Priority Action Report

Facial Identification Subcommittee

Digital Multimedia SAC

Lora S Sims

February 13, 2017
Subcommittee Leadership

Position Name Organization Term Email

Chair Lora S Sims Ideal

Innovations, Inc

4 yr Lora.sims@idealinnov

ations.com

Vice Chair Britt Toalson Seattle Police 

Dept

3 yr Britt.toalson@seattle.

gov

Executive 

Secretary

Jane Wankmiller MI State Police 4 yr wankmillerj@Michiga

n.gov

2
Subcommittee Members

# Name Organization Term Email

1 Walt Bruehs FBI 3 yr Walter.bruehs@ic.fbi.gov

2 Terry Cowman Iowa Department of Public Safety 1 yr cowman@dps.state.ia.us 

3 Mark Dolfi LA Co Sheriff Dept 4 yr madolfi@lasd.org

4 Patrick Flynn U of Notre Dame 4 yr flynn@nd.edu

5 Neal Gieselman AWARE, Inc 2 yr Neal.gieselman@gmail.com

6 Matthew Graves US Army Criminal Investigation Lab 3 yr mgraves9@gmail.com

7 Ping Ma University of Georgia 1 yr pingma@uga.edu

8 Trish Murphy Dept of Defense 4 yr patramu@nctc.gov

9 P. Jonathan Phillips NIST 3 yr jonathon@nist.gov

10 Todd Putorti New York State Department of 

Motor Vehicles

3 yr todd.putorti@dmv.ny.gov

11 Kirt Simmons AR Children’s Hospital 4 yr simmonske@archildresn.org

12 Debra Tennant Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 yr debra.tennant@ic.fbi.gov

13 Antonio Trindade US Border Patrol 3 yr Antonio.trindade@dhs.gov

14 Steve Wilkins Pierce Co Sheriff’s Dept 2 yr swilkin@co.pierce.wa.us

3
Affiliates (1 of 2)

# Name Organization Email

1 Justin Cook Federal Bureau of Investigation justin.cook@ic.fbi.gov

2 Tina Daugherty Federal Bureau of Investigation tina.daugherty@ic.fbi.gov

3 Carolyn Dutot Canada Border Services Agency carolyn.dutot@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

4 Edward German Macon County Sheriff's Office ed@onin.com

5 Leslie Kelly Company for Individuals leslie.kelly@dodiis.mil

6 Netta Lev Tov Chattah Israel National Police netta-lev-tov@police.gov.il

7 Jodie Linger Federal Bureau of Investigation jodie.linger@ic.fbi.gov

8 Angela Long Federal Bureau of Investigation angela.long@leo.gov

9 Michael Matheson Department of Foreign Affairs and 

Trade michael.l.matheson@dfat.gov.au

10 Campbell McGheee INTERPOL c.mcghee@interpol.int

11 Allison Miller Biometrics Operations Division allison.m.miller.civ@mail.mil

12 Reuben Moreton Metropolitan Police Service reuben.moreton2@met.police.uk

4
Affiliates (2 of 2)

# Name Organization Email

13 Johanna Morley Metropolitan Police Service johanna.morley@met.police.uk

14 Patricia Moss Australian Passport Office tricia.moss@dfat.gov.au

15 Amanda Noxon Michigan State Police noxona@michigan.gov

16 Ruth Phillips Metropolitan Police Service ruth.phillips@met.police.uk

17 Jason Prince Australian Federal Police jason.prince@afp.gov.au

18 Cary Rodrigues National Counter Terrorism Center cary_rodrigues@yahoo.com

19 Arnout Ruifrok Netherlands Forensic Institute a.ruifrok@nfi.minvenj.nl

20 Michael Streed Baltimore County Police Department 

Forensic Services Section michael.streed@baltimorepolice.org

21 Geoff Whitaker UK Home Office geoff.2000@hotmail.co.uk

22 Caroline Wilkinson Liverpool School of Art and Design c.m.wilkinson@ljmu.ac.uk

23 Summer Yonley Ideal Innovations, Inc summer.yonley@idealinnovations.com

5
July 26-29, 2016 Phoenix, AZ

6
Discipline Description

The Mission of the OSAC Facial 

Identification Subcommittee is to develop 

consensus standards and guidelines for 

the image-based comparisons of human 

facial features and to provide 

recommendations for the research and 

development necessary to advance the 

state of the science.

