OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 1 

OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report

August 2021

INTRODUCTION 

On May 27, 2021, the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science held its

second Stakeholder Outreach Meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to formalize engagement with 

key stakeholder groups that advance OSAC’s mission which is to strengthen the nation’s use of forensic 

science by facilitating the development of technically sound standards and encouraging their use 

throughout the forensic science community. 

This meeting focused on forensic laboratory leaders and other key decision-makers providing forensic 

services. It allowed an opportunity for this stakeholder group and OSAC leadership to exchange ideas on 

how to better support the forensic science community. Through a series of facilitated discussions, 

participants shared their thoughts about current challenges and identified opportunities for 

improvement related to forensic science testing, quality management and standards. 

The collective feedback was extremely valuable and will be used to help identify future collaboration 

opportunities with OSAC stakeholders as well as inform OSAC’s future plans and priorities. Additional

Stakeholder Outreach Meetings are being planned with professional forensic science organizations and 

representatives from forensic science commissions and advisory boards. 

This report provides summaries of the discussion topics and key takeaways from the meeting. 
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 2

MEETING SUMMARIES 

Welcome and Introductions

Ray Wickenheiser, Vice Chair of the OSAC Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB), welcomed the 

meeting attendees1 and provided the opening remarks.

Twenty-eight forensic laboratory leaders, representing federal, state, local and private organizations2

participated in the two-hour meeting (Figure 1). These forensic laboratory leaders represented over 15 

states from across the country (Figure 2). 

OSAC Update 

John Paul (JP) Jones II, OSAC Program Manager, provided a general introduction to OSAC, followed by 

updates on OSAC’s standards activities, Registry growth, implementation efforts, and what the 

organization is doing to support stakeholders.

OSAC works to accelerate the development and implementation of high-quality, technically sound 

standards for forensic science. To carry out its mission, OSAC has over 470 members and 300 affiliates 

who work in forensic science laboratories and other institutions around the country. These volunteers

have expertise in 22 forensic science disciplines, as well as scientific research, measurement science, 

statistics, policy, and law. They work together to evaluate standards for placement on the Registry and 

draft proposed standards that will move through the standards developing organization (SDO) process.

1 See Appendix 1 for a list of the meeting attendees.

2 See Appendix 2 for a list of organizations.

18%

53%

18%

11%

Federal State Local Private

Figure 2. OSAC Stakeholder Meeting participants by 

organization type. 

Figure 1. More than 15 states, indicted here by the orange 

dots, were represented at the meeting. 
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 3

As of this meeting, the OSAC Registry contained 53 standards, representing 15 specific forensic science 

disciplines. Hundreds of additional standards are in the development pipeline. OSAC encourages the 

forensic science community to use these SDO published and OSAC Proposed Standards, and 24 forensic 

laboratories have voluntarily declared that they are implementing, either fully or partially, the standards 

on the Registry. Some of these early Registry implementers include the Houston Forensic Science 

Center, Texas Forensic Science Commission, and Bode Technology. Additionally, seven forensic science 

professional organizations have written formal statements supporting standards development and 

Registry implementation. To better understand the current state of Registry implementation and what 

support is needed to improve it, OSAC launched a Registry Implementation Survey in June 2021. This is 

intended to be an annual survey and this first one focused on 46 standards that have been posted on 

the Registry through March 2021. The results will be shared in OSAC’s Fall Newsletter/Annual Report 

coming out in October 2021. 

Key Takeaways:

• Stakeholder participation is critical for OSAC to continue its mission. OSAC encourages 

stakeholders to get involved in the standards development process:

o Apply to join OSAC as member or affiliate.

o Provide comments on standards.

o Join the OSAC mailing list to stay informed of the latest forensic science standards 

activities. 

Facilitated Discussions: Needed Standards, Implementation, and Putting Standards into Practice 

Next, JP Jones led participants in a series of facilitated discussions to learn more about the challenges 

forensic laboratory leaders face related to standards, implementation, and quality management and to 

identify opportunities for improvement. Participants were asked specific questions related to three topic 

areas – needed standards, implementation, and how to promote the use of standards on the OSAC 

Registry in the forensic science community by the legal system. The discussion questions and key 

takeaways from each topic are below.

Needed Standards

Discussion Questions

• What kind of standards would help your organization in its role as a forensic science service 

provider?

• Is OSAC focusing on and drafting standards to meet your needs?

• Of the standards that exist, are they too general or too prescriptive? Is OSAC striking the right 

balance?

