NIST Guidance Groups:

Input Received and Proposed Plan 

Development

Presentation & Webcast

American Academy of Forensic Sciences

February 18, 2014

5:00 PM – 7:00 PM PST

Seattle, WA
Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

previously called “Guidance Groups”

Input Received and Proposed Plan Development

American Academy of Forensic Sciences

February 18, 2014

Seattle, WA
Welcome & 

Introductions

Mark Stolorow

Director, Law Enforcement Standards Office, 

NIST Office of Special Programs
AAFS Presentation Overview

Time Topic Presenter

10 min Welcome & Introductions Mark Stolorow

 5 min Brief Background on NIST Rich Cavanagh

15 min Notice of Inquiry Responses

Received by NIST

Susan Ballou

30 min Plan for the Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees 

(OSAC)

Barbara Guttman 

& John Butler

15 min OSAC Membership John Paul Jones

45 min Q & A All
Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

Value

• Practitioner generated (forensic scientists) 

• Courtroom connected (legal input)

• Scientifically valid (researchers and statisticians)

• Standards enforcement potential (standards 

developers & accreditation bodies)
Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

Public Input – NIST seeks public input – and we listen

• Met with SWG Chairs at NIST – (June 18, 2013) 

• Sought public feedback with Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 

published in Federal Register - (Sept 27 – Nov 26, 2013)

• Met with AAFS, AFTE, IAI, NAME, and SOFT - (Dec 2013 - Jan 2014)

• OSAC presentation before the National Commission on 

Forensic Science at first meeting - (Feb 4, 2014) 

• OSAC presentation and plan posted on nist.gov/forensics

after NCFS presentation - (Feb 5, 2014)

• Met with A2LA, ABFT, AFQAM, ANSI/ASQ-FQS, ASCLD- LAB, CAP, L-A-B) forensic science accreditation bodies on 

Feb 10, 2014 

• Convene forum at AAFS (with webcast) – (Feb 18, 2014)
Why Does this Matter to You?

• As DOJ ends funding for most SWGs what’s next?

– OSAC will maintain access to all legacy SWG documents &

– Populate SACs and Subcommittees with thought leaders 

• How will OSAC enhance standards development?

– Leverage consistency where appropriate among forensic 

science disciplines in 5 Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

– Strengthen best practices, guidelines and standards

• How can you participate?

– Applications for self-nomination will be published shortly

– Relevant professional organizations can recommend
Brief Background 

on NIST

Dr. Richard Cavanagh

Director 

NIST Office of Special Programs
Article I, Section 8: The Congress 

shall have the power to ...coin 

money, regulate the value thereof, 

and of foreign coin, and fix the 

standard of weights and measures

• Non-regulatory 

 agency within 

 U.S. Department 

 of Commerce 

 

• Founded in 1901 as 

 National Bureau of 

 Standards

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST)
• Deep research expertise underpins technological 

innovation – e.g., new materials, advanced clinical diagnostics 

and therapies, advanced communications, forensic science etc.

• Non-regulatory status enables an important role as a 

convener that facilitates collaboration between agencies of the 

Federal Government, industry, private organizations, and state 

and local governments

Unique Mission within the Federal Government ...

to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by 

advancing 

measurement science, standards, and technology

in ways that enhance economic security and improve our 

quality of life

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST)
NIST: A Premier Scientific Institution

 Work resulting in 4 + 1 Nobel Prizes since 1997

 Kyoto Prize winner in 2011

 MacArthur Fellowship winners in 2003 and 2013

 National Medal of Science winners in 1998 and 2007

 ~ 10 National Academy Members 

 ~120 National Society Fellows

 ~60 National/International Awards/year

A world-leading measurement science and standards program

Bill Phillips

1997 Nobel Prize 

in Physics

Eric Cornell

2001 Nobel Prize 

in Physics

John Hall

2005 Nobel Prize

in Physics

Dan Shechtman

2011 Nobel Prize 

in Chemistry

based on work while 

Visiting Scientist at NIST

John Cahn

1997 National Medal of 

Science and 2011 Kyoto Prize

in Materials Science

David Wineland

2007 National Medal of Science

2012 Nobel Prize 

Debbie Jin

2003 MacArthur 

Genius Grant

2013 L’Oreal/UNESCO 

“For Women in 

Science” award 
NIST’s involvement in Forensic Science began in 1913

NBS’s William Souder 

“one of the nation’s best and 

least known criminologists.”

