U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

November 2016, NCJ 250152

Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories: Quality Assurance 

Practices, 2014

Andrea M. Burch and Matthew R. Durose, BJS Statisticians

Kelly Walsh and Emily Tiry, Urban Institute

HIGHLIGHTS

 In 2014, 88% of the nation’s crime labs were 

accredited by a professional organization, up from 

70% in 2002.

 State crime labs were more likely to be accredited 

than labs operated by other jurisdictions in 2014.

 In 2014, more crime labs held accreditation by 

the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation Board, International 

(ASCLD/LAB, International) (73%) than any other 

type of accreditation.

 As in previous years, nearly all (98%) crime labs 

conducted proficiency testing in 2014.

 Seventy-five percent of crime labs had written 

standards for employee performance expectations 

in 2014.

 In 2014, 94% of crime labs maintained a written 

code of ethics.

 A larger proportion of crime labs employed at least 

one externally certified analyst in 2014 (72%) than 

in 2009 (60%).

Figure 1

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs 

accredited by a professional forensic science 

organization, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 

2009, and 2014

Note: See appendix table 1 for estimates and standard errors.

aPercentage for 2005 includes federal labs.

bPercentage not presented for federal labs in 2005 due to low 

response rate.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic 

Crime Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

2014

2002

Federal State County Municipal b Totala

2005

2009

As of December 31, 2014, 88% of the 

nation’s 409 publicly funded forensic crime 

laboratories were accredited by a professional 

forensic science organization, compared to 82% in 

2009 and 70% in 2002 (figure 1). Similar to previous 

years, state labs were more likely to be accredited than 

labs operated by other jurisdictions. Since 2002, the 

proportion of accredited crime labs increased among 

all jurisdictions. The most growth occurred among 

municipal labs, which increased from 44% in 2002 to 

67% in 2014.

This report presents data from the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics’ (BJS) 2014 Census of Publicly Funded 

Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) and provides 

comparisons with data from prior years. The report 

describes the quality assurance practices of U.S. crime 

labs, such as accreditation, proficiency testing, written 

standards for performance expectations, codes of 

ethics, externally certified personnel, and resources 

dedicated to research. For information on lab 

operations, functions, budgets, personnel, workload, 

and outsourcing, see Publicly Funded Forensic 

Crime Laboratories: Resources and Services, 2014

(NCJ 250151, BJS web, November 2016).
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 2

Crime labs receive requests from criminal justice agencies 

to examine and report on physical evidence collected during 

criminal investigations. In 2014, U.S. crime labs received an 

estimated 3.8 million requests for forensic services (see Publicly 

Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories: Resources and Services, 

2014, NCJ 250151, BJS web, November 2016). Forensic 

findings and expert opinions are often presented in legal 

proceedings and play a critical role in the administration of 

justice. To ensure the accuracy and dependability of their work, 

crime labs use quality assurance practices. (See Description of 

quality assurance practices text box.)

Nearly all (99%) state crime labs were accredited in 2014

Eighty-eight percent of crime labs were accredited by a 

professional forensic science organization in 2014 (table 1). 

During 2014, state crime labs (99%) were more likely than 

federal (89%), county (85%), and municipal (67%) labs to be 

accredited by a professional forensic organization.

More than 98% of crime labs employing 25 or more full-time 

employees were accredited in 2014. In comparison, 90% of 

crime labs employing between 10 and 24 full-time personnel 

and 70% of crime labs employing nine or fewer personnel were 

accredited during the same year.

