the evidence suggests this under-represents the need for qualified experts at the bureau. (see paragraph 3.1 above)

3.4 Overtime

3.4.1 HMIC was informed that fingerprint staff within the SCRO bureau had worked 5281.25 hours overtime in 1999/2000. This amounted to £78,625.30 in overtime payments. Between April 2000 and the inspection visit in May 2000, £18,000 has been spent on overtime. This money comes from the unpaid salaries of the 6.5 fingerprint expert posts, which are currently vacant. HMIC supports the view of SCRO management that given the nature of the task the working of overtime should be seen as a short term solution to what has now become a long term problem for SCRO, that is, its ability to attract fingerprint experts. This recruitment problem is being addressed in a number of ways and this is discussed in Chapter 4.

3.5 Qualification Period for Expert Status

3.5.1 The current position is that, throughout Scotland, trainee fingerprint officers, having successfully completed their trainee-ship and the relevant training courses, will be recommended for expert status. This recommendation is made to the Scottish Executive by the head of their respective fingerprint bureau. Scottish Ministers under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 give authorisation. The Act relates to the authorisation of forensic scientists, which includes fingerprint experts, for the purpose of allowing their evidence to be submitted by way of a joint report.

3.5.2 During this process, the Scottish Executive consults the Crown Office and authorisation is approved providing certain criteria are fulfilled. These criteria did include "5 years continuous experience in a recognised fingerprint bureau, plus the successful completion of the advanced fingerprint course at the National Training School at Durham." Experts from Scottish forces attend this course but SCRO experts have not attended since 1993, attending an in-house training course instead. SCRO provided reasons to the Scottish Executive for this and the SCRO training programme was accepted by the Scottish Executive as fulfilling the necessary criteria.

3.5.3 The five-year trainee-ship still applies to both SCRO and force experts. The five-year period is more traditional (it takes time) than rational (level of expertise exhibited) and consideration has recently been given to reducing this qualification period. For a number of reasons there is a growing acceptance that a 'time based' measure of experience and skills level is not the appropriate criteria for acceptance of a fingerprint expert and that some trainee fingerprint officers are of a calibre that they could properly perform the role of expert much earlier. In addition, HMIC found that SCRO fingerprint trainees are required to carry out routine administrative tasks in the absence of the required level of administrators, and force trainees are carrying out scenes of crime duties. The time spent on these tasks is included in the 5 years of "fingerprint experience" when it is clearly not the type of experience originally envisaged. HMIC supports the move towards a competency-based standard for expert qualification and recommends early progress towards this goal. (see also recommendation 22, paragraph 8.11.5)

3.5.4 HMIC also questions the relevance of the current authorisation process outlined above. While the submission of expert evidence by way of joint report is of benefit to the court process as well as the experts involved and their employer, their "authorisation" at present amounts to no more than this. While a database is maintained by the Scottish Executive of the authorised forensic scientists, there is no breakdown within this as to how many of these "scientists" are fingerprint experts. The majority of the people listed are forensic scientists working within the various police laboratories in Scotland. It would also appear that "authorisation" is a formality providing that the expert meets the set criteria. As described above, these criteria can be changed to suit the organisation to which the expert belongs which detracts from any notion that the candidate's competency or eligibility for expert status is being subject to any independent scrutiny. The reason for the Scottish Executive's referral of the recommendation to Crown Office is also unclear when in practice Crown Office seem only to require that the candidate meets the set criteria.

3.5.5 While the need for compliance with the legislation is acknowledged, in order that evidence may be submitted by way of joint report, HMIC recommends that the concept of "authorisation" needs further consideration. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 of this report (page 86) in relation to the potential role of the National Registration Council.

3.6 Succession Planning

3.6.1 Many of the senior fingerprint experts at SCRO are approaching retirement and consideration is being given to succession planning. SCRO management is aware that this poses a further challenge to staffing levels and this has been one of the drivers behind the recruitment of the tenprint identification staff (see 3.7 below) who are seen as having the potential to provide a pool of trainee fingerprint experts. This re-structuring has offered the prospect of some relief but great importance attaches to the work of scoping the need (paragraph 3.1.8 above) and then having an action plan to rigourously pursue its fulfilment.

