OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

2

OSAC 2022-S-0022

Standard for Disaster 

Victim Identification

Disaster Victim Identification Task Group

Medicolegal Death Investigation Subcommittee

Medicine Scientific Area Committee

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

3

Draft OSAC Proposed Standard

Standard for Disaster Victim 

Identification

Prepared by 

Medicolegal Death Investigation Subcommittee

Version: 1.0

July 2022

Disclaimer:

This OSAC Proposed Standard was written by the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) 

for Forensic Science following a process that includes an open comment period. This Proposed Standard 

will be submitted to a standards developing organization and is subject to change.

There may be references in an OSAC Proposed Standard to other publications under development by 

OSAC. The information in the Proposed Standard, and underlying concepts and methodologies, may be 

used by the forensic-science community before the completion of such companion publications.

Any identification of commercial equipment, instruments, or materials in the Proposed Standard is not a 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Government and does not imply that the equipment, 

instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

To be placed on the OSAC Registry, certain types of standards first must be reviewed by a Scientific and 

Technical Review Panel (STRP). The STRP process is vital to OSAC’s mission of generating and 

recognizing scientifically sound standards for producing and interpreting forensic science results. The 

STRP shall provide critical and knowledgeable reviews of draft standards or of proposed revisions of 

standards previously published by standards developing organizations (SDOs) to ensure that the 

published methods that practitioners employ are scientifically valid, and the resulting claims are 

trustworthy.

The STRP panel will consist of an independent and diverse panel, including subject matter experts, 

human factors scientists, quality assurance personnel, and legal experts, which will be tasked with 

evaluating the proposed standard based on a comprehensive list of science-based criteria.

For more information about this important process, please visit our website 

at: https://www.nist.gov/topics/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science/scientifictechnical-review-panels.
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

2

1 Foreword

2 Accuracy	of	identification	is	a	foundational	principle	of	DVI	operations. The	official	identifications	

3 are	established	 through	a	process	 that	involves	collection	of	antemortem	and	postmortem	data	

4 collection,	comparison	and	making	preliminary	identifications,	and	formal	approval	of	the	name	

5 associations. Best	practices	include	quality	assurance,	reconciliation,	and	consensus	review. It	is	

6 also	a	foundational	principle	that	this	process	should	not	be	short-circuited	by	premature	release	

7 of	a	putative	identification. The	official	identification,	death	certification,	notification, and	release	

8 of	remains	will	follow	the	preliminary	identification.				

9 This	 standard	is	 put	 forth	 by	 the	Disaster	 Victim	 Identification	 (DVI)	 Task	 Group	within	OSAC	

10 Medicolegal	Death	Investigation	(MDI)	Subcommittee.	This	document	is	intended	to	be	the	part	of	

11 a	 series	 of	 standards	 and	 best	 practices	 developed	 by	 the	 DVI	 Task	 Group.	 This	 document	

12 originated	from	the	Scientific	Working	Group	on	Disaster	Victim	Identification	(SWGDVI).

13

14
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

3

15 Table	of	Contents

16 1 Scope 4

17 2 Normative References 4

18 3 Terms and Definitions 4

19 4 Requirements 5

20 Annex A 10

21 Annex B 11

22
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

4

23 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

24

25 1 Scope

26 The purpose of this document is to provide a standard for medicolegal death investigation authorities, 

27 practitioners and planners to make identifications and ensure their accuracy in disaster victim identification 

28 (DVI) operations responding to mass fatality incidents (MFI). Although resource restrictions can limit the 

29 practice in a given MFI, resources are necessary to be made available to implement this standard. While 

30 the same basic process is used worldwide, this document is written from a U.S. perspective with American 

31 jurisdictions in mind. 

32 2 Normative References

33 There are no normative reference documents, Annex B, Bibliography, contains informative references. 

34 3 Terms and Definitions

35 3.1 Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)

36 The process and procedure for identifying and re-associating human remains via the application of scientific 

37 methods, as a component of mass fatality management.

38 3.3 Discipline-Specific Preliminary Identification 

39 Discipline-specific preliminary identification (noun, verb), as used herein, is the tentative name association 

40 conclusion based upon a specific identification modality (i.e., ridgeology, odontology, DNA, pathology, 

41 etc.) prior to reconciliation, or the process of establishing it. 

42 3.2 Identification 

43 Identification (noun), as used herein, is the official final name association for the recovered remains. 

44 3.3 Identification Board (IB)

45 The IB is a formal consensus body to perform a final quality assurance review and prepare an identification 

46 report for the ME/C authority. 

