U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
                                                           
Bulletin

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

July  2008,  NCJ 222181
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                           
This file is text only without graphics and many of the
tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in 
spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including 
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpffcl05.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                           
By Matthew R. Durose
BJS Statistician

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Overview

In 2005 the nation's forensic crime laboratories received evidence
from an estimated 2.7 million criminal investigations. These cases
included requests for a variety of forensic services, such as DNA
analysis, controlled substance identification, and latent fingerprint
examination. A case not completed within 30 days was classified as
backlogged. An estimated 359,000 cases were backlogged at the end of
2005--a 24% increase from the estimated 287,000 cases backlogged at
yearend 2002. Other major findings on publicly funded forensic crime
laboratories in 2005 included-- 

* Controlled substance identification accounted for about half of all
requests  backlogged at yearend.

* DNA testing was performed by about half of the laboratories.

* About half of the public laboratories outsourced one or more types
of forensic services to private laboratories.

* Eight in 10 laboratories were accredited by the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.

About 80% of forensic requests backlogged from 2004 and new requests
received in 2005 were completed by the end of 2005. The remaining
requests were backlogged at yearend. To achieve a 30-day turnaround
on all 2005 requests, the different forensic disciplines would have
needed varying increases in the number of full-time examiners
performing that work--ranging from an estimated 73% increase in DNA
examiners to an estimated 6% increase in examiners conducting
toxicology analysis. 

The average backlog rose for a wide range of forensic analyses during
2005. A typical laboratory performing DNA testing began 2005 with 86
backlogged requests for DNA analysis and finished the year with a
backlog of 152 requests (figure 1). 

These findings are based on data from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics' (BJS)Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 
laboratories are responsible for examining and reporting on physical
evidence collected during criminal investigations for federal, state,
and local jurisdictions. This report provides a comprehensive look at
forensic services across the nation and the resources devoted to
completing the work.                                       

BJS first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing
solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute
of Justice (NIJ)funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory
Improvement Program.***More information on NIJ forensic science
research can be obtained on the Internet at
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/forensics/welcome.htm>***
The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An
expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was conducted among all forensic
crime laboratories in 2002. A total of 306 of the 351 crime
laboratories operating in 2002 responded to the census. The latest
census obtained data from 351 of the 389 laboratories operating in
2005, including at least 1 lab from every state. 

State-operated laboratories, which can serve the entire state or
regional areas, accounted for more than half of all forensic crime
laboratories in 2005. More than 80% of state laboratories were part of
a multiple laboratory system.

Crime laboratories had nearly 12,000 full-time employees in 2005

The nation's forensic crime laboratories employed an estimated 11,900
full-time personnel in 2005, compared to about 11,000 in 2002 (table
1). About half of full-time crime laboratory employees worked in state
laboratories. In 2005 forensic crime laboratories filled about 98% of
their authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) positions (not shown in
table). The median staff size in 2005 was 16. With more than 600
employees, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory
Division was the largest publicly funded laboratory in the United
States.

Most crime laboratory employees (58%) were analysts or examiners who
were responsible for preparing and analyzing evidence (table 2).
Managers (directors and supervisors) accounted for 13% of all the
crime laboratory employees. About 10% of staff provided technical
support to the analysts.

The combined annual budget for all laboratories exceeded $1 billion

The 2005 census obtained budget data from 254 laboratories. The median
budget among these laboratories was $1.7 million. The FBI Laboratory
had an annual budget of more than $130 million. The estimated budget
for all 389 crime laboratories in 2005 exceeded $1 billion, nearly
half of which funded state laboratories (table 3).

Personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, typically
accounted for three-quarters of a laboratory's total budget. Median
base annual salaries for laboratory directors ranged from $62,900 to
$94,700, and for supervisors from $51,000 to $77,000 (table 4).
Analysts or examiners at both the state and local level had a median
maximum salary of about $70,000.

Laboratory expenditures also included supplies, equipment, and
construction costs. In addition to their budgets, laboratories
received funding from other sources, such as fees and grants.
Twenty-eight percent of laboratories charged fees for forensic
services in 2005, and nearly two-thirds (65%) received some
funding from grants (not shown in table).

More laboratories were accredited in 2005

In 2005 more than three-quarters of laboratories (78%) were
accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/ LAB) (table 5).
Another 3% were accredited by some other professional organization,
such as the International Organization for Standardization.
State-operated laboratories (91%) were more likely to be accredited
than laboratories serving county (67%) or municipal (62%)
jurisdictions.

Among the 230 laboratories providing accreditation information in
both the 2002 and 2005 censuses, the accreditation rate increased
during the 3 years from 75% to 87%. 

Crime laboratories provided an average of 6 different forensic
services 

Crime laboratories are typically responsible for several analytical
services. They receive evidence from criminal investigations
submitted by a variety of sources, including law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, and medical examiners. In 2005 laboratories
provided a median number of six functions. Controlled substance
identification was the analysis performed by the largest
percentage (89%) of the 351 laboratories responding to the census
(table 6).Forensic work for computer crime investigations was the
function reported to be performed by the smallest percentage of
laboratories (12%).

About 6 in 10 crime labs examined firearms or toolmarks in 2005. Labs
that performed this function were asked about their use of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Integrated
Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). Using this electronic system,
forensic examiners can compare evidence (such as fired bullets and
cartridges) from crime scenes to firearm evidence from other criminal
investigations for matches (or hits). Seventy-six laboratories
reported making about 95,000 NIBIN entries and searches in 2005.
Almost 2,000 hits that year were reported by 56 laboratories. 

More than half (55%) of crime laboratories analyzed latent (or
hidden)fingerprints recovered from crime scenes. These laboratories
were asked to report on their use of the FBI's Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) in 2005. More than 100
laboratories reported making about 328,000 searches and finding
33,000 hits using IAFIS in 2005.

Crime laboratories received an estimated 2.7 million cases in 2005

Laboratories have different methods for measuring workload, such as
cases or requests. A case is defined as evidence submitted to a crime
laboratory from a single criminal incident. A case may require more
than one request for forensic services. For instance a laboratory may
receive samples of fibers and blood from the same case that require
analysis by different discipline areas of the laboratory. This study
examined workload in terms of both cases and requests.

The nation's 389 crime laboratories received an estimated 2.7 million
new cases during 2005 (table 7). Almost half--or 1.3 million--were
submitted to state laboratories. Laboratories serving local
jurisdictions received about 1.3 million cases in 2005, including
727,000 cases received by county laboratories and 566,000 by
municipal laboratories. Federal laboratories received the fewest
cases that year. 

An estimated 359,000 cases were backlogged (not completed within 30
days) at the end of 2005, compared to 287,000 at yearend 2002 (table
8). This represents a 24% increase in backlogged cases between 2002
and 2005. State laboratories accounted for more than half of the
backlog in both years.

Among the 288 laboratories that reported this information, the median
number of cases received in 2005 was about 4,100. Overall,
laboratories ended the year with a median backlog of about 400 cases.
Six percent of laboratories that received cases in 2005 reported
having no backlog at yearend.

Two hundred laboratories provided data in both the 2002 and the 2005
censuses on the total numbers of cases received during each year. The
number of cases received during 2005 (1,654,023) was less than the
total received in 2002 (1,862,009). Of the 172 laboratories that
reported backlog totals for the 2002 and 2005 censuses, the number of
backlogged cases increased from 142,739 to 192,126.

Nearly 20% of all requests in 2005 were backlogged at yearend

About 75% of the forensic requests pending at the beginning of 2005
had been held for 30 days or more and were classified as backlogged.
To examine the capacity of laboratories to process all requests
within a 30-day period, BJS asked crime laboratories to provide the
total number of requests for each forensic function performed that
were:

* backlogged as of January 1, 2005
                               
* received in 2005

* completed during 2005. 

About half of laboratories performed DNA analysis in 2005

DNA testing was conducted by about half (53%) of all laboratories in
2005, mainly involving casework and offender samples. Laboratories
were asked how many of these requests they completed in 2005;
however, the information was not provided by all laboratories that
conducted DNA analysis that year.

Casework involves the processing of biological samples (such as blood
and saliva) collected from crime scenes, victims, or suspects to
develop a DNA profile for cases with or without a suspect. In 2005,
86 laboratories reported completing about 14,000 DNA requests for
cases where no suspect had been identified. Ninety laboratories
reported analyzing about 25,000 requests from cases that year where a
suspect had been identified. 

In 2005 all 50 states and the District of Columbia required offenders
convicted of certain crimes to submit DNA samples. Most states
required samples from all felons. A few states also collected DNA
from certain arrestees. In the census 22 laboratories reported
processing about 234,000 samples from offenders and arrestees in
2005. 

Federal, state, and local laboratories enter DNA profiles from
offenders, arrestees, and casework into the FBI's Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS). CODIS software enables crime laboratories to compare
biological evidence from criminal investigations to profiles in the
database for matches (or hits). In 2005 crime laboratories provided
more than 800,000 profiles to the National DNA Index System of CODIS.
About 8,700 hits were made between profiles in CODIS that year.***The
Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI Laboratory 2005 Report is
accessible at <http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/labannual05.pdf>.