T

Washington Post 1954

Forensics at NIST
NIST has a long and rich history of work 

in support of law enforcement. 

Currently providing research and measurement services such as validated test 

methods, Standard Reference Materials, and Reference Data in areas such as:

• crime scene investigations

• computer forensics

• fire investigations

• drug detection

• drunk driving testing

• biometrics (fingerprints and handwriting analysis)

• firearms/ballistics

• standards for body armor, nonlethal weapons 

• explosives detection technologies

• sports integrity/fairness

• genetics and DNA-based identification

Support the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security

in carrying out their programs

Forensics at NIST
NIST as Convener/Facilitator in 

Standards Development

• Convened and formed National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM) 

– Provided standards and guidance for State regulators

– Transitioned NCWM to the private sector

• Convened and formed Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP)

• Published Smart Grid Roadmap

– Transitioned SGIP to the private sector

• Estimated 460 NIST staff are committee members of over 100 

national and international Standards Development 

Organizations (SDO) and participate in over 1000 standards 

development activities 
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 

Responses Received by NIST

Susan Ballou

Program Manager for Forensic Sciences 

NIST Office of Special Programs
NOI Responses

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published in Federal 

Register: Sept. 27 – Nov. 26, 2013

82 responses received 

– 12 SWGs commented

– 15 other groups including ASCLD, CAC, CFSO, 

IAI, Innocence Project, NACDL 

– More than a dozen labs and a half dozen 

companies

– Individuals from 20 states, D.C. and four 

countries (UK, Canada, Germany, and Australia)
NOI Responses by Organization

Law 

Enforcement

37%

Private -

Nonprofit/Assoc.

14%

Private -

Commercial

13%

Academic

7%

Medical

3%

Defense

1%

SWG

14%

Legal

1% Unknown

10%
NOI Responses

were obtained from law enforcement agencies in 

20 different states and the District of Columbia.

NOI Response 

Obtained

International responses

- Australia

- Canada

- Germany

- United Kingdom
NOI Topic Areas

1. Structure of the Guidance Groups

‒ 9 sub-topic questions

2. Impact of Guidance Groups

‒ 3 sub-topic questions

3. Representation in the Guidance Groups

‒ 4 sub-topic questions

4. Scope of the Guidance Groups

‒ 4 sub-topic questions
Topic 1: Structure of “Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: ....elements which make existing 

forensic scientific working groups (SWGs) 

successful? ......

• Responders offered:

– Active membership/participation

– Diversity in membership

– Consistent funding

– Strong leadership

– An efficient website

– An enforcement mechanism
Topic 1: Structure of “Guidance Groups” 

“One thing I have always thought would be 

useful is to have a sort of overall 

coordinating committee for all the SWGs, 

TWGs. This could insure that they all had 

similar objectives, and could get into 

questions of standardizing language, report 

writing, interpretation guidelines, .... things 

that generally are too big in scope for any 

given TWG, SWG.” - R. E. Gaensslen
Topic 1: Structure of “Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: ...partnership with a standards 

development organization (SDO)...present 

obstacle for participation... ? 

60% feel it would be an obstacle

“Not all agencies who work in a given forensic field would 

be able to pay for the standard. Only when required by 

accreditation or other oversight would many agencies feel 

compelled to use, and therefore purchase, the standard. As 

there are not enough resources to provide accreditation of 

all entities of the forensic community, the broad adoption of 

a standard is not possible. Without the funding behind it, 

there will not be a broad adoption.” – James Darnell
Topic 1: Structure of “Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic:

Would a fee-based membership 

model...present an obstacle for 

participation?
Topic 1: Structure of “Guidance Groups” 

Fee-based model is not favorable

90% of respondents were opposed to a fee-based 

model of any form

“The fee-based membership would automatically result in the 

exclusion of lower funded organizations, which in turn will 

result in bias... create a system of the ‘haves and have nots’” 

– Scott Vajos

“If fees were implemented, they should be done in such a 

way that large agencies, small agencies, and even 

individuals were all able to afford them.” – Heidi Eldridge
Topic 2: Impact of “Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: Given that the Guidance Groups 

cannot mandate the adoption of standards, 

what can they do to best leverage their position 

and encourage adoption? 
Incentivizing Adoption by Linking 

Standards to ...