7
Summary of Standards/Guidelines 

Priority Actions

Priority Working Title of Document

1 Facial Image Comparison Feature List for Morphological Analysis 

2 Capture And Equipment Assessment For Face Recognition Systems 

3 Guidelines for Postmortem Facial Image Capture

4 Guidelines for Training Program in Facial Comparison

5 Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods & Facial Comparison Overview

8
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Document Title: Facial Image Comparison Feature List for 

Morphological Analysis 

Scope: To provide a standardized list to be considered when 

conducting morphological analysis

Objective/rationale: Aids in providing a systematic way of 

comparing features of the face/head

Issues/Concerns: Does not cover the entire comparison process

Task Group Name: One-to-one

Task Group Chair Name: Matthew Graves

Task Group Chair Contact Information:

mgraves9@gmail.com

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: July 26-29, 2016

9
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 1 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• List of Facial Components (gross features considered in virtually 

all comparisons, e.g. Nose) 

• List of Component Characteristics (details about the Facial 

Components, e.g. Root, Bridge, Tip, Nostrils, Columella, Alae)

10
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Seek approval from DM SAC 

to send to SDO (ASTM)

SDO 400 Matthew Graves Complete

Send to SDO (ASTM) SDO 500 Matthew Graves March 1, 2017

Priority 1: Facial Image Comparison Feature List 

for Morphological Analysis 

11
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2 Document

Document Title: Capture And Equipment Assessment For Face 

Recognition Systems 

Scope: Provide best practices for collection to ensure the images 

captured are suitable for Face Recognition (FR) system use

Objective/rationale: Provides an overview of the considerations a 

practitioner should take when making decisions for the capture of 

facial images.

Issues/Concerns: none

Task Group Name: Systems & Capture

Task Group Chair Name: Neal Gieselman

Task Group Chair Contact Information:

Neal.gieselman@gmail.com

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: July 26-29, 2016

12
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 2 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• Image capture process as it relates to the following:

• Controlled acquisition (when all imaging parameters can be adjusted as 

needed to optimize the resulting image, e.g. passport offices)

• Semi-controlled acquisition (when some aspects of the environment or 

subject can be controlled, but not all aspects of both)

• Ad-hoc acquisition (when neither the environment nor the subject can be 

controlled, e.g. surveillance, cell phones, and third party imagery).

13
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Seek approval from DM SAC 

to send to SDO (ASTM)

SDO 400 Neal Gieselman Complete

Send to SDO (ASTM) SDO 500 Neal Gieselman Completed

Processing through ASTM SDO 700 Neal Gieselman In process

Priority 2: Capture And Equipment Assessment For 

Face Recognition Systems

14
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document

Document Title: Guidelines for Post Mortem Facial Image Capture

Scope: Provide guidelines for capturing postmortem facial images of 

unidentified human remains in a controlled (morgue) and semi-controlled 

(field) settings to facilitate Facial Recognition (FR) searches or facial 

comparison that may contribute to determining the identity of the 

unidentified person.

Objective/rationale: Provides an overview of the optimal processes and 

techniques for the capture of postmortem facial images of human remains 

in order to maximize their utility in FR searches and facial image 

comparisons. 

Issues/Concerns: May have some time and financial implications on 

morgues.

Task Group Name: Systems & Capture

Task Group Chair Name: Neal Gieselman

Task Group Chair Contact Information:

Neal.gieselman@gmail.com

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: July 26-29, 2016

15
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 3 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• Image capture environment (lighting, camera position, and 

background)

• Preparation of the subject body (head position, head coverings 

and accessories, shoulder position)

• Preparation of the subject face (obscuring matter, hair, wounds or 

fragments, mouth, eyes, eyeglasses, prosthetics)

• Use of video

• Documenting scars, marks, tattoos (SMT). 

16
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Seek approval from DM SAC 

to send to SDO (ASTM)

SDO 400 Neal Gieselman Complete

Send to SDO (ASTM) SDO 500 Neal Gieselman Completed

Processing through ASTM SDO 700 Neal Gieselman In process

Priority 3: Guidelines for Post Mortem Facial Image 

Capture

17
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Document Title: Guidelines for Training Program in Facial 

Comparison

Scope: Provides recommendations for a training program to achieve 

competency in facial comparison tasks. Objective/rationale: Providing 

guidelines for training programs specific subject matter, relevant to facial 

reviewers and facial examiners required to conduct comparisons from the 

basic to the advanced level

Issues/Concerns: Does not address the specific content of agencies 

training program but instead provides an overview of recommended 

topics and levels of training. 

Task Group Name: Training

Task Group Chair Name: Steve Wilkins

Task Group Chair Contact Information:

swilkin@co.pierce.wa.us

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: July 26-29, 2016

18
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 4 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• Overview of different roles and what training should be achieved 

at each role (e.g. manager should have an awareness of all 

things, facial examiner should be proficient in the majority of 

subjects)

• Categories of Training (e.g. overview, skills & techniques, 

knowledge of processes, court preparation & presentation)

19
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Combine “Recommendations 

for a Training Program in 

Facial Comparison & 

Guidelines” and

“Recommendations for Facial 

Comparison Training to 

Competency”

SDO 200 Steve Wilkins completed

Subcommittee, DM SAC, & RC 

review

Steve Wilkins April 1, 2017

Submit packet SDO 300 Steve Wilkins May 1, 2017

Priority 3: Guidelines for Training Program in 

Facial Comparison

20
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 5 Document

Document Title: Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods & Facial 

Comparison Overview

Scope: Describes current methods for facial comparison and to provide 

guidelines for their appropriate use. Provides Overview of how facial 

comparisons are used in the security, intelligence, law enforcement, and 

forensic communities.