Table 1

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with a professional forensic science accreditation, by type of jurisdiction, staff size, 

and number of forensic functions performed, 2014

Number of labs Any accreditation

American Society of 

Crime Lab Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation 

Board, Legacy

American Society of 

Crime Lab Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation 

Board, International

Forensic Quality 

Services, International Other

All labs 409 88% 9% 73% 10% 5%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 39 89% -- 65% 9% 22%

State 193 99 8% 90 8 2

County 98 85 10 65 9 7

Municipal 79 67 14 43 15 1

Number of full-time employees*

100 or more 27 100% -- 77% 31% 12%

50–99 51 100 14% 86 14 --

25–49 90 98 12 83 6 8

10–24 134 90 7 72 11 5

9 or fewer 107 70 8 57 5 2

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 72 98% 7% 84% 17% 4%

5–7 156 90 12 74 11 2

2–4 132 81 8 64 8 6

1 49 91 4 75 2 14

Note: Detail does not sum to total because a lab could be accredited by more than one organization. The last applications for ASCLD/LAB, Legacy program were accepted on 

March 31, 2009. Since then, applications for accreditation or re-accreditation must be in the ASCLD/LAB, International program. Due to the 5-year cycle for recertification, all 

labs were expected to transition from the ASCLD/LAB, Legacy program to ASCLD/LAB, International by 2015. See appendix table 2 for standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%. 

*Includes both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 assigned to part-time employees. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014.

An estimated 98% of crime labs that performed eight or more 

forensic functions were accredited in 2014. A larger proportion 

of single-function (91%) crime labs were accredited than labs 

performing between two and four forensic functions (81%).

ASCLD/LAB, International was the most common type of 

accreditation in 2014

Eighty-three percent of crime labs held an international 

accreditation standard in 2014, with 73% accredited by 

the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory 

Accreditation Board, International (ASCLD/LAB, 

International) and 10% accredited by Forensic Quality 

Services, International (FQS-International).1 International 

accreditation programs are based on the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and have more 

rigorous requirements than noninternational standards.2

Both ASCLD/LAB, International and FQS-International 

require crime labs to comply with the ISO/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 17025 standard, which 

specifies the requirements for competence to carry out tests 

and calibrations to produce precise and accurate data.

1ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) acquired FQS and is in 

the process of acquiring ASCLD/LAB, International. See http://anab.org/news/

latest-news/anab-and-ascldlab-merge-operations/.

2 ISO develops worldwide standards for a variety of industries to promote 

quality, safety, and efficiency of products and services. See http://www.iso.org/

iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39883.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 3

Since 2009, the proportion of crime labs with an ISO-based 

accreditation standard increased from 27% to 83%.3 The 

ASCLD/LAB, International’s sunset of the noninternational 

Legacy Accreditation Program resulted in a significant increase 

in the proportion of labs with an ISO-based accreditation 

standard.4

3 See Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 (NCJ 238252, 

BJS web, August 2012).

4The last applications for ASCLD/LAB, Legacy program were accepted on 

March 31, 2009. Since then, applications for accreditation or re-accreditation 

must be in the ASCLD/LAB, International program. Due to the 5-year cycle 

for recertification, all labs were expected to transition from the ASCLD/LAB, 

Legacy program to ASCLD/LAB, International by 2015.

Description of quality assurance practices

Quality assurance practices are systems of management 

procedures that help improve the validity and reliability of 

findings by establishing standard processes and methods for 

conducting forensic work. Forensic crime labs develop quality 

assurance practices and implement them to reduce errors 

in forensic techniques and analysts’ interpretation. These 

practices also help improve consistency across practitioners. 

Practices such as obtaining professional accreditation, 

testing the proficiency of analysts, and external certification 

of analysts are regarded as benchmarks for measuring 

compliance to industry-established best practices. 

Accreditation is the process in which third-party professional 

forensic science accreditation bodies assess a crime lab’s 

policies and procedures to evaluate technical competency 

and ability to generate valid forensic findings and interpret 

results. The accreditation process includes reviews of the 

crime lab’s management practices, staff competence, training, 

continuing education, appropriateness of test methods, 

maintenance of test equipment, testing environment, 

handling of test items, sampling, documentation, and quality 

assurance of data. Professional accreditation organizations 

periodically monitor accredited labs to ensure crime labs 

maintain the standards required to remain compliant with 

industry best practices. Although accreditation does not 

guarantee that a crime lab will not make an error, it does 

increase confidence in the lab’s ability to produce valid results 

by demonstrating that the lab is complying with standard 

operating procedures.

Proficiency testing is a quality control tool used to examine 

the performance of the crime lab personnel and to determine 

whether personnel are following industry standards. To 

receive and maintain professional accreditation, a crime lab 

is required to evaluate the technical competence of analysts, 

other personnel, and the overall performance of the crime lab 

through proficiency testing. Proficiency tests are conducted 

internally or externally using declared tests (an examiner 

knows the sample to be analyzed is a test sample), random 

case reanalysis (an examiner’s work is randomly selected for 

reanalysis by another examiner), and blind tests (the examiner 

or crime lab is not aware of being tested). 

Analyst certification is recognition by an external 

organization that an individual has acquired and 

demonstrated specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities 

in the standard practices necessary to perform duties and 

produce valid forensic findings. While accreditation is a quality 

assessment of a crime lab, certification is a quality assessment 

of an individual. External certification programs may assess 

analysts though exams, proficiency testing, evaluation of 

education, training and practical experience, adherence to 

codes of ethics, and other standards.

In 2014, state crime labs (90%) were more likely than county 

(65%), federal (65%), and municipal (43%) crime labs to 

be accredited by an ISO standard through ASCLD/LAB, 

International. An estimated 15% of municipal crime labs 

held FQS-International accreditation, compared to 9% of 

county and 8% of state labs.

A larger proportion of crime labs employing 25 or more 

full-time employees were accredited by ASCLD/LAB, 

International than labs with 24 or fewer employees. Labs 

with 100 or more full-time employees (31%) were most 

likely to hold FQS-International accreditation. About 75% of 

single-function crime labs held ASCLD/LAB, International. In 

comparison, 2% of single-function crime labs were accredited 

by FQS-International.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 4

1 in 3 crime labs conducted random case reanalysis in 2014

In 2014, 98% of crime labs conducted proficiency testing, 

which was similar to 2009 (97%) and 2002 (97%) (figure 2). 

As in previous years, nearly all (95%) crime labs evaluated 

the technical competence of employees through declared 

examinations. The percentage of crime labs that conducted 

random case reanalysis in 2014 (35%) was similar to that 

reported in 2009 (34%), but a decrease from 2002 (54%). 

The proportion of crime labs conducting blind examinations 

decreased from 27% in 2002 to 10% in both 2009 and 2014.

In 2014, federal crime labs (39%) were more likely than 

county (8%), state (7%), and municipal (5%) labs to test the 

proficiency of employees through blind examinations (table 2). 

In addition, federal crime labs (49%) were also more likely 

to conduct random case reanalysis than labs operated by 

other jurisdictions.

Figure 2

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that conducted 

proficiency testing, by type of test, 2002, 2009, and 2014

Note: Detail does not sum to total because a lab could conduct more than one type 

of proficiency test. In the 2005 census, data were not collected on proficiency tests. 

Proficiency tests are conducted internally or externally using declared tests (an 

examiner knows the sample to be analyzed is a test sample), random case reanalysis 

(an examiner’s work is randomly selected for reanalysis by another examiner), and 

blind tests (the examiner or crime lab is not aware of being tested).See appendix 

table 3 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2002, 2009, and 2014.

Type of test

0 20 40 60 80 100

Blind 

examination

Random case 

reanalysis

Declared 

examination

Any testing

2014

2009

2002

Percent

Table 2

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that conducted 

proficiency testing, by type of test, jurisdiction, staff size, and 

number of forensic functions performed, 2014

Type of proficiency testing

Number 

of labs Blind

Random case 

reanalysis

All labs 409 10% 35%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 39 39% 49%

State 193 7 35

County 98 8 32

Municipal 79 5 30

Number of full-time employees*

100 or more 27 11% 61%

50–99 51 13 38

25–49 90 21 45

10–24 134 5 28

9 or fewer 107 4 26

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 72 11% 44%

5–7 156 8 34

2–4 132 9 32

1 49 19 32

Note: Proficiency tests are conducted internally or externally using random case 

reanalysis (an examiner’s work is randomly selected for reanalysis by another 

examiner) and blind tests (the examiner or crime lab is not aware of being tested). 

See appendix table 4 for standard errors.

*Includes both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 assigned to 

part-time employees. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

About 1 in 5 (21%) mid-sized crime labs operating with 

between 25 and 49 full-time employees performed blind 

proficiency tests. A larger proportion of mid-sized crime labs 

than labs of other sizes conducted blind proficiency tests. 

Crime labs with 24 or fewer (5%) full-time employees were 

less likely than labs with 25 or more full-time employees 

to conduct blind proficiency tests. A larger proportion of 

crime labs performing a single forensic function (19%) than 

labs performing two or more functions conducted blind 

proficiency tests.

An estimated 61% of crime labs with 100 or more full-time 

employees performed random case reanalysis tests, compared 

to less than 30% of crime labs with 24 or fewer full-time 

employees. An estimated 44% of crime labs performing eight 

or more forensic functions conducted random case reanalysis 

tests in 2014, compared to about a third of labs performing 

between five and seven functions (34%), between two and four 

functions (32%), and a single function (32%).
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 5

Municipal crime labs with written standards for 

performance increased between 2009 and 2014

In 2014, 75% of crime labs had written standards 

for performance expectations, up from 72% in 2009 

(figure 3). Written standards establish a threshold for employee 

performance and ensure that performance measures are 

applied consistently across employees with similar roles. 

Federal crime labs (97%) were more likely than state (83%), 

municipal (75%), and county (51%) labs to have written 

standards for performance in 2014. Between 2009 and 2014, 

the most growth in the proportion of labs with written 

standards for performance expectations occurred in municipal 

crime labs, increasing from 59% to 75%. The proportion of 

county crime labs with written standards of performance 

expectations declined from 59% in 2009 to 51% in 2014.

The majority (94%) of crime labs maintained a written 

code of ethics in 2014

An estimated 94% of crime labs had a written code of ethics in 

2014 (table 3). Labs create or adopt ethical codes to improve 

the quality of forensic findings. Ethical codes guide behaviors 

to ensure analysts work within the confines of their expertise, 

provide objective findings and testimony, avoid conflicts of 

interest, and avoid susceptibility to outside influences.

State crime labs (98%) were more likely than county (94%), 

municipal (87%), and federal (85%) crime labs to have a 

written code of ethics in 2014. The majority (67%) of crime 

labs adopted one of many existing code of ethics, while 27% of 

crime labs created and implemented their own written code of 

ethics.5 State crime labs (32%) were more likely than county 

(23%) and federal (14%) crime labs to create their own written 

code of ethics.

More crime labs employed externally certified analysts in 

2014 than in 2009

During 2014, 72% of crime labs employed at least one 

externally certified analyst (figure 4). The proportion of 

crime labs employing one or more analysts with external 

certification increased from 60% in 2009 to 72% in 2014 (up 

20%). Seventy-eight percent of municipal crime labs employed 

one or more externally certified analysts in 2014, compared 

to 70% of state and 63% of federal crime labs. Between 2009 

and 2014, state-operated crime labs experienced the largest 

increase in the proportion of labs employing one or more 

externally certified analysts. The decrease from 2009 to 2014 in 

the proportion of federal crime labs with at least one externally 

certified analyst was not statistically significant.

5 See National Academies Press Code of Ethics section at http://www.nap.edu/

read/12589/chapter/2?term=code#26.

Figure 3

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with written 

standards for performance expectations, by type of 

jurisdiction, 2009 and 2014

Note: See appendix table 5 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Jurisdiction

0 20 40 60 80 100

Municipal

County

State

Federal

Total 2014

2009

Percent

Table 3

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with written 

code of ethics, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Type of jurisdiction Total

Created 

own code

Adopted 

existing code

Did not have 

written code

All labs 100% 27% 67% 6%

Federal 100% 14 72 15

State 100% 32 66 2

County 100% 23 71 6

Municipal 100% 27 60 13

Note: See appendix table 6 for standard errors. Details do not sum to total due 

to rounding.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

Figure 4

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with one or 

more externally certified analysts, 2009 and 2014

Note: See appendix table 7 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

2014

2009

Total Federal State County Municipal
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 6

