It seems that the Techno Security conference's addition of a San Diego date was enough of a success that they've announced a conference for 2020. This is good news. I've been to the original Myrtle Beach conference several times. All of the big players in the business set up booths to showcase their latest. For practitioners, it's a good place to network and see what's new in terms of tech and technique.
It's good to see the group growing. Myrtle Beach as a bit of a pain to get to. Adding dates in Texas and California helps folks in those states get access and avoid the crazy travel policies imposed by their respective states. Those crazy travel policies are at the heart of my moving my courses on-line.
The sponsor list is a who's-who of the digital forensics industry. It contains everyone you'd expect, except one - LEVA. Why is LEVA, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, a Gold Sponsor? How is it that a non-profit public benefit corporation has about $10,000 to spend on sponsoring a commercial event?
As I write this, I am currently an Associate Member of LEVA. I'm an Associate Member because, in the view of LEVA's leadership, my retirement from police service disqualifies me from full membership. I've been a member of LEVA for as long as I've been aware of the organization, going back to the early 2000's. I've volunteered as an instructor at their conferences, believing in the mission of practitioners giving back to practitioners. But, this membership year (2019) will be my last. Clearly, LEVA is no longer a non-profit public benefit corporation. Their presence as a Gold Sponsor at this conference reveals their profiteering motive. They've officially announced themselves as a "training provider," as opposed to a charity that supports government service practitioners. Thus, I'm out. Let me explain my decision making on this in detail.
Consider what it will take if you choose to maintain the fiction that LEVA is a membership support / public benefit charity.
- Gold Sponsorship is $6300 for one event, or $6000 per event if the organization commits to multiple events. Let's just assume that they've come in at the single event rate.
- Rooms at the event location, a famous golf resort, are advertised at the early bird rate of $219 plus taxes and fees. Remember, the event is being held in California - one of the costliest places to hold such an event. Taxes in California are some of the highest in the country. Assuming only two LEVA representatives travel to work the event, and the duration of the event, lodging will likely run about a thousand per person.
- Add to that the "per diem" that will be paid to the workers.
- Add transportation to / from / at.
- Consider that, as a commercial entity, LEVA will likely have to give things away - food / drink / swag - to attract attention.
The grand total for all of this will exceed $10,000 if done on the cheap. What's the point of being a Gold Sponsor if one intends to do such a show on the cheap? I know that a two-person showing at a conference, whilst I was with Amped Software, ran between $15,000 and $25,000 per show. But, even at $10,000, what is the benefit to the public - the American taxpayer - by this non-profit public benefit organization's attendance at this commercial event? Hint: there is none.
If LEVA is a membership organization, then it would take an almost doubling of the membership - as a result of this one show - to break even on the event. We all know that's not going to happen.
If you need further convincing, let's revisit their organizational description from the sponsor's page. This is the information that LEVA provided to the host. This is the information LEVA wants attendees at the conference to have about LEVA.
Ignoring the obvious misspelling (we all do it sometimes), this statement is in conflict with the LEVA web site's description of the organization:
"LEVA is a non-profit corporation committed to improving the quality of video training and promoting the use of state-of-the-art, effective equipment in the law …"
First, what is a "global standard?" If you're thinking of an international standard for continuing education and training, the relevant "standards body" might be the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (the IACET). LEVA's programs are not accredited by the IACET. How do I know this? As someone who designs and delivers Competency Based Training, I'm an IACET member. I logged in and checked. LEVA is not listed. You don't have to be a member to check my claim. You can visit their page and see for yourself. Do they at least follow the relevant ANSI / IACET standard for the creation, delivery, and maintenance of Competency Based Training programs? You be the judge.
Is LEVA the "only organization in the world that provides court-recorgnized training in video forensics that leads to certification? Of course not. ANSI is a body that accredits certification programs. LEVA is not ANSI accredited. The International Certification Accreditation Council (ICAC) is another. ICAC follows the ISO/IEC 17024 Standards. LEVA is not accredited by ICAC either. Additionally, the presence of the IAI in the marketplace (providing both training events and a certification program) proves the lie of LEVA's marketing. LEVA is not the "only organization" providing training, it's one of many.
