Setting the Standard

Inside the Latest FIGG Guidelines Update

Interview written and condensed by Tara Luther, Promega

Share this article

As forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) matures from pioneering technique to powerful tool, its implementation must be matched with equal measures of scientific rigor, legal foresight, and ethical care. The newly published guidelines from the NTVIC Policy and Practice Committee reflect the third iteration of an evolving framework—one shaped by the lived experience of practitioners, the scrutiny of bioethicists and privacy experts, and the lessons learned from hundreds of cold cases that have found resolution through FIGG.

In this exclusive interview, members of the committee, Ray Wickenheiser and Colleen Fitzpatrick, speak candidly about what’s new, what’s necessary, and what’s next. From international collaboration and calls for standardization, to the nuance of target testing and accreditation for independent genealogists, these revised guidelines are less a rulebook and more a roadmap—designed to flex across jurisdictions while staying grounded in core principles of transparency, accountability, and public trust.

This marks the third published version of the FIGG guidelines. What feedback or developments in the field most significantly influenced this latest update?

The feedback and developments that most significantly developed this latest update on the NTVIC FIGG Guidelines are as follows:

  • Ongoing practical experience as more cases are completed
  • Feedback from those in the field sharing insight
  • Input from individuals with a wider variety of expertise, including more legal, genealogical, and bioethical input
  • Input from more jurisdictions, including international participation (Canada and Australia)
  • The awareness that FIGG is being considered for use in other countries that have not yet passed FIGG legislation, and that our suggestions must be flexible to accommodate legal implications for international development of FIGG in these jurisdictions.

What core competencies should a genealogist or forensic analyst have before engaging in FIGG casework, and how are training and accreditation currently being standardized?

Core competencies for investigative genetic genealogy practitioners reach beyond conventional practices and knowledge of genetic genealogy. They are cross disciplinary, involving conventional genetic genealogical and document-based research skills (tree building and proficiency in using online databases), a familiarity with forensic science theoretical fundamentals (DNA extraction, degradation, and contamination issues), and a respect for the legal and ethical environment they must work in. Importantly, in bridging the gap between conventional and forensic practices, an IGG practitioner must learn to operate under the constraints of forensic science, where document and records control, as well as privacy and confidentiality, are not just desirable, they are mandatory.

Training and certificate programs have been created for members of law enforcement and independent FIGG practitioners, most of which cover the basics of IGG research, but they are not comprehensive, and practitioners still need to acquire experience and to establish a proven track record to find employment in the very competitive IGG job market. While the IGG Accreditation Board (IGGAB) was created to develop professional standards and a code of ethics for IGG practitioners, there are gaps that have not yet been addressed, including proficiency testing, and technical review and auditing of casework. The IGGAB does not currently meet the ISO/IEC 17011:2017 standard for accrediting bodies and its use of the term accreditation for their examination process may cause some confusion between accreditation of service providers with certification of individual practitioners.

The guidelines stress a bioethical framework for deciding when FIGG is appropriate. How do you advise jurisdictions to apply this in real-world scenarios?

The guidelines have embedded language that can be applied to a broad range of case scenarios; these include instances where biological material is deposited or discarded at a crime scene, and the use of known samples from individuals providing informed consent to utilize their DNA profiles to assist in a criminal investigation (commonly referred to as third party or target testing). Providing jurisdictions with a bioethical framework will empower them to make sound decisions with their own specific cases. Of course, committee members are also available as a resource to discuss any unusual circumstances that may arise. We strongly encourage folks to reach out with any feedback or case specifics so we can learn and improve as a group.

Given the involvement of Canadian agencies in the guideline revisions, how do international differences in privacy law and policy affect FIGG programs?

While Canada and US share many similarities, Canada has an increased focus on individual rights and freedoms, as well as privacy. Notably, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that impacts on policy and procedures, including those that correspond to FIGG. The current version was specifically written to respond to requirements and concerns voiced by the Ontario Privacy Commissioner. This feedback with its increased privacy requirements helps strengthen policy both in the US and Canada, and can serve as a roadmap for the development of FGG guidelines in other countries. Ultimately, we hope to ensure that FIGG procedures adhere to the highest standards and best practices in both domestic and international jurisdictions.