In 2014, about 9 in 10 crime labs with 50 or more full-time 

personnel employed at least one externally certified analyst 

(table 4). In comparison, about 45% of labs with nine or fewer 

full-time employees employed one or more externally certified 

analysts in 2014. Crime labs that performed eight or more 

forensic functions (88%) were more likely than crime labs 

performing fewer functions to employ at least one externally 

certified analyst. An estimated 24% of crime labs performing 

a single forensic function employed at least one externally 

certified analyst in 2014. Crime labs with professional 

accreditation (74%) were more likely than crime labs 

without accreditation (57%) to employ at least one externally 

certified analyst.

More than half (56%) of federal crime labs dedicated 

resources to research in 2014

An estimated 14% of crime labs devoted staff, time, supplies, or 

other resources to forensic science research in 2014 (table 5). 

Forensic science research includes experimentation aimed 

at the discovery and interpretation of facts, the revision of 

Table 4

Percent of publicly funded crime labs with one or more 

externally certified analysts, by staff size, number of forensic 

functions performed, and accreditation status, 2014

Number of labs Percent

All labs 409 72%

Number of full-time employees*

100 or more 27 92%

50–99 51 92

25–49 90 76

10–24 134 80

9 or fewer 107 45

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 72 88%

5–7 156 83

2–4 132 69

1 49 24

Accreditation status

Accredited 362 74%

Not accredited 47 57

Note: See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

*Includes both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 assigned to 

part-time employees. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

accepted methods, or practical application of new or revised 

methods or technologies. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

provided the most resources dedicated to research. Between 

2009 and 2014, NIJ funded nearly $120 million in forensic 

science research projects.6 This funding sought to provide 

new crime-solving techniques and increase the reliability and 

efficiency of forensic testing.

The proportion of crime labs that dedicated resources 

to research doubled from 7% in 2009 to 14% in 2014, a 

proportion similar to 2002 (13%). As in 2009, federal crime 

labs (56%) were more likely than state (11%), county (11%), 

and municipal labs (4%) to have resources dedicated to 

research in 2014. Between 2009 and 2014, federal crime labs 

had the largest increase in the proportion of crime labs with 

resources dedicated to research. For all years with available 

data, larger crime labs were more likely to dedicate resources to 

research than smaller labs.

6 See The Impact of Forensic Science Research and Development. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Table 5

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with resources 

dedicated to research, by type of jurisdiction and staff size, 

2002, 2009, and 2014

2002 2009 2014

All labs 13% 7% 14%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 51% 30% 56%

State 9 6 11

County 10 5 11

Municipal 8 2 4

Number of full-time employees*

100 or more 24% 46% 41%

50–99 34 21 29

25–49 13 2 24

10–24 6 4 2

9 or fewer 9 2 7

Note: Data were not collected on research in the 2005 census. See appendix table 9 

for standard errors.

*Includes both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 assigned to 

part-time employees. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2002, 2009, and 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 7

Methodology

Overview

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) periodically conducts 

the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories 

(CPFFCL) to collect data on crime lab services, budgets, 

staffing, workload, outsourcing, and quality assurance 

practices. The data collection is directed to federal, state, 

county, and municipal crime labs that are funded solely by the 

government or whose parent organization is a government 

agency. The CPFFCL includes agencies that employ one or 

more full-time scientists (1) with a minimum of a bachelor’s 

degree in chemistry, physics, biology, criminalistics, or a 

closely related forensic science field, and (2) whose principal 

function is examining physical evidence in criminal matters 

and providing reports and testimony to courts of law regarding 

such evidence.

About half of the crime labs included in the CPFFCL were part 

of a multi-lab system (two or more physically separate facilities 

that are overseen by a single organization). The CPFFCL 

attempted to collect information from each lab in multi-lab 

systems. The CPFFCL did not include operations that engage 

exclusively in evidence collection and documentation, such as 

fingerprint recovery and development, crime scene response, 

and photography. In addition, the census did not collect data 

on the forensic services performed by police identification 

units outside of the crime lab and it did not include privately 

operated crime labs.