“Without funding or legislative mandates, the impact and acceptance of the 

guidance group products may be limited.” – Laura Hernandez

“While ASCLD certainly supports the idea of accreditation for all crime 

laboratories, mandating this on the federal level without the proper 

organization and funding essentially creates an unfunded mandate that 

makes implementation impossible. Accreditation and certification is necessary 

and receipt of federal funds should be contingent on compliance or 

work towards compliance.” – Jay Henry

“There is some concern that the Guidance Groups could put forward 

recommendations that would result in unfunded mandates. Having said that, 

the CFSO organizations are supportive of mandating accreditation and 

certification and believe that work with a legislative body could result in a 

positive outcome favorable to the forensic practitioner community.” – Pete 

Marone
Topic 2: Key Themes

Most respondents expressed a desire to 

include researchers in the process:

- Conduct events open to researchers that 

allow for information exchange 

- Include researchers as members of 

discipline specific groups

- Form separate subgroups of researchers

- Include researchers in oversight board
Topic 3: Representation in the 

“Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: Who are the stakeholders who should 

be represented on the Guidance Groups?

Range of responses included - academicians, 

attorneys, managers, practitioners, public and 

private sector, quality assurance managers,

researchers, scientists, statisticians, vendors 

31% - stated the majority composition of the 

guidance groups should be practitioners actively 

working in the field...25% stated all stakeholders 

should be represented
Topic 3: Representation in the 

“Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: What does balanced representation 

mean and how can it be achieved?

• Allow each guidance group to evaluate its own 

balance 

• Participation percentage of each stakeholder be 

equated to the needs of the particular discipline 

“The balance of interests of stakeholders can be 

ensured by a proper appeals process in the 

‘Guidance Groups’ bylaws.” – Peter Tytell
Topic 4: Scope of the “Guidance Groups” 

Sub-topic: Should all of the current forensic 

Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) transition to 

Guidance Groups?

Majority Responded – YES

“All should transition to alleviate confusion/ 

encourage collaboration.” – Robert Horton 

“The current SWGs should “carry the torch” as NIST 

further refines the process...transition all SWGs 

under NIST’s umbrella and allow them to keep their 

name...” – SWGDRUG
Topic 4: Scope of the “Guidance Groups” 

“Each SWG should decide for itself if and how it 

should/could transition into a GG or whether 

they might benefit from combining or 

fragmenting.” – SWGMDI

“NACDL opposes any effort to use existing 

organizations as the backbone of the Guidance 

Groups, and specifically opposes the transition 

of Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) into 

Guidance Groups...The SWGs are not 

independent of law enforcement...” – NACDL
In Brief

Public posting of comments on nist.gov/forensics

Highlights:

– Practitioner voice should be a major player

– Strongly urged to include all forensic science 

disciplines

– Concern about funding (no “pay-to-play” fees)

– Interest in publicly accessible documents posted 

on the web in a uniform and timely manner

– Interest in face-to-face and virtual meetings

– Encouragement to include existing professional 

organizations
Plan for the Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees 

(OSAC)

Barbara Guttman

Manager, NIST Computer Forensics Program

John M. Butler

Special Assistant to the Director for Forensic Science
Some Concerns about Current 

Scientific Working Groups (SWGs)

from Judge Harry Edwards, co-chair of the 2009 NAS Committee

• Need regular source of funding

• Need membership criteria

• Need to produce specific, enforceable 

standards

• Need mandate for community to follow

• Need follow-up to measure impact of 

work

Source: Honorable Harry T. Edwards, Presentation at the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia Conference on The Role of the Court in an Age of Developing Science & Technology: 

The National Academy of Sciences Report on Forensic Sciences: What it Means for the Bench 

and Bar (May 6, 2010)

Harry T. Edwards

U.S. Court of 

Appeals (DC)

Co-Chair, 

Forensic Science 

Committee
Individual SWGs vs. Organized Effort

 • • •

funded support

enforceable standards

unified effort

greater influence and impact
National Commission 

on Forensic Science 

(NCFS)

Attorney General

Forensic Science 

Standards Board 

(FSSB)

Organization of 

Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

Limited Term (FACA) Ongoing (Forensic Science 

Quality Infrastructure)

Policy focused

Recommendations

Practice focused

Department of Justice NIST
Forensic Science 

Standards Board 

(FSSB)

Organization of 

Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

Ongoing (Forensic Science 

Quality Infrastructure)

