Challenges of accreditation in forensic fields concerned with human identification: a survey of European facial examiners

Forensic anthropology and forensic facial image identification are areas with two aspects in common: (i) the use of anthropological knowledge concerning human variation in their analyses and (ii) low numbers of accredited forensic units. While the low numbers are often explained by the uniqueness of human identification cases, given the high level of scrutiny in the forensic sciences, interest in and efforts to achieve accreditation have become increasingly prominent. Therefore, this study aimed to obtain accreditation-relevant information about the working environment in facial image comparison units by surveying facial examiners across Europe. Two surveys were distributed: One was given to participants of a European Commission-funded training course for technical assessors in facial image comparison, and the second, more comprehensive survey, was distributed to members of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes Digital Imaging Working Group. Thirty-four responses from facial examiners from 16 countries were received. All respondents worked for a governmental organization, nine (26.5%) in accredited units, and 12 (35.3%) had worked as facial examiners for more than 11 years. More than 80% of respondents had an academic background. All examiners from accredited units reported having standard operating procedures, annual Digital Imaging Working Group proficiency testing, and using a standard methodology (compared with 72%, 92%, and 84% from nonaccredited units, respectively). The survey found that working conditions in forensic facial image identification vary among European countries. Some respondents from nonaccredited units reported that their unit had no standard operating procedures, with proficiency tests and intralaboratory validations not performed regularly, and an inconsistently used standard methodology. As these conditions are typically required for successful accreditation, a better understanding of best practice and accreditation requirements in the field is needed. Facilitating interactions between forensic practitioners and quality managers may prove beneficial for future accreditation efforts.