47 3.4 Identification Process 

48 The process by which an identification is made, to include antemortem and postmortem comparison. 

49 3.5 Medicolegal Death Investigation Authority

50 The person or persons whose duty it is to perform medicolegal death investigations for a designated 

51 jurisdiction and ensure certification of cause and manner of death; duties vary based on local enabling 

52 statutes. The term medicolegal authority is an abbreviation for medicolegal death investigation authority, 

53 and when used in this document, shall be construed as though it were written out in full.

54 3.6 Putative Identification 

55 Putative identification (noun, verb), as used herein, is the tentative name association conclusion after 

56 consideration of all information available after reconciliation, or the process of establishing it. 
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

5

57 3.7 Reconciliation 

58 Reconciliation, as is used herein, is the process by which all relevant information is considered to resolve 

59 any conflicts and to confirm or refute conclusions of identity. This definition is more narrowly defined than 

60 by Interpol, which uses the term broadly for antemortem and postmortem comparison. 

61 4 Requirements

62 4.1 General 

63 The DVI process is a self-contained component of MFI operations requiring highly specialized personnel 

64 and special expertise. The basic procedures have been developed over several years and have been vetted 

65 through experience in various MFIs globally. The primary goal of the operation is to accurately identify the 

66 human remains. Politicians and Incident Commanders should support, but not interfere in the reconciliation 

67 efforts of this DVI unit. It is particularly important to resist pressure to release identifications prematurely, 

68 but instead await the full reconciliation efforts. It should be recognized that an “identification” made by a 

69 fingerprint, dental, or DNA match is only a preliminary putative identification requiring review and official 

70 approval - it is only strong evidence of a would-be identification. In incidents involving fragmentation, 

71 consideration shall also be given to re-association of human remains before notice of the identification is 

72 given. 

73 The DVI identification process seeks to uniquely identify a set of human remains to the exclusion of all 

74 other individuals in the world. The ability of the forensic sciences to achieve “discernible uniqueness” has 

been questioned.1 75 The Department of Justice has issued Uniform Language for fingerprint examiners, which 

76 does not allow DOJ examiners to claim “individualization” nor assert “100 percent level of certainty” or 

77 even “scientific certainty”, but can make an identification determination with the understanding that it is 

not an absolute certainty.

2 78 In MFIs, the DVI team can be faced with fragmentation, partial incineration, 

79 decomposition, and large numbers of matching combinatorials that can challenge the identification efforts. 

Mistaken identities have occurred.3,4 80 Accordingly, the term “positive identification” is disfavored. 

81 Nonetheless, the DVI process shall aspire to make scientific individual identifications with as much 

82 accuracy and certainty as can be attained under the circumstance—the reconciliation process described here 

83 is an attempt to do exactly that. 

84 Visual identification by families and friends, by itself, is insufficient for disaster victim identification, but 

85 instead the identification process shall involve scientific identification. Accordingly, at a minimum, the 

86 identification process involves antemortem (AM) and postmortem (PM) data collection, comparison of the 

87 AM and PM data, establishment of a discipline-specific preliminary identification, and approval by the 

88 medicolegal death investigation authority. The standards presented are applicable to all MFIs. Modern 

89 practice involves multiple scientific discipline modalities, quality assurance reviews, reconciliation of all 

90 identifying information, and a final consensus review. 
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

6

91 DIAGRAM(S) 

92

93 4.2 Phase 1: Data Collection 

94 AM data is generally collected from families and friends in the Victim Information Center (VIC), a 

95 component of the Family Assistance Center (FAC), to include information about the person, photographs, 

96 dental records, fingerprints, clinical x-rays, and family DNA reference specimens, etc.. PM data collection 

97 is performed by discipline-specific expert individuals or teams (i.e., odontology, fingerprint, DNA, 

98 anthropology, pathology, etc.) within the morgue. These efforts are discussed in other ASB documents. 

99 4.3 Phase 2: Comparison and Discipline-Specific Preliminary Identification 

100 Discipline-specific AM and PM data are cross-compared for matching data elements to make discipline101 specific preliminary identifications. Modern DVI operations involve multiple discipline-specific scientific 

102 identification efforts occurring simultaneously. This identification process (called reconciliation by 

103 Interpol) is performed by discipline-specific experts or teams. The specific identification processes required 

104 for each discipline will not be discussed in this document. It is expected that quality assurance reviews, 

105 including both technical and administrative reviews, have been conducted as a part of the discipline-specific 

106 identification process.

107 Several techniques can be used to target or speed identifications. Software is available that can greatly speed 

108 the matching process, but, particularly in smaller incidents, this can be performed on a whiteboard. 

109 Software generated matches will need to be checked by discipline-specific experts. Development of a list 

110 of key data or special markers can facilitate matching efforts. Similarly, categorization of collective data 

111 by useful criteria can also facilitate matching, i.e. gender and age or specifically for female children. 

112 Personal effects, visual examinations, and contextual information from the incident can also contribute to 

113 this process but are not to be relied upon as methods of identification. Non-scientific contextual information 

114 can facilitate understanding useful to the DVI process. For instance, location of the remains can provide an 

115 initial association of the remains and hence speed the identification and re-association processes. 

116 4.4 Phase 3: Reconciliation and Consensus

117 All information shall be considered prior to final identification of the remains. The various discipline118 specific sets of data and identification conclusions, as well as contextual and other information, shall be 

119 considered and de-conflicted in a reconciliation process. Reconciliation, as used in this document, is the 
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

7

120 process by which all the information is considered to review, assess, and confirm the identifications. Review 

121 of putative identifications shall involve a consensus process across the various disciplines involved. Thus, 

122 reconciliation is the culmination of all the DVI efforts that preceded it. Occasionally, in reviewing this 

123 information or perhaps by data mining this information, new putative identifications can be made. 

124 Reconciliation is an important quality assurance mechanism of the DVI process. At the conclusion of the 

125 reconciliation process, recommendations of putative identifications and their assessments will be presented 

126 for approval to the medicolegal death investigation authority that has the ultimate legal authority to formally 

127 accept the identifications as official and to formalize them in Death Certificates. 

128 4.4.1 Identification Board (IB)

129 Depending on the specific circumstances of the MFI and the involvement of external entities in the 

130 identification process, the presiding medicolegal jurisdiction can elect to establish a formal Identification 

131 Board to perform a final quality assurance review and prepare an identification report for the ME/C 

132 authority. The IB reviews all relevant case data and generates reliable assessments of identity and re133 association to the medicolegal death investigation authority. If the putative identification is not confirmed, 

134 then further comparison and identification efforts will be conducted and quality assurance corrective actions 

135 will be triggered. 

136 The IB shall be led by a coordinating manager; it is recommended that the manager have extensive 

137 experience in DVI response, when possible. The IB should be comprised of experienced members of each 

138 of the disciplines involved in the identification process. Typically, the various scientific disciplines 

139 (pathology, odontology, friction ridge analysis, DNA, anthropology) will be represented along with search 

140 and recovery specialists and others as deemed appropriate. The IB reports to the medicolegal death 

141 investigation authority. 

142 The IB deliberations aim to either refute or confirm hypotheses of identity, and always involve an evaluation 

143 of evidence from each of the disciplines, for consistency as well as strength of evidence. A key component 

144 at this stage is to highlight and resolve any possible discrepancies. For example, conflicting results obtained 

145 with different methods suggest possible quality control issues in the data or sampling that need to be 

146 resolved. It can also reflect a discrepancy based on the inherent quality or usefulness of data involved, such 

147 as a method conflicting with recorded “soft” evidence (e.g. height, as reported by a family member). Of 

148 course, potential associations from one line of evidence can be rejected by other more definitive 

149 information. 

150 Generally, the evaluation results in a determination that the putative identification is: 1) rejected, 2) 

151 inconclusive pending additional data, or 3) accepted. Category 1 is used to update the decision matrix and 

152 to refine ongoing search mechanisms. Category 2 is used to focus subsequent investigations or to seek 

153 additional data (such as additional DNA reference samples, or records from the victim's dentist) for 

154 subsequent re-categorization. Category 3 progresses the case to the final stage of reconciliation, triggering 

155 generation of a report supporting an individual identification. 

156 Independent lines of evidence supporting the same conclusion are important from a quality assurance 

157 perspective, and thus the IB plays a fundamental role in Quality Assurance of the overall identification 

158 process. The IB shall perform technical and administrative reviews of the identification efforts, as well as 

159 conduct a higher-level assessment of the consistency of evidentiary data and conclusions from the separate 

160 disciplines.

161 The end work product of the IB review is an identification case report or worksheet, which describes the 

162 information needed to uniquely designate the remains and the missing person to whom they are ascribed, 

163 and summarizes the evidence supporting the identification and its evidentiary strength. The identification 

164 report shall be rigorously and systematically reviewed to ensure that the information included is correct and 
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

8

165 complete. The discipline experts serving on the IB who sign the report shall be in a position to represent 

166 that the quality assurance mechanisms and standards associated with their discipline were adequately 

167 followed. 

168 4.4.2 Open or Closed Population Sets 

169 A mass fatality incident can involve an open or closed victim population set. Scientific modalities shall be 

170 utilized in the identification process. However, in a closed incident where the victims are known, the process 

171 of elimination from the universe of known victims is useful for identification when one has high confidence 

172 in the unique attributes or characteristics and demographics of the population involved in the incident. In 

173 an open incident, an elimination process cannot be used due to the possibility of a random concordance in 

174 the general population. 

175 4.4.3 Fragmented Remains 

176 In addition to identification of intact remains, the medicolegal authority may be confronted with the 

177 identification and re-association of commingled fragmented remains. There are a number of ways to re178 associate fragmented remains (morphoscopic or molecular). Identified remains could be used as DNA 

179 reference samples to scientifically re-associate other fragmented remains. The medicolegal authority shall 

180 decide on criteria for which fragmented remains will be identified. This decision will be affected by the 

181 need to account for all victims, particularly in open populations.

182 4.4.4 Standard for Identification 

183 Disaster victim identifications have traditionally been conducted without pre-defined criteria or standards 

184 set in order to make identifications. Some have argued for setting identification threshold standards for 

185 identification. If such standards are set, then the IB will use them to uphold its evaluation and reporting. 

186 Although it is generally recognized that if statistical standards are to be set, then the standards shall be 

187 specific to the particular MFI. The magnitude and challenges of MFIs vary, as do the sensitivities of the 

188 medicolegal authority and the population served at the time of the incident, and thus the threshold criteria 

189 will change with the MFI. 

190 If the probability of a random match in a population using an identification technique is known, then an 

191 identification standard could be developed to achieve a desired degree of certainty, i.e. a 0.9999% 

192 probability that the identification is not merely a matter of chance. Another approach might be to achieve a 

193 certain likelihood ratio, based upon the likelihood of a true identity over the likelihood of a false identity. 

194 In such a Bayesian approach, the prior probability might be considered to be 1/number of fatalities (but see 

Budowle, et.al.5 195 ). 

196 Of course, it is easier to set identification standards for methods that result in a statistical quantitative 

197 finding, such as is done with DNA identity testing. In the case of the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster, a 

198 Kinship and DNA Analysis Panel (KADAP) was established to set a minimum statistical threshold for 

DNA-based identifications.6 199 The International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) has since issued 

recommendations for use of genetic testing in DVI operations and call for the use of likelihood ratios.7,8 200

201 The forensic sciences generally have been pressed to enhance their objectivity and move towards 

probabilistic interpretations, as well as determine the error rates for the various disciplines. 202 9 While the FBI, 

203 in accordance with the aforementioned DOJ Uniform Language requirements, makes categorical 

interpretative statements,2 204 the U.S. military’s latent print unit has instead begun using probabilistic 

statements of identification.10 205 There have been attempts to apply statistical analysis to anthropologic 

identifications11-13 and odontologic identifications.14,15 206 
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

9

207 4.4.5 Minimization of Cognitive Bias

208 The reconciliation process shall be conducted with an awareness of the dangers of cognitive bias which 

209 could result in erroneous identifications, and the process engineered to avoid bias wherever possible. The 

210 possibility of bias is greatest when a subjective determination of a directed comparison is made, because it 

211 is human nature to want to make the identification. Steps to be taken to combat cognitive bias can include: 

212 ● AM and PM data collection should be separated. 

213 ● Discipline-specific comparisons should initially be performed independent of other discipline214 specific comparison efforts. 

215 ● Evaluation criteria and findings should be measurable or objective, wherever possible. 

216 ● Computer automation of data matching should be utilized. 

217 ● Reviews should be blinded to the extent possible. 

● Sequential unmasking of domain relevant information16,17 218 should be used as appropriate. 

219 4.5 Phase 4: Formal Approval 

220 The medicolegal authority is the legally-authorized government official empowered to approve the 

221 identification and issue a death certificate. Thus, the IB presents its case identification report to the 

222 medicolegal authority to officially declare that the identification has been made. The identification is 

223 formally recorded with the issuance of a Death Certificate. Official approval of an identification is necessary 

224 before notice is given to the next-of-kin, public announcements made, and disposition of the remains. 

225
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

10

226

227 Annex A

228 (informative)

229

230 Foundational Principles

231

232 ● Accurate identification of human remains is a primary goal of disaster victim identification. 

233 ● Visual identification, by itself, is insufficient for disaster victim identification. 