A total of 260 laboratories (of the 351 that responded to the census)
provided complete request processing data for at least one forensic
service (table 9). These 260 laboratories reported a total of 252,810
backlogged requests on January 1, 2005, and that they received
2,003,544 new requests during 2005 for a total of 2,256,354 requests.
Laboratories completed 81% (1,820,475) of those requests by the end
of 2005, leaving 19% (435,879) backlogged at yearend. The yearend
backlog represented a 72% increase in backlogged requests from the
beginning of 2005. 

In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69 requiring a
DNA sample from all persons convicted of felonies and certain
misdemeanors or arrested for rape or murder. As a result of the
increased workload, the state data bank reported ending 2005 with
about 235,000 backlogged samples.  

Although the California DNA Data Bank reported completing nearly
67,000 samples in 2005, the laboratory did not provide the number of
backlogged DNA samples from 2004 and the number of new DNA samples
received in 2005. Without complete request processing data from this
laboratory, the number of samples completed (67,000) and backlogged
at yearend 2005 (235,000) could not be included in the analysis of
request processing. 

During 2005 the backlog grew for a range of commonly performed
services. Laboratories performing controlled substance identification
began 2005 with a median backlog of 44 such requests. At yearend the
median backlog was 107. A typical lab performing DNA testing in 2005
began with a backlog of 86 requests for DNA analysis, received 337
new requests, completed 265 requests, and finished the year with 152 
backlogged requests. 

Controlled substance identification (51%), latent print examination
(16%), and DNA analysis (9%) accounted for about three-quarters of
the total yearend backlog (figure 2). Firearm and toolmark
examination (8%), biology screenings (7%), and toxicology analysis
(5%) made up an additional 20% of backlogged requests at the end of
2005. 

The percent of requests backlogged at yearend 2005 was similar to the
percent backlogged at yearend 2002 

To examine change in the overall capacity of crime laboratories to
turn around all requests within a 30-day period, comparisons were
made among laboratories that provided request processing data in 2002
and 2005 for individual forensic services including controlled
substance identification, latent prints, DNA analysis, firearm and
toolmark, biology screening, and toxicology. Together these types of
requests accounted for almost the entire backlog. 

Both censuses received complete data for controlled substance
requests from 150 laboratories (table 10). These laboratories began
2002 with an initial backlog of approximately 51,000 requests for
controlled substance identification and received an additional
793,000 requests. During 2002, 80% (676,000) of the 844,000 total
requests were completed, leaving 20% backlogged at the end of the
year. The same laboratories reported a total of 856,000
controlled substance requests received during 2005 and backlogged
from 2004. As in 2002 about 20% of these requests were backlogged at
yearend 2005. The overall number of full-time examiners in these
laboratories increased 5% between 2002 and 2005 (not shown in table).

About 1 in 4 (23%) of the requests for latent prints analysis in 2002
were backlogged at yearend. Despite more latent print requests in
2005, these laboratories ended the year with a similar percentage
backlogged (24%). The ability to maintain a similar completion rate
in 2005 may have been aided by the increase in personnel to process
the requests. The number of examiners in these 79 laboratories
increased 4% from 2002 to 2005. 

Relatively no change was found in the percentage of DNA requests that
were backlogged at yearend 2002 and 2005. During both years
laboratories were able to process about 60% of the requests
backlogged from the previous year and received during the year. About
40% were backlogged at yearend. The number of examiners in these 67
laboratories grew 5% during the 3 years. 

Greatest personnel need was DNA analysts

The ability to process a larger percentage of evidence depends on
numerous factors including the complexity of the procedures, use of
innovative solutions, and availability of examiners and other
resources. Overall, laboratories were able to complete about 80% of
all outstanding requests in 2005. The remaining requests were
backlogged at yearend. This completion rate was lower for more
complex types of examinations, such as DNA analysis and biology
screening.

Laboratories were asked how many full-time examiners or analysts were
required to process their requests. The work of a single examiner
varied depending on the type of request. DNA analyses were more time
consuming and complex than the examination of controlled substances
or toxicology. 

A typical DNA analyst completed 77 requests in 2005 (figure 3). By
comparison, the average forensic examiner completed about 10 times
the number of controlled substance requests that year (752). These
examiners compared drug-related evidence with standards of known
origin to identify unknown substances. 

Information on work performance (the average number of requests an
examiner completed in 2005) was used to determine which forensic
disciplines were most understaffed to handle their workload. DNA work
needed the largest increase in full-time examiners to eliminate the
yearend backlog. Based on the average performance of a DNA analyst in
2005 (77), laboratories performing DNA analysis would have needed an
estimated 73% more staff to complete all DNA requests in 2005 (figure
4). Biology screening (usually in preparation of DNA analysis)
represented the next highest need for an increase in full-time
analysts (57%) followed by firearm and toolmark analysis (46%) and
examination of trace evidence, such as hair and fibers, (43%). 