3.7 Recruitment of Tenprint Identification Officers

3.7.1 HMIC noted the recruitment in 1999 of sixteen Tenprint Identification Officers (TIOs). The main function of the TIO is to provide support within the fingerprint bureau in the coding, searching and comparison of tenprints received at SCRO. The TIOs work a shift system to provide a 24 hour service in relation to Livescan and AFR. Although not fingerprint experts, TIOs receive training in all the main areas of fingerprint examination. The recruitment of these officers was intended to and succeeded in the release of fingerprint experts from Livescan and AFR work to focus on crime scene mark comparisons.

3.7.2 As already indicated the introduction of the role of Tenprint Identification Officer is also seen by SCRO as a means of creating a pool of potential trainee fingerprint officers where individuals are given the opportunity to demonstrate their potential for selection and training as experts.

3.8 Accommodation

3.8.1 HMIC found that the staff within the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau were working in less than ideal conditions in terms of the extent and quality of the working space available to individuals. While experts have their own desk they are situated close together and all are located in a large open plan office where the atmosphere is one of bustle and not conducive to the nature of the work which the staff are undertaking. A recent report by the Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification (IEEGFI) recommended that the environment in which a fingerprint expert works is "one which should exclude the possibility of outside influences and pressures."

3.8.2 Staff commented adversely upon the bustling environment in which they work (although there was an air of acceptance) and are looking forward to the move to new premises with the clear expectation that their working environment will be significantly improved. Ironically, as is often the case, the poor conditions can tend to engender some sense of unity.

3.8.3 HMIC visited the new premises which were being fitted out and they should provide staff with a much-improved working environment. It will also offer a real opportunity for the development of the new corporate identity and independence that this report recommends. The re-location provides an excellent opportunity for the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau (or its re-structured 'equivalent') to re-establish (or establish) itself as the provider of a fully efficient and effective fingerprint service.

3.9 Workload

3.9.1 The SCRO Fingerprint Bureau is unable to cope with the current workload due to a shortage of fingerprint experts. There are currently 703 cases from 1998 which have not been examined by experts. The backlog from February 2000 amounts to 1957 cases. The backlog is all in the scene of crime workload awaiting expert examination. Efforts to clear these backlogs have now been put on hold and staff are currently employed in trying to manage the current caseload. This situation is clearly unsatisfactory and of particular concern considering the number of cases received at SCRO fell by 11% during 1999/2000.

3.9.2 It was stressed that serious crime is prioritised and because of this approach, since January 2000, experts who would normally work on volume crime cases had been re-deployed to serious crime cases. As a result of that diversion from volume crime cases, a backlog on current cases had accrued.

3.9.3 Figure 4 below shows the number of cases received at SCRO between 1995/1996 and 1999/2000. A "case" consists of the fingerprint evidence relating to a particular crime. This may range from one latent finger impression found at the point of entry to a housebreaking (a crime scene mark) to hundreds of crime scene marks found at the scene of a murder. Crime scene marks may be also be accompanied by elimination fingerprints taken from witnesses and/or details of suspects. All the material relating to the particular crime is part of the "case" received at the fingerprint bureau. This explanation accounts for the variance between the number of "cases" received at SCRO (shown in Figure 4) and the number of "marks" shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Cases Received at SCRO: All Eight Scottish Forces

Figure 5: Marks Received at SCRO: All Eight Scottish Forces

Figure 6: Fingerprint Bureau Case Workload 1999/2000

3.9.4 The number of marks received over the same five year period follows a similar trend which is shown in Figure 5 below.

3.9.5 While Figure 4 above shows a downward trend this has now reversed and there has been a steady rise in the number of cases received in the first quarter of the year 2000. Figure 6 below shows the Fingerprint Bureau Caseload for the year 1999/2000

Tenprints

3.9.6 Figure 7 below shows the rise in the number of tenprints received at SCRO over the ten year period between 1990 and 1999/2000.

Figure 7: Number of tenprints received at SCRO 1990 - 1999/2000

3.9.7 Figure 8 shows the number of tenprints received at SCRO between 1995/1996 and 1999/2000.

Figure 8: Number of tenprints received at SCRO 1995/96 - 1999/2000

< Previous | Contents | Next >

The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.

For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.