STRENGTHENING THE FORENSIC SCIENCES

National Science and Technology Council

Committee on Science

Subcommittee on Forensic Science
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

ii

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502

Dear Colleagues:

We are pleased to release the report “Strengthening the Forensic Sciences.” This 

report represents the first set of research findings and conclusions from the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Forensic Science, covering issues 

relating to laboratory accreditation, certification of forensic science and medicolegal 

personnel, proficiency testing, and ethics. The detailed and comprehensive exploration of 

modern forensic science embarked on by this Subcommittee has broadened the breadth of 

foundational knowledge and situational awareness in the agencies, informing a 

meaningful framework for future analysis and coordination. This report details some of 

the Subcommittees findings and work products to inform collaborative dialogue on 

matters that will serve to enhance forensic science policy, research, and practice moving 

forward.

It is the expectation of the Committee on Science that the material collated here 

will prove useful to policy makers in government as well as forensic scientists, laboratory 

managers, and other practitioners working together to strengthen the forensic sciences—

and to the recently created National Commission on Forensic Science, which is wellpositioned to consider these and other findings as it prepares to provide policy advice to 

the U.S. Attorney General.

Sincerely,

___________________________________________ __5-2-14______

Philip Rubin, OSTP (Co-Chair, COS) Date

____________________________________________ ___5-1-14_____

Francis Collins, NIH (Co-Chair, COS) Date
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

iii

About the National Science and Technology Council

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive 

Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse components of the Federal 

research and development enterprise. A primary objective of the NSTC is establishing clear 

national goals for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares research and 

development strategies that are coordinated across Federal agencies to form investment 

packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. The work of the NSTC is organized 

through five committees: Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability; Homeland and 

National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education; Science; and 

Technology. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups focused on 

different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc.

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and 

Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s responsibilities include 

advising the President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which 

science and technology are important elements; articulating the President’s science and 

technology policy and programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and 

local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP 

also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and manages the NSTC. More 

information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp .

About the Subcommittee on Forensic Science 

The purpose of the Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS) was to advise and assist the National 

Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, and other coordination bodies of the 

Executive Office of the President on policies, procedures, and plans related to forensic science at 

the Federal, state, and local levels. The SoFS coordinated a robust effort across Federal, state, 

and local agencies to identify and address important policy, program, and budget matters, as well 

as potential activities to enhance and/or amalgamate forensic science initiatives that support 

research and development; training, education, and ethics; accreditation and certification; and 

standards of practice. Activities of the SoFS were coordinated through five interagency working 

groups (IWGs). The IWGs were each chartered with distinct objectives, and their deliberative 

processes included research and analysis into particular issues of impact that could be 

incorporated into policy proposals. The Subcommittee’s findings and work products will inform 

efforts to enhance future forensic science policy, research, and practice.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

iv

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

1. ACCREDITATION OF FORENSIC SERVICE PROVIDERS................................................................3

2. CERTIFICATION OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS............................................................................9

3. CERTIFICATION OF MEDICOLEGAL PERSONNEL....................................................................14

4. PROFICIENCY TESTING OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS.................................................................20

5. A NATIONAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR FORENSIC SERVICE PROVIDERS ..........................................24

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................26
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

1

INTRODUCTION

In response to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the 

United States: A Path Forward,

1

the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)

coordinated the establishment of the Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SoFS). It was chartered in July, 

2009, and completed its work on December 31, 2012. For 3 years, the SoFS membership actively pursued 

the investigation and analysis of critical issues that can inform a coordinated and meaningful response to 

the NAS report. Their detailed and comprehensive exploration has broadened the breadth of 

foundational knowledge and situational awareness, thereby informing a meaningful framework for 

analysis. This report details some of their findings and work products that can inform collaborative 

dialogue on matters that will serve to enhance forensic science policy, research, and practice. Through 

its analysis, the SoFS recognized that many of the issues under consideration cross-cut multiple 

recommendations of the NAS report. Accordingly, in many cases, their work products relate to one or 

more NAS report recommendations. It should be noted that the Administration is extremely active in 

pursuing all issues that impact forensic science and this report does not represent all work currently being 

pursued to improve and maximize the value of forensic science in the United States. 

The SoFS was comprised of nearly 200 subject matter experts across all levels of government. 

Participation spanned 23 Federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Commerce, 

Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, 

Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, 

Smithsonian Institution, United States Postal Service, and intelligence community. In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Open Government Directive, which outline the importance of 

participation and collaboration with state and local government partners, the SoFS engaged 49 advisory

members across the its IWGs, a unique process to the NSTC that underscored the recognition that nearly 

95 percent of forensic science examinations are performed at the state and local level. This engagement 

provided a more formal and consistent mechanism for consideration of unique perspectives and input 

from the broader practitioner, criminal justice, and academic communities. 

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUPS

To carry out the work of the SoFS, four IWGs were chartered to align with the 13 recommendations of the 

NAS report, and one for the purpose of outreach. The IWG process included receiving information from 

a multitude of stakeholders including state and local advisory members, national associations and 

organizations representing the forensic science and medicolegal death investigation communities, 

academia, private industry, and other entities.

Accreditation, Certification Interagency Working Group (AC IWG)

 

1 National Research Council of the National Academies. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A 

Path Forward, Washington, DC, 2009.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

2

A primary goal of the AC IWG was to consider the recommendation regarding mandatory, universal 

accreditation for all forensic science providers. The AC IWG also considered implications related to 

mandatory certification of forensic science service practitioners and the role of proficiency tests as a part 

of a quality management system. 

Standards, Practices, and Protocols Interagency Working Group (SPP IWG)

The SPP IWG considered the very complex issues associated with standards and standards development 

in forensic science to include standards of practice, vocabulary, and forensic science reports. The group 

also analyzed the current infrastructure that supports standards development in forensic science and 

mechanisms for improvement. 

Education, Ethics, and Terminology Interagency Working Group (EET IWG) 

A main objective of EET IWG was to identify a uniform code of professional responsibility for forensic 

science practitioners and to consider improvements in undergraduate and graduate degree programs and 

continuing education programs for forensic science practitioners and the legal community. 

Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Interagency Working Group (RDT&E IWG)

The RDT&E IWG has pursued the identification of foundational research that can be mapped to specific 

principles across the various disciplines of forensic science. The group was also responsible for identifying 

Federal investments in forensic science research. 

Outreach and Communication Interagency Working Group (OC IWG) 

Supporting the efforts of the four other IWGs, OC IWG facilitated the process of gaining input from the 

public and private sectors. Communicating the issues under consideration by SoFS to relevant 

constituencies ensured that varying perspectives were considered. 

The contents of this report represent the first set of research findings and conclusions from the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Forensic Science, covering issues relating to 

laboratory accreditation, certification of forensic science and medicolegal personnel, proficiency testing, 

and ethics. 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

3

1. ACCREDITATION OF FORENSIC SERVICE PROVIDERS

The 2009 National Academies report (“NAS report”)2called for mandatory accreditation of forensic 

science service providers (in common parlance, “forensic laboratories” or “crime labs”). Specifically, 

Recommendation 7 of the NAS report states that all laboratories and facilities (public and private) should 

be accredited, and that the determination of appropriate accreditation standards should take into account 

established and recognized international standards, such as those published by the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO). 

The SoFS considered in detail the challenges and implications of implementing this recommendation. For 

purposes of its review, the SoFS considered the NAS recommendation to encompass all forensic science 

service providers3(defined as having at least one full-time analyst, however named, who examines 

physical evidence4in criminal and/or investigative matters and provides reports or opinion testimony with 

respect to such evidence in United States courts of law), as well as medical examiner/coroner offices, 

forensic units, and part-time and private forensic science entities, with the goal that these entities become 

accredited under appropriate International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-based standards and 

any supplemental requirements or standards specific to forensic science.5

Background

Professional accreditation bodies focused on the forensic sciences have existed for more than 30 years. 

In general, accreditation increases confidence in the reliability and accuracy of data produced, conclusions 

rendered, and services provided. More specifically, laboratory accreditation is the recognition of technical 

competence through an independent third-party assessment of a laboratory’s quality, administrative, and 

technical systems.6 The laboratory accreditation process provides a thorough evaluation of laboratory 

policies and procedures as measured against international standards. Laboratories use the accreditation 

process to assess their level of performance by means of external audits and to strengthen their 

operations, and to provide the general public and potential customers with a means of identifying those 

laboratories that have demonstrated compliance with established standards.

 

2 National Research Council of the National Academies. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A 

Path Forward, Washington, DC, 2009.

3

In this document the term forensic science service provider may be used interchangeably with forensic laboratory. 

3 Physical evidence is a term used in the definition of a crime/forensic laboratory in the American Society of Crime 

Laboratories Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board - International, Supplemental Requirements for the 

Accreditation of Forensic Science Testing Laboratories, Appendix A – Glossary, 2011 and the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Bulletin, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005, July 2008NCJ 222181, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, p. 9.

5

ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, ISO/IEC 

17020, General Criteria for the Operation of Various types of Bodies performing Inspection and, ISO/IEC 15189, 

Medical laboratories - Particular requirements for quality and competence.

6 Why become an Accredited Laboratory, ILAC publications, 2010.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

4

In the case of forensic laboratories, accreditation to the recommended standards demonstrates that the 

provider is compliant with industry-established criteria to perform specific types of testing and/or 

examination, measurement, or calibration activities and produce data that are accurate, traceable to 

standards, and reproducible. Implementation of a quality management system, as required by ISO 

accreditation standards, is a sensible strategy to help decrease the likelihood of errors in testing results, 

data interpretation, and opinions. Properly implemented, forensic laboratory accreditation serves each of 

the core stakeholders in the criminal justice system -- the prosecution, the defense, and the judiciary --

and increases public trust in the criminal justice system. 

Laboratory accreditation uses specific, widely accepted criteria, standards, and procedures to ensure that 

a laboratory is competent to generate and interpret results that are reliably accurate and based on 

industry best practices. Ultimately, accreditation is a measure of the adequacy of management practices, 

including staff competence, training and continuing education; validity and appropriateness of test 

methods; traceability of measurements and calibrations to national standards; suitability, calibration, and 

maintenance of test equipment; testing environment; documentation, sampling, and handling of test 

items; and quality assurance of data including the reporting of results and proficiency tests. External 

assessors conduct an evaluation of all aspects of a laboratory’s operations that affect data, laboratory 

products, and services; they also evaluate laboratory compliance to applicable standards and the 

laboratory’s documented policies and procedures. The accreditation body reviews the assessment report 

and monitors any remediation to ensure the appropriate corrective actions are implemented. Laboratory 

accreditation also includes periodic surveillance by the accreditation body for continued compliance with 

requirements. Failure to maintain these standards can result in the accrediting body suspending or 

revoking the accreditation of the laboratory.

7

It is important to acknowledge that while accreditation is a foundational component of an organization’s 

quality assurance program, it is not a panacea for the various shortcomings in forensic science practices 

identified by the NAS and others. As the NAS report noted, “accreditation does not mean that accredited 

laboratories do not make mistakes, nor does it mean that a laboratory utilizes best practices in every 

case.” Even in cases involving accredited laboratories, for example, legal disputes may arise over the 

appropriate level of transparency or disclosure of such information as protocols, standard operating 

procedures, audit and accreditation results, proficiency test results, and validation studies—disputes that 

will generally be resolved not by laboratory standards but by lawyers and judges. Nonetheless there is 

little doubt that universal accreditation of forensic science service providers would have a salutary impact 

both on the validity of forensic testing and the level of public trust in the forensic evidence brought to 

bear in the courtroom.

 

7 The Advantages of Being an Accredited Laboratory, ILAC Publications, 2010.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

5

Current Status 

The accreditation landscape for forensic providers is quite variable today, with approximately 25% of 

Federal laboratories unaccredited but the vast majority of the approximately 400 non-Federal, publicly 

funded crime laboratories accredited. (See Appendices 1B-E.) Specifically, in a July 2008 report, The 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) identified 389 publically funded (i.e., Federal, state, or local) forensic 

crime laboratories operating in the United States (as of 2005), more than 85 percent of which were 

accredited. The SoFS identified an additional 86 forensic laboratories not included in the BJS survey. Of 

the total number of providers included in the two tallies combined, the SoFS identified 86 that were 

unaccredited. As of early 2009, per inquiries made by the SoFS encompassing both publicly and privately 

funded laboratories, the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board 

(ASCLD-LAB) had accredited 320 and Forensic Quality Services, Inc. (FQS) had accredited 56. 

In recent years, several states8 have passed legislation mandating accreditation and other forms of 

oversight of forensic science service providers, and a growing number of local forensic laboratories have 

also achieved accreditation, but relevant legislation and other oversight requirements vary greatly from 

state to state and among local jurisdictions. So while the current level of accreditation among state9 and 

local laboratories is a sign of significant progress compared to the past, the current level is evidence that 

voluntary accreditation policies are unlikely, by themselves, to deliver on the NAS’s recommendation of 

universal accreditation.

Accreditation rates also remain low among medical examiner/coroner (ME/C) offices and forensic 

toxicology laboratories. In general, ME/C accreditation attests that an office has a functional governing 

code; adequate staff, equipment, and training; and a suitable physical facility, and produces accurate, 

credible death investigation products. But of the 2,342 ME/C offices serving 3,343 counties in the United 

States (as of 2004) only 45 were accredited by the primary such accreditor (the National Association of 

Medical Examiners) and 9 by the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (as of 

January 2011). And of the approximately 200 U.S. toxicology laboratories, only 23 were accredited by the 

currently available accreditor, the American Board of Forensic Toxicology, as of January 2011. (The SoFS 

was not able to determine how many of the 200 perform forensic toxicology work.) While these three 

accrediting bodies are extensively accepted within the community and their standards have been 

generated by distinguished professional organizations, none of the three is currently using ISO standards. 

Challenges

Two major challenges to achieving the NAS goal of universal accreditation for forensic science providers 

are the diversity of disciplines—and, therefore, the diversity of tests—that fall under the general forensic 

science rubric, and the range of settings in which these services are provided. With regard to the former, 

 

8 As of January 12, 2011, nine states have passed legislation as detailed in Appendix B

9

 The term “State” means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

6

forensic science practitioners have self-organized into more than 20 specific disciplines focused on the 

analysis of evidence related to firearms, arson, fibers and hairs, impressions, questioned documents, 

fingerprints, tool marks, and DNA. With regard to the latter, the forensic science community includes, but 

is not limited to, public laboratories and forensic units; medical examiner and coroner offices; and other 

providers including private laboratories, individual practitioners, and academicians. 

An additional significant challenge is that, of the estimated 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. forensic units employing 

35,000 to 50,00010 individuals—predominately in law enforcement agencies and for the most part 

providing limited forensic science services—there is no reliable tally of how many meet the definition of 

a forensic science service provider—and which of these might appropriately fall under the NAS’s 

interpretive rubric for universal accreditation.

One of the biggest hurdles facing the forensic community is identifying providers of forensic science 

services outside of the groups named above. The most comprehensive approach to increasing 

standardization within the forensic sciences—and the simplest in terms of policy, if not the simplest to 

implement—would be to make all entities performing forensic testing, even on a part-time basis, subject 

to mandatory accreditation requirements. Under the terms of currently enacted state statutes, many of 

these providers today are not subject to mandatory accreditation requirements and may be exempt from 

other forms of oversight. The NAS report acknowledged the challenge of identifying these providers, 

noting that there are insufficient data available on the number and expertise of forensic examiners who 

are not employed in publicly funded forensic science laboratories.11

Another set of challenges to achieving the NAS report’s accreditation goals relate to the financial and 

other impacts that accreditation requirements would have on forensic science service providers, medical 

examiner/coroner offices, and other providers of forensic services, whether they are seeking initial 

accreditation or they are transitioning to ISO accreditation. (See Appendix 1A for estimated costs of 

achieving and maintaining accreditation.) Establishment of the necessary quality management systems 

can require significant financial and human resources; would have to be achieved in compliance with 

relevant government policies and regulations relating to purchasing, contracting, hiring, budget cycles, 

etc.; and could impact the timeliness of services provided during implementation. Ultimately, some 

forensic science service providers might choose to eliminate or reduce services rather than seek 

accreditation, resulting in a shift of caseload, testimony responsibilities, and travel to other entities. The 

consequential shift in crime laboratory management priorities to improve quality could, in turn, have 

substantial impacts on overall forensic science services provided by the laboratory, including an increase 

in turnaround times and backlogs.

 

10 There is insufficient data available to provide the exact number of forensic units. This is an estimate based on 

information obtained from various accrediting bodies, law enforcement agencies and professional organizations. 

Formal surveys to obtain more exact figures have been initiated, but have not been completed as of this writing.

11 National Research Council of the National Academies. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A 

Path Forward, Washington, DC., 2009. p. 64
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

7

Another challenge to implementing the NAS’s accreditation recommendation is that there is no single 

Federal department, agency, or office that has clear responsibility or control over the relevant issues.

While the Department of Justice has primary responsibility for ensuring the quality of the work performed 

in Federal forensic laboratories, it has limited and indirect power over state and local providers of forensic 

science services, which comprise the vast majority of such facilities in the United States. Moreover, other 

Federal entities have equities and/or potential roles to play with regard to the reliability of forensic 

laboratory testing, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology within the Commerce 

Department, the Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Defense, and various offices 

within the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which 

has broad responsibilities for scientific integrity across the Executive Branch. Any effort to implement the 

NAS recommendations relating to accreditation (as well as for certification of examiners and other aspects 

of the NAS report) will require coordination among these various stakeholders, as well as with 

stakeholders in the private sector, including professional organizations and advocacy groups. Among the 

non-Federal organizations that the SoFS worked with to craft this White Paper and would have stakes in 

any changes to current accreditation requirements are: the American Society of Crime Laboratory 

Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB); the Forensic Quality Services Inc. (FQS-I); the 

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA); National Association of Medical Examiners; the 

American Board of Forensic Toxicology; the Uniform Law Commission (ULC); the National Conference of 

State Legislatures (NCSL); the National Governors Association (NGA); and local, state, regional, and private 

forensic science service providers.

Another challenge to achieving the NAS’s accreditation goals relates to the accrediting process itself—

that is, the possible need to develop, in some cases, new standards for accreditation as well as new 

educational materials, and the possible need to increase the capacity of current accrediting bodies. 

Offsetting this challenge, the SoFS has worked under the presumption that providers that render opinions 

based only on the review of data from examinations conducted by other entities would be exempt from 

accreditation requirements, and accreditation would not be required for specialty examinations 

conducted outside of the major forensic science disciplines.

Implementation

Independent of the question of how best to overcome the above challenges, the SoFS identified three 

possible approaches to implementing the NAS recommendation on accreditation, but stopped short of 

performing a detailed comparison of the pros and cons of each.

One approach is to work with Congress to pass legislation requiring a broad but well-defined set of 

forensic science service providers (such as “all entities that provide forensic science services in disciplines 

and categories of testing recognized by forensic science accrediting bodies”) to become accredited within 

a time certain, enforceable by various means. Legislative language along these lines has been crafted in 

recent years but has not emerged out of the relevant committees.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

8

A second approach is to work with a broad array of stakeholders—including the Uniform Law Commission, 

National Governors Association, National Committee of State Legislators, and the forensic science 

community—to craft a uniform law that mandates accreditation, with the goal of getting states to adopt 

this law across the Nation.

A third approach is for the Department of Justice to mandate accreditation for all laboratories under its 

direct control and, for laboratories over which direct control is absent, mandate accreditation as a 

prerequisite for certain financial and other benefits (such as training opportunities or federal funding) that 

normally accrue to providers from the Department.

A fourth approach is to utilize portions of some or all of the first three approaches in a well-integrated 

fashion and federal, state and local collaboration. This hybrid approach might afford the opportunity to 

span the entire national forensic science community in case there would be coverage gaps in any of the 

individual approaches described above.

Each of these approaches has its own constellation of costs and benefits, which deserve careful study, but 

all would ultimately have to address the need for funding in support of accreditation (including program 

administration, technical assistance, and education and training).
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

9

2. CERTIFICATION OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS

The 2009 NAS report concluded that “certification of forensic science professionals should be mandatory” 

and recommended that “certification requirements should include, at a minimum, written examinations, 

supervised practice, proficiency testing, continuing education, recertification procedures, adherence to a 

code of ethics, and effective disciplinary procedures.”

In general, professional certification is the recognition by an independent certification body that an 

individual has acquired and demonstrated specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in the standard 

practices necessary to execute the duties of his or her profession. Professional certification programs can 

feature an array of components, including proctored written and/or practical testing; an evaluation of 

education, training and practical experience; requirements for continuing education; and adherence to a 

code of ethics, and can be tailored as appropriate to match the responsibility, activity, or function to be 

performed. More specifically, in the case of forensic science professionals, certification can complement 

accreditation as a means of ensuring the validity of test results and enhancing public confidence in the 

judicial system. Certification is generally considered to be a quality assessment of an individual 

practitioner in contrast to accreditation, which is generally considered to be a quality assessment of a 

service provider laboratory facility.

Background

Professional certification bodies focused on the forensic sciences have existed for more than 30 years. 

Forensic science certification bodies typically focus on one or a few related forensic science disciplines, 

but there is not a certification body or process for every discipline or category of forensic testing. Those 

bodies that do exist vary considerably in terms of their eligibility requirements, use of proficiency tests 

and practical exercises, provision of training and continuing education, and requirements for 

recertification, among other variables. As a result, the certification landscape for the forensic sciences is 

fragmented, with inconsistencies apparent even among certification programs accredited by the same 

entity (see Table 1 below). While many of these differences may be appropriate due to the considerable 

variability of skill sets required among the different forensic disciplines, the forensic science field could 

benefit from a more standardized and comprehensive approach to certification.

A significant shortcoming with regard to forensic science certification today is that no fully independent 

accrediting body (i.e., one that exists outside the field of forensic science itself) exists to assess and, as 

appropriate, give its imprimatur to worthy forensic science-related specialty boards that confer 

certification. The Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB) was created in 2000 as a voluntary 

program to assess, recognize, and monitor such specialty boards/certification bodies. The FSAB reviews 

and evaluates the operating procedures and standards of applicant forensic certification bodies to ensure 

that minimum standards are met. FSAB accreditation standards are modeled on ISO/IEC 17024, an 

international standard designed to ensure the validity, reliability, and quality of certification programs. 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

10

For example, a certification body accredited under ISO/IEC 17024 must demonstrate a fair and equitable 

evaluation of all candidates; an organizational structure appropriate to the task of supporting its mission; 

policies and procedures for handling complaints, appeals, and confidentiality requirements; and a 

certification and recertification scheme. But while FSAB standards are modeled on ISO/IEC 17024, its 

standards are not actually recognized by ISO/IEC 17011, which offers accreditation under ISO/IEC 17024, 

or by any other third party. (The American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, is the only accrediting 

body recognized by ISO/IEC 17011 that offers ISO/IEC 17024.) Thus the current approach to certification 

in the forensic science domain is lacking both in terms of the gaps that exist among some subspecialties 

and in terms of the level of independent evaluation of existing processes and programs. (See Appendix 2A 

for a listing of discipline-specific testing categories with notation of those accredited by the FSAB.)

It should be noted that a number of unique issues and challenges arise with regard to professional 

certification of medicolegal personnel such as medical examiners and coroners—a topic raised separately 

by the NAS report. The SoFS addresses those issues in Chapter 3 of this report.

Current Status 

The number of professionally certified forensic science practitioners is small compared to the estimated 

number of forensic scientists employed by traditional forensic science service providers. As shown in 

Appendix 2A, there are approximately 8,700 certified forensic science practitioners. Slightly over 5,500 

of these practitioners are associated with digital evidence and photography, many of whom are associated 

with corporations. Although these figures represent a significant achievement in support of certification 

in the digital evidence field, it also highlights the low number of other, more traditional forensic science 

practitioners who have achieved this measure of professional standing. Moreover, the 8,700 figure 

mentioned above does not include those practitioners who work outside of the traditional forensic 

science services, including, for example, nurses, psychologists, engineers, and evidence handlers. And 

determining the number of forensic science practitioners within the broad definitional field that includes 

those working in public (Federal, state, and local) and private laboratories, as well as consultants and 

others working in the full range of scientific disciplines, has proven difficult. While there is a need to 

resolve this issue, there are few resources available to help make a reliable estimate. The 2009 BJA survey 

tallied 13,100 full-time employees within responding, publicly funded forensic crime laboratories. The 

respondents in the BJA survey further reported that, of those 13,100 employees, 60% were examiners, 

9% were technical support, and 14% were managers. The remaining personnel held other support 

positions. It is estimated from the percentages that there are approximately 10,873 practitioners that 

may be eligible for certification, but this estimate is likely extremely low, given the modest number of 

entities that responded to the BJA survey. Indeed, communication with the forensic science accrediting 

bodies disclosed they estimated there are 35,000 to 55,000 forensic science practitioners across the 

United States. (This estimate is based on data provided by accredited forensic science server providers, 

which are required to collect and report data on the number of specific forensic science practitioners.) 

Based on these and other data the SoFS deduces that of all forensic science practitioners, perhaps 16 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

11

percent to 25 percent are certified and this range drops to approximately 6 percent to 9 percent if those 

practitioners in digital evidence are removed from the calculations. 

Challenges

Achievement of the NAS’s goal of universal certification for forensic science practitioners is arguably more 

challenging than achievement of its goal of universal forensic science service provider (laboratory) 

accreditation, in large part because of the number of disciplines for which certification standards and 

processes would need to be developed and the multiple levels of certification that may be required even 

within individual disciplines, such as for managers, analysts, and technical support.

A related challenge is that the development of certification standards and practices (including training and 

examinations) may not be cost effective or otherwise practical for disciplines in which relatively few 

practitioners exist. As a general rule in the certification community, it is difficult to create and maintain a 

certification program for fields with fewer than 50 practitioners. (See Appendix 2A for estimates of the 

number of certified practitioners in various forensic science disciplines today.) 

For disciplines deemed in need of certification programs but that do not already have curricula and 

educational materials developed, those products would need to be developed through an authoritative 

process and, ideally, the contents made openly accessible to facilitate the development of training 

products by third-party developers. As a related challenge, certification bodies may be called upon to 

develop a “basic forensic science” certification for practitioners working in disciplines for which no 

certification program exists. 

If new certification requirements were implemented, forensic science service providers would have to 

accommodate employees’ needs for time and resources to prepare for the relevant examinations and 

exercises; rework position descriptions to include certification requirements as appropriate; and, to the 

extent practicable, provide alternative means of training and educational support for practitioners 

working in areas where no certification is available. They may also need to modify pay scales to 

appropriately recognize practitioners who obtain certification.

Another challenge is that, under universal certification rules, a number of forensic science practitioners 

would be required to obtain multiple certifications representing the different testing categories in which 

they perform examinations. The time and cost demands posed by multiple certification processes may 

dissuade some practitioners from qualifying in all the areas in which they currently practice, and could 

result in a loss of expertise in certain areas. Provisions may have to be made to accommodate longstanding 

practitioners who do not meet new certification requirements.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

12

As noted above, an additional challenge is that of bringing existing (and any newly created) certification 

bodies into compliance with ISO/IEC 17024. In many cases this would require the development of new 

categories of testing, and new collaborations with an entity recognized by ISO/IEC 17011.

Finally, as certification programs and requirements mature, accrediting bodies for forensic science service 

providers would need to change their standards to consider the certification status of practitioners as part 

of the accreditation process. Laboratory accrediting bodies may also have to take responsibility for 

providers documenting adherence to certification requirements.

All of the above challenges carry monetary and human capital costs. And as is the case of the NAS report’s 

call for universal accreditation of forensic laboratories, the NAS’s goal of universal certification among 

forensic science practitioners will be challenging to meet in part because there is no single Federal 

department, agency, or office that has clear responsibility or control over the relevant issues and costs.

While the Department of Justice has responsibility for providing assistance to state and local law 

enforcement agencies and their crime laboratories, it has limited and indirect power over state and local 

providers of forensic science services, which comprise the vast majority of such facilities in the United 

States. Moreover, other Federal entities have equities and/or potential roles to play with regard to the 

reliability of forensic laboratory testing and practitioner proficiency, including the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology within the Commerce Department, the Department of Homeland Security; the 

Department of Defense; and various offices within the Executive Office of the President, including the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has broad responsibilities for scientific integrity across the 

Executive Branch. Any effort to implement the NAS recommendations relating to certification (as well as 

for accreditation and other aspects of the NAS report) will require coordination among these various 

stakeholders, as well as with stakeholders in the private sector, including professional organizations and 

advocacy groups. Among the non-Federal organizations that the SoFS worked with to craft this White 

Paper and would have stakes in any changes to current certification requirements are: the American Board 

of Criminalistics (ABC), International Association for Computer Information Systems (IACIS), International 

Association for Identification (IAI), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, 

Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE), Idaho State Police Forensic Services, American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society for Clinical Pathology Board of Certification (ASCP), American 

Society for Quality Certification (ASQ), and the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB).
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

13

Table 1: Variations in the Requirements of Three Accredited Certifying Bodies (CB)

Requirement CB#1 CB#2 CB#3

Degree X X

Experience X X X

Written exam (initial) X X X

Practical exam (initial) X X X

Oral demonstration 

(initial)

 X* X^

Continuing education X X X

Re-testing X

* transcript or moot court; ^ specific to practical exam

Implementation

The implementation of a universal requirement for certification of forensic science practitioners is an 

exceedingly complex issue because of the large number of individuals performing such a broad array of 

duties who would be covered by such a provision. U.S. forensic science service providers and forensic 

units employ an estimated 35,000 to 50,00012 individuals today, predominately in law enforcement 

agencies, with most of these individuals providing limited forensic science services and the wide array of 

other stakeholders, including private entities and government agencies at the local, state, and Federal 

level.

Congressional action may be required to achieve effectively the NAS goal of universal certification across 

the forensic sciences. But the development of certification programs need not wait for legislation and 

could be encouraged by administrative actions aimed at incentivizing progress towards this goal, including 

provision of grant funding for the development of curricula, training, and testing. 

The total cost of achieving universal certification of forensic science service practitioners is very difficult 

to estimate given the large uncertainties described above, including the number of practitioners that 

would be captured by any such requirement, the number of certification programs that might need to be 

developed for disciplines that do not currently have such programs in place, and the costs of achieving 

compliance with ISO/IEC 17024. Appendix 2A includes some of the services and fee schedules provided 

by various certifying bodies to the SoFS in 2011, which may be useful in efforts to estimate the full costs 

of implementing a universal certification regimen.

 

12 There is insufficient data available to provide the exact number of forensic units. This is an estimate based on 

information obtained from various accrediting bodies, law enforcement agencies and professional organizations. 

Formal surveys to obtain more exact figures have been initiated, but have not been completed as of this writing.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

14

3. CERTIFICATION OF MEDICOLEGAL PERSONNEL

The 2009 NAS report calls for the replacement of what it refers to as today’s “hodgepodge” medicolegal 

death investigation system with a new system in which such investigations are led by certified medical 

examiners and all medicolegal autopsies are performed or supervised by board-certified forensic 

pathologists. To achieve this goal, it calls for the development of new standards for best practices, 

administration, staffing, education, training, and continuing education for competent death scene

investigation and postmortem examinations; accreditation of all medical examiner offices pursuant to 

agreed-upon standards; and restriction of federal funding to only those offices that are accredited or can 

demonstrate significant and measurable progress toward achieving accreditation within prescribed 

deadlines.

Professional certification is the recognition by an independent body that an individual has acquired and 

demonstrated specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in the standard practices necessary to execute 

the duties of his or her profession; it provides a means of identifying those practitioners who have 

successfully demonstrated competency in the domain relevant to their area of practice. A number of 

reports over a period of decades have concluded, like the NAS, that certification of all U.S. medicolegal 

death investigation personnel would increase the quality of services provided by death investigators in 

the two major domains in which their work is applied: in the criminal justice system, where death 

investigators identify and document pathologic findings in suspicious or violent deaths and in many cases 

testify in courts as expert medical witnesses; and in the public health system, where death investigators 

scour health data in search of early evidence of outbreaks or other health-related trends. Through its 

trustworthy validation of professional qualifications, certification of medicolegal death investigation 

personnel could also enhance public confidence in the criminal justice and public health systems.

Background

In the United States, the medicolegal death investigation profession comprises three major personnel 

categories: medicolegal death investigators, coroners, and medical examiners. There are no nationally 

mandated qualifications or certifications for any of these categories. Requirements vary by jurisdiction 

across the Nation, from simple age and residency requirements to a medical degree with certification in 

forensic pathology by the American Board of Pathology. Individual state statutes determine the 

qualifications of individuals who may deliver death investigation services, which include death scene 

investigations, medical investigations, reviews of medical records, medicolegal autopsies, determination 

of the cause and manner of death, and completion of the certificate of death. Similarly, the actual classes 

of death over which these individuals may assume jurisdiction vary from state to state, though they 

generally include deaths that are sudden and unexpected, deaths that have no attending physician, and 

all suspicious and violent deaths.

In general, medicolegal death investigation personnel, however named, may conduct death scene 

investigations, perform autopsies, and determine the cause and manner of death when a person has died 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

15

as a result of violence, under suspicious circumstances, without a physician in attendance, or for other 

reasons.13 Death investigators are trained personnel who investigate deaths reported to the medical 

examiner/coroner (ME/C) system; attend and investigate death scenes as a representative of the ME/C; 

have legal responsibility for the decedent; and conduct death investigations independent from those 

conducted by a law enforcement agency.14 ME/C have a defined statutory authority to determine the 

cause and manner of death. While coroners are generally not medical doctors and in many cases are 

elected, medical examiners are almost always physicians and are appointed; some medical examiners are 

pathologists or forensic pathologists (licensed physicians who have undergone training in both general 

and forensic pathology and are certified by the American Board of Pathology). It is important to note that 

the distinction between coroner and medical examiner systems varies by jurisdiction. The qualifications, 

skills, and activities of death investigation personnel cannot necessarily be inferred from the title attached 

to the office.15

Approximately 2,342 ME/C offices are serving 3,343 counties in the United States.

16 Inconsistencies in the 

qualifications and responsibilities of ME/C among U.S. jurisdictions has been recognized as problematic 

for decades, and the question of whether the coroner system should be abolished in favor of a medical 

examiner system has been debated since a National Academy of Sciences Report in 1928 called for that 

change. While that issue remains controversial for a number of reasons, there is broad consensus among 

forensics experts that there is a need for increased assurance of competency for death investigation 

personnel, with certification generally proffered as an essential component of any strategy to achieve that 

assurance. 

In the field of medicolegal death investigation, there are two recognized certifying bodies. The American 

Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators (ABMDI) offers two levels of certification17 and is accredited by 

the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB). ABMDI certifies those personnel who conduct death 

investigations (medicolegal death investigators and coroners who do not conduct autopsies). The 

American Board of Pathology (ABP) offers certification in anatomic pathology, and a subspecialty 

certification in forensic pathology.18 The ABP is a certifying body approved by the American Board of 

Medical Specialties. ABP certifies forensic pathologists who perform medicolegal autopsies. 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, a significant shortcoming with regard to forensic science certification today is 

that no fully independent accrediting body (i.e., one that exists outside the field of forensic science itself) 

 

13 Mathew J. Hickman, Kristen.A. Hughes, Kevin J. Strom, and Jeri D. Ropero-Miller, “ME/C’ Offices, 2004,” Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Special Report, June 2007, NCJ216756, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2004, p. 1.

14 Ernst. “The American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators (ABMDI).” Presentation to the IWG. July 14, 2010.

15 Mathew J. Hickman, Kristen.A. Hughes, Kevin J. Strom, and Jeri D. Ropero-Miller, “ME/C’ Offices, 2004,” Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Special Report, June 2007, NCJ216756, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2004, p. 2.

16 Mary Fran Ernst, “The American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators (ABMDI),” presentation to the IWG, July, 14, 

2010.

17 See Appendix B.

18 See Appendix C.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

16

exists to assess and, as appropriate, give its imprimatur to worthy forensic science-related specialty 

boards that confer certification. This holds true for medicolegal death investigators.

The FSAB that accredits the ABMDI is a voluntary program to assess, recognize, and monitor specialty 

boards/certification bodies. The FSAB reviews and evaluates the operating procedures and standards of 

applicant or existing forensic certification bodies such as the ABMDI to ensure that minimum standards 

are met. FSAB accreditation standards are modeled on ISO/IEC 17024, an international standard designed 

to ensure the validity, reliability, and quality of certification programs. For example, a certification body 

accredited under ISO/IEC 17024 must demonstrate a fair and equitable evaluation of all candidates; an 

organizational structure appropriate to the task of supporting its mission; policies and procedures for 

handling complaints, appeals, and confidentiality requirements; and a certification and recertification 

scheme. But while FSAB standards are modeled on ISO/IEC 17024, its standards are not actually 

recognized by ISO/IEC 17011, which offers accreditation under ISO/IEC 17024, or by any other third party. 

(The American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, is the only accrediting body recognized by ISO/IEC 

17011.) Thus the current approach to certification of medicolegal death investigators—with the exception 

of physicians certified by the American Board of Pathology—is lacking in terms of the level of independent 

evaluation of existing processes and programs.

Current Status

The ABDMI estimates that it has certified approximately 1,200 of the estimated 8,000 of medicolegal 

death investigators and coroners in the United States.19 All told in the United States, less than 20 percent 

of medicolegal death investigators and coroners are board certified by either ABMDI or ABP. (Although 

there is no specific coroner certification, those coroners who are certified have obtained it through the 

ABMDI and/or ABP.) The National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) has estimated that there are 

400 to 500 full-time practicing forensic pathologists in the United States, and that 80 percent of them are 

board certified in forensic pathology. To fulfill the NAS report’s 2009 recommendation for universal 

certification of death investigation professionals, some 6500 death investigators and coroners and 100 

practicing forensic pathologists would need to obtain certification. 

Challenges 

An overarching challenge to achieving the NAS recommendations with regard to medicolegal death 

investigations is that there is no single recognized set of performance standards or best practices for ME/C 

systems, and, as noted by the NAS, there do not currently exist adequate incentives to create and 

promulgate such a set. Should a decision be made to move from a coroner system to a medical examiner 

system, significant Federal incentives would be needed to facilitate the change.

A number of other hurdles would need to be cleared in order to implement a nationally consistent system 

of death investigations, including: the need for some states to change state constitutions or codes that 

 

19 The BJS Report on ME/C Offices, 2004 estimated 7320 full time equivalent employees.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

17

mandate the election of coroners (though some states have found that such provisions do not preclude 

the additional appointment of medical examiners); the need to earn political support from the constituent 

base underpinning local coroners; the need develop a “business model” that would make it practical to 

support more highly competent investigators in small localities (most coroner systems would not qualify 

for accreditation today because of problems related to size, insufficient staff and equipment, and 

insufficiently trained personnel); the need to overcome current unwillingness in many localities to develop 

cooperative regionalization for the provision of autopsy services; the need to train and employ more 

physicians—especially pathologists and forensic pathologists—in the death investigation offices; and the 

accompanying need to identify funding for infrastructure, staff, education, training, and equipment. 

If a decision were made to implement a more uniform system of medicolegal death investigation across 

the United States, and if—as some have recommended—that goal were to be pursued in part through the 

development of a uniform state law developed in coordination with the Uniform Law Commission, the 

National Governors Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures, among others, then 

mechanisms would be needed for providing the necessary allocation of funds by states to ensure 

compliance. While it would be the responsibility of each individual state to allocate funds and resources 

to comply with any such uniform state law, the Federal Government could provide funding coordinated 

through the National Institute of Justice to defray the initial costs associated with achieving certification 

for current personnel. 

Another challenge relates to the need to provide continuing education and/or research opportunities to 

existing ME/C. Under current Federal policies, ME/C are effectively ineligible for direct Federal funding 

and cannot receive grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (including the National 

Institutes of Health [NIH]), the Department of Justice, or the Department of Homeland Security. The Paul 

Coverdell NFSIA is the only Federal grant program that names ME/Cs as eligible for grants. However, ME/C 

must compete for these grants against public safety officials and agencies, which have generally garnered 

higher grant support. 

In addition to the above-mentioned challenges relating to certification of death examiners, there exist 

additional challenges relating to the accreditation of ME/C offices—a topic discussed in more depth in 

Chapter 1. As mentioned, accreditation attests that an office has a functional governing code; adequate 

staff, equipment, and training; and a suitable physical facility, and that it produces accurate, credible 

death investigation documentary products. But accreditation rates remain low among ME/C offices and 

forensic toxicology laboratories. Of the aforementioned 2,342 ME/C offices serving 3,343 counties in the 

United States, only 45 were accredited by the primary accreditor (the National Association of Medical 

Examiners) and 9 by the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners as of January 2011. 

The challenges to increasing these numbers are numerous; many medical examiner systems simply cannot 

meet NAME standards today due to constrained budgets, lack of staff, lack of equipment, and insufficient 

facilities. Moreover, the accreditation process carries administrative costs; accreditation requires periodic 

renewal; and, lacking incentives or enforcement mechanisms, many offices do not see any benefit to 

accreditation.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

18

Finally, as with other NAS recommendations, implementation of a more uniform, medical-examiner-based 

system of medicolegal death investigations with certification and accreditation requirements will require 

cooperation and coordination among a wide array of stakeholders inside and outside government. Among 

the non-Federal organizations that the SoFS worked with to craft this report and would have stakes in any 

changes to current certification or accreditation requirements are: the American Board of Medicolegal 

Death Investigators (ABMDI), the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) and the International 

Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (IACME), the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), and the 

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 

Implementation

The implementation of the NAS’s recommendations relating to medicolegal death investigators would 

require overcoming a number of hurdles. Congressional action may be required, but the continued 

development of certification programs need not wait for legislation and could be encouraged by 

administrative actions aimed at incentivizing progress towards this goal, including provision of grant 

funding for the development of curricula, training, and testing. 

The total cost of achieving the proposed changes in the medicolegal death investigation system is very 

difficult to estimate. The table below depicts current approximate costs for trained personnel to obtain 

and maintain certification. The data in the table are based on information received by the SoFS from 

certifying bodies in 2011 and may be useful in efforts to begin to estimate the full costs of implementing 

a universal certification regimen. 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

19

Estimated costs (FY 2011) to obtain and maintain certification*

Death Investigator/Coroner Forensic Pathologist

Examination Costs: application fee, 

examination fee, re-testing fee $500/person $360020/person

Test preparation $1000/person $4000/person

Annual Continuing 

Education/Training $500/person $4000/person

Annual maintenance fees $40/person n/a

Recertification fees (every 10 

years) n/a $1800/person

*This funding does not include salaries, benefits or other costs associated with basic training, 

fellowships and staffing.

 

20 Costs include both Anatomic (AP) and Forensic (FP) Pathology boards.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

20

4. PROFICIENCY TESTING OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS

The 2009 NAS report encouraged the development and implementation of improved feedback 

mechanisms to help identify shortcomings in forensic science practices, and highlighted proficiency 

tests—designed to emulate a “realistic, representative cross-section of casework”—as essential feedback 

mechanisms for forensic science service providers. The report called for the development of new tools for 

advancing proficiency testing in forensic science and recommended that proficiency testing be a 

mandatory element of practitioner certification. 

Background

In the context of forensic science, a proficiency test is a discipline-specific analytical test used to evaluate 

the technical competence of examiners and support personnel, and/or the overall performance of a 

forensic science service provider. Proficiency tests can help ensure that individual and laboratory-wide 

procedures are effective and reliable on an ongoing basis. They do not, however, provide a systematic 

estimate of laboratory error rates, in part because relevant samples are typically free of the contaminants 

that often accompany actual samples, thus possibly underestimating error rates, and because proficiency 

tests are administered to a full range of practitioners, including trainees and others who would not 

typically have responsibility for such samples from the field, thus possibly overestimating error rates. 

The benefits of discipline-specific proficiency testing include:

 Demonstration of a laboratory’s ability to satisfy, on an ongoing basis, accreditation or 

certification requirements and ongoing competency;

 Comparison of an individual’s or a laboratory’s performance with that of another;

 Identification of methodological problems, transcription error patterns, or other undetected 

performance weaknesses and initiation of actions for improvement;

 Establishment of the effectiveness and comparability of test or measurement methods and, 

through the provision of metrics that could be analyzed, interpreted, and published, facilitation 

of further standardization of laboratory procedures and best practices; 

 Validation of uncertainty claims;

 Enhancement of stakeholder confidence in the reliability of forensic science providers’ work 

products.

In its most comprehensive form, forensic science proficiency testing involves three distinct entities: 

forensic science service providers,21 proficiency test providers, and bodies that accredit the test 

providers.22 Proficiency test providers use a variety of testing mechanisms, including open or declared (in 

which participants know they are being tested); blind (in which participants do not know they are being 

tested); and re-examination testing (in which an examiner’s completed prior casework is randomly 

 

21 The term “forensic science service provider” is used interchangeably with forensic science laboratory

22 See Appendix C for a graphical depiction of the components of the proficiency testing ecosystem
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

21

selected for reanalysis). (The relative cost-effectiveness of these and other approaches remains a matter 

of debate within the forensics community, with some researchers concluding that internal quality 

assurance methods such as random reanalysis may be more cost effective than external blind proficiency 

testing.)23

In some cases, forensic science service providers turn to forensic science accrediting organizations for 

proficiency testing services. In other cases they contract with organizations that specialize in proficiency 

testing. In still other cases, forensic science service providers conduct their own (“internal”) proficiency 

testing or assess proficiency not through formal testing at all but rather through observation, case 

presentation, or peer review. 

Just as forensic science service providers are held to certain international standards for purposes of 

accreditation and proficiency testing, forensic proficiency test providers can seek accreditation to indicate 

proficiency in their endeavors. This is achieved when the test providers demonstrate compliance to 

ISO/IEC 17043 standards24 as certified by independent, third-party accreditation bodies25 (different from 

the accrediting bodies that accredit forensic science service providers). These accrediting bodies consider 

such elements as the design and operation of testing schemes used by the test providers, data analysis 

and evaluation of results, communication with participants, and reporting confidentiality. To date 

however, most proficiency test providers have either not sought or not achieved full accreditation at the 

ISO/IEC 17043 level. As an alternative, a number of proficiency test providers have achieved “recognition” 

by accrediting bodies—a non-standardized achievement.

Appendix 4B illustrates the range of standards to which proficiency test providers are held by various 

accrediting/oversight bodies, including variability in the stringency of test requirements and the use of 

review committees to assess test results.

Current Status

No national requirement exists today demanding that forensic science service providers participate in 

proficiency testing, but many do to varying degrees. Some 274 of 351 publicly funded laboratories that 

responded to a 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics census26 reported they were engaged in at least some 

kind of proficiency testing, with testing slightly less common among smaller laboratories and those serving 

municipal jurisdictions. Among the laboratories engaged in proficiency testing, almost all reported using 

open or declared tests; slightly more than half of those that submitted to proficiency testing reported the 

 

23 The feasibility of external blind DNA proficiency testing. II. Experience with actual blind tests, J Forensic Sci. 2003 

Jan;48(1):32-40.

24 ISO/IEC 17043:2010, Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing.

25 For a list of accrediting bodies, see Appendix B

26 Census of Publicly Funded. Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002. February 2005, NCJ 207205: 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpffcl02.pdf
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

22

use of random case reanalysis; and about one-quarter of those engaged in testing reported using at least 

some blind tests. Virtually all laboratories engaged in proficiency testing said they used tests that were 

generated externally—an approach that makes possible comparative analyses among laboratories. In 

addition, about three-quarters of laboratories engaged in proficiency testing reported some use of 

internally generated tests.

As of 2010, SoFS was aware of 14 proficiency test providers (see Appendix 4B) and six accrediting bodies. 

At that time, none of the proficiency test providers were accredited to the ISO/IEC 17043 standards27. In 

November 2013, however, ASCLD/LAB reported its recent accreditation of seven proficiency test 

providers to the ISO/IEC 17043 standards.

28

Challenges

Proficiency testing programs come with a cost (see Tables 2 and 3), and any requirement that demands a 

minimum schedule of proficiency testing will create new budget pressures on laboratories. That cost 

challenge could be mitigated over time as a national requirement for proficiency testing (for example, 

making testing a prerequisite for accreditation or certification) would increase demand for test providers, 

create opportunities for new test providers, and ultimately increase competition and foster cost savings 

for participants. 

A related challenge is that funding spent on proficiency testing would be unavailable for other purposes, 

including test innovation by forensic science service providers. Mitigating this risk, however, is that 

uniform proficiency test standards would allow for more effective inter-laboratory comparisons, which—

in conjunction with additional information on procedures, protocols, instrument methods, and settings—

could ultimately speed the development of useful technological innovations.

Finally, if proficiency test providers determine that costs of accreditation are prohibitive for particular 

forensic disciplines (e.g., ones with relatively few practitioners), those test providers may choose to 

discontinue testing services in those categories of testing. The discontinuance of discipline-specific 

proficiency tests by test providers could put pressure on forensic science service providers to conduct 

internal rather than external proficiency tests. The establishment of internal proficiency tests requires 

training and authorization of forensic science practitioners. Ideally these practitioners would be trained 

at a level that allows them to participate as subject matter experts in the independent test reviews 

conducted by the accrediting bodies.

29

 If forensic science service providers determine that proficiency 

 

27 The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) also reported the accreditation of proficiency test 

provider NAPT to ISO/IEC 17043 standards in October 2010.

28 Cellmark Forensics (IQAS Proficiency Tests), Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (CTS), College of American 

Pathologists (CAP), Competency Assessment Services Ltd (CAS), Forensic Testing Services (FTS), International 

Society of Forensic Computer Examiners (ISFCE), Serological Research Institute (SERI).
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

23

testing is too expensive or too time-consuming to conduct internally for certain disciplines, they may also 

choose to discontinue services in those disciplines. 

Implementation

As with other professional standards the SoFS considered options for more widespread adoption by 

forensic science service providers and examiners and there are effectively three possible approaches to 

implementing the NAS recommendation on proficiency testing.

One approach is to work with Congress to pass legislation requiring a broad but well-defined set of 

forensic science service providers (such as “all entities that provide forensic science services in disciplines 

and categories of testing recognized by forensic science accrediting bodies”) that would be subject to 

proficiency test requirements within a certain time frame, perhaps as a condition of accreditation. 

A second approach is to work with a broad array of stakeholders—including the Uniform Law Commission, 

National Governors Association, National Committee of State Legislators, and the forensic science 

community—to craft a uniform law that mandates compliance with an agreed-upon schedule or program 

of proficiency testing, with the goal of getting states to adopt this law across the Nation.

A third approach is for the Department of Justice to mandate proficiency testing for all laboratories under 

its direct control and, for laboratories over which direct control is absent, mandate proficiency testing as 

a prerequisite for certain financial and other benefits (such as training opportunities or Federal funding) 

that normally are awarded to providers from the Department.

A fourth approach is to utilize portions of some or all of the first three approaches in a well-integrated 

fashion and Federal, state and local collaboration. This hybrid approach might afford the opportunity to 

span the entire national forensic science community in case there would be coverage gaps in any of the 

individual approaches described above.

Each of these approaches has its own constellation of costs and benefits, which deserve careful study, but 

all would ultimately have to address the need for funding in support of proficiency testing (including 

program administration, technical assistance, and education and training) as well as the need to define 

requirements relating to accreditation of forensic test providers.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

24

5. ANATIONAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR FORENSIC SERVICE PROVIDERS

The 2009 NAS report calls for a “National Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility for all forensic 

science disciplines and encourage(s) individual societies to incorporate this national code as part of their 

professional code of ethics.” The report further calls for an exploration of potential enforcement 

mechanisms for addressing serious ethical violations. 

One approach to achieving this goal, in synchrony with the NAS goals of requiring accreditation and 

certification of forensics laboratories and service providers, would be for all accreditation and certifying 

organizations to adopt an agreed-upon National Code of Ethics as part of their requirements for 

accreditation and certification, and all Federal forensic laboratories30 to incorporate the National Code 

into their quality assurance programs and internal performance measures. Widespread adoption of a 

National Code of Ethics could also precede the promulgation of a national requirement for accreditation 

and certification through any of several administrative forcing mechanisms—for example, by making such 

adoption a prerequisite for receipt of Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants or research funds 

from the National Institute of Justice.

The SoFS identified and studied more than 45 codes of ethics in use by various forensic science 

organizations. Many of these codes apply to specific forensic science disciplines, and no single code of 

ethics has been adopted or implemented on a national scale that covers all forensic disciplines. SoFS’s 

review of existing codes identified four major categories of ethical assurance typically addressed by such 

codes: the need to (1) work within the parameters of one’s professional competence; (2) provide clear 

and objective testimony; (3) avoid real or perceived conflicts of interests; and (4) avoid real or perceived 

bias and or susceptibility to outside influences. 

The SoFS review found one code of ethics that addresses all four of the above assurances and has broad 

applicability to all forensic science disciplines: the “ASCLD/LAB Guiding Principles of Professional 

Responsibility for Crime Laboratory and Forensic Scientists” code found in the ASCLD/LAB

International Supplemental.

31

 While acknowledging that, over time, adaptations or improvements to that 

code might be identified, the SoFS consensus opinion was that the ASCLD/LAB code or one very much like 

it would serve well as an inaugural National Code of Ethics for forensic science providers and practitioners. 

The SoFS also concluded that by incorporating this or any National Code into accreditation requirements 

and within individual Federal laboratories’ quality assurance programs and internal performance 

measures, the Code would have a measure of enforceability. 

 

30 For purposes of this recommendation, the SoFS defined “forensic laboratory” as having at least one full-time analyst who 

examines physical evidence in criminal and/or investigative matters and provides reports and/or opinion testimony with respect to 

such evidence in United States courts of law. 

31 ASCLD/LAB Guiding Principles of Professional Responsibility for Crime Laboratories and Forensic Scientists. Available at: 

http://www.ascld-lab.org/guiding-principles/
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

25

The SoFS also determined that the impact of such a requirement would likely be minimal since the 

requirements outlined in the ASCLD/LAB code are already incorporated in the most widely used standards 

for accreditation: those used by ISO/IEC 17025 and by ASCLD/LAB. Unaccredited forensic science service 

providers could achieve compliance by management, independent of accreditation.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

26

APPENDICES
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

27

APPENDIX 1A: ESTIMATING COSTS OF ACCREDITATION

The total cost of achieving universal accreditation of forensic science service providers (FSSPs) is very 

difficult to estimate given large uncertainties regarding the number, type, and organizational structures 

of the Nation’s forensic laboratories and related entities; the services they provided; and the number of 

practitioners that would be affected in various ways. 

The table below depicts estimated costs of achieving and maintaining accreditation for one forensic 

science service provider (as of 2011), based on information gathered by SoFS from accrediting bodies and 

other sources.

TABLE 1 - Estimated costs (FY 2011) to achieve and maintain accreditation1

Small FSSP Medium FSSP Large FSSP

Accrediting Body Cost 

Application Fee, preconsultation, initial 

inspection, yearly fee, 

yearly surveillance visit

$1500/analyst/yea

r

$1000/analyst/year $500/analyst/year

Proficiency Testing $1000/analyst/yea

r $1000/analyst/year $1000/analyst/year

Continuing Education/Training $2000/analyst/yea

r $2000/analyst/year $2000/analyst/year

QA Staffing $120,000/year $120,000/year $240,000/year

Equipment Calibration – Initial $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

Equipment Calibration - Yearly 

maintenance $5,000 $10,000 $15,000

Variables

Practitioners ≤5 6-15 >15

Disciplines 1-2 3-6 7+

Sites 1 1 1+
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

28

1

Funding requirements are dependent upon variables such as number of analysts, number and type of 

forensic services, number of sites, organizational structure and agency specific requirements, along with 

other factors.

TABLE 2 - Estimated costs 1(FY 2011) for Medical Examiner/Coroner offices to achieve and maintain 

accreditation.

NAME IACME ABFT

Accrediting Body Cost2

Application fee, preconsultation, initial 

inspection

$2500/office/system $2500/office $4000/laboratory

Annual Maintenance 

Fee $1000/office/system $1000/office/system $3500/laboratory

Proficiency Testing

n/a n/a

$1000/practitioner

/year

Continuing 

Education/Training

$1000/practitioner/y

ear

$1000/practitioner/y

ear

$2000/practitioner

/year

QA Staffing $120,000/year $120,000/year $120,000/year3

Equipment Calibration –

Initial $5000 $5000 $20,000

Equipment Calibration –

Yearly maintenance $5000 $5000 $10,000

1

Funding requirements are dependent upon variables such as number of analysts, number and type of 

forensic services, number of sites, organizational structure and agency specific requirements, along with 

other factors; SoFS anticipates that these costs will rise in the future and could become comparable to 

the costs listed in Table 1. Also note that these are not ISO-based systems and additional challenges and 

costs could be incurred if, as some in the forensic science community have recommended, accreditation 

programs currently accepted within the professional communities for medical examiners, coroners and 

forensic toxicology laboratories, become recognized as ISO/IEC 17011 accrediting bodies in the field of 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

29

forensic science by the Inter American Accreditation Cooperation (IAAC) and/or the International 

Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). 

2Cost varies according to size of office. 

3Represents a laboratory with 6-15 practitioners at one site.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

30

APPENDIX 1B: FEDERAL FORENSIC PROVIDERS AND THEIR ACCREDITATION STATUS32

Federal Forensic Service Providers Accredited

1 California – Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) San 

Francisco 

X

2 California – U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Southwest X 

3 California – DEA Western X 

4 California – U.S. Customs and Border Protection Los Angeles * 

5 California – U.S. Customs and Border Protection San Francisco * 

6 Colorado - EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center X

7 DC – U.S. Customs and Border Protection * 

8 DC - Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General 

9 DC – U.S. Secret Service X 

10 DC – U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Digital Evidence

11 Delaware – DoD Armed Forces Medical Examiner System (includes 

Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory and DoD Forensic 

Toxicology Laboratory

X

12 Florida – DEA Southeast X

13 Georgia – ATF X

14 Georgia – EPA, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division X

15 George – U.S. Army Criminal Investigation X

 

32 These data were the best available to SoFS as of 2011. Accreditation status marked with an asterisk 

(*) indicates accreditation that has been obtained since 2011. In addition to the providers listed here, 

there are 16 Regional Computer Forensic Labs that work through agency partnerships established by FBI 

Federal agencies that use and supply personnel and equipment. For more details, please visit: 

www.rcfl.gov. 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

31

16 Georgia – U.S. Customs and Border Protection Savannah * 

17 Hawaii - Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Central Identification 

Laboratory 

X

18 Illinois - DEA North Central X 

19 Illinois – Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

20 Illinois – U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chicago * 

21 Maryland - ATF X 

22 Maryland - DEA MidAtlantic X 

23 Maryland – DoD Computer Forensics Lab X 

24 Maryland – National Bioforensics Analysis Center X

25 Maryland - Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration In process 

26 Nebraska – DoD Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command – Satellite 

Central Identification Laboratory

*

27 South Carolina – NOAA Center for Coastal Environmental Health and 

Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC

28 New Jersey – U.S. Customs and Border Protection New York * 

29 New York - DEA Northeast X 

30 Ohio – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Regional Lab 

31 Oregon – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laboratory X 

32 South Carolina - IRS 

33 Texas – DEA South Central X

34 Virginia - DEA Special Testing and Research X 

35 Virginia - DEA Digital Evidence X

36 Virginia – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) X 

37 Virginia - FBI X 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

32

38 Virginia – FBI Computer Analysis Response Team (50 divisions)

39 Virginia – U.S. Customs and Border Protection Springfield * 

40 Virginia – U.S. Postal Inspection Service - Digital Evidence Units (18) 

41 Virginia – U.S. Postal Inspection Service X 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

33

APPENDIX 1C: PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME 

LABORATORIES OPERATING IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF 

200533

Alabama DFS - Birmingham 

Alabama DFS - Dothan 

Alabama DFS - Florence 

Alabama DFS - Headquarters 

Alabama DFS - Huntsville 

Alabama DFS - Jacksonville 

Alabama DFS - Mobile 

Alabama DFS - Montgomery 

Alabama DFS - Tuscaloosa 

Alaska DPS 

Arizona - Chandler PD 

Arizona - Mesa PD 

Arizona - Phoenix PD 

Arizona - Scottsdale PD 

Arizona - Tucson PD 

Arizona DPS - Central 

Arizona DPS - Northern 

Arizona DPS - Southern 

Arizona DPS - Western 

Arkansas - Hope Regional 

 

33 Bureau of Justice Statistics report (July 2008)
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

34

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory 

California - Alameda County Sheriff 

California - ATF San Francisco 

California - Contra Costa County Sheriff 

California - County of Los Angeles, Department of Coroner 

California - DEA Southwest 

California - DEA Western 

California - El Cajon City PD 

California - Fresno County Sheriff 

California - Huntington Beach Police Department 

California - Kern County DA 

California - Long Beach PD 

California - Los Angeles County Sheriff 

California - Los Angeles PD 

California - Oakland PD 

California - Orange County Sheriff Coroner 

California - Sacramento County DA 

California - San Bernardino County Sheriff 

California - San Diego PD 

California - San Diego Sheriff 

California - San Francisco PD 

California - San Mateo County Sheriff 

California - Santa Ana PD 

California - Santa Clara County DA 

California – U.S. CBP Los Angeles 

California – U.S. CBP San Francisco 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

35

California - Ventura County Sheriff 

California DOJ - Cal DNA Data Bank Richmond 

California DOJ - Central Valley 

California DOJ - Chico 

California DOJ - DNA Casework, Richmond 

California DOJ - Eureka 

California DOJ - Freedom 

California DOJ - Fresno 

California DOJ - Missing Persons DNA Program, Richmond 

California DOJ - Redding 

California DOJ - Riverside 

California DOJ - Sacramento Criminalistics 

California DOJ - Sacramento Latent Prints and BAC 

California DOJ - Sacramento Toxicology 

California DOJ - Santa Barbara 

California DOJ - Santa Rosa 

Colorado - Aurora PD 

Colorado - Colorado Springs PD 

Colorado - Denver PD 

Colorado - Grand Junction PD 

Colorado - Greeley/Weld County 

Colorado - Jefferson County Sheriff 

Colorado - Lakewood PD 

Colorado BI - Denver 

Colorado BI - Montrose 

Colorado BI - Pueblo 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

36

Connecticut - Waterbury Police Department 

Connecticut DPS - Hartford 

Connecticut DPS - Meriden 

DC – U.S. CBP 

DC - Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General 

DC – U.S. Secret Service 

Delaware - Chief ME Wilmington 

Delaware – DoD Armed Forces Medical Examiner System 

Delaware State Police 

Florida - Broward County Sheriff 

Florida - DEA Southeast 

Florida - Indian River Regional 

Florida - Manatee County Sheriff's Office 

Florida - Miami Dade PD 

Florida - Palm Beach County Sheriff 

Florida - Pinellas County 

Florida - Sarasota County Sheriff 

Florida - State Fire Marshall 

Florida DLE - Ft. Meyers 

Florida DLE - Jacksonville 

Florida DLE - Orlando 

Florida DLE - Pensacola 

Florida DLE - Tallahassee 

Florida DLE - Tampa 

Georgia - ATF 

Georgia – U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

37

Georgia – U.S. CBP Savannah 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Central 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Coastal 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Eastern 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Headquarters Atlanta 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Northeastern 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Northwestern 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Southwestern 

Georgia BI-DOFS - Western 

Hawaii - Hawaii County PD 

Hawaii - Honolulu PD 

Hawaii – DoD Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command – Central 

Identification Laboratory

Idaho State Police - Coeur D'Alene 

Idaho State Police - Meridian 

Idaho State Police - Pocatello 

Illinois - Cook County Sheriff 

Illinois - DEA North Central 

Illinois – Du Page County Sheriff 

Illinois - IRS 

Illinois - Northeastern Illinois Regional 

Illinois – U.S. CBP Chicago 

Illinois – U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Illinois State Police - Rockford 

Illinois State Police - Chicago 

Illinois State Police - Joliet 

Illinois State Police - Metro East 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

38

Illinois State Police - Morton 

Illinois State Police - Research and Development 

Illinois State Police - Southern Illinois Forensic Center 

Illinois State Police - Springfield 

Illinois State Police - Westchester 

Indiana - Anderson PD 

Indiana - Greenwood PD 

Indiana - Indianapolis-Marion County 

Indiana State Police - Evansville 

Indiana State Police - Fort Wayne 

Indiana State Police - Indianapolis 

Indiana State Police - Lowell 

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation 

Kansas - Johnson County Sheriff 

Kansas - Regional Forensic Science Center 

Kansas BI - Great Bend 

Kansas BI - Kansas City 

Kansas BI - Pittsburg 

Kansas BI - Topeka 

Kentucky State Police - Central 

Kentucky State Police - Eastern 

Kentucky State Police - Jefferson 

Kentucky State Police - Northern 

Kentucky State Police - Southeastern 

Kentucky State Police - Western 

Louisiana - Acadiana Criminalistics 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

39

Louisiana - Jefferson Parish Crime Laboratory 

Louisiana - Jefferson Parish Forensic Center 

Louisiana - New Orleans Police Department 

Louisiana - North Louisiana Criminalistics, Alexandria 

Louisiana - North Louisiana Criminalistics, Shreveport 

Louisiana - North Louisiana Criminalistics, West Monroe 

Louisiana - Southwest Louisiana Crime Laboratory 

Louisiana DPS/State Police 

Maine - Health and Environmental Testing 

Maine State Police 

Maryland - Anne Arundel County PD 

Maryland - ATF 

Maryland - Baltimore City PD 

Maryland - Baltimore County PD 

Maryland - DEA MidAtlantic 

Maryland – DoD Computer Forensic Laboratory

Maryland - Hagerstown City PD 

Maryland - Montgomery County PD 

Maryland - Ocean City Police Department 

Maryland - Prince George's County Police 

Maryland - Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 

Maryland State Police - Berlin 

Maryland State Police - Hagerstown 

Maryland State Police - Pikesville 

Massachusetts - Boston PD 

Massachusetts - University of MA Medical Center, BioTech/Tox 

Laboratory 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

40

Massachusetts - University of MA Medical Center, Drug Laboratory 

Massachusetts Department of Health - Drug Laboratory 

Massachusetts Department of Health - University Food and Drug 

Laboratory 

Massachusetts State Police - Agawam 

Massachusetts State Police - Danvers 

Massachusetts State Police - Sudbury 

Michigan - Battle Creek PD 

Michigan - Detroit PD 

Michigan - Oakland County Sheriff 

Michigan State Police - Bridgeport 

Michigan State Police - Grand Rapids 

Michigan State Police - Grayling 

Michigan State Police - Lansing 

Michigan State Police - Marquette 

Michigan State Police - Northville 

Michigan State Police - Sterling Heights 

Minnesota - Hennepin County Sheriff 

Minnesota - Minneapolis PD 

Minnesota - St. Paul PD 

Minnesota BCA - Bemidji 

Minnesota BCA - St. Paul 

Mississippi - Jackson Police Department 

Mississippi - Tupelo PD 

Mississippi DPS - Batesville 

Mississippi DPS - Gulf Coast 

Mississippi DPS - Jackson 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

41

Mississippi DPS - Meridian 

Missouri - Independence PD 

Missouri - Kansas City Police 

Missouri - MSSU Regional Crime Laboratory 

Missouri - Northeast Area Criminalistics 

Missouri - SEMO Regional 

Missouri - St Louis County Crime Laboratory 

Missouri - St. Charles County Sheriff 

Missouri - St. Louis Metro Police 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Headquarters 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop B 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop C 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop D 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop G 

Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop H 

Montana DOJ 

Nebraska – DoD Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command – Satellite 

Central Identification Laboratory

Nebraska - Douglas County Sheriff 

Nebraska State Patrol - Lincoln 

Nebraska State Patrol - North Platte 

Nevada - Henderson PD 

Nevada - Las Vegas Metropolitan PD 

Nevada - Washoe County Sheriff 

New Hampshire State Police 

New Jersey - Burlington County 

New Jersey - Cape May County Prosecutor 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

42

New Jersey - Hudson County Prosecutor 

New Jersey - Newark PD 

New Jersey - Ocean County Sheriff 

New Jersey - Union County Prosecutor 

New Jersey – U.S. CBP New York 

New Jersey State Police - Central 

New Jersey State Police - DNA Laboratory 

New Jersey State Police - East 

New Jersey State Police - North 

New Jersey State Police - South 

New Mexico - Albuquerque PD 

New Mexico - Department of Health, Toxicology 

New Mexico DPS - Northern 

New Mexico DPS - Southern Lab 

New York - Chief ME, Department of Forensic Biology 

New York - DEA Northeast 

New York - Erie County 

New York - Monroe County 

New York - Nassau County ME Genetics 

New York - Nassau County ME Toxicology 

New York - Nassau County PD 

New York - New York City PD 

New York - Niagara County Sheriff 

New York - Onondaga County 

New York - Suffolk County 

New York – U.S. Postal Inspection Service 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

43

New York - Westchester County 

New York - Westchester County DPS 

New York - Yonkers PD 

New York State Police - Forensic Investigation Center 

New York State Police - Mid-Hudson 

New York State Police - Southern Tier 

New York State Police - Western 

North Carolina - Charlotte Mecklenburg PD 

North Carolina State BI - Raleigh 

North Carolina State BI - Western 

North Dakota - Office of Attorney General, Bismarck 

Ohio - Canton Stark County 

Ohio - Cleveland PD 

Ohio - Columbus Division Of Police 

Ohio - Columbus Investigative Unit 

Ohio - Cuyahoga County Coroner 

Ohio - Hamilton County Coroner's Office 

Ohio - Lake County 

Ohio - Mansfield PD 

Ohio - Miami Valley Regional 

Ohio - Newark PD 

Ohio - Springfield PD 

Ohio - Toledo PD 

Ohio – U.S. FDA Regional Lab 

Ohio BCI - Central 

Ohio BCI - Northeast 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

44

Ohio BCI - Northwest 

Ohio DPS - Columbus 

Ohio State Fire Marshall 

Oklahoma - Ardmore PD 

Oklahoma - Broken Arrow PD 

Oklahoma - OK City PD 

Oklahoma - Oklahoma County DA 

Oklahoma - Tulsa Police Department 

Oklahoma BI - East 

Oklahoma BI - Northeast 

Oklahoma BI - Northwest 

Oklahoma BI - OK City, Central 

Oklahoma BI - Southwest 

Oklahoma State BI - Central Latent Evidence 

Oregon - National Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon State Police - Bend 

Oregon State Police - Central Point 

Oregon State Police - Ontario 

Oregon State Police - Pendleton 

Oregon State Police - Portland Metro 

Oregon State Police - Springfield 

Pennsylvania - Allegheny County ME 

Pennsylvania - Bucks County 

Pennsylvania - Philadelphia PD 

Pennsylvania State Police - Bethlehem 

Pennsylvania State Police - DNA 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

45

Pennsylvania State Police - Erie 

Pennsylvania State Police - Greensburg 

Pennsylvania State Police - Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania State Police - Lima 

Pennsylvania State Police - Wyoming 

Rhode Island Department of Health 

Rhode Island State Laboratory 

South Carolina - Aiken County Sheriff 

South Carolina - Anderson Oconee Regional 

South Carolina - Beaufort County Sheriff 

South Carolina - Charleston PD 

South Carolina - Columbia PD 

South Carolina - Greenville DPS 

South Carolina - Horry County PD 

South Carolina - Lexington County Sheriff 

South Carolina - Orangeburg DPS 

South Carolina - Richland County Sheriff 

South Carolina - SLED 

South Carolina - Spartanburg County Sheriff 

South Carolina - York County Sheriff 

South Dakota - Attorney General Division of Crime Investigation 

South Dakota - Rapid City PD 

South Dakota - Sioux Falls PD 

South Dakota - State Health Lab 

Tennessee - Rutherford County Sheriff 

Tennessee – U.S. Postal Inspection Service 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

46

Tennessee BI - Knoxville 

Tennessee BI - Memphis 

Tennessee BI - Nashville 

Texas - Austin PD 

Texas - Bexar County 

Texas - Brazoria County Sheriff 

Texas - DEA South Central 

Texas - El Paso PD 

Texas - Fort Worth PD 

Texas - Harris County ME 

Texas - Houston PD 

Texas - Jefferson County Sheriff 

Texas - Pasadena PD 

Texas - Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences 

Texas - Tarrant County ME 

Texas - UNT Health Science Center 

Texas DPS - Abilene 

Texas DPS - Amarillo 

Texas DPS - Austin 

Texas DPS - Corpus Christi 

Texas DPS - El Paso 

Texas DPS - Garland 

Texas DPS - Houston 

Texas DPS - Laredo 

Texas DPS - Lubbock 

Texas DPS - McAllen 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

47

Texas DPS - Midland 

Texas DPS - Tyler 

Texas DPS - Waco 

Texas State Fire Marshall 

Utah - Public Health, Toxicology 

Utah DPS - Central 

Utah DPS - Eastern 

Utah DPS - Northern 

Utah DPS - Southern 

Vermont Laboratory 

Virginia - DEA Special Testing and Research 

Virginia – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Virginia - FBI 

Virginia – U.S. CBP Springfield 

Virginia – U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Virginia DFS - Central 

Virginia DFS - Eastern 

Virginia DFS - Northern 

Virginia DFS - Western 

Washington State Patrol - Kennewick 

Washington State Patrol - Latent Prints Lab 

Washington State Patrol - Marysville 

Washington State Patrol - Seattle 

Washington State Patrol - Spokane 

Washington State Patrol - Tacoma 

Washington State Patrol - Vancouver 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

48

West Virginia - Marshall University Lab 

West Virginia State Police 

Wisconsin - Kenosha County Division of Health 

Wisconsin State - Madison 

Wisconsin State - Milwaukee 

Wisconsin State - Wausau 

Wyoming - State Crime Lab 

APPENDIX 1D: SOFS TALLY OF PUBLICLY FUNDED PROVIDERS LISTED IN APPENDIX C

THAT WERE NOT ACCREDITED BY EITHER THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME 

LABORATORY DIRECTORS / LABORATORY ACCREDITATION BOARD (ASCLD-LAB) OR 

FORENSIC QUALITY SERVICES,INC. (FQS) AS OF 2009*

1. Alabama – DFS – Headquarters

2. Arizona- Chandler PD

3. California – Huntington Beach PD

4. California – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Los Angeles*

5. California – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, San Francisco*

6. Colorado – Aurora PD

7. Colorado – Grand Junction PD

8. Colorado – Lakewood PD

9. Colorado – Bureau of Investigation – Montrose

10. Connecticut – Waterbury PD

11. DC – Customs and Border Protection*

12. DC – Dept. of Veteran Affairs, OIG

13. Delaware State Police

14. Florida – Manatee County Sheriff’s Office

15. Florida – Sarasota County Sheriff

16. Florida – State Fire Marshall

17. Georgia – U. S. Customs and Border Protection, Savannah*

18. Hawaii – Hawaii County PD

19. Hawaii – U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory

20. Illinois – Cook County Sheriff

21. Illinois – IRS

22. Illinois – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Chicago*

23. Illinois – U.S. Postal Inspection Service

24. Indiana – Anderson PD

25. Indiana – Greenwood PD
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

49

26. Kentucky – State Police – Eastern

27. Kentucky – State Police – Southeastern

28. Kentucky – State Police – Western

29. Louisiana – Jefferson Parish Forensic Center

30. Louisiana – New Orleans PD

31. Maryland – Hagerstown PD

32. Maryland - Ocean City PD

33. Maryland – Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

34. Massachusetts – University of MA Medical Center, BioTech/Tox Lab

35. Massachusetts – Dept. of Health – Drug Laboratory

36. Massachusetts – Dept. of Health – University Food and Drug Lab

37. Massachusetts – State Police – Agawam

38. Michigan – Battle Creek PD

39. Michigan – Detroit PD

40. Michigan – Oakland County Sheriff

41. Minnesota – Minneapolis PD

42. Minnesota – St. Paul PD

43. Mississippi – Jackson PD

44. Mississippi – Tupelo PD

45. Missouri – Independence PD

46. Missouri – MSSU Regional Crime Laboratory

47. Missouri – Northeast Area Criminalistics

48. Missouri – SEMO Regional 

49. Nebraska – Douglas County Sheriff

50. Nebraska – State Patrol – North Platte

51. Nevada – Henderson PD

52. New Jersey – Burlington County 

53. New Jersey – Hudson County Prosecutor

54. New Jersey – Newark PD

55. New Jersey – Ocean County Sheriff

56. New Jersey – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, NY*

57. New Mexico – Dept. of Health, Toxicology

58. New York – U.S. Postal Inspection Service

59. Ohio – Cleveland PD

60. Ohio – Columbus Investigative Unit

61. Ohio – Newark PD

62. Ohio – Springfield PD

63. Ohio – Toledo PD

64. Oklahoma – Bureau of Investigation, Central, Oklahoma City

65. Oklahoma – Bureau of Investigation, Central Latent Evidence

66. Pennsylvania – Bucks County

67. Pennsylvania – State Police DNA

68. South Carolina – Aiken County Sheriff

69. South Carolina – Anderson Oconee Regional

70. South Carolina – Beaufort County Sheriff

71. South Carolina – Columbia PD
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

50

72. South Carolina – Greenville DPS

73. South Carolina – Horry County PD

74. South Carolina – Lexington County Sheriff

75. South Carolina – Orangeburg PDS

76. South Carolina – Spartanburg County Sheriff

77. South Carolina – York County Sheriff

78. South Dakota – Rapid City PD

79. South Dakota – Sioux Falls PD

80. South Dakota – State Health Lab

81. Texas – Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences

82. Texas – UNT Health Science Center

83. Utah – Public Health, Toxicology

84. Utah – DPS – Eastern

85. Virginia – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Springfield*

86. Virginia – U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Note: Publicly funded providers marked with an asterisk (*) are those that are known to 

have obtained accreditation since 2009.

APPENDIX 1E: ADDITIONAL FORENSICS SERVICE PROVIDERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BJS

2005 SURVEY/APPENDIX C THAT WERE ACCREDITED AS OF 2009:

(Note: Labs accredited by ASCLD/LAB are in regular font; those accredited by Forensic Quality Services 

and not ASCLD/LAB are in italics)

1. Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, Auburn Laboratory, Auburn

2. Arizona Chromosomal Laboratories, Phoenix

3. California Human Identification Technologies, Inc., Redlands

4. California San Diego Regional Computer Forensics Lab

5. California Serological Research Institute, Forensic Serological Analysis, Richmond

6. California Silicon Valley Regional Computer Forensic Lab, Menlo Park

7. California Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Forensic Sciences Lab – Breath Alcohol 

Calibration Program, Ventura.

8. California Forensic Analytical Sciences, Haywood

9. Colorado Bureau of Investigation Western Slope Regional Forensic Lab, Grand Junction

10. Colorado Rocky Mountain Regional Computer Forensic Lab, Centennial

11. Colorado EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center, Denver

12. Florida Bernhardt Labs, Florida Forensics, LLC., Jacksonville

13. Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, Daytona Beach Regional Crime Lab

14. Florida DNA Labs International, Deerfield

15. Florida Florida Racing Laboratory, Gainesville

16. Florida Midwest Research Lab, Florida Division, Palm Bay

17. Florida Trinity DNA Solutions, Milton
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

51

18. Georgia EPA, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division

19. Hawaii Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Central Identification Lab 

20. Illinois Independent Forensics, Hillside

21. Illinois State Police Crime Scene Services Command – Region II, Sterling

22. Illinois State Police Crime Scene Services Command – Region III, Carlinville

23. Illinois State Police Crime Scene Services Command – Region IV, Effingham

24. Illinois State Police Crime Scene Services Command – Region

25. Indiana Strand Analytical Laboratories, Indianapolis

26. Kentucky Regional Computer Forensics Lab, Louisville

27. Louisiana Coroner Forensic Science Center, St. Tammany Parish, Slidell

28. Maryland BRT Labs, Baltimore

29. Maryland DoD Computer Forensics Lab, Linthicum

30. Massachusetts Department of State Police Maynard Central Lab, Maynard

31. Massachusetts Department of State Police Southeast Sub-Lab, Lakeville

32. Massachusetts Department of State Police Sudbury Central Lab, Sudbury

33. Massachusetts Department of State Police Western Satellite West Sub-Lab, Springfield

34. Massachusetts State Police Forensic Services Group, Boston Sub-Lab, Boston

35. Massachusetts State Police Forensic Services Group, Bourne Sub-Lab, Bourne

36. Massachusetts State Police Forensic Services Group, Devens Sub-Lab, Devens

37. Minnesota Target Corporation Forensic Services Lab, Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park

38. Mississippi Scales Biological Lab., Inc. Brandon

39. Missouri Genetic Technologies, Inc., Pacific

40. Missouri Heart of America Regional Computer Forensic Lab, Kansas City

41. Missouri State Highway Patrol, Troop E Satellite Lab, St. Joseph

42. Missouri Paternity Testing Corporation, Columbia

43. Nebraska University of Nebraska, Human DNA Identification Molecular Diagnostics Lab, 

Omaha

44. Nevada Target Corporation Forensic Services Lab, Las Vegas

45. New Jersey NJ Regional Computer Forensic Lab, Hamilton

46. New Mexico Forensic Testing Laboratories, Inc., Las Cruces

47. New York Westchester County Dept. of Lab and Research Division of Forensic Toxicology, 

Valhalla

48. North Carolina DNA Security, Inc., Burlington

49. North Carolina Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab., Winston-Salem

50. North Carolina Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings DNA Identification 

51. North Carolina Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Forensic Identity Testing 

Laboratory (Labcorp), Research Triangle Park

52. North Carolina Laboratory Corporation of America, Burlington

53. North Dakota North Dakota State University, Fargo

54. Ohio DNA Diagnostics Center – Forensic Department, Fairfield

55. Ohio Genetica DNA Laboratories, Cincinnati

56. Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Forensic Science Center, Edmond

57. Oregon Northwest Regional Computer Forensics Lab, Portland

58. Pennsylvania MitoTyping Technologies, LLC, State College

59. Pennsylvania National Medical Services, Inc., Criminalistics Lab, Willow Grove

60. Pennsylvania Philadelphia Regional Computer Forensics Lab., Radnor
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

52

61. Puerto Rico Instituto de Ciencias Forenses, Laboratorio Forense DNA-Serologia, Rio Piedras

62. South Dakota Identity Genetics, Brookings

63. Tennessee Aegis Sciences Corporation CRIMES Division, Nashville

64. Tennessee Orchid Cellmark Nashville Lab, Nashville

65. Texas Alliance Forensics Lab., Inc., Fort Worth

66. Texas Arlington Police Department, Crime Lab, Arlington

67. Texas Armstrong Forensic Lab, Inc., Arlington

68. Texas Corpus Christi PD Forensic services Division, corpus Christi

69. Texas CyberEvidence Digital Forensics Lab, The Woodlands, TX

70. Texas Dallas County Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas

71. Texas Harris County Sheriff’s Office Firearms Identification Lab, Houston

72. Texas Hill Schwartz Spilker Keller LLC Computer Forensics Lab, Houston

73. Texas Integrated Forensic Lab, Inc., Euless

74. Texas North Texas Regional Computer Forensics Lab, Dallas

75. Texas Orchid Cellmark Dallas Division, Farmers Branch

76. Texas Plano Police Department Crime Scene Investigation Unit, Plano

77. Texas Texas Parks Wildlife Law Enforcement Forensic Lab, San Marcos

78. Texas United Services Automobile Ass. Digital Forensics Lab, San Antonio

79. Texas UNT Center for Human Identification, Ft. Worth

80. Utah American Express Digital Multi-Media Lab, Salt Lake City

81. Utah Intermountain West Regional Computer Forensic Lab, Salt Lake City

82. Utah Sorenson Forensics, Salt Lake City

83. Virginia DC Metro Police Forensic Biology and Trace Evidence Units, Lorton

84. Virginia The Bode Technology Group, Inc., Lorton

85. Virginia Fairfax Identity Lab, Richmond

86. West Virginia Marshall University Forensic DNA Lab, Huntington

APPENDIX 1F: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES RELEVANT TO ACCREDITATION

ASCLD/LAB - www.ascld-lab.org

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation - www.a2la.org

Forensic Quality Services - www.forquality.org

American Board of Forensic Toxicology - www.abft.org

National Conference of State Legislatures - www.ncsl.org

International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation - www.ilac.org

Bureau of Justice Statistics - www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

InterAmerican Accreditation Cooperation - www.iaac.org.mx

New York State Accreditation Program for Forensic Laboratories -

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/section6190.htm

National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation - www.nacla.net
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

53

APPENDIX 2A: DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC TESTING CATEGORIES WITH ACCREDITING DETAILS 

AND FEES (2014)

G19 

Categories 

of Testing

Discipline or

Sub- discipline

Certification

Organization Contact Info AccreditingOrg

Approx. # of

diplomates 

or certified 

individuals

Applic.

Fee

Exam

Fee

Recert..

Fee/year

Criminalistics

American Board of

Criminalistics www.criminalistics.com FSAB 553 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Controlled

Substances Drug Analysis

American Board of

Criminalistics www.criminalistics.com FSAB 209 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Hairs, Blood, 

Body Fluids 

and Tissues Molecular Biology

American Board of

Criminalistics

www.criminalistics.com FSAB 186 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Trace 

Evidence Fire Debris

American Board of

Criminalistics www.criminalistics.com FSAB 50 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Trace 

Evidence Hairs & Fibers

American Board of

Criminalistics www.criminalistics.com FSAB 32 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Trace 

Evidence

Paint and

Polymers

American Board of

Criminalistics www.criminalistics.com FSAB 27 $50.00 $200.00 $40.00

Trace 

Evidence

Glass

Trace 

Evidence

Explosives

Trace 

Evidence

Soils

Trace 

Evidence

Plants

Entomology

Forensic

Entomology

American Board of

Forensic Entomology www.forensicentomolog

ist.org 12 n/a $125.00 $25.00

Building Materials

DNA

Pattern Evidence

Trace Evidence

Chemistry

American Institute of 

Chemists/National 

Certification 

Commission in 

Chemistry and 

Chemical 

Engineering www.theaic.org

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Providers

$130.00 n/a $95.00

Chemical

Engineering

American Institute of 

Chemists/National 

Certification 

Commission in 

Chemistry and 

Chemical 

Engineering

www.theaic.org

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Providers

$131.00 n/a $95.00

Chemical 

Hygiene

Officer

National Registry of

Certified Chemists www.NASc6.org

Outside F.S. 

Service

Providers

$150.00 $175.00 $85.00

Controlled

Substances? Clinical 

Chemistry

National Registry of

Certified Chemists www.NASc6.org

Outside F.S. 

Service

Providers

$150.00 $175.00 $85.00

Controlled

Substances?

Environmental 

Analytical 

Chemistry

National Registry of

Certified Chemists

www.NASc6.org

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Providers $150.00 $175.00 $75.00

Toxicology?

Toxicological

Chemistry

National Registry of

Certified Chemists www.NASc6.org

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Providers

$150.00 $175.00 $85.00

Handwriting 

and 

Document 

Examination

Forensic 

Document 

Examination

American Board of 

Forensic Document 

Examiners

www.abfde.org FSAB 110 $250.00 n/a $200.00
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

54

Handwriting 

and 

Document 

Examination

Forensic 

Document 

Examination

Board of Forensic 

Document 

Examination

www.bfde.org FSAB 17 $100.00 $500.00 $100.00

Fingerprints

Latent 

Fingerprints

International 

Association for 

Identification

www.theiai.org FSAB 891 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Fingerprints

Ten print 

fingerprints

International 

Association for 

Identification

www.theiai.org FSAB 127 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Scene

Investigation Blood stain 

pattern

International 

Association for 

Identification www.theiai.org FSAB 49 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Scene

Investigation

Crime scene-4 

levels

International 

Association for 

Identification

www.theiai.org FSAB

1460: 

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Providers $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Scene

Investigation

Forensic 

photography

International 

Association for 

Identification www.theiai.org FSAB 51 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Scene

Investigation

Evidence

Photographer

Evidence 

Photographers 

International Council www.evidencephotogra

phers.com 55 $300.00 $695.00 $139.00

G19 

Categories 

of Testing

Discipline/SubdisciplineCertification

Organization Contact Info

Accrediting

Organizatio

n

approx. # of

diplomates 

or certified 

individuals

Applicat

ion

Fee

Examinatio

n

Fee

Recertificatio

n

Fee/year

Marks and

Impression

Footwear International 

Association of 

Identification www.theiai.org

110 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Video

International 

Association of 

Identification

www.theiai.org 12 $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Forensic Artist

International 

Association of 

Identification

www.theiai.org

32: Outside 

F.S. Service 

Providers $150.00 $300.00 $60.00

Marks and

Impression Footwear/ 

Fingerprints

Canadian

Identification society www.cis-sci.ca NA for U.S.A. $150.00 n/a $150.00

Marks and

Impression

Impression - Tire 

tread

Evidence 

Handling

International 

Association of 

Property and 

Evidence

www.IAPE.org

1400+; 

Outside F.S. 

Service 

Provider $150.00 n/a $20.00

Firearms and 

ballistics

Firearms

Association of 

Firearms & 

Toolmarks 

Examiners www.afte.org 123 n/a $250.00 $25.00

Marks and

Impressions

Toolmarks

Association of 

Firearms & 

Toolmarks 

Examiners www.afte.org 46 n/a $250.00 $25.00

Gunshot Residue

Association of 

Firearms & 

Toolmarks 

Examiners www.afte.org 40 n/a $250.00 $25.00

Serial # 

Restoration none

Trajectory

Reconstruction none

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Digital Forensics 

Certified 

Practioner and 

DFCA

Digital Forensics

Computer Board

www.dfcb.org 178 $250.00 $100.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Certified 

Computer 

Examiner (CCE)

International Society 

of Forensic 

Computer Examiners

www.isfce.org 805 $395.00 n/a $75.00
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

55

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Certified Digital 

Forensic 

Examiner 

(CDFE), Certified 

Digital Media 

Collector 

(CDMC), Certified 

Computer Crime 

Investigator 

(CCCI) DOD Cyber Crime

Center www.dc3.mil

Training 

source

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Certified Forensic 

Computer 

Examiner 

(CFCE)

International 

Association of 

Computer 

Investigation 

Specialists

www.iacis.com 1120 $750.00 n/a $100.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Certified 

Electronic 

Evidence

Collection 

Specialist 

Certification 

(CEECS)

International 

Association of 

Computer 

Investigation 

Specialists

www.iacis.com

In above 

total?

$750.00 n/a $100.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Certified Forensic 

Analyst, Certified 

Forensic 

Examiner, 

Reverse 

Engineering 

Malware, many 

others

Global Information 

Assurance 

Certification

www.giac.org ANSI

3,312

n/a

$899.00 $100.00

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Audio

Audio, Video 

and Computer 

Analysis

Digital Evidence -

Video

G19 

Categories 

of Testing

Discipline/SubdisciplineCertification

Organization Contact Info

Accrediting

Organizatio

n

approx. # of

diplomates 

or certified 

individuals

Applicat

ion

Fee

Examinatio

n

Fee

Recertificatio

n

Fee/year

Forensic

Engineering

International 

Institute of Forensic 

Engineering 

Sciences

www.iifes.org FSAB

16; Outside 

of F.S. 

Service 

Provider

$300.00 n/a $50.00

Forensic

Engineering

National Academy of 

Forensic Engineers 

(NAFE)

www.nafe.org

Council of 

Engineering 

and 

Scientific 

Specialty

Boards 

(CESB)

Outside of 

F.S. Service 

Provider

Civil Engineering

American Society of 

Civil Engineers 

(ASCE)

www.asce.org ANSI

Outside of 

F.S. Service 

Provider

Toxicology

Forensic

Toxicology

American Board of

Forensic Toxicology www.abft.org FSAB 254 $150.00 n/a $100.00

Toxicology

Forensic

Toxicology

Forensic Toxicologist

Certification Board

http://home.usit.net/~ro

bsears/

f tcb/index.htm

50 $150.00 n/a $30.00

Toxicology

Forensic Alcohol

Toxicology

Forensic Toxicologist

Certification Board

http://home.usit.net/~ro

bsears/

f tcb/index.htm

39 $150.00 n/a $30.00

Toxicology

Forensic Drug

Toxicology

Forensic Toxicologist

Certification Board

home.usit.net/~robsear

s/ftcb/in dex 27 $150.00 n/a $30.00

Forensic

Anthropology

American Board of 

Forensic 

Anthropology www.theabfa.org FSAB 71 $100.00 $200.00 $150.00
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

56

Forensic

Psychology

American Board of

Forensic Psychology

www.abfp.com

299: 

(Outside of 

F.S. Service 

Provider) $125.00 $450.00 n/a

Forensic

Psychiatry

American College of

Forensic Psychiatry www.forensicpsychonlin

e.com

Outside F.S. 

Service

Providers

Forensic

Psychiatry

American Board of 

Psychiatry & 

Neurology

www.abpn.com

American 

Board of 

Medical 

Specialties

Outside F.S. 

Service

Providers

$700.00 $2,300.00 $150.00

Forensic Nursing

International 

Association of 

Forensic Nursing

www.iafn.org

1500+; 

(Outside of 

F.S. Service 

Provider) n/a $400.00 $116.00

Odontology

Odontology -

Bite

Mark

American Board of

Forensic Odontology www.abfo.org FSAB 160 $400.00 $500.00 $230.00

APPENDIX 2B: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Association of Firearms & Toolmarks Examiners - www.afte.org

Digital Forensics Computer Board - www.dcfb.org

International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners - www.isfce.org

DOD Cyber Crime Center - www.dc3.mil

International Association of Computer Investigation Specialists - www.iacis.com

Global Information Assurance Certification - www.giac.org

International Institute of Forensic Engineering Sciences - www.ifes.org

National Academy of Forensic Engineers - www.nafe.org

American Society of Civil Engineers - www.asce.org

American Board of Forensic Toxicology - www.abft.org

Forensic Toxicologist Certification Board - www.ftcb.org

American Board of Forensic Anthropology - www.theabfa.org

American Board of Forensic Psychology - www.abfp.com

American College of Forensic Psychiatry - www.forensicpsychonline.com

American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology - www.abpn.com

International Association of Forensic Nursing - www.iafn.org

American Board of Forensic Odontology - www.abfo.org
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

57

APPENDIX 3A: AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES34

Established in 1933, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), a not-for-profit organization 

comprising 24 medical specialty Member Boards, is the pre-eminent entity overseeing the certification 

of physician specialists in the United States. The primary function of ABMS is to assist its Member 

Boards in developing and implementing educational and professional standards to evaluate and certify 

physician specialists. By participating in these initiatives, ABMS also serves as a unique and highly 

influential voice in the healthcare industry, bringing focus and rigor to issues involving specialization and 

certification in medicine. ABMS is a designated primary equivalent source of credential information.

Medical specialty certification in the United States is a voluntary process. While medical licensure sets 

the minimum competency requirements to diagnose and treat patients, it is not specialty specific. Board 

certification—and the Gold Star—demonstrate a physician’s exceptional expertise in a particular 

specialty and/or subspecialty of medical practice. 

The Gold Star signals a board certified physician’s commitment and expertise in consistently achieving 

superior clinical outcomes in a responsive, patient-focused setting. Patients, physicians, healthcare 

providers, insurers and quality organizations look for the Gold Star as the best measure of a physician’s 

knowledge, experience and skills to provide quality healthcare within a given specialty.

ABMS is an organization of medical specialty boards with shared goals and standards related to the 

certification of medical specialists. Certification includes initial specialty and subspecialty certification 

and maintenance of certification throughout the physician’s career. The mission of the ABMS is to 

maintain and improve the quality of medical care by assisting the Member Boards in their efforts to 

develop and utilize professional and educational standards for the certification of physician specialists. 

The intent of both the initial certification of physicians and the maintenance of certification is to provide 

assurance to the public that a physician specialist certified by a Member Board of the ABMS has 

successfully completed an approved educational program and evaluation process which includes 

components designed to assess the medical knowledge, judgment, professionalism and clinical and 

communication skills required to provide quality patient care in that specialty. The ABMS serves to 

coordinate the activities of its Member Boards and to provide information to the public, the 

government, the profession and its Members concerning issues involving certification of physicians.

Since 1933, official recognition of specialty boards in medicine has been achieved by the collaborative 

efforts of the Advisory Board for Medical Specialties, its successor, the American Board of Medical 

Specialties, and the AMA Council on Medical Education. In 1948 these efforts were formalized through 

the establishment of the Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB). A jointly approved publication, 

"Essentials for Approval of Examining Boards in Medicine Specialties," established standards. This 

document has undergone several revisions through the years and remains the standard for recognition 

of new specialty boards.

From 1933 to 1970, the Advisory Board operated as a federation of individual specialty boards. It 

functioned primarily as a forum for discussion without the benefit of a full-time director or a central 

office from which to conduct its daily operations. This changed in 1970 when the Advisory Board was 

 

34 www.abms.org
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

58

reorganized as the American Board of Medical Specialties. A new category of "Conjoint Board" was also 

created and the Bylaws were revised to provide for the category of "Regular Member" for Primary and 

Conjoint Boards and the category of "Associate Member" for member organizations that were not 

specialty boards. A formal funding mechanism was established on the basis of a dues assessment for 

each Member Board and Associate Member.

The official ABMS Member Boards and Associate Members are (year approved as an ABMS Member 

Board in parentheses): 

 Allergy and Immunology (1971)

 Anesthesiology (1941)

 Colon and Rectal Surgery (1949)

 Dermatology (ABMS Founding Member)

 Emergency Medicine (1979)

 Family Medicine (1969)

 Internal Medicine (1936)

 Medical Genetics (1991)

 Neurological Surgery (1940)

 Nuclear Medicine (1971)

 Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABMS Founding Member)

 Ophthalmology (ABMS Founding Member)

 Orthopaedic Surgery (1935)

 Otolaryngology (ABMS Founding Member)

 Pathology (1936)

 Pediatrics (1935)

 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1947)

 Plastic Surgery (1941)

 Preventive Medicine (1949)

 Psychiatry and Neurology (1935)

 Radiology (1935)

 Surgery (1937)

 Thoracic Surgery (1971)

 Urology (1935)

The approved Member Boards of ABMS certify specialists in more than 145 specialties and 

subspecialties. The primary function of each of these boards is to evaluate candidates in its primary 

specialty and subspecialty areas who voluntarily appear for review and to certify those qualified as 

"diplomates" or "subspecialists" of that board. This is accomplished through a comprehensive process 

involving educational requirements, professional peer evaluation and examination.

The Member Boards also work in collaboration with other professional organizations and agencies to 

elevate the standards of graduate medical school education. Accreditation review for the approval of 

residency training programs in each specialty however, is conducted by a Residency Review Committee 

(RRC) through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

59

The governing body of each individual specialty board comprises specialists qualified in the particular 

field represented by that board. Members of the governing bodies include representatives from among 

the national specialty organizations in related fields.

Since 1933, specialty boards have been approved jointly by action of ABMS and the American Medical 

Association Council on Medical Education (AMA/CME). This determination begins with a review by the 

Liaison Committee for Specialty Boards (LCSB), an organization sponsored by ABMS and AMA/CME. The 

function of LCSB is to receive and evaluate applications for approval of new specialty boards according 

to standards and procedures agreed upon by both ABMS and AMA.

Certification by an ABMS Member Board involves a rigorous process of testing and peer evaluation that 

is designed and administered by specialists in the specific area of medicine. 

At one time, physicians were awarded certificates that were not time-limited and therefore did not have 

to be renewed. Later, a program of periodic recertification (every six to 10 years) was initiated to ensure 

physicians engaged in continuing education and examination to keep current in their specialty.

However, in 2006, ABMS’ 24 Member Boards adopted a new gold standard for re-certification with a 

continuous ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program for all specialties. MOC uses evidencebased guidelines and national standards and best practices in combination with customized continuing 

education so physicians demonstrate their leadership in the national movement for healthcare quality. 

MOC also requires proof of continuing education and experience in between testing for re-certification.

There are 24 Member Boards of ABMS, including:

 The American Board of Allergy and Immunology

 The American Board of Anesthesiology

 The American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery

 The American Board of Dermatology

 The American Board of Emergency Medicine

 The American Board of Family Medicine

 The American Board of Internal Medicine

 The American Board of Medical Genetics

 The American Board of Neurological Surgery

 The American Board of Nuclear Medicine

 The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology

 The American Board of Ophthalmology

 The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery

 The American Board of Otolaryngology

 The American Board of Pathology

 The American Board of Pediatrics

 The American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

 The American Board of Plastic Surgery

 The American Board of Preventive Medicine

 The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

 The American Board of Radiology
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

60

 The American Board of Surgery

 The American Board of Thoracic Surgery

 The American Board of Urology

APPENDIX 3B: AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICOLEGAL DEATH INVESTIGATORS 

(ABMDI) CERTIFICATION35

I. Registry Certification (basic)

The Registry certification is the initial certification that provides official recognition that an individual has 

acquired basic knowledge and demonstrated proficiency in the standards of practice necessary to 

properly conduct a competent, thorough medicolegal death investigation. 

Eligibility

1. Must be at least eighteen years of age at time of application. 

2. Must have a high school diploma or equivalent. 

3. Must currently be employed in a Medical Examiner or Coroner office or equivalent military 

authority with the job responsibility to “conduct death scene investigations” at time of 

application and examination. 

4. Must have a minimum of 640 hours of death investigation experience 

Note: If you are currently employed by a ME/Coroner office full time, you will have accumulated 

640 hours in four months. If you are employed part time, you must have accumulated 640 hours 

within the past year: 

o Each on-call hour = 0.25 hours 

o Investigation of a natural death, no scene investigation = 1 hour 

o Investigation of non-natural death, no scene investigation = 2.5 hours 

o Investigation of a death with scene investigation = 5 hours

DISCLAIMER: Currently, the ABMDI does not endorse any program that claims to fulfill the 

requirements of certification or prepare an individual for the certification exam.

Application Process

Applications are available upon receipt of an application request form. The $50 non-refundable 

application fee must accompany the request form.

Included in the Registry application packet:

 

35 http://medschool.slu.edu/abmdi/index.php.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

61

1. Application Form (Code of Ethics included) 

2. Employment Verification Form verifying 640 hours of work experience and current employment 

in a Medical Examiner/Coroner office or equivalent military authority with the primary 

responsibility of death investigation (requires notarization). *this requirement applies to 

application and examination 

3. Reference form 

4. Performance Training Guidebook Checklist with ABMDI instructions (see below for more 

details).

In order to be eligible to sit for the Registry exam, the individual must complete the application packet in 

its entirety. Note: Applicants who begin the process within one jurisdiction and subsequently move to 

another, must provide a notarized employment verification form from each jurisdiction indicating the 

length of employment.

Application materials must be completed in their entirety and returned to the ABMDI office at least 30 

days prior to the desired examination date.

There is an 18 month time limit to complete the application process and sit for the exam. If, after 18 

months, you have not completed all application requirements or tested, your file will become inactive 

and your application fee will be forfeited. You will then have to reapply and pay the application fee in 

order to start the process again. 

Medicolegal Death Investigators have standards of practice that require performance of specialized, 

technical skills, e.g., initial body examination at the scene, drawing postmortem specimens for analysis, 

etc. There are many specialized procedures that are fundamental and are necessary to perform a 

thorough medicolegal death investigation. Proof that an individual is experienced in correctly 

performing these tasks is required to show his/her competency. Successful performance of all 300+ 

tasks identified in the Performance Training Guidebook Checklist must be verified in writing by a 

competent practitioner working in the field who has personal knowledge that the applicant can perform 

the task independently and correctly. 

You may have as many people as necessary sign off on the Checklist showing that you have completed 

the tasks. You must also go through hands-on training to complete the checklist, for example:

 Actual death scene field work experience including body evaluation at the death scene and 

producing appropriately documented reports of death 

 Autopsy lab including body evaluation and drawing specimens 

 Role-play (creating scenarios that address training issues including mock scenes, etc.) 

 Other forensic lab work involving anthropology, odontology, postmortem evaluation, medical 

record review, etc. 

(NOTE: It is understood that some jurisdictions do not perform certain identified tasks due to 

statute, policy or procedure. However, that does not preclude an applicant from receiving 

appropriate training in that area. If such issues arise, the applicant is encouraged to contact 

ABMDI for direction to determine how to best satisfy those specific requirements.) 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

62

When the entire Checklist is completed at an independent level, the back cover should be notarized and 

returned to the ABMDI office for processing.

Registry Examination

The scope of knowledge for the Registry exam is defined in the National Institutes of Justice publication 

Death Investigation: A Guide for the Scene Investigator and further defined in the Performance Training 

Guidebook Checklist. For an online practice test, you can visit Occupational Research and Assessment.

The 240 multiple choice examination covers factual knowledge, technical information, understanding 

the principles and problem-solving abilities related to the profession. Exams are offered online. There is 

an additional fee for paper/pencil format. The examination is divided into eight sections as outlined in 

the Checklist and in the Medicolegal Death Investigator training text (Clark, Ernst, Jentzen, and Haglund, 

1994). This text may be purchased from Occupational Research and Assessment. Examinations are 

administered at local colleges or universities through their testing departments. You have up to four 

hours to complete all eight multiple choice sections, which are:

1. Interacting with Federal, State and Local Agencies 

2. Communicating 

3. Interacting with Families 

4. Investigating Deaths 

5. Identifying and Preserving Evidence 

6. Maintaining Ethical and Legal Responsibilities 

7. Demonstrating Scientific Knowledge 

8. Coping with Job-Related Stress

Registry Recertification

In order to continue with certification, the Diplomate must:

1. Be considered in good standing (current in all fees)

2. Demonstrate continued competency (completed work verification form or see below)

3. Reaffirm the Code of Ethics in writing

4. Provide documentation of 45 hours of approved continuing education in the continuing 

education folder provided upon successful completion of passing the exam

The ABMDI is accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB), which requires proof of 

continued competency in order to be recertified. Continued competency includes current employment 

or demonstration of consulting, teaching, providing seminars or presentation of papers. These activities 

may be performed on a voluntary basis. Proof of these activities will be required, if you are not currently 

working for a medical examiner/coroner jurisdiction with the responsibility of investigating deaths.

Registry Certification Fees

Non-refundable Application Fee: $50
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

63

Non-refundable online Examination Fee: $350

*Paper/pencil format of exam: $50 additional fee 

After certification, yearly maintenance fee: $40

II. Board Certification (advanced)

Board Certification is available to experienced registered medicolegal death investigators who prove 

their mastery of all aspects of medicolegal death investigation. In order to be eligible to apply, you must:

 Currently be certified at the ABMDI Registry Level and in good standing for a minimum of six 

months. 

 Have at least an Associates degree from a post secondary institution recognized by a national 

educational accrediting agency. 

 Currently be employed in a Medical Examiner/Coroner jurisdiction or equivalent military 

authority with the job responsibility to "conduct scene investigation". 

 Have a minimum of 4,000 hours of experience in the past six years. 

NOTE: If you are currently employed by an M.E./Coroner's office full time, you will have 

accumulated 4,000 hours in two years. If you are employed part time, you must have 

accumulated 4,000 hours within the past six years. 

"On-Call" time accumulates as follows:

a. Each on-call hour = 0.25 hours 

b. Investigation of a natural death, no scene investigation = 1 hour 

c. Investigation of a non-natural death, no scene investigation = 2.5 hours 

d. Investigation of a death with scene investigation = 5 hours

Application Process

Applications are available upon receipt of an application request form. The $100 non-refundable 

application fee must accompany the request form. Application materials must be completed in their 

entirety and returned to the ABMDI office at least 30 days prior to the desired examination date.

Included in the Board Certified application packet:

1. Application Form (Code of Ethics included) 

2. Employment Verification Form (requiring notarization by a third-party notary) 

3. Forensic Science Specialist Reference form 

4. Administrator/Supervisor Reference form 

5. Law Enforcement Reference form 

In addition to the forms above, you must submit either a copy of an Associates Degree or a letter from 

the Registrar's Office of your college or university verifying your college degree. Transcripts are not 

necessary; all we need is verification of your degree.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

64

There is an 18-month time limit to complete the application process. If, after 18-months, you have not 

completed all application requirements and scheduled an examination, your Board Certification file will 

become inactive. You will have to reapply and pay the application fee again in order to start the process.

Board Certification Recertification

In order to continue Board Certification status, the Fellow must

1. Be in good standing (current in all fees)

2. Reaffirm in writing the Code of Ethics

3. Currently be employed with a medical examiner/coroner jurisdiction with the responsibility to 

conduct scene investigations or show current competency

4. Submit 45 hours of approved continuing education in the continuing education folder provided 

to the Fellow upon successful completion of the examination

The ABMDI is accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB), which requires proof of 

continued competency in order to be recertified. Continued competency includes current employment 

or demonstration of consulting, teaching, providing seminars or presentation of papers. These activities 

may be performed on a voluntary basis. Proof of the activities must be submitted if the Fellow is not 

currently employed by a medical examiner/coroner jurisdiction with the responsibility of conducting 

scene investigations.

Board Certification Examination

The scope of knowledge for the Board Certified exam will rely heavily on the applicant’s cumulative 

experience and further training in medicolegal death investigation. It can include independent study and 

attendance at workshops, seminars, and other training venues. As a minimum, and given that the 

examination is broad based and encompasses the Forensic Sciences, the applicant is required to have an 

Associate Degree.

The 5.5 hour examination is administered online at local colleges and universities. It is divided into two 

parts:

1. A Performance Section--This portion consists of three medicolegal death scene scenarios. You 

will be asked to: 

a. Write a narrative description of the scene in the space provided using medical 

terminology.

b. Develop a set of up to 10 questions that could be used to interview witnesses and/or 

suspects 

c. Develop a list of up to 5 pieces of potential evidence. 