Objective/rationale: Selection of the appropriate method to use for a facial 

comparison depends on the image quality, the training and experience of 

the practitioner, and the purpose of the examination. The methods used to 

compare faces will often depend on the purpose of the comparison.

Issues/Concerns: The best method to utilize based on operational 

conditions must be understood and if the time or effort to do a full 

examination cannot be conducted, there are associated risks (i.e., greater 

chance of error).

Task Group Name: One-to-one

Task Group Chair Name: Matthew Graves

Task Group Chair Contact Information:

mgraves9@gmail.com

Date of Last Task Group Meeting: July 26-29, 2016

21
Standards/Guidelines Development

Priority 5 Document

Key Components of Standard: 

• Pros and cons of each type of facial comparison methodology (holistic 

comparison, morphological analysis, photo-anthropometry, and 

superimposition)

• Recommended practice to address different type of comparisons (facial 

review versus facial examination). 

• Overview of applications (intelligence gathering for identity 

management, screening and access control, investigative and 

operational tool, and forensic identification)

• General procedures for assessment, examination, evaluation, 

conclusions, and quality management

• Current methods (holistic comparison, morphological analysis, photo- anthropometry, and superimposition) for facial image comparison. 

22
Task Group/Subcommittee Action 

Plan

Planned Actions

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., 

SDO 100) 

Assignee Estimated

Completion Date

Combine with Facial 

Comparison Overview

SDO 200 Matthew Graves March 31, 2017

Subcommittee review SDO 200 Matthew Graves April 2017

RC & DM SAC review SDO 300 Matthew Graves July 2017

Complete QIC Form 6: SDO 

Process Request form

SDO 300 Matthew Graves Aug 2017

Priority 5: Guidelines for Facial 

Comparison Methods & Facial Comparison 

Overview

23
Summary of Standards/Guidelines 

Priority Actions

Priority Working Title of Document

1 Facial Image Comparison Feature List for Morphological Analysis 

2 Capture And Equipment Assessment For Face Recognition Systems 

3 Guidelines for Postmortem Facial Image Capture

4 Guidelines for Training Program in Facial Comparison

5 Guidelines for Facial Comparison Methods & Facial Comparison Overview

24
Standards/Guidelines Reviewed For 

Technical Merit

Title Developing 

Organization Status*

OSAC Process 

Stage (e.g., RA 

100)

Physical Stability of Facial Features of Adults FISWG Public comment At SWG

Image Processing to Improve Facial Recognition

Searches

FISWG Public comment At SWG

Factors To Consider in Facial Image Assessment FISWG In draft At SWG

Metadata Usage FISWG Reformatting SDO 200

Facial Recognition System Methods and 

Techniques

FISWG Reformatting SDO 200

Facial Recognition System Bulk Data Transfer FISWG Reformatting SDO 200

25
Research Gaps Identified

• Validation of Physical Stability

• Literature review of relevant studies [scientific, medical, academic, and 

professional] regarding the physical stability of the facial features of adults 

detailed within the current Physical Stability of Facial Features of Adults 

document.

• In addition to the literature review, the conclusions reached based on 

relevant research should be presented to the subcommittee in layman’s 

terms for incorporation into the document.

• Post Capture Imaging Processing

• Best practices and scientifically validated techniques to improve facial 

image quality for biometrics and forensics

• Human Factors in Facial Image Comparison

• Research to determine effective strategies for training in facial comparison 

and to develop testing material.

• Research to validate the methods used by trained examiners to compare 

faces and establish effective case management and bias mitigation 

strategies.

• Assessment of the accuracy of getting Facial Images from DNA

• Research to perform an objective evaluation of the performance of claimed 

techniques by vendor(s) who are selling technology that purports to create 

an accurate adolescent facial image from DNA.

26
Additional Items of Interest

• Future standards/guidelines by Facial Identification Subcommittee

• Post Capture Factors Affecting Facial Image 

• Factors Affecting Visualization of Facial Images

• Reporting and Presenting Facial Identification Results

• Current multi-subcommittee standards/guidelines

• Virtual Subcommittee #1: ISO 17020/17025

• Virtual Subcommittee #2: ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011

• Virtual Subcommittee #3: ACE Process Map

• Virtual Subcommittee #4: Training, Continuing Education & Professional Development

• OSAC Wide Conclusions Task Group

• Future multi-subcommittee standards/guidelines

• Presenting Evidence in Court (e.g. how to use visual aids)

• Reporting findings

• Leverage those already on the affiliate list and encourage others within the 

community to join OSAC to assist with document development, research, etc. 

• Complete the OSAC membership application form found 

at: https://www.nist.gov/forensics/osac-application.cfm

• Please be sure to specify your interest in the Facial Identification Subcommittee

27