Key Takeaways

• Standards relating to reporting, testimony, validation of reference materials, and laboratory 

management were identified as being needed. 

• ASCLD has established the Leadership Academy, a training program for managerial personnel 

in forensic science laboratories, which will help to address the need for laboratory 

management standards. 
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 4

• Participants thought OSAC was making a concentrated effort to include a diversity of 

perspectives when drafting standards. 

• The standards development process is a collaborative effort between OSAC, SDOs, and other 

stakeholders. To better reflect this collaboration, SDO published standards listed on the OSAC 

Registry should collectively be referred to as “Standards on the OSAC Registry” instead of 

“OSAC Standards” since OSAC is not the publisher.

• There was a divide among participants on the appropriateness of content in OSAC drafted 

standards. Some participants thought OSAC drafted standards were too general, while others 

thought they were too prescriptive. There is also an opportunity to improve the intent of 

standards since this is not always clear. 

Implementation

Discussion Questions

• What challenges and concerns do you have related to implementing standards on the OSAC 

Registry?

• Is your organization using any tools or resources to help with implementation (e.g., gap 

analysis, audit checklists, etc.)?

• Are tools/resources needed? Should OSAC develop them?

• Besides submitting a Standards Implementation Declaration Form, how else can organizations 

let OSAC know about their implementation efforts?

• How can OSAC better communicate implementation strategies?

Key Takeaways

• Some forensic laboratories are not implementing standards because there is not a 

requirement to do so. 

• Standards implementation is a heavy lift – there is a financial burden (e.g., maintaining 

laboratory equipment, accreditation costs) and other resource obligations (e.g., time taken 

away from case work for additional training and audits).

• Clarification is needed to better understand how implementation will impact accreditation 

(e.g., Will a laboratory be audited to its standard operating procedures or to specific 

standards?) 

• Additional assessors and training will be needed for assessors to learn and be able to audit 

against discipline-specific forensic science standards that are being promoted by OSAC. 

• It is important to ensure high-quality standards are available to the forensic science 

community. However, what happens when a standard is not available for a certain activity or 

topic? How do we address this and how might this be interpreted by the legal community?

• Support for standards implementation must come from leadership. Forensic laboratories are 

encouraged to incorporate implementation efforts into their strategic plans and objectives.

• Stakeholders are interested in having additional standards implementation tools and 

resources available. Some examples noted include:

o Personal implementation stories – making available presentations from specific 

organizations and disciplines describing how they have implemented the standards 

on the OSAC Registry.

o Gap analysis and risk assessment tools.

o Implementation forms and checklists to help a laboratory document what standards 

are being used and why.
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 5

Putting Standards into Practice

Discussion Question

• Are your scientists being asked in court about OSAC or the standards listed on the Registry?

Key Takeaways

• Generally, participants noted that their laboratory staff are not being asked in court about 

OSAC or the standards on the Registry. However, there were two cases – one related to DNA 

and another to forensic document examination – where experts were questioned in court 

about OSAC and standards. 

Next Steps 

The OSAC Program Office and the FSSB have identified the following action items from this Stakeholder 

Outreach Meeting and are working to address them:

• OSAC’s FSSB Reporting and Testimony Task Group will provide recommendations to the FSSB on 

needed standards related to reporting and testimony – IN PROGRESS.

• The OSAC Program Office will review OSAC 2021-S-0014, Standard for Reference Collections in 

Wildlife Forensic Biology: Genetics and Vertebrate Morphology to determine if it may be 

applicable to other disciplines as a resource related to the validation of reference materials – IN 

PROGRESS. 

• The OSAC Program Office will work with ASCLD to see how to promote ASCLD’s Leadership 

Academy – IN PROGRESS. 

• OSAC FSSB to consider facilitating another stakeholder meeting with laboratory directors and 

accrediting bodies to better understand how implementation will impact accreditation – IN 

PROGRESS. 

• FSSB Outreach & Communications Task Group will discuss how to better articulate the value 

proposition for implementation – NOT YET STARTED. 

• The OSAC Program Office will develop resources on how to create an implementation culture

NOT YET STARTED. 

• The OSAC Program Office will revise the Standards Implementation Declaration Form to include 

options to note “partial” and “full” implementation – COMPLETE. 

• FSSB will continue supporting OSAC units to develop other work products, in addition to 

standards – ONGOING. 