LEVA is not the only organization providing certification either. There' the previously mentioned IAI, as well as the ETA-i. Unlike the IAI and LEVA, the ETI-i's Audio-Video Forensic Analyst certification program (AVFA) is not only accredited, but also tracks with the ASTM's E2659 - Standard Practice for Certificate Programs.
Consider the many "certificates of training" that LEVA issued for my information sessions that I facilitated at it's conferences over the years. I was quite explicit in my describing my presence there, and what the session was - an information session. They weren't competency based training events. Yet, LEVA issued "certificates" for those sessions and many of the attendees considered themselves "trained." Section 4.2 of ASTM E2659 speaks to this problem.
Further to the point, Section 4.3 of ASTM E2659 notes "While certification eligibility criteria may specify a certain type or amount of education or training, the learning event(s) are not typically provided by the certifying body. Instead, the certifying body verifies education or training and experience obtained elsewhere through an application process and administers a standardized assessment of current proficiency or competency." The ETA-i meets this standard with it's AVFA certification program. So does the IAI. LEVA does not.
We'll ignore the "court-recognized" portion as completely meaningless. "The court" has "recognized" every copy of my CV ever submitted - if by "recognized" you mean "the Court" accepted its submission - as in, "yep, there it is." But, courts in the US do not "approve" certification or training programs. To include the "court-recognized" statement is just banal.
If you wish, dive deeper into ASTM E2659. Section 5.1 speaks to organizational structure. In 5.1.2.1, the document notes: "The certificate program’s purpose, scope, and intended outcomes are consistent with the stated mission and work of the certificate issuer." Clearly, that's not true in LEVA's case. Are they a non-profit public benefit corporation or are they a commercial training and certification provider? This is an important question for ethical reasons. As a non-profit public benefit organization, they're entitled to many tax breaks not available to commercial organizations. As a non-profit, working in the commercial sphere, they receive an unfair advantage when competing in the market by not having to pay federal taxes on their revenue. Didn't we all take an ethics class at some point? I understand Jim Rome's "if you're not cheating, you're not trying" statements as relates to the New England Patriots and other sports franchises. But this isn't sports. Given their sponsorship statement, LEVA should dissolve as a non-profit public benefit organization and reconstitute itself as a commercial training provider and certificate program.
The commercial nature of LEVA is reinforced by their first ever publicly released financial statement and it's tax filings. More than 80% of it's efforts are training related. It's officers have salaries. It's instructors are paid (not volunteers). Heck, almost 50% of it's expenses are for travel. On paper, LEVA looks like a subsidized travel club for select current / former government service employees.
Then there's the question of the profit. For a non-profit public benefit organization, it's profits are supposed to be rolled back into it's mission of benefiting the public. Nothing about the financial statement shows a benefit to the public. Also, the "Director Salaries" is a bit of a typo. Only one director gets paid. That $60,000 goes to one person. And, on LEVA's 2017 990 filing with the IRS, the director was paid $42,000. Given the growth in revenue from 2017, the 70% raise was likely justified in the minds of the Board of Directors. If you are wondering about the trend, you're out of luck. The IRS' web site only lists two years of returns (2017 & 2018) - meaning it's likely none were filed for years previous.
Another issue with LEVA's status as a non-profit public benefit organization is that of giving back to the community. In all of the publicly available 990 filings, the forms show zero dollars given in grants or similar payouts.
 |
| 2017 |
 |
| 2018 |
No monies given as grants yet, their current filing shows quite a bit in savings.
 |
| 2018 Cash on Hand |
Clearly, LEVA will not miss my $75 annual dues payment with that kind of cash laying around.
If you're still here, let's move away from the financial and go a little farther down in Section 5. In 5.2.1.1 (11), LEVA necessarily and spectacularly fails in terms of (11) - nondiscrimination. LEVA, by it's very nature, discriminates in it's membership structure. It discriminates against anyone who is not not a current government service employee or a "friend of LEVA." This active discrimination (arbitrary classes of members and the denial of membership to those not deemed worthy) would disqualify it from accreditation by any body that uses ASTM E2659 as it's guide.
All of this informs my decision to not renew my LEVA membership. I am personally very charitable. But, I have no intention of giving money to a commercial enterprise that competes with my training offerings. Besides, given their balance sheet, they certainly don't need my money. It's not personal. It's a proper business decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment