Document #7 Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in 

Friction Ridge Examinations, Ver. 5.0

Date of First Issue 09/13/11 Current Issue Date 09/11/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review 03-2012 Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter No

1 of 5

Document #7

Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in Friction Ridge Examinations

(Latent/Tenprint)

1. Preamble

1.1. A Quality Assurance Program (QAP) shall be established for organizations conducting friction ridge 

examinations. The establishment of a QAP is an important first step in the adoption of international 

standards through an accreditation program from a certified accrediting body that includes an external 

assessment. 

1.2. A QAP is necessary for the monitoring and evaluation of activities to ensure standards of quality are 

being met. Written policy and procedures shall be maintained by the agency and reviewed periodically.

2. Scope

2.1. This standard applies to comparison, processing, and related activities in latent and tenprint operations.

2.2. It addresses the elements of a quality assurance program, which include: quality management, nonconforming work, quality review, and corrective actions.

2.3. Other documents, including SWGFAST standards, should be consulted to supplement the 

requirements of a QAP.

3. Terminology

3.1. Policy

Policy describes the overall direction of the organization with regard to the subject activity. 

3.2. Procedure

Procedure describes how to perform an activity and generally contains the purpose and scope of the 

activity, what shall be done and by whom, when, where, and how it shall be done. The procedure must 

also address what materials, equipment, and documents shall be used and how it shall be controlled 

and recorded.

4. Quality Assurance Programs Policy and Procedures Shall:

4.1. Establish and maintain a training program, including maintenance of training records [1]. 

4.2. Ensure competency before beginning independent casework [1]. 

4.3. Establish, maintain, and control quality assurance documents.

4.4. Document the handling of evidence and examination.
Document #7 Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in 

Friction Ridge Examinations, Ver. 5.0

Date of First Issue 09/13/11 Current Issue Date 09/11/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review 03-2012 Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter No

2 of 5

4.5. Maintain documentation of friction ridge examinations [2]. 

4.6. Document requirements for reporting decisions [3]. 

4.7. Document non-conforming work, including non-consensus results. 

4.8. Establish and maintain a proficiency testing program [4].

4.9. Establish administrative and technical case review [5].

4.10. Monitor testimony [6].

4.11. Document corrective actions and preventative actions. 

4.12. Support professional development and continuing education.

4.13. Require technical and managerial supervision of staff.

4.14. Require periodic audits of the Quality Assurance Program.

4.15. Include a commitment to impartiality and integrity.

4.16. Maintain a safety program.

5. Quality Assurance Documents and Records

5.1. Quality assurance documents shall be periodically reviewed and if necessary, revised. Revisions shall 

be clearly documented, duly authorized, and made available to staff.

5.2. The following topic areas shall be included within quality assurance documents:

5.2.1. Code of Ethics

5.2.2. Corrective action

5.2.3. Customer complaint and feedback procedure

5.2.4. Equipment calibration, performance checking and maintenance logs

5.2.5. Evidence handling procedures

5.2.6. Laboratory safety procedures

5.2.7. Method validation records

5.2.8. Methods and procedures for electronic fingerprint systems (AFIS)

5.2.9. Methods and procedures for friction ridge examination, including documentation and report 

writing

5.2.10. Methods and procedures for friction ridge impression development, image capture, and storage

5.2.11. Methods and procedures for reagent preparation, testing, storage, and disposal

5.2.12. Methods and procedures for verification

5.2.13. Preventative action

5.2.14. Proficiency testing records

5.2.15. Resolution of non-consensus decisions

5.2.16. Technical and administrative case review

5.2.17. Testimony review

5.2.18. Training and competency records
Document #7 Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in 

Friction Ridge Examinations, Ver. 5.0

Date of First Issue 09/13/11 Current Issue Date 09/11/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review 03-2012 Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter No

3 of 5

6. Non-Conforming Work

6.1. Non-conforming work is a failure to comply with the policies and procedures documented in the quality 

assurance program and when determined to exist, shall require a quality review (see Section 6). As 

data associated within a standardized record (i.e., ANSI NIST, Record Level 2).

6.2. Non-conforming work may be identified and brought to the attention of agency management through a 

variety of avenues including, but not limited to, technical case review, administrative case review, nonconsensus decisions, proficiency testing, witness critique, and annual performance appraisal.

6.3. Non-consensus decisions as non-conforming work [7]

6.3.1. Non-consensus decisions regarding individualizations or exclusions shall require that a quality 

review be conducted.

