A proportionate approach to accreditation for sole traders and small-to-medium providers of forensic services — a UK versus Australian perspective

In my editorial for volume 48, number 4 of the Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences¹ I commented on the recent UK Home Office report entitled ‘Forensic Science Strategy. A National Approach to Forensic Science Delivery in the Criminal Justice System’². In the ministerial foreword to this report, the Rt Hon Mike Penning, the Minister for Policing, Fire and Criminal Justice and Victims, stated that, ‘there is, more than ever, a need for us to look to the skills and innovative practices that exist elsewhere in order to help counter the threats we face’ adding that this strategy shows ‘how we intend to reshape the current landscape towards a modern forensic science provision.’ Anyone reading this report can be left in no doubt that landscape will be defined by, and driven by, delivering services at reduced cost and that this will involve a significant role for the private sector. The majority of services will be procured through a National Forensic Framework Next Generation (NFFNG) managed by the UK’s Home Office based on a ‘competitive marketplace’. ‘Suppliers’ in this NFFNG framework are (or will) have to be accredited to international quality standards and the Codes of Practice set by the Forensic Science Regulator.

The June 2016 issue of Interfaces³ (published by The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, CSFS) reports some interesting statistics that give some insight to the ‘suppliers’ of forensic services in England and Wales. In response to a survey, conducted of members of the CSFS, 32% of responders were sole traders, 34% employed from 2–9 staff, nearly 14% were ‘small-to-medium’ employers (SME) of 10–49 staff, 8% employed between 50–249 staff and only 12% were considered large employers. The survey did not provide information on what percentage of the ‘market’ each group delivered. At present 65% of providers were not currently accredited or working towards accreditation and less than half even had written standard operating procedures! In terms of the types of casework conducted, over 45% were classified as ‘other’. Although ‘other’ was not defined, I assume these would include specialised types of analysis or examinations. This survey was conducted to help inform an engagement workshop run by the CSFS aimed at introducing and developing sole traders and SMEs to ISO accreditation. The major barriers for these groups to accreditation were seen as cost and time. The goal of the CSFS was to support its members by looking at effective ways to reduce the workload, and hence, cost, to sole traders and SMEs by developing cost-effective off-the-shelf products. Whilst recognising the need for a proportionate approach it would appear that accreditation will sooner than later be a mandatory requirement for all forensic ‘suppliers’ in the UK forensic ‘market’.

Clearly, Australia in the main has not followed the market driven pathway for forensic science delivery seen in England and Wales. The purpose of this editorial commentary is not to compare models of forensic delivery, or the underlying causes of divergent pathways followed in specific jurisdictions, but it does recognise that the drivers impacting on all jurisdictions are largely the same. These include the search for quicker, more focused (or at least ‘fit for purpose’) and cheaper forensic services. As I have discussed elsewhere⁴ there are potential trade-offs and arguably pitfalls for the unwary in how these goals are achieved. However, I doubt there would be any argument that one outcome of the last decade or so has been that many specialisations and analyses are being delivered by a much larger number of suppliers, most of whom are sole traders or SME’s, often from an academic environment. Few would hold formal accreditation to ISO standards.

In Australia the forensic community has recognised this fact, and through the National Institute of Forensic Sciences (NIFS) has developed a policy for Centres of Specialisation (CoS) as a ‘pragmatic and cost effective model for nationalising specialist forensic services’⁵. NIFS envisages that service delivery will be the main focus of the scheme but it expects that successful centres may also:

4.1 undertake innovative research and development that enhances forensic capabilities and knowledge within the specialised field

4.2 develop relationships and build new networks with major international agencies thereby strengthening capabilities and achieving global recognition, and,

4.3 (through reputation) serve as points of interaction across law enforcement agencies, governments, higher education institutes, industry and the private sector.

Whilst NIFS would ‘confer’ an honorary, but recognised, title of ‘Centre of Specialisation’ (CoS) it would not be a formal or legally binding agreement. NIFS would maintain a register of CoSs with the aim of encouraging service rationalisation and market efficiencies. With respect to accreditation, some CoS could be within forensic organisations that already hold ISO 17025 accreditation, for example, in specialisations such as the microscopic examination of hairs, or the examination of fibres. As the potential scope of CoS extends beyond direct service delivery, specific forensic accreditation may not always be appropriate. Generally, forensic organisations in Australia are accredited through the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). The NATA forensic programme does not allow organisations to have some disciplines (to be strictly accurate ‘tests’) accredited and others not accredited (although this option is open to other NATA programs). However, it does not preclude an accredited organisation outsourcing tests where the organisation does not have the in-house expertise. The only restriction is that an organisation cannot include results from such testing in their own NATA-approved reports. A good example of this approach in practice is the Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science (CAFSS) which has offered services from around 2010. Although not a mandatory requirement, the NIFS CoS framework does state that ‘the applying organisation should, where possible, be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 standard’.

In summary, the approaches followed in Australia and in England and Wales have more in common than they have differences. They both recognise that forensic services are no longer ‘owned’ by a very small number of large organisations and that there is a legitimate role for smaller specialist ‘suppliers’. Both approaches recognise that the integrity of forensic work will require all suppliers, regardless of size, to meet the expected quality standards and seek, through somewhat different strategies, to ensure a ‘proportionate’ pathway for smaller suppliers to meet the expected standards. The CSFS is to be applauded for its proactive role in providing support to its members who fall into the sole trader or SME space. This is an example of the CSFS providing services in its role as a professional society and perhaps an example that the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society (ANZFSS) may wish to consider in moving to professionalise their society⁶.

James Robertson
Editor
[email protected]