8 in 10 crime labs had a Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS)

A LIMS is used by laboratories to manage and track forensic evidence
received from criminal investigations. In 2005 about 80% of crime
laboratories had a LIMS (table 11). Laboratories serving state
jurisdictions (90%) were more likely than county (70%) or municipal
(45%) laboratories to have this system. Overall 4 in 10 laboratories
with a LIMS reported that the system needed major improvements or
replacement.

About half of laboratories outsourced some forensic work

To meet demands for forensic services, about half of the publicly
funded forensic crime laboratories contracted  private laboratories
for at least one type of forensic service in 2005 (table 12). Nearly
30% of laboratories reported outsourcing DNA casework, and 11%
outsourced CODIS samples. 

A total of 190 laboratories provided outsourcing data for both
censuses. A larger percentage of those laboratories outsourced
forensic work in 2005 (54%) than in 2002 (44%).

Different strategies helped to manage workload

Laboratories were asked whether they engaged in any special
procedures to manage their workloads in 2005. The following are
examples of strategies laboratories reported using:

* prioritize requests by investigative need

* screen out requests for cases that will not be prosecuted

* allow customers to cancel requests for services no longer needed

* assist laboratories in the same system that have larger backlogs. 

Methodology

Data collection

Data collection for the 2005 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories was conducted by Sam Houston State University (SHSU) for
BJS. The National Forensic Science Technology Center and the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors assisted in developing and
administering the data collection instrument, which was pre-tested
with 17 laboratories. 

In May 2006 the census form was mailed to 393 facilities that
self-identified as crime laboratories. Some laboratories were part of
a multiple laboratory system. The census attempted to collect
information from each laboratory in the system. Police identification
units, although sometimes responsible for crime scene analysis, were
not included in the census. 

Four laboratories were subsequently dropped because they did not meet
the project definition of a publicly funded forensic crime laboratory
(see Definitions section). Completed forms were obtained from 291 of
the 389 eligible laboratories. Follow-up telephone calls and emails
encouraged non-responding laboratories to participate. In a final
effort to improve response, a shorter census instrument was developed
to collect basic information about laboratory operations. An
additional 60 laboratories responded to the short form, for a final
response rate of 90% (table 13). Of the 351 responses received for
the 2005 census, 197 were submitted electronically and 154 were
mailed or faxed. 

The 389 eligible laboratories included 210 state, 84 county, 62
municipal, and 33 federal laboratories. Ten federal laboratories
responded to the 2005 census, compared to 25 for 2002. Because of the
low response rate in 2005, summary statistics for federal
laboratories were not presented in many of the tables. 

Data from the FBI Laboratory were included in the summary statistics
of this report. The FBI Laboratory provided 2003 data for the 2002
collection.

Imputation procedures for national estimates

To generate national estimates for personnel, budgets, and case
totals, several imputation methods were used to account for missing
data. For the 2005 census 296 laboratories reported a combined staff
of 9,364 full-time employees in 2005 (table 14). Employee data were
obtained for 13 non-responding laboratories through alternative
sources (call backs, the Internet, or annual reports). For the other
80 laboratories, imputations were made using either the number of
authorized FTE in 2005, employee data from the 2002 census, or
the median staff size in 2005 among laboratories of similar type,
depending on the availability of data. Estimates for 2002 were
generated using the same methods. 

Budget data were provided by 254 laboratories for the 2005 census, 10
of which provided combined budget data for the entire system. Those
totals were distributed proportionately across each laboratory in the
system based on the staff size. Budget information from the 2002
census was used for 65 laboratories that had missing budget data in
2005. For the 70 remaining laboratories, the staff size was
multiplied by the median ratio of expenditures per employee for
laboratories of similar type and size. 

The 2002 national estimates in this report differ from the
respondent-level estimates in the BJS report Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 published in February 2005.
The revised estimates represent all laboratories operating in 2002,
not just those that responded to the census.

Reason for no nationally estimated forensic request totals

Findings in this report on the processing of forensic requests are
based on laboratories that reported complete information. Table 9
provides the total number of requests received, processed, and
backlogged among the 260 laboratories that reported complete data for
at least 1 of their services. National estimates could not be
generated for all 389 laboratories operating in 2005. 