• The OSAC Program Office will revamp the OSAC Registry Implementation webpage and 

share/develop slides related to implementation – NOT YET STARTED. 

 
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 6

Appendix 1 – Meeting Attendees 

Forensic Laboratory Leaders

• Barry Baker, Acting Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

• Cheryl Carreiro, Assistant Director, Connecticut Forensic Science Laboratory, Connecticut State 

Police

• Dave Fluty, Executive Director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory and Scientific 

Services

• Debbie Glidewell, Director, Defense Forensic Science Center (DFSC) – U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Laboratory (USACIL)

• Wesley Grose, Crime Laboratory Director, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

• Linda Jackson, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science

• Steven Johnson, Supervising Criminalist – Firearms and Latent Print Comparisons, Washoe 

County Sheriff 

• Eva King, Quality Assurance Director, Wisconsin State Crime Laboratories

• Catherine Knutson, Deputy Superintendent – State Lab System Director, Minnesota Bureau of 

Criminal Apprehension

• Rick Lautenbach, Forensic Services Laboratory, Target

• Keith Lawyer, Forensic Services Bureau, Assistant Bureau Chief, New Jersey State Police

• Patricia Manzolillo, Laboratory Director, U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Forensic 

Laboratory Services

• Jennifer McNair, Chief of the Utah Department of Public Safety Bureau of Forensic Services, 

Utah Department of Public Safety

• Scott McWilliams, Crime Laboratory Director, Wyoming State Crime Laboratory – Division of 

Criminal Investigation

• Robert Middleberg, Senior Vice President of Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs, NMS Labs

• Barry Miller, Bureau Director, California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services

• Brady Mills, Chief of Crime Laboratory Division, Texas Department of Public Safety

• Jeff Nye, Director of Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division

• Joseph Petersack, Director New Jersey State Police Office of Forensic Sciences

• Michal Pierce, Quality Director, Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences

• Eric Pokorak, Acting Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

• Mark Powell, Crime Laboratory Manager, San Francisco Police Department

• T.L. Price, Laboratory Director, Kansas Bureau of Investigation

• Robyn Quinn, Director, Crime Laboratory Division, Office of Attorney General (North Dakota)

• Kristin Sasinouski, Technical Leader, Bode Technology

• Stephanie Stoiloff, Commander, Forensic Services Bureau, Miami-Dade Police Department

• Jody Wolf, Director, Phoenix Crime Laboratory

• Dustin (Tate) Yeatman, Crime Laboratory Director, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 7

OSAC FSSB/Outreach & Communications Task Group Members

• Karin Athanas, Outreach & Communications TG member

• Allison Getz, OSAC Program Office, Outreach & Communications TG member

• Melissa Gische, FSSB member

• Stephen Greene, FSSB member

• Steve Johnson, Outreach & Communications TG member

• John Paul (JP) Jones II, OSAC Program Manager, Outreach & Communications TG member

• David Kaye, FSSB Executive Secretary

• Sarah Kerrigan, Outreach & Communications TG member

• Karen Reczek, FSSB member and Outreach & Communications TG Chair

• Jeri Ropero-Miller, FSSB and Outreach & Communications TG member 

• Jeff Salyards, FSSB member

• Donna Sirk, OSAC Program Office, Outreach & Communications TG member 

• Mark Stolorow, Outreach & Communications TG member

• Chris Taylor, FSSB and Outreach & Communications TG member

• Ray Wickenheiser, FSSB Vice Chair and Outreach & Communications TG member

Appendix 2 –Organizations 

Federal Agencies

• Defense Forensic Science Center (DFSC) – U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL)

• Federal Bureau of Investigation

• U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Forensic Laboratory Services

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

State 

• California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services

• Connecticut State Police

• Crime Laboratory Division, Office of Attorney General (Bismarck, ND)

• Kansas Bureau of Investigation

• Michigan State Police

• Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension - Forensic Science Services

• New Jersey State Police

• San Francisco Police Department

• Texas Department of Public Safety

• Utah Department of Public Safety

• Virginia Department of Forensic Science

• Washoe County Sheriff (Nevada)

• Wisconsin State Crime Laboratories

• Wyoming State Crime Lab - Division of Criminal Investigation
OSAC Stakeholder Outreach Meeting: Forensic Laboratory Leaders

Summary Report Page 8

Local

• Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences

• Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

• Miami-Dade Police Department, Forensic Services Division

• Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office

• Phoenix Crime Laboratory

Private

• Bode Technology

• Target 

• NMS Labs