234 ● Identification process in a mass fatality incident shall involve multiple scientific identification 

235 methods in parallel. 

236 ● Identification processes shall incorporate quality assurance and strategies to mitigate cognitive bias. 

237 ● A review of all relevant case information and context shall be performed prior to the formal 

238 identification. 

239 ● Putative identification shall undergo a consensus review process. 

240 ● Identifications are made official through approval of the name association by the medicolegal death 

241 investigation authority and are formalized in Death Certificates. 

242
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

11

243

244 Annex B

245 (informative)

246 Bibliography

247

248 1) Saks MJ, Koehler JJ, The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science, Science

249 309(5736):892-895, 2005. 

250

251 2) Augenstein S, DOJ’s Fingerprint Uniform Language is Part of ‘Constant Evolution,’ says IAI, 

252 Forensic Mag, Mar 1, 2018; available at: https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/03/dojs253 fingerprint-uniform-language-part-constant-evolution-says-iai. 

254

255 3) Van Ryn D, Van Ryn S, Newell C, Cerak W, Mistaken Identity: Two Families, One Survivor, 

256 Unwavering Hope, Howard Books, NY, NY, 278 pp., 2009. 

257

258 4) McShane L, DNA finds mistake in identifying firefighters, Chicago Tribune, Nov 29, 2001, 

259 available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-0111290227nov29-story.html. 

260

261 5) Budowle B, Ge J, Chakraborty R, Harrell Gill-King H, Use of prior odds for missing persons 

262 identifications, Investig Genet 2(15):1-6, 2011. 

263

264 6) Biesecker LG, Bailey-Wilson JE, Balllantyne J, Baum H, Bieber FR, Brenner C, Budowle B, Butler 

265 JM, Carmody G, Conneally PM, Duceman B, Eisenberg A, Forman L, Kidd KK, Leclair B, 

266 Niezgoda S, Parsons TJ, Pugh E, Shaler R, Sherry ST, Sozer A, Walsh A, Epidemiology. DNA 

267 identifications after the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack, DOI:10.1126/science.1116608, Science 

268 310(5751):1122-1123, 2005; accessible at: 

269 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5751/1122.long. 

270

271 7) Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, Sajantila A, Scheithauer R, Schmitter H, 

272 Schneider PM, DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): 

273 Recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI), 

274 For Sci Int:Genet 1(1):3-12, 2007. 

275

276 8) Lee J, Scott P, Carroll D, Eckhoff C, Harbison S, Lentile V, Goetz R, Scheffer JW, Stringer P, 

277 Turbett G, Recommendations for DNA laboratories supporting disaster victim identification (DVI) 

278 operations—Australian and New Zealand consensus on ISFG recommendations, For Sci Int Genet

279 3(1):54-56, 2008. 

280

281 9) PCAST, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison 

282 Methods, OSTP, 2016; available at:
OSAC 2022-S-0022 Standard for Disaster Victim Identification

12

283

284 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_s

285 cience_report_final.pdf. 

286

287 10) Swofford H, A new paradigm for fingerprint reporting...without individualization, July 2016 

288 presentation, available at: http://onin.com/fp/RTI_Webinar_2016_Reporting_Swofford_Final.pdf. 

289

290 11) Steadman D W, Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW, Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic 

291 anthropology, Am J Phys Anthropol 131:15–26, 2006. 

292

293 12) Anderson BE, Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic anthropology, Am J Phys 

294 Anthropol 133:741, 2007. 

295

296 13) Steadman DW, Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW, Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic 

297 anthropology: Response to Anderson, Am Journal of Physical Anthropol 133:741-742, 2007. 

298

299 14) Lake W, James H, Berketa JW, Disaster victim identification: quality management from an 

300 odontology perspective, For Sci, Med Pathol 8(2):157-163, 2012. 

301

302 15) Adams B J, Establishing personal identification based on specific patterns of missing, filled, and 

303 unrestored teeth. J For Sci 48(3):487-96, 2003. Adams BJ, Aschheim KW, Winburn AP, Dobrin 

304 LA, Computerized dental comparisons: A critical review of dental coding and ranking algorithms 

305 used in victim identification, J For Sci 61(1):76-86, 2016. 

306

307 16) Cole, S. A. (2013). Implementing counter-measures against confirmation bias in forensic 

308 science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 61-

309 62.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.011

310

311 17) Dan E. Krane Ph.D.; Simon Ford Ph.D.;et al. Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing 

312 Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation. 04 July 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-

313 4029.2008.00787.x