Data on laboratory functions were provided by 351 laboratories.
Without knowing the services performed by the 38 other laboratories,
nationally estimated request totals cannot be generated for all
laboratories performing a specific function. To illustrate, of the
194 laboratories that reported performing latent print analysis in
2005, 130 laboratories provided complete request processing data for
that function. Although it would be possible to estimate request
totals for the 64 latent print laboratories missing request
data, imputations could not be made for the 38 laboratories that did
not respond to the census. Without information on how many of the 38
laboratories performed this function, the number of latent print
requests received, completed, and backlogged cannot be reliably
estimated at the national level.

Definitions

Analyst/examine--an investigator who inspects, analyzes, and
interprets physical evidence, writes reports, and delivers testimony
in court about the evidence.

Backlogged request--a request that has been submitted to a
specialized area of the crime laboratory and is not completed within
30 days.

Biology screening--the location, screening, identification, and
characterization of blood and other biological stains and substances.

Case--all physical evidence from a single criminal investigation
submitted for crime laboratory analysis. 

Computer crimes analysis--investigation of various types of
computer-based crime, such as the recovery, extraction, and analysis
of electronic digital images.

Controlled substance identification--the identification of drugs and
other substances whose possession or use, in either legal or illicit
dosages, is restricted by the government.

Crime laboratory--a scientific laboratory (with at least one
full-time natural scientist) that examines physical evidence in
criminal matters, and provides reports and opinion testimony with
respect to such physical evidence in courts of law. 

Crime scene analysis--the identification, documentation, collection,
and interpretation of physical evidence at a location external to a
laboratory facility and where a suspected crime has occurred. 

DNA analysis--the identification and comparison of DNA in biological
samples, including those from crime scenes (casework) and those from
convicted offenders. 

Firearms/toolmarks analysis--examination and comparison of evidence
resulting from discharge and/or use of firearms; comparison of marks
made by various tools. 

Impressions analysis--identification, documentation, collection, and
interpretation of two-dimensional and three-dimensional impressions
and imprints found at crime scenes (including footwear and tire
tread).

Latent prints analysis--development and/or comparison of finger or
palm print impressions.

Municipal--pertains to cities, towns, villages, and boroughs.

Questioned documents analysis--examination of printed, typed, or
written material for the purpose of identifying the source or
determining alterations, or other means of gaining information about
the item or the circumstances surrounding its production.

Request--submission of physical evidence from a case to a single
specialized area of a crime laboratory. Multiple submissions of new
evidence from the same case to one or more sections of the laboratory
would count as separate requests. 

Toxicology--analysis of biological samples for the presence of drugs
and other potentially toxic materials. Includes antemortem,
postmortem, and BAC (blood alcohol content).

Trace evidence--any analytical procedure using microscopy or chemical
and instrumental techniques. Includes the examination of gunshot
residue, explosives, hair, fibers, and fire debris.

Other BJS reports related to forensics are available on the BJS
website.

Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998, February 2000;
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sdnacl98.htm>

Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001, January 2002;
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sdnacl01.htm>

50 Largest Crime Labs, 2002, September 2004; 
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/50lcl02.htm>

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002, 
February <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpffcl02.htm>
 
Medical Examiners and Coroners' Offices, 2004, June 2007;
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/meco04.htm>

Unidentified Human Remains in the United States, 1980-2004, 
November 2007; <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/uhrus04.htm>

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is the director. 

This Special Report was written by Matthew R. Durose. Brian Reaves
provided statistical review. Lauren Giordano verified the report.
Catherine Bird and Tina Dorsey edited and produced the report, under
the supervision of Doris J. James. Jayne E. Robinson prepared the
report for final printing.

Matthew Hickman, former BJS Statistician, was project manager for the
2005 census. Sam Houston State University staff, under grant number
2006-BJ-CX- K005 and in collaboration with BJS, developed the
questionnaire, and collected and processed the data: Joseph Peterson,
Principal Investigator; Dennis Longmire, Ph.D., Co-Principal
Investigator; Steven Cuvelier, Ph.D.,  On-line Data Entry Technical
Consultant; Anna Leggett, Research Assistant; and Robert Morris,
Research Assistant.

Kevin Lothridge, of the National Forensic Science Technology Center,
and representatives of the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors (ASCLD), including Earl Wells, Susan Johns, Elizabeth
Carpenter, Linda Erdei, and Bill Marbaker, served as subject matter
experts and consultants to this project, providing assistance with
the development and review of the census instrument, project
guidance, and non-response follow-up.

July 2008, NCJ 222181

This report in portable document format (includes (2) appendix
tables) and in ASCII and its related statistical data are available
at the BJS World  Wide Web Internet site:
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpffcl05.htm>

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods
 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 2:31 PM 7/28/2008/JER