Data collection and response rate

BJS conducted its fourth CPFFCL to collect detailed 

information on the workload and operations of the nation’s 

409 crime labs during 2014 and to examine changes since the 

previous censuses conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2009. The 

CPFFCL population frame and questionnaire were developed 

by BJS and the Urban Institute with input from the American 

Society of Crime Laboratory Directors as well as researchers 

and practitioners in the forensic science field. BJS pretested the 

CPFFCL questionnaire on a small sample of labs representing 

facilities of different sizes and governmental affiliations.

In April 2015, the Urban Institute initiated the data collection 

on behalf of BJS through a web-based data collection interface 

and mailed questionnaire. Follow-up emails and phone 

calls were made to nonrespondents and labs that submitted 

incomplete questionnaires. Of the 409 eligible crime labs that 

received the questionnaire, 360 (88%) provided responses to 

at least some of the items (table 6).

7 Of the 360 respondents, 

7A total of 306 (87%) of the 351 crime labs in 2002 provided responses to the 

2002 CPFFCL questionnaire. Of the 389 crime labs in the 2005 CPFFCL, 351 

(90%) provided responses to the 2005 questionnaire. Of the 411 crime labs 

surveyed in the 2009 CPFFCL, 397 (97%) provided responses to that data 

collection.

351 (98%) completed the questionnaire through the automated 

web system. The 2014 CPFFCL response rate ranged from 

94% for state labs to 72% for federal labs. 

Methods for producing national estimates

To generate national estimates for this report, BJS used 

imputation methods to account for missing data among 

labs that did not respond to either the entire CPFFCL 

questionnaire (unit-level response) or certain questions 

(item-level response). Because the CPFFCL data collection 

was a census with no sampling, each crime lab was initially 

self-representing and had a design weight of 1. BJS developed 

weighting class adjustments for the 2002, 2005, 2009, and 

2014 CPFFCL data to compensate for unit nonresponse and 

reduce nonresponse bias. Sixteen subpopulations of labs were 

stratified into groups by crossing four categories of jurisdiction 

(federal, state, county, and municipal) and four categories of 

staff size (9 or fewer, 10 to 24, 25 to 49, and 50 or more). A 

seventeenth stratum was assigned to the FBI crime laboratory, 

given its unique size of more than 500 employees. Within each 

of the subgroups, statistical weights were applied to the data 

from the crime labs that responded to the census to allow their 

responses to represent the labs that did not respond.

In addition to adjusting for unit nonresponse through the 

use of weighting class adjustments, BJS also imputed for item 

nonresponse. BJS measured staff size by full-time equivalent 

employees and included both full-time and part-time 

employees with part-time employees weighted by 0.5. For 

the labs that responded to the CPFFCL but did not report 

employee data, imputations were made for the count- and 

percentage-based measures using their employee data reported 

in the other CPFFCL data collections. If that information 

was not available, BJS used the median staff size in 2014 

among labs of similar jurisdiction. Among the 360 labs that 

responded to the 2014 CPFFCL, 339 reported their 2014 

employee total. For the 22 labs that did not report their 2014 

staff total, the previous reported staff total was used. Estimates 

for the 2002, 2005, and 2009 CPFFCL were generated using 

similar imputation methods. When employee totals from 

other CPFFCL data collections were not available to account 

for item nonresponse, the median staff size of labs of similar 

jurisdiction was used.

Table 6

Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, by type of 

jurisdiction, 2014

Type of jurisdiction

All labs in 

CPFFCL

Labs responding 

to CPFFCL Response rate

All labs 409 360 88%

Federal 39 28 72

State 193 182 94

County 98 87 89

Municipal 79 63 80

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories (CPFFCL), 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 8

When a respondent was unable to provide some requested 

items, BJS used sequential hot-deck imputation procedures 

to impute the missing responses in the 2002, 2005, 2009, 

and 2014 data. Sequential hot-deck imputation replaces 

a missing value with a response provided by a crime lab 

with similar characteristics. BJS grouped both respondents 

and nonrespondents into the strata described above and 

then sorted within each stratum by the number of forensic 

functions each lab performed. Once the list of crime labs were 

sorted within strata, the respondents provided donor responses 

for nonrespondents using the nearest neighbor method. 