Outputs Forensic Science 

Code of Practice

FSSB 

Registry of 

Approved 

Standards

List of SAC 

Approved 

Best 

Practices 

and 

Guidelines

Laboratories

Appropriate ISO/IEC documents 

and discipline-specific approved 

standards and documents

Accreditors

Appropriate ISO/IEC 

documents, e.g. 17011 

Practice focused

NIST

Process & 

technical merit

Technical merit
Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee

Sub = Subcommittee

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Toxicology Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

SAC

Biology/DNA

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

DNA Analysis Sub2

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Gunshot Residue Sub
SAC Subcommittees

• Develops and vets formal documents to be 

submitted for approval by SAC (in case of 

guidelines) or SAC & FSSB (in case of standards)

• Communicates activities and progress to SACs

• Subcommittee deliberations are not public

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Toxicology Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

DNA Analysis Sub2

Where the real work will happen

Many aspects and participants 

may map to current SWGs

Gunshot Residue Sub
Subcommittee Membership

Each subcommittee has a maximum membership 

of 20 voting members (and up to 5 invited guests 

per meeting)

• Distribution goal of [70% practitioner* (20% federal, 

30% state & local, 20% civil or other), 20% 

researchers (including statisticians, epidemiologists, 

etc.), and 10% R&D technology partners and 

providers] [Under consideration!]

* Practitioner is defined as someone actively doing or 

managing casework
Why is Digital Evidence Excluded 

from OSAC (and the NCFS charter)?

• Digital evidence is information stored or transmitted 

in digital form, including emails, the contents of 

computer memory, Internet browser histories, and 

many other items. 

• Because of the complexity, diversity, and rapidly 

evolving technological advances of digital 

technologies, digital evidence will not be included in 

the partnership between DOJ and NIST at this time. 

• The Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence 

(SWGDE) will continue its work. 
Will SWGDAM be transitioned to OSAC?

• Due to the unique statutory relationship between 

SWGDAM and the FBI, SWGDAM will remain 

with the FBI at this time. 

• The FBI has no initial objection to the possible 

transition of SWGDAM or appropriate portions of 

SWGDAM to OSAC and is open to considering 

this at some future time.

See http://swgdam.org/faq.html
Why Two DNA Subcommittees?

• To provide an example that disciplines may need 

multiple subcommittees with specific focus (based 

on SAC input and FSSB decision)

– DNA sub1 could be focused on Methods and have 

more researchers involved

– DNA sub2 could be focused on Interpretation and have 

more statisticians involved

• Materials (Trace) subcommittee could also be 

subdivided, for example:

– Materials (Trace) sub1: Paint and Glass

– Materials (Trace) sub2: Hairs, Fiber, and Tape
Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee

Sub = Subcommittee

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Toxicology Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

SAC

Biology/DNA

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

DNA Analysis Sub2

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Gunshot Residue Sub
Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

• Sets priorities for subcommittee work and 

enables a bigger picture view on topics like report 

wording and statistical analysis

• Recommends (to FSSB) creating, merging, or 

abolishing subcommittees

• SAC meetings will be open to the public and 

agendas made available prior to meetings

SAC

Biology/DNA

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation
SAC Membership

Each SAC is comprised of up to 15 members 

including 

• Subcommittee chairs

• Representatives of professional forensic 

science organizations appropriate to the 

scientific area (e.g., AAFS, AFTE, IAI, NAME, 

and SOFT)

• Researchers

• Measurement scientists (including 

statisticians, epidemiologists, etc.)
Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee

Sub = Subcommittee

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Toxicology Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

SAC

Biology/DNA

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

DNA Analysis Sub2

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Gunshot Residue Sub
OSAC Oversight

• FSSB ensures communication flow among SACs and overall OSAC 

infrastructure and the forensic science community

• Approves standards for inclusion in Forensic Science Code of 

Practice and FSSB Registry of Approved Standards

• FSSB composed of 16 members initially appointed by NIST-DOJ 

leadership and membership selection committee

– 5 SAC Chairs

– 5 representatives of professional forensics organizations (e.g., AAFS, AFTE, IAI, 

NAME, SOFT) 

