In 1982, only 14 states in the U.S. had a minimum legal drinking age of 21 years old. In 1984, the federal government enacted the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which restricted the purchase of alcoholic beverages to any persons under the age of 21. However, to not violate the 21st Amendment, the minimum legal drinking age was ultimately left to the discretion of the states—with a big caveat. The government said any state that chose not to comply with the act would have up to 10% of its federal highway funds withheld; anywhere from $8 million to $99 million, depending on the size of the state. By 1988, all 50 states had raised their minimum legal drinking age to 21.
That is what you call a very effective incentive—a blueprint the forensic industry can learn from and adopt, according to forensic expert and consultant Brian Gestring.
Gestring, who has held various roles in the last three decades including forensic lab scientist, academic and now training consultant with 4N6 Services, recently authored a paper published in Forensic Science International: Synergy detailing his perspective on creating infrastructure and incentives to increase quality in forensic science.
Fourteen years after the NAS report seemingly demolished the forensic industry, questions are still being raised, sub-disciplines are still being eliminated and there is still no national system to ensure quality, compliance and reliability. At the time, the NAS report recommended that all forensic laboratories should be accredited. However, in 2023, that is still not the case.
Gestring argues that can be corrected by following the blueprints laid out by other high-consequence industries like aviation, nuclear power and transportation—and yes, those blueprints include incentives.
“To successfully use an ‘Infrastructure and Incentive’ model, it is necessary to break the overall goal of
achieving and maintaining accreditation into smaller objectives that lead to the overall goal and to provide a defined timeline,” said Gestring.
In his perspective article, Gestring outlines a 5-year path to obtain accreditation and take advantage of the economies of scale caused by so many unaccredited providers doing the same thing at the same time. Part of this 7-Step process involves creating targeted new grants to help agency’s overcome short-term financial obstacles, as well as restricting state, county and municipal access to existing criminal justice and forensic science grants if established accreditation goals are not being met.
Gestring describes the accreditation process as follows:
“Step 1: Unaccredited providers purchase copies of the appropriate ISO/IEC standard (17020/17025) and identify top and key Management. This should be accomplished within the first 12 months. Nominal grant funding can be made available for agencies to make these purchases and grant funding should be restricted from those agencies that continue to provide forensic services without taking these initial simple steps.
Step 2: The agency must implement Standard Operating Procedures including a training program, a quality program, and a system for performing internal audits within the first 18 months. Since many agencies across the country will be at the same point, this is where it makes sense for the Federal Government to take advantage of the economies of scale and develop model documents that agencies can evaluate, modify to their own needs, and implement. Grant funding should be restricted from agencies that continue to provide forensic services without having these documents in place.
Step 3: The implementation of an annual proficiency testing program for all examiners and having an appropriate corrective action process in place. Grant funding should be restricted from agencies that continue to provide forensic services without having proficiency testing and corrective action processes in place within 24 months.
Step 4: The agency must undergo an internal audit. The agency will utilize its own staff to evaluate its own operations based on the management documents that it created. The internal audit should be conducted within the first 30 months to avoid grant disruptions. Again, grant funding should be restricted from agencies that have not completed an internal audit by the 30-month mark.
Step 5: The agency must undergo an external audit. Because so many agencies will be at the same point in the process, agencies can exchange personnel to meet this goal. This will have the added benefit of staff seeing different approaches to achieving compliance with the accreditation standards and breaking down the silos that often develop between different agencies. External audits should be completed by the 36th month to avoid disruptions in grant funding.
Step 6: The agency must apply for accreditation within 48 months. Accreditation providers will receive a large uptick of applications but by this point, they will have had four years to scale up their operations and a defined number of applicants for at least three years. Grant funding should be restricted from agencies that have not applied for accreditation by the 48-month mark.
Step 7: Agencies must have either achieved accreditation or be in the final stages of remediating issues that would preclude accreditation by 60 months to avoid losing federal grant funding.”
“While it will take a substantial commitment of resources to resolve these long-standing issues, it is possible to facilitate significant quality improvements to all areas of practice in a relatively short period of time with a nominal investment,” concludes Gestring. “Implementing a system of infrastructure and incentives can overcome the perils of voluntary compliance until a more formal structure can be created.”