U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

November 2016, NCJ 250151

Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories: Resources and 

Services, 2014

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

Kelly Walsh and Emily Tiry, Urban Institute

HIGHLIGHTS

 Publicly funded crime labs received an estimated 

3.8 million forensic requests in 2014 and completed 

3.6 million requests that year (which included 

requests received prior to 2014).

 At the end of 2014, U.S. crime labs had an 

estimated backlog of 570,100 requests for forensic 

services—a decline from 895,500 backlogged 

requests at yearend 2009. 

 DNA database samples from convicted offenders 

and arrestees made up 39% of requests to federal 

labs, 36% of state labs, and less than 5% of requests 

to county and municipal labs.

 Thirty-eight percent of publicly funded crime labs 

outsourced one or more types of forensic services 

during 2014.

 Publicly funded crime labs employed 14,300 full-time 

personnel in 2014.

 The combined operating budgets for publicly 

funded crime labs in 2014 was $1.7 billion.

I

n 2014, the nation’s 409 crime labs received 

an estimated 3.8 million requests for forensic 

services, down from the 4 million requests 

received in 2009 (figure 1). The analysis of controlled 

substances, biological samples collected from 

convicted offenders and arrestees for a DNA database, 

and toxicology accounted for about 3 in 4 requests 

submitted to crime labs in both 2009 and 2014.

This report summarizes 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. It focuses on the forensic services performed 

by crime labs across the nation and the resources 

devoted to completing the work. For information 

on accreditations, proficiency tests, and other 

quality assurances within publicly operated labs, see 

Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories: Quality 

Assurance Practices, 2014 (NCJ 250152, BJS web, 

November 2016).

Figure 1

Number of requests for services received by publicly 

funded forensic crime labs, by type of request, 2009 

and 2014

Note: See table 4 and appendix table 4 for estimates and 

standard errors.

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

Crime Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Number (in millions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

2009

Other 

requests

Convicted Toxicology oender/

arrestee samples

Controlled

substances

All requests

Type of request

2014
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 2

Publicly funded forensic crime labs examine and report on 

physical evidence collected during criminal investigations 

for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Crime labs perform 

a variety of forensic analyses and receive requests for these 

services from criminal justice agencies, such as police 

departments, prosecutors offices, courts, and correctional 

facilities. The ability of a lab to handle its forensic workload 

depends on many factors, including the complexity of the 

procedures and the availability of analysts and other resources.

Most crime labs provided forensic services in 

multiple disciplines

Publicly funded crime labs provided an average of five different 

forensic functions in 2014 (not shown) (See Methodology

for definitions of forensic functions.) Since 2002, crime labs 

most commonly performed analyses of controlled substances. 

Eighty-one percent of crime labs handled the identification of 

illegal drugs and other controlled substances in 2014 (table 1). 

Among crime labs that processed controlled substances, 

9 in 10 analyzed synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., Spice or K2) and 

synthetic cathinones (e.g., bath salts) in 2014 (not shown).

Sixty-two percent of crime labs analyzed biological samples, 

such as blood and saliva, during 2014. Sixty-one percent 

analyzed forensic biology collected during criminal casework 

from crime scenes, victims, or suspects, and 16% analyzed 

biological samples collected from convicted offenders and 

arrestees for inclusion in a local, state, or national DNA 

database (not shown). Crime labs enter DNA profiles from 

criminal casework, convicted offenders, and arrestees into the 

FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). CODIS software 

allows crime labs to compare biological evidence collected 

from criminal investigations to DNA profiles stored in a 

database for the purpose of linking serial crimes together and 

identifying suspects. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and the federal government require offenders convicted of 

certain crimes to provide DNA samples. Some jurisdictions 

must also collect DNA from certain arrestees. In 2014, state 

labs (25%) were more likely than county (9%) and municipal 

(4%) labs to analyze biological samples collected from 

convicted offenders and arrestees for a DNA database (table 2).

Among crime labs that handled forensic biology requests in 

2014, 15% conducted familial searching of a DNA database 

for the purpose of identifying close biological relatives to 

an unknown DNA profile collected from a crime scene 

(not shown). Three percent of crime labs that performed 

forensic biology services in 2014 reported using a Rapid DNA 

instrument, which provided a fully automated method to 

develop a DNA profile for a database.

The majority (63%) of crime labs analyzed latent (or hidden) 

fingerprints recovered from crime scenes. About 8 in 10 

(82%) of these labs used the FBI’s Integrated Automated 

Fingerprint Identification System to perform latent 

fingerprint comparisons in 2014 (not shown). Overall, nearly 

half (48%) of crime labs examined trace evidence in 2014. 

Among these crime labs, 70% performed fire debris analysis, 

44% conducted hair examinations, and 38% analyzed gunshot 

residue (table 3).