– 5 Members at large from the research and measurement science communities 

– 1 NIST ex-officio

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)
OSAC Support

• LRC composed of up to 10 judges, lawyers, and legal experts who provide 

guidance about the legal ramifications of forensic standards under 

development and input on presentation of forensic results to the legal system

• QIC composed of up to 10 standards experts, quality systems managers, and 

accreditation and certification specialists who are responsible for writing and 

updating the Forensic Science Code of Practice

• HFC composed of up to 10 psychologists, quality systems managers, and 

usability experts who provide guidance on the influence of systems design on 

human performance and on ways to mitigate errors in complex tasks

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)
FSSB Registry of Approved Standards

• Forensic science methods and protocols used shall 

be on the FSSB Registry of Approved Standards 

• Exceptions:

– If a method is not on the approved list, then the method 

most fit-for-purpose should be utilized and a justification 

for use shall be provided 

– If an applicable test method is on the approved list, but an 

alternative method is utilized, a justification for use shall be 

provided 

– If an approved method is used for an alternative use than 

specified in the method, a justification for use shall be 

provided 
Standards Development Process

• Review and approval shall consistent of the following:

– Technical merit

• Detailed scope

• Examination of fitness-for-purpose

• Consideration of uncertainty of measurement and potential bias

• Method validation, as appropriate

– Reasonable standards development process

• Due process

• Consensus

• Openness

• Transparency

• Freedom from undue influence

• Balance of interests

• Approved standards may come from sources such as: 

• An existing SDO (must meet Code of Practice requirements)

• Developed by an OSAC Subcommittee using a process that meets the 

above requirements
Administering Organization

• Funds travel for OSAC participants

• Handles logistics of in-person and virtual meetings

• Ensures communication support including regularly 

updating OSAC external website

• Responsible for rendering a decision in event of an 

appeal or dispute

• NIST will serve in this role with a goal to transition 

OSAC support to an independent professional 

organization with a target of 3 to 5 years, maintaining:

– Quality and integrity

– A participative role to ensure science and technology excellence
Organization of Scientific Area 

Committees (OSAC)

Creating a quality infrastructure for forensic 

science with a connection to accreditation bodies

• Practitioner generated (forensic scientists)

• Catalog existing SWG documents for continued 

access

• Courtroom connected (legal input)

• Scientifically valid (researchers)

• Standards enforcement

www.nist.gov/forensics
OSAC Membership

How can each of you participate?

John Paul Jones II

NIST Forensic Science Program,

Office of Special Programs
Many Positions to Fill on this Ship. . .
Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee

Sub = Subcommittee

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Materials (Trace) Sub

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Toxicology Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

SAC

Biology/DNA

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

DNA Analysis Sub2

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

Gunshot Residue Sub
Time Commitment of Members (1)

• Length of membership – staggered 3-year terms

• LRC, QIC, and HFC will conduct business using 

both in-person and virtual meetings 

• SAC Committees & Subcommittees will conduct 

business using both in-person and virtual 

meetings 

• SAC Committees & Subcommittees will conduct 

at least one in-person meeting per year

• Travel, lodging and per diem expenses for 

members will be paid by NIST 
Time Commitment of Members (2)

• Virtual meetings will occur periodically to 

accomplish the objectives of Committees and 

Subcommittees 

• Virtual meetings are expected to require a total 

of 5 days or less throughout the year 

• Other time commitments include reviewing/ 

editing documents on a periodic basis
How Do I Apply?

• Online Application will be posted upon approval 

– must submit through website

• www.nist.gov/forensics - Click “OSAC” (top banner)

• Application period will be open for 30 days

• Self-nomination process

– 3 Committees (seeking approximately 30 people)

– 5 SACs – (seeking approximately 75 people)

– 22 Subcommittees (seeking approximately 400+ people)
What Do I Need to Submit?

• Online membership application

• Current CV

• Letter of support from employer if required 

by agency
Application Form Questions (1)

• Classification of Employer

– Federal Government, State Government, Local Government, 

Tribal Government, FFRDC, Academic, Private Sector 

• Education

– BS, MS, MSFS, PhD, JD, etc.

• Relevant Professional Organization Affiliation

– AAFS, ABA, ACS, AFTE, ASA, ASCLD, IAI, NACDL, NAME, 

NDAA, Regional Associations, SOFT, etc.