This method identifies and replaces a missing value with the 

response donated from the lab listed immediately prior to the 

lab with missing data. If the donor listed immediately prior 

to the lab with missing data also had a missing response, BJS 

imputed a response from a donor listed immediately after the 

lab with the missing value. BJS repeated the process of going 

backwards and forwards to obtain donated responses from 

neighbors until all missing values were imputed.

Comparability to prior reports

Data on quality assurance practices presented in the 2002, 

2005, and 2009 CPFFCL reports were not adjusted for lab 

nonresponse. Estimates presented in this report may differ 

from previously presented data because some adjustments for 

unit or item nonresponse were made. For example, Census 

of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 (NCJ 

238252, BJS web, August 2012) reported that 75% of county 

labs were accredited in 2009. This report indicates that 74% of 

county labs were accredited in 2009. In the 2009 report, data 

on accreditation were based on 389 crime labs (or 98% of the 

397 labs responding the 2009 census). In this 2014 report, 

the 2009 data have been adjusted to account for nonresponse 

crime labs and represent 411 crime labs (or the total number of 

labs included in the 2009 CPFFCL).

Conducting tests of statistical significance

BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in 

the estimates were statistically significant. All differences 

discussed in this report are statistically significant at or 

above the 95% confidence interval. Standard errors were 

generated using SPSS statistical software that estimates 

variance for complex survey designs. The standard errors for 

the tables and figures are presented in appendix tables. These 

standard error estimates may be used to construct confidence 

intervals around percentages in this report. For example, the 

95% confidence interval around the percentage of crime labs 

accredited in 2014 is 88% ± 1.96 × 0.7% (or approximately 

87% to 89%) where 88% is the point estimate in table 1 and 

0.7% is the standard error in appendix table 2.

The standard errors may also be used to test the significance of 

the difference between two statistics by pooling the standard 

errors of the two estimates. For example, the standard error of 

the difference between state and federal crime labs accredited 

in 2014 would be 2.9% (or the square root of the sum of the 

squared standard errors for each group). The 95% confidence 

interval around the difference would be 1.96 × 2.92% (or 

5.72%). Because the observed difference of 10% (99% minus 

89%) is greater than 5.72%, the difference would be considered 

statistically significant.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 9

Appendix Table 1

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs accredited by a professional forensic 

science organization, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Estimates Standard errors

Year Total Federal State County Municipal Total Federal State County Municipal

2002 70% 64% 80% 65% 44% 0.9% 5.3% 1.1% 1.7% 1.8%

2005 80 ^ 90 68 59 0.7 ^ 0.2 1.1 2.3

2009 82 81 92 74 61 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.4

2014 88 89 99 85 67 0.7 2.9 0.3 1.2 2.8

^Too few cases to provide a reliable rate. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 2

Standard errors for table 1: Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs with a professional forensic science accreditation,

by type of jurisdiction, staff size, and number of forensic functions performed, 2014

Any accreditation

American Society of

Crime Lab Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation 

Board, Legacy

American Society of 

Crime Lab Directors/

Laboratory Accreditation 

Board, International

Forensic Quality 

Services, International Other

All labs 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 2.9% 0.0% 4.6% 3.3% 3.1%

State 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2

County 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.1

Municipal 2.8 1.9 2.9 2.0 0.4

Number of full-time employees

100 or more 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 3.4% 1.4%

50–99 0.0 0.9 0.9 2.1 0.0

25–49 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.3

10–24 1.5 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.8

9 or fewer 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.4

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 0.4% 0.6% 1.6% 1.8% 0.5%

5–7 1.2 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.5

2–4 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.1 1.0

1 1.1 0.9 1.7 0.5 1.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 3

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that conducted proficiency testing, by 

type of test, 2002, 2009, and 2014

Estimates Standard errors

Type of test 2002 2009 2014 2002 2009 2014

Any test 97% 97% 98% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%

Declared examination 97 93 95 0.4 0.2 0.4

Random case reanalysis 54 34 35 1.0 0.4 0.8

Blind examination 27 10 10 0.9 0.3 0.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002, 2009, and 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: QUALITY ASSURANCE PRAC TICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 10