Table 1

Functions performed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, 

2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Forensic function 2002 2005 2009 2014

Controlled substances 89% 89% 81% 81%

Crime scene 60 39 52 52

Digital evidence 12 15 19 22

Firearms/toolmarks 60 57 54 55

Forensic biology* 65 61 59 62

Impressions ... 50 44 40

Latent prints 59 57 60 63

Questioned documents 24 20 16 14

Toxicology 46 50 42 43

Trace evidence 56 54 50 48

Number of labs 351 389 411 409

Note: See appendix table 1 for standard errors.

...Not available.

*Includes forensic biology from either criminal casework or convicted offenders and 

arrestees for a DNA database.

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Table 2

Functions performed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, 

by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Forensic function Federal State County Municipal

Controlled substances 55% 87% 86% 71%

Crime scene 42 48 51 75

Digital evidence 54 10 20 36

Firearms/toolmarks 27 58 60 58

Forensic biology casework 27 71 68 42

Forensic biology from convicted 

 offender/arrestee samples 12 25 9 4

Impressions 26 43 46 35

Latent prints 67 53 62 88

Questioned documents 34 12 12 14

Toxicology 9 48 52 36

Trace evidence 57 53 50 29

Number of labs 39 193 98 79

Note: See appendix table 2 for standard errors.

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

Laboratories, 2014.

Table 3

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that examined 

trace evidence, by type of examination, 2009 and 2014

Trace evidence 2009 2014

Explosives analysis 32% 32%

Fiber examination 60 52

Fire debris analysis 72 70

Gunshot residue 36 38

Hair examination 50 44

Paint analysis 59 52

Unknown chemical 62 63

Number of labs that examined trace evidence 204 197

Note: Percentages based on labs that examined trace evidence. See appendix

table 3 for standard errors.

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

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 3

Crime labs received nearly 4 million requests for forensic 

services in 2014

Crime labs play a critical role in the justice system, analyzing 

millions of pieces of evidence from criminal investigations 

each year. A criminal case may generate more than one type of 

request to process or analyze evidence. For example, a crime 

lab may receive fingerprints and DNA evidence from the same 

case, which requires two separate requests for analysis by 

different sections of the lab.

The CPFFCL asked labs to provide the total number of 

requests received and completed within their facility for each 

forensic service. Completed requests included those received 

prior to and during 2014. Submitting agencies sometimes 

canceled requests before labs completed them because services 

were no longer needed (e.g., law enforcement solved or closed 

the case). The CPFFCL defined a pending forensic request as 

backlogged if it was not completed within 30 days.

In 2014, the nation’s 409 crime labs received an estimated 

3.8 million new requests for forensic services and completed 

3.6 million requests (table 4). About three-quarters of 

requests received in 2014 were for either analysis of controlled 

substances (33%), biological samples collected from convicted 

offenders and arrestees for a database of DNA profiles (24%), 

and toxicology (15%). Forensic biology casework accounted 

for a larger proportion of the overall number of requests 

received in 2014 (9%) than in 2009 (6%).

More than half of all requests for forensic services were 

sent to state labs

In 2014, more than half (2.2 million) of the estimated 

3.8 million requests for forensic services received by publicly 

funded crime labs nationwide were submitted to state 

labs (table 5). Labs serving county and municipal jurisdictions 

received 1.4 million forensic requests in 2014.

Table 4

Requests for services received and completed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of request, 2009 and 2014

Received Completed

2009 2014 2009 2014

Type of request Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All requests 4,020,000 100% 3,783,000 100% 3,830,000 100% 3,646,000 100%

Controlled substances 1,358,000 34 1,265,000 33 1,261,000 33 1,197,000 33

Crime scene 188,000 5 171,000 5 188,000 5 170,000 5

Digital evidence 33,000 1 25,000 1 33,000 1 24,000 1

Firearms/toolmarks 147,000 4 154,000 4 132,000 3 142,000 4

Forensic biology casework 260,000 6 333,000 9 239,000 6 296,000 8

Forensic biology from convicted 

 offender/arrestee samples 1,053,000 26 908,000 24 1,027,000 27 904,000 25

Impressions 11,000 -- 7,000 -- 11,000 -- 7,000 --

Latent prints 270,000 7 295,000 8 274,000 7 301,000 8

Questioned documents 13,000 -- 9,000 -- 12,000 -- 9,000 --

Toxicology 629,000 16 566,000 15 606,000 16 554,000 15

Trace evidence 58,000 1 49,000 1 47,000 1 41,000 1

Note: Totals exclude requests outsourced to other labs. The number of requests completed in 2009 and 2014 exceeded the number of requests received during that year for 

certain disciplines because the completed requests included some requests received prior to that year. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Detail does not sum to 

total due to rounding. See appendix table 4 for standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%.

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

Table 5

Percent of requests for services received by publicly funded 

forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Type of request Federal State County Municipal

All requests 100% 100% 100% 100%

Controlled substances 27 33 40 31

Crime scene -- -- 9 17

Digital evidence 2 -- -- 3

Firearms/toolmarks -- 3 5 10

Forensic biology casework 2 9 9 13

Forensic biology from convicted 

 offender/arrestee samples 39 36 1 4

Impressions -- -- -- --

Latent prints 24 4 10 12

Questioned documents 1 -- -- --

Toxicology 4 14 25 9

Trace evidence 1 1 2 1

Total requests received* 254,000 2,164,000 775,000 589,000

Note: Detail does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 5 for 

standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%.