The guidelines detail the types of cases that merit FIGG investigation. Could you walk us through how a case might be evaluated for qualification under these standards?

To summarize our guidelines on evaluating a case:

  • The case is a major unsolved crime, usually a homicide or sexual assault or other major crime against the person, or crime with a major risk to society where the suspect is still at large,
  • There is DNA on the case likely from the perpetrator where there is no CODIS hit,
  • Sufficient DNA exists to develop a SNP profile,
  • The forensic laboratory, the prosecuting authority, and the investigating agency have been consulted and agree the case should proceed with FIGG. Our guidelines provide further specifics.

With growing public scrutiny, how do the guidelines address consent and transparency when obtaining DNA from third parties who are not suspects?

The collection of samples from innocent persons is a lesser-discussed feature of FIGG. At present, there are vastly different approaches to third-party (target) testing, making it important to develop criteria to be considered for the collection of third-party samples.

While recognizing that a third party is an individual who is known not to be the perpetrator of the crime, but rather a potential relative, their wishes must be respected and their privacy maintained. Third parties can be invaluable when genealogical research has reached an impasse, where additional genetic testing can reveal or exclude biological relatedness. Some providers use it as a way to solve an otherwise unpassable roadblock in the genealogical research process, some use it as a shortcut to a genealogical identification, while still others claim that the use of proper genealogy methods can eliminate the need for target testing entirely.

As third parties have autonomy over their DNA, obtaining their informed consent to assist an investigation by providing transparent and accurate information is paramount. While privacy interests have been recognized in our article, the need for objective criteria for when and if target testing is used needs to be addressed. This is one of the next topics for our committee discussion.

The guidelines are detailed about how long various types of data can be retained. What are the most common misunderstandings agencies have about these requirements?

Our guidelines state that data should be retained indefinitely for profiles from crimes scenes and investigative case files. Otherwise, data should be retained until the court has deemed it can be destroyed, as in the case of individuals who have been excluded as suspects. Individuals who are implicated may have the right to examine all investigative activities relevant to their case, including the elimination of others. We feel that while respecting the discovery process, redaction and court orders should be used to protect the privacy of third parties and non-implicated individuals, including genealogical matches and those who appear in their family trees.

One common misunderstanding is that the definition of “agency” should include not only law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories, and large private institutions, but also independent F/IGG service providers, whether sole proprietors, contractors, or small for-profit or nonprofit businesses.

The development of in-house genealogical capabilities by private and public laboratories has advanced FIGG by drawing IGG practitioners under their IEC/ISO 17025:2020 accreditations. However, ample room still exists for independent FIGG providers to achieve accreditation under ISO 17020, which is similar, however more geared towards data interpretation by practitioners versus analytical testing within laboratories. Even the gig working, single-, small-IGG provider can be considered an agency that can be ISO17020 accredited. In such cases, accreditation may be based on an evaluation of experience and qualifications, rather than formal education and training, competency tests, and ongoing proficiency tests. The NTVIC guidelines would permit the use of accredited independent F/IGG providers under Section 3.10.2 which states “The FIGG RA should use accredited vendors performing all aspects of FIGG, including genealogical researchers”.

The guidelines now call for public consultation and education efforts. What has been the response from communities so far?

A recent 2025 follow-up survey conducted by the Baylor College of Medicine showed a steady support from the public for the use of FIGG in forensic investigations. Although federal policies have changed since the original survey was conducted in 2018, 91% of respondents still support its use for violent crimes, with 95% supporting its use for identifying unidentified humans remains and for exoneration cases. A practical indication of the public’s support over the last five years is that both the GEDmatch and the Family Tree DNA databases have increased in size, as have the number of opt-ins who have agreed to allow their data to be used by law enforcement for the investigation of violent crimes. Note that opting in is a conscious choice, the last of four decisions: (1) to take a Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) test, (2) to download one’s raw data, (3) to upload that data to GEDmatch or to Family Tree DNA, and (4) to opt in to law enforcement for the use of that data.

