The ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 standards both include requirements for impartiality and the freedom from bias. Meeting these requirements for implicit cognitive bias is not a simple matter. In this article, we address these international standards, specifically focusing on evaluating and mitigating the risk to impartiality, and quality assurance checks, so as to meet accreditation program requirements. We cover their meaning to management as well as to practitioners, addressing how these issues of impartiality and bias relate to forensic work, and how one can effectively evaluate and mitigate those risks. We then elaborate on specific quality assurance policies and checks and identify when corrective action may be appropriate. These measures will not only serve to meet ISO/IEC 17020 and 17025 requirements, but also enhance forensic work and decision-making.

Blind proficiency testing is ideal for testing crime laboratory personnel because the elements of analyst bias and anticipation are removed. However, sending proficiency tests through the laboratory system as real casework is difficult. The substantial challenges with preparing and administering blind tests may prevent laboratory managers from initiating blind testing. In 2015, the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences committed to improving its crime laboratory's proficiency testing program by adding blind tests. The goal was to test the whole system, from evidence receipt to report release. With careful planning, trial-and-error, and ongoing assessment of available resources, not only was the program proven to be feasible, but there was also clear understanding of how to optimize our program. In this article, we share our experiences, lessons learned, and program details to assist other forensic service providers with developing their own blind testing programs, which would ultimately lead to improved quality assurance.

No abstract

Standard operating procedures drive everyday practice within any organization, including those within a forensic setting. In the event of unusual circumstances, organizations must respond rapidly to address the impact on operations while ensuring that the quality and safety outcomes of routine services are not affected. This case study illustrates how standard operating procedures can be newly developed or modified, and rapidly deployed and quickly revised, to address unusual circumstances. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic is used as an example in this case report.

No abstract