6.3.2. For additional non-consensus decisions, an agency shall adopt a policy to determine under 

what circumstances a quality review will be conducted [7]. An agency in which repeated 

“additional non-consensus decisions” occur should include in its policy the need for a quality 

review in these circumstances.

7. The Quality Review Process

7.1. A quality review shall be documented in writing and may include:

7.1.1. A review of case documentation.

7.1.2. Re-examination or retesting, if applicable, by the original examiners, independent internal 

examiner(s), or independent external examiner(s).

7.1.3. If after the review of case documentation and re-examination, non-conforming work is 

determined, then a root cause analysis must be done. The root cause analysis may include, for 

example, a statement from all parties involved, a review of training records, a review of the 

training program, a review of prior work performance, organizational process, human factors 

[8], or equipment. A root cause analysis may identify systemic and individual factors. 

7.1.4. Determination of the seriousness of the non-conforming work.

7.1.5. Determination of corrective action or preventative actions if deemed appropriate. Corrective 

action would not be necessary if the non-conformity is judged not to rise above a certain 

threshold of seriousness.

7.1.6. Determination of the appropriate conclusion to be reported, where necessary.

8. Corrective Actions

8.1. The agency is responsible for writing and enforcing policy to handle non-conforming work. When 

preparing written policy governing non-conforming work, a variety of corrective actions should be 

included. The corrective actions should be appropriate to the level of non-conforming work, the skill 

level of the examiner, and the circumstances. A corrective action policy shall include documentation of 

the quality review and its outcome.

8.2. Corrective action shall be documented in writing.

8.3. Corrective actions shall be based upon the findings of the root cause analysis and include at least one 

of the following:

8.3.1. A review and possible revision of relevant agency policies, practices, and procedures

8.3.2. A review of equipment and supplies

8.3.3. A review of human factors issues

8.3.4. A review of prior casework

8.3.5. A review of subsequent casework for a period of time
Document #7 Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in 

Friction Ridge Examinations, Ver. 5.0

Date of First Issue 09/13/11 Current Issue Date 09/11/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review 03-2012 Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter No

4 of 5

8.3.6. Correction of training program deficiencies

8.3.7. Counseling

8.3.8. Immediate removal from relevant casework

8.3.9. Remedial training and competency testing

8.4. Any action beyond corrective action is outside the scope of SWGFAST. SWGFAST does not construe 

corrective action to be disciplinary in nature. Disciplinary action is an agency-specific responsibility and 

should be outlined in the written policies of the agency.

9. References

[1] SWGFAST, Standards for Minimum Qualifications and Training to Competency for Friction Ridge 

Examinees, 2/12/10, ver. 1.0.

[2] SWGFAST, Standard for Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (ACE-V), 

2/12/10, ver. 1.0.

[3] SWGFAST, Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions, 9/13/11, 

ver. 1.0.

[4] SWGFAST, Standard for Friction Ridge Comparison Proficiency Testing Program, 5/8/09, ver. 1.0.

[5] SWGFAST, Standard for the Technical Review of Friction Ridge Examinations, 9/13/11, ver. 1.0. 

[6] SWGFAST, Standard for the Review of Testimony of Friction Ridge Examiners 9/12/12, ver. 1.0

[7] SWGFAST, Standard for the Definition and Measurement of Rates of Errors and Inappropriate Decisions 

in Friction Ridge Examination, 9/16/11, ver. 1.1.

[8] Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice through a Systems Approach, NIST 

Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) – 7842.
Document #7 Standard for a Quality Assurance Program in 

Friction Ridge Examinations, Ver. 5.0

Date of First Issue 09/13/11 Current Issue Date 09/11/12

Web Posting Date 11/24/12

Date of Last Review 03-2012 Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter No

5 of 5

10. Revision Table

Version Effective Start Effective End Posted Archived Change

1.0 3/15/11 N/A 3/15/11 N/A Original issue

2.1 08/22/02 09/28/06 08/22/02 09/28/06 Updated version

2.11 08/22/02 09/28/06 08/22/02 09/28/06 Minor text and spacing 

correction

3.0 09/28/06 09/05/12 09/28/06 04/29/12 Updated version

4.0 Draft For 

Comment

N/A N/A 04/29/12 09/11/12 5 yr review/revision

Scope includes tenprint

5.0 09/11/12 N/A 11/24/12 N/A Updated version

Reformatted (start of new 

version number)