Well-publicized FIGG success stories have also helped to maintain public support of FIGG. Few people would argue against the benefits of identifying a violent offender or a set of human remains, sometimes after decades. The fact that the focus of news stories is on resolving a crime, and less on the role of FIGG in the investigation (including the names of matches and their relationships to the offender), and the understanding that someone’s raw DNA data is not relevant to the resolution of a crime, have likely caused the public to become more comfortable with law enforcement use of their data.

The inclusion of a mechanism for individuals to challenge FIGG practices is new. How do you envision this being implemented in practice?

We envision the development of policy and procedures for individuals to file complaints or to register concerns with the FIGG Responsible Authority. We feel that as FIGG is a legitimate, scientifically-established practice, it is essential that it be supported with access to accurate information to gain and maintain public trust through openness and transparency. However, we also acknowledge that specific investigative information must be protected, including respecting the rights and privacy of victims, potential suspects and family members. This is one aspect of the balance we are trying to achieve between privacy and public safety.

The guidelines recommend building a SNP crime scene profile database. What challenges need to be overcome for this vision to become reality?

While we strive to provide guidelines that are applicable to all jurisdictions, we recognize that every country, state or province, and local jurisdiction may have different policies and laws surrounding building databases and retaining data. We acknowledge that as providers of FIGG guidance, we cannot cover all possibilities, and that new scenarios will arise that will generate additional discussion. However, as perpetrator biological material is abandoned at the crime scene, and in cases where only a SNP profile may be developed, the creation of a SNP crime scene profile database may be worth pursuing to help solve cases where STR profiles may not be available or are not complete.

The guidelines distinguish between forensic sample generation and genealogical investigation. How can jurisdictions effectively manage this division of responsibilities?

Few investigative genetic genealogists have the laboratory training required for forensic DNA profile generation. It is more likely that forensic laboratory personnel will have genealogical research skills, as these do not necessarily require formal education and training. In practice, it is to the benefit of practitioners on the forensic side to recognize the characteristics of SNP data viable for IGG, and for practitioners on the genealogy side to have an understanding of the basics of a standard FGG laboratory pipeline. Each jurisdiction has unique circumstances and takes responsibility for its own work, so may design their own solution that takes best advantage of diverse skillsets of their employees and vendors with laboratory and genealogical expertise.

Given your collective experience and this most recent iteration of the guidelines, what areas of FIGG policy or practice do you believe will require the next major round of updates?

The areas of FIGG polices we feel will require the next major round of updates include the following:

  1. ISO 17020 accreditation of independent FIGG providers,
  2. The development of a data retention policy for independent FIGG providers. The more time that passes where independent FIGG companies are permitted to operate without a clear data retention policy, the more likely data will be lost or unavailable when it is needed,
  3. A code of ethics for FIGG practitioners revolving around social media, especially since FIGG has moved into the court room. Since the genealogical community has been unregulated since DNA first became available to genealogists in 2000, there is a history among even FGG community leaders of incorrect usage of social media and unregulated statements about LE which not only may affect the credibility of expert witnesses at trial, but more importantly may also undermine the level of trust the public has in FIGG in general.

Note: The challenge in combining the forensic and genealogical communities is that forensics policies, procedures, and standards, along with the legal system they form, have been developed over centuries, while the genetic genealogy community is only 25 years old, and has developed mostly unstructured and unregulated. Developing compatible policies, procedures, and standards for GG to make it compliant for F/IGG is challenging.

These guidelines we are discussing reflect the third publication from the NTVIC FIGG Policy and Procedure Committee in the Forensic Science International:Synergy journal. FSI:Synergy is the official journal of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, and is an open access publication. An open access publication means that readers can download a copy at no charge. We encourage all parties interested in the field of FIGG and its oversight and governance to obtain a copy at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X25000221