• Primary Job Classification

– Forensic Practitioner, Researcher, R&D Technology Partner, 

Educator/Trainer, Quality Assurance Administrator, Attorney, 

Judge, Other
Application Form Questions (2)

• Years and type of relevant work experience in 

discipline/subject area 

• Standards development experience, including 

positions held (e.g., SWGs, ASTM, ISO, NFPA)

• Relevant research experience related to subject 

matter

• Relevant publications authored or co-authored

• Other relevant experience (e.g., industry 

leadership)

• Key interests (e.g., terminology, conclusion 

scales, analytical techniques)
OSAC Position Connections to Note

• SAC Chairs will sit on 

FSSB 

• Subcommittee Chairs sit 

on relevant SAC

• SAC Chair cannot be a 

Subcommittee Chair Anthropology Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)
OSAC FSSB

• FSSB composed of 16 members 

– 5 SAC Chairs

– 5 representatives of professional forensics organizations (e.g., 

AAFS, AFTE, IAI, NAME, SOFT) 

– 5 Members at large from the research and measurement science 

communities 

– 1 NIST ex-officio

• Initial selection of FSSB will be by NIST-DOJ leadership/membership 

committee

Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)
• LRC composed of up to 10 judges, lawyers, and legal 

experts 

• QIC composed of up to 10 standards experts, quality 

systems managers, and accreditation and certification 

specialists 

• HFC composed of up to 10 psychologists, quality 

systems managers, and usability experts 

• Initial selection of LRC, QIC, and HFC by NIST-DOJ 

leadership/membership committee

Quality Infrastructure 

Committee (QIC)

Legal Resource 

Committee (LRC)

Human Factors 

Committee (HFC)

OSAC Support Committees 
• Each SAC is comprised of up to 15 members including 

– Subcommittee chairs

– Representatives of professional forensic science organizations 

appropriate to the scientific area (e.g., AAFS, AFTE, IAI, NAME, and 

SOFT)

– Researchers

– Measurement scientists (including statisticians, epidemiologists, etc.)

• Note: The Chair of the SAC cannot be a Subcommittee Chair.

• Initial selection of SACs by NIST-DOJ leadership/membership 

committee

SAC

Biology/DNA

SAC

Physics/Pattern

SAC 

Chemistry/ 

Instrumentation

SAC

IT/Multimedia

SAC

Crime Scene/ 

Death Investigation

Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

SAC = Scientific Area Committee
• Each Subcommittee has a maximum of 20 voting members (and 

up to 5 invited guests per meeting) – see breakdown on next slide

• Subcommittee members selected by FSSB and SACs then 

reviewed by DOJ/NIST

Sub = Subcommittee

Imaging Technologies Sub Firearms & Toolmarks 

Sub 

Questioned Documents 

Sub

DNA Analysis Sub1 Controlled Substances Sub Anthropology Sub Facial Identification Sub

Disaster Victim 

Identification Sub

Friction Ridge Sub

Fire Debris and Explosives 

Sub (lab)

Medical/Legal Death 

Invest Sub

Blood Stain Pattern 

Analysis Sub

Dogs and Sensors Sub

Footwear 

& Tire Tread Sub

Wildlife Forensics Sub

Geological Materials Sub

Speaker Recognition Sub 

Fire Scene and 

Explosives Sub 

DNA Analysis Sub2

OSAC Subcommittees

Toxicology Sub

Gunshot Residue Sub

Materials (Trace) Sub
Membership Targets for Subcommittees

• Membership balance goals may differ based on 

the specific Subcommittee – however general 

target is as follows: (Under consideration)

• 70% practitioner:

– 20% federal 

– 30% state & local

– 20% civil or other

• 20% researchers (including statisticians, 

epidemiologists, etc.) 

• 10% R&D technology partners and providers 
Subcommittee Selection Process 

• Applications will be binned into specific Subcommittees 

as identified by applicant

• SAC will review and select a roster for each 

Subcommittee that best meets individual Subcommittee 

requirements 

• SAC will present rosters for their respective 

Subcommittees as a package to the FSSB for approval

• FSSB approved inaugural roster will be submitted to 

NIST/DOJ for review/concurrence
Time Frame for Application Process

• Planned Timeline

– Solicit applications and recruit potential OSAC members 

starting soon

– Appoint FSSB and meet in April

– Appoint LRC, QIC, HFC and SAC membership in May

– First SAC meetings to select Subcommittee membership in June 

(with NIST-DOJ review)

– Conduct OSAC training virtually over the summer via webinar

– Hold in-person meeting in September 2014

• All applicants will be notified of the outcome at 

the conclusion of the selection process
Question & Answer 

Time

www.nist.gov/forensics

mark.stolorow@nist.gov