Appendix Table 4

Standard errors for table 2: Percent of publicly funded forensic 

crime labs that conducted proficiency testing, by type of 

test, jurisdiction, staff size, and number of forensic functions 

performed, 2014

Type of proficiency testing

Blind Random reanalysis

All labs 0.5% 0.8%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 3.5% 0.8%

State 0.4 1.8

County 1.0 2.6

Municipal 1.5 3.8

Number of full-time employees

100 or more 1.0% 2.5%

50–99 2.0 2.2

25–49 1.2 1.4

10–24 0.9 1.6

9 or fewer 0.9 1.7

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 1.5% 1.9%

5–7 0.8 1.3

2–4 1.2 1.8

1 2.2 2.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 5

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Percent of publicly 

funded forensic crime labs with written standards for 

performance expectations, by type of jurisdiction, 2009 and 

2014

Estimates Standard errors

Type of jurisdiction 2009 2014 2009 2014

All labs 72% 75% 0.4% 0.8%

Federal 97 97 0.8 1.0

State 78 83 0.5 0.7

County 59 51 0.8 1.9

Municipal 59 75 1.4 2.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Appendix Table 6

Standard errors for table 3: Percent of publicly funded 

forensic crime labs with written code of ethics, by type of 

jurisdiction, 2014

Type of jurisdiction

Created 

own code

Adopted 

existing code

Did not have 

written code

All labs 0.8% 0.9% 0.5%

Federal 3.5 3.5 1.3

State 0.8 0.9 0.3

County 1.6 1.7 0.9

Municipal 2.8 3.0 2.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 7

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Percent of publicly 

funded forensic crime labs with one or more externally 

certified analysts, 2009 and 2014

Estimates Standard errors

Type of jurisdiction 2009 2014 2009 2014

All 60% 72% 0.4% 0.8%

Federal 68 63 1.9 4.4

State 55 70 0.5 0.8

County 65 75 0.8 1.7

Municipal 65 78 1.2 2.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Appendix Table 8

Standard errors for table 4: Percent of publicly funded crime 

labs with one or more externally certified analysts, by staff size, 

number of forensic functions performed, and accreditation 

status, 2014

Percent

All labs 0.8%

Number of full-time employees

100 or more 1.4%

50–99 0.7

25–49 1.6

10–24 1.3

9 or fewer 2.1

Number of forensic functions

8 or more 1.2%

5–7 1.1

2–4 1.7

1 1.8

Accreditation status

Accredited 0.8%

Not accredited 3.8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 9

Standard errors for table 5: Percent of publicly funded forensic 

crime labs with resources dedicated to research, by type of 

jurisdiction and staff size, 2002, 2009, and 2014

2002 2009 2014

All labs 0.7% 0.2% 0.5%

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 5.5% 1.7% 4.6%

State 0.7 0.3 0.5

County 1.1 0.3 0.8

Municipal 0.0 0.0 0.5

Number of full-time employees

100 or more 2.9% 1.9% 2.9%

50–99 2.0 1.2 2.4

25–49 1.3 0.4 1.4

10–24 1.4 0.3 0.2

9 or fewer 1.0 0.1 1.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories, 2002, 2009, and 2014.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ250152

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the 

principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal 

victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, 

and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, 

tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and 

valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports 

improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, 

and participates with national and international organizations to develop 

and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is 

acting director.

This report was written by Andrea M. Burch and Matthew R. Durose of 

BJS and Kelly Walsh and Emily Tiry of Urban Institute. Christina Aldada, 

Samantha Lowry, Eddie Mohr, Elizabeth Pelletier, Jennifer Yahner, and Lilly 

Yu from the Urban Institute assisted with data collection and processing 

activities. Anastasios Tsoutis verified the report.

Caitlin Scoville and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn and 

Tina Dorsey produced the report.

November 2016, NCJ 250152