All answers should be based solely on information provided in the case scenario and depicted in 

the scene photographs. Since you only have 30 minutes for each case, you DO NOT need to 

interpret findings, solve the case or develop a complete case report.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

65

2. A Multiple Choice Section--This portion consists of 240 multiple choice test items. You have up 

to 4 hours to complete this, which is divided into the following 8 sections: 

a. Investigating Specific Death Scenes 

b. Investigating Multiple Fatalities 

c. Investigating Atypical Death Scenes 

d. Investigating Institutional Deaths 

e. Demonstrating Leadership Skills 

f. Demonstrating Legal Knowledge 

g. Communication Skills 

h. Demonstrating Advanced Forensic Science Knowledge 

These sections are based on the Advanced Skills List included in your application packet.

Board Certification Fees

1. Non-refundable Application Fee: $100

2. Non-refundable Examination Fee: $400

3. * Additional fee of $50 if paper/pencil test requested. 

4. After certification, yearly maintenance fee: $40

APPENDIX 3C: THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PATHOLOGY (ABP) REQUIREMENTS FOR 

CERTIFICATION IN ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY AND FORENSIC PATHOLOGY36

Description of Examinations

All examinations given by the American Board of Pathology are multiple-choice, computerized 

examinations given at the ABP examination center in Tampa, Florida. The examinations do not require 

any special computer skills or experience. A practice session is held before the certification examination 

begins. It is important that candidates read and understand all material sent in advance by the ABP and 

that candidates for anatomic pathology go through the practice examination in virtual microscopy that is 

available on the ABP Web site. 

A. Primary Certification 

1. AP/CP candidates may not apply for any part of the AP/CP examination until all training 

requirements are completed. 

2. Candidates must pass both the written and practical portions of the AP and/or CP examinations 

in the same administration in order to pass the primary examination. 

3. Candidates for combined AP/CP certification will not be certified by the ABP until both AP and 

CP examinations are passed and all other requirements are met. 

 

36 Instruction and Information for Candidates for Certifying Examinations 2010. The American Board of Pathology

(http://www.abpath.org)
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

66

4. Candidates who completed training in 2008 or later must complete all certification 

requirements within 5 years from the completion of training. During the qualification period a 

candidate may take each part of the AP and CP examinations a maximum of five times. 

B. Subspecialty Certification 

1. Candidates must pass both written and practical portions of the examination in the same 

administration in order to pass the subspecialty examination. 

2. Candidates who completed training in 2008 or later must complete all certification 

requirements within 5 years from the completion of training (or from the date of primary 

certification, whichever is later). During the qualification period a candidate may take the 

subspecialty examination a maximum of five times. 

C. Application 

1. Application forms for primary and subspecialty certification are available online through 

PATHway on the ABP Web site (http://www.abpath.org). All applications must be completed 

and submitted online. No paper applications will be accepted. 

2. The ABP accepts credit card payments only (MasterCard, Visa, American Express). Checks are no 

longer accepted. Payment must be made online at the time of the application in order for the 

application to be submitted. 

D. Fees 

1. The examination-application fee includes a nonrefundable administrative fee of $100. 

2. If an AP/CP applicant takes the AP and CP examinations at different times, there is a separate 

examination fee for each sitting. 

3. See Exam Fee Schedule on the ABP Web site (http://www.abpath.org). 

E. Date Assignments 

1. Date assignments for all examinations are made by the ABP. 

2. If a candidate is unable to accept a date assignment, he/she may transfer the exam fee (minus a 

transfer fee of $500) to a future administration of the examination. 

3. Transfers cannot be made within the same examination period. 

4. Special requests for date assignments cannot be accepted. 

Requirements for Certification in Anatomic Pathology 

1. 36 months of full-time training in an accredited APCP or AP program. Training must include at 

least 24 months of structured AP training. The remaining 12 months are flexible; and may 

include AP and/or CP. Training may include up to 6 months of research done during the 

pathology training program with the approval of the program director. 

2. Applicant must have performed at least 50 autopsies at the time the application for certification 

is submitted. See autopsy requirements under Combined AP/CP Certification (III.B.1). 

3. Candidates already certified in CP must have an additional 24 months of full-time training in AP 

including 18 months of structured training in AP. The remaining 6 months are flexible but must 

be in one or more areas of AP. The autopsy requirements must be met as described under 

Combined AP/CP Certification (III.B.1). 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

67

Description of Examination

The anatomic pathology examination is a one-day, computer-based examination consisting of written 

and practical sections. The practical section is composed of a microscopic portion (traditional and 

virtual) and an image section. A candidate must pass both the written and the practical portions in the 

same administration in order to pass the examination. All questions are multiple-choice and are in the 

one-best-answer format. The examination is administered as follows: 

Section Questions Time

Written 141 2.25 hours

Practical

Images 108 1.75 hours

Microscopic/virtual 50/26* 3.5 hours

*Note: change from 2009. 

Approximately 70% of the total examination is devoted to questions related to pathology of specific 

organ systems or multi-system disease. The remaining 30% of the examination deals with general 

pathology and laboratory management. General pathology topics include cellular injury, inflammation 

and repair, physical and chemical injury, congenital and genetic diseases, neoplasia, circulatory 

disturbances, molecular pathology, and infections. The number of questions related to a particular 

system or to a topic in general pathology is roughly correlated with the frequency with which the 

general pathologist receives specimens or encounters diseases in these areas. Questions related to any 

topic may be placed in the setting of any area of anatomic pathology of adults and children including 

surgical pathology, cytology, autopsy, or forensic pathology. The examination also includes questions on 

hematopathology and molecular pathology, which accounts for approximately 10-15% of the 

examination. Laboratory management questions may be related to quality assurance, safety, billing, 

inspection and accreditation processes, federal regulations, personnel issues, costs of running a 

laboratory, informatics, and other aspects of management. 

Images used on the practical examination include gross specimens, histopathologic specimens, electron 

micrographs, karyotypes, pedigrees, and cytopathology specimens of various types (liquid-based 

preparations, fine-needle aspirates, cell blocks, etc.). A variety of histochemical and immunochemical 

stains may be used as well as molecular pathology preparations. 

Requirements for All Subspecialty Certifications 

1. Candidate must have a primary certification from the ABP, RCPSC (pediatric pathology only), or 

current primary or subspecialty certification with another ABMS Board. 

2. Candidates for combined primary/subspecialty certification must have passed the primary 

examination before they will be allowed to sit for the subspecialty examination. 

3. Residents may not receive credit toward subspecialty certification for subspecialty training that 

occurred as part of the training requirement for primary certification. 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

68

4. Resident must complete at least 2 years of training in APCP, AP, or CP before beginning 

subspecialty training, except for Dermatopathology in which completion of all primary 

certification training requirements prior to the fellowship is required. 

5. Applicants who completed training 10 or more years prior to application must have successfully 

completed 6 months of additional pathology training in an ACGME-accredited training program 

in the area(s) in which certification is desired. 

6. Modified training (part-time training) for subspecialty certification is acceptable if the part-time 

training occurs in an approved position in an ACGME-accredited program. The duration of 

training may not exceed twice that required for qualification.

Forensic Pathology Certification

For applicants who are certified in anatomic pathology and clinical pathology or anatomic 

pathology only: 1 full year of additional training in forensic pathology in a program accredited 

for such training by the ACGME. 

Description of Examination for Forensic Pathology Certification

The examination in forensic pathology is a one-day, computer-based examination consisting of written 

and practical sections. The practical section is composed of a microscopic portion (traditional and 

virtual) and an image section. The examination is administered as follows:

Section Questions Time

Written 125 1.75 hours

Practical

Images 125 2.25 hours

Microscopic/virtual 50/0 3 hours

A candidate must pass both the written and the practical portions of the examination in the same 

administration in order to pass the examination. All questions are multiple-choice and in the one-bestanswer format. Questions related to microscopic slides may be accompanied by an image or images 

(scene photograph, gross photograph, radiograph, etc). The questions are designed to measure the 

candidate’s body of knowledge and problem-solving ability. 

Subject areas covered include, but are not limited to: 

• Pathology and interpretation of natural disease, therapy, and trauma 

• Interpretation of injury patterns and stigmata 

• Pathology and certification of natural and violent deaths 

• Interpretation of clinical and postmortem chemistries and toxicologies 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

69

• Molecular biology, forensic odontology, physical anthropology 

• Criminalistics, public health, jurisprudence, management, and safety 

Acceptable Combinations of Certification and Required Training: 

Anatomic Pathology and Forensic Pathology—2 full years of approved training in anatomic pathology in 

a program accredited for such training by the ACGME, 1 full year of approved training in forensic 

pathology in a program accredited for such training by the ACGME, and 1 additional year of approved 

training in another area of pathology such as neuropathology, toxicology, or chemical pathology. ABP 

approval for the additional year must be obtained before the individual begins the additional year. 

APPENDIX 3D: ACCREDITED TOXICOLOGY LABORATORIES AND MEDICAL EXAMINER 

AND CORONER OFFICES

Laboratory State Accrediting Body

1. Benton County Coroner's Office (Rogers, 

Arkansas) 

AR IACME 

2. Office of the State Medical Examiner -

Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, Little Rock 

AR NAME - Provisional 

3. Office of the ME Forensic Science Center, 

Phoenix, AZ 

AZ ABFT 

4. County of San Diego ME's Office/Forensic 

Toxicology Lab, CA 

CA ABFT 

5. Los Angeles County Chief Medical 

Examiner/Coroner Office, Los Angeles 

CA NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

6. Sacramento County Coroner's Office -

Sacramento, CA 

CA NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

7. San Diego County Medical Examiner Office, 

San Diego, California 

CA NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

8. San Francisco Office of Chief Medical 

Examiner, San Francisco 

CA NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

9. San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner 

Department, San Bernardino 

CA NAME - Provisional 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

70

10. Summit County Office of the Coroner 

(Colorado) 

CO IACME 

11. Denver Office of the Medical Examiner, 

Denver 

CO NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

12. El Paso County Coroner/Medical Examiner 

Facility, Colorado Springs 

CO NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

13. Larimer County Medical Examiner’s Office, 

Loveland 

CO NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

14. Connecticut-Office of Chief medical Examiner, 

Farmington 

CT NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

15. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 

Washington, DC 

DC NAME - Provisional 

16. Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Wilmington DE NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

17. District 21 Medical Examiner Office, Ft. Myers, 

FL 

FL NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

18. District 5 Medical Examiner's Office, Leesburg FL NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

19. District Six Medical Examiner Office, Largo FL NAME - Full 

Accreditation 

20. Volusia County Medical Examiner's Office, 

Daytona Beach 

FL NAME - Full 

Accreditation

APPENDIX 3E: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Bureau of Justice Statistics - www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

National Association of Medical Examiners - www.thename.org

International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners - www.theIACME.com

American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators - http://medschool.slu.edu/abmdi/index.php

American Board of Pathology - www.abpath.org 

American Board of Medical Specialties - www.abms.org
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

71

APPENDIX 4A: COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING A PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM

The total cost of achieving universal proficiency testing of forensic science service providers is very difficult 

to estimate given large uncertainties regarding the number, type, and organizational structures of the 

Nation’s forensic laboratories and related entities; the services they provide; and the number of 

practitioners that would be affected in various ways. 

The table below depicts estimated costs of creating and maintaining proficiency test programs for one 

forensic science service provider (as of 2011), based on information gathered by SoFS from proficiency 

test providers, accrediting bodies, and other sources.37 The cost for second-party recognition of a 

proficiency test provider will vary depending on the number of categories of testing in which the provider 

offers tests and the number of participants on the audit team (typically 1-2 for a single category of testing). 

Estimated costs provided by an accrediting body are $1300 for the first auditor and $500 for each 

additional auditor. Costs typically include all travel expenses (flight, lodging, meals, parking, etc.).

Table 1: Estimated Cost for a Proficiency Test Provider to Obtain Accreditation under ISO 17043

Initial Assessment 1

st Year

Surveillance

2

nd Year 

Surveillance

3

rd Year 

Surveillance

Cost of Assessor

Total estimated 

billable hours 

(travel,

onsite visit, stats,

report writing)

40 30 8 8

Cost ($150/hr) $6,000 $4,500 $1,200 $1,200

System Fees

Initial Application $800 0 0 0

Annual Fee $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300

Cost $2,100 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300

Total per year $8,100 $5,800 $2,500 $2,500

 
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

72

Table 2: Cost of Proficiency Testing in the Context of Overall Accreditation Costs for Forensic Science 

Service Providers (FY 2011)*

Size of FSSP

Small Medium Large 

Accrediting Body Costs 

including consultation and 

inspection fees and yearly 

fees and surveillance visits

$1500/analyst/year $1000/analyst/year $500/analyst/year

Proficiency Testing* $1000/analyst/year $2000/analyst/year $2000/analyst/year

Continuing 

Education/Training $2000/analyst/year $2000/analyst/year $2000/analyst/year

QA Staffing $120,000/year $120,000/year $240,000/year

Equipment Calibration -

Initial $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 

Equipment Calibration -

Yearly Maintenance $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 

Variables 

Practitioners ≤5 6 to 15 >15

Disciplines 1 to 2 3 to 6 7+

Sites 1 1 1+

*Note these data are from a time at which most if not all proficiency test providers were still not ISO/IEC 

17043 accredited; with higher rates of such accreditation now in place, costs may vary. 

Table 3: Estimated Cost of Proficiency Testing in the Context of Overall Accreditation Costs for Medical 

Examiner/Coroner offices (FY 2011)

Accrediting Body

NAME IACME ABFT

Accrediting Body Costs $2500/office/system $2500/office $4000/laboratory

Annual Maintenance Fee $1000/office system $1000/office/system $1000/laboratory

Proficiency Testing* n/a n/a $1000/practitioner/yr
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

73

Continuing 

Education/Training $1000/practitioner/yr $1000/practitioner/yr $2000/practitioner/yr

QA Staffing $120,000/year $120,000/year $120,000/year

Equipment Calibration -

Initial $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 

Equipment Calibration -

Yearly $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 

APPENDIX 4B: PROFICIENCY TEST ACCREDITATION BODIES AND PROFICIENCY TEST 

PROVIDERS

Accrediting Bodies 

A2LA – American Association for Laboratory Accreditation 

ABFT – American Board of Forensic Toxicology 

ASCLD/LAB – American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board 

FQS-I – Forensic Quality Services (follows ILAC G-19) 

IACME – International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners 

NAME – National Association of Medical Examiners 

Proficiency Test Providers (as of 2013)

CTS – Collaborative Testing Services 

CAP – College of American Pathologists 

CAS – Competency Assessment Services 

CATTT – Creative Approaches to Teaching, Training, and Testing 

CSOC – Crime Scene On Call 

DFQS – Digital Forensics Quality Systems 

FIP – Forensic Identity Program 

FTS – Forensic Testing Services 

ISFCE – International Society of Forensic Computer Engineers 

NIFS – National Institute of Forensic Services 

ORCHID – Orchid Cellmark 

QD – Quo Data

RV – Resolution Video 

SERI – Serological Research Institute
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

74

APPENDIX 4C: THE THREE COMPONENTS OF PROFICIENCY TESTING

Accreditation Body

Define how proficiency tests are designed, 

administered, and reviewed.

ASCLD/LAB, FQS-1, A2LA, NAME, IACME, ABFT

Proficiency Testing Provider (PTP)

To conduct external proficiency tests, a PFP must be 

accredited to ISO/IEC 17043 standards by accreditation 

bodies.

CTS, CAP, CAS, CATT, CSOC, DFQS, FIP, FTS, ISFCE, NIFS, 

ORCHID, QD, RV, SERI

Forensic Science Service Provider (FSSP) 

If discipline specific proficiency tests are not available 

through PTPs, FSSPs may substitute internal proficiency 

tests conforming to the ISO/IEC 14073 standard.
Strengthening the Forensic Sciences

75

National Science and Technology Council

Committee on Science

Subcommittee on Forensic Science

Representatives of Member Departments and Agencies

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Treasury

Environmental Protection Agency

National Science Foundation

National Transportation Safety Board

Office of the Federal Public Defender

United States Postal Inspection Service

Smithsonian Institution

###