*Rounded to the nearest thousand.

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

Laboratories, 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 4

The composition of the forensic work handled by U.S. crime 

labs during 2014 varied among those serving federal, state, 

county, and municipal jurisdictions. Toxicology requests 

accounted for 25% of the requests received by county labs, 

compared to less than 10% received by federal and municipal 

labs. In comparison, biological samples collected from 

convicted offenders and arrestees for a database of DNA 

profiles comprised 39% of requests made to federal labs and 

36% of requests to state labs, compared to less than 5% of 

requests to county (1%) and municipal (4%) labs. Crime 

scene investigations accounted for 17% of requests made to 

municipal labs, compared to 9% of requests to county labs and 

less than 1% of requests to state and federal labs.

Publicly funded crime labs had a backlog of 570,100 requests 

for forensic services at yearend 2014, down from 895,500 

backlogged requests at yearend 2009 (table 6). Biological 

samples collected from convicted offenders or arrestees for a 

DNA database that were backlogged decreased from 502,500 

at yearend 2009 to 64,800 at yearend 2014. The FBI crime lab 

reported the majority of these backlogged requests in 2009 

because of an increase in the collection of DNA samples as 

mandated by federal legislation. Since 2009, the FBI crime lab 

has reduced its backlog of requests for DNA samples taken 

from convicted offenders and arrestees. The overall reduction 

in DNA samples led to a decline in the overall number of 

backlogged requests within U.S. crime labs observed at yearend 

2009. The DNA samples collected from convicted offenders 

and arrestees for a database of DNA profiles made up 11% 

of all backlogged requests at yearend 2014. Forensic biology 

casework samples accounted for 19% of the overall backlog at 

yearend 2014.

The CPFFCL asked labs about requests to process forensic 

biology from sexual assault cases. Not all labs that handled 

forensic biology requests were able to separately report how 

many received, completed, or backlogged requests were from 

sexual assault cases. In the 2014 CPFFCL, 135 labs reported 

receiving an estimated 45,000 requests to process sexual 

assault evidence during 2014 and completed about 43,000 of 

these types of requests that year (not shown). The requests 

completed in 2014 included evidence collected before and 

during 2014. At yearend 2014, 128 crime labs reported 

approximately 9,000 backlogged requests to process sexual 

assault evidence.

About 4 in 10 labs outsourced some forensic work in 2014

To address the demands for forensic services, some publicly 

funded crime labs outsourced work to private labs or other 

public facilities. Thirty-eight percent of publicly funded crime 

labs outsourced one or more types of forensic services in 2014, 

up from 28% in 2009 (table 7). During 2014, municipal labs 

(60%) were more likely than federal (28%) and state (23%) labs 

to outsource requests for services. Publicly funded crime labs 

that outsourced requests to private or other public labs in 2014 

were most likely to outsource toxicology analysis (68%) and 

forensic biology casework (55%) (table 8).

Table 6

Requests for services backlogged in publicly funded forensic 

crime labs, by type of request, yearend 2009 and 2014

2009 2014

Type of request Number Percent Number Percent

All requests 895,500 100% 570,100 100%

Controlled substances 139,200 16 213,700 37

Digital evidence 1,600 -- 7,800 1

Firearms/toolmarks 48,300 5 51,100 9

Forensic biology casework 103,500 12 107,800 19

Forensic biology from convicted

 offender/arrestee samples 502,500 56 64,800 11

Impressions 6,100 1 2,400 --

Latent prints 49,500 6 69,400 12

Questioned documents 2,600 -- 800 --

Toxicology 27,600 3 40,000 7

Trace evidence 14,700 2 12,200 2

Note: A request is classified as backlogged if it was not examined and reported 

to the submitting agency within 30 days of submission. Totals exclude requests 

outsourced to other labs. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. Detail does 

not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%.

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

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Table 7 

Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that outsourced 

requests for services, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, 

and 2014

Type of jurisdiction 2002 2005* 2009 2014

All labs 40% 47% 28% 38%

Federal 17 ^ 20 28

State 31 39 23 23

County 61 68 40 54

Municipal 64 57 32 60

Number of labs 351 389 411 409

Note: See appendix table 7 for standard errors.

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.

*Total includes federal labs, not shown separately.

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Table 8

Percent of publicly funded crime labs that outsourced requests 

for services, by type of service, 2014

Type of request Percent

Controlled substances 19%

Digital evidence 15

Firearms/toolmarks 25

Forensic biology casework 55

Forensic biology from convicted offender/arrestee samples 37

Impressions 16

Latent prints 10

Questioned documents 24

Toxicology 68

Trace evidence 37

Number of labs that outsourced requests 155

Note: Percentages based on labs that performed the forensic service and 

outsourced requests. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

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

Laboratories, 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 5

More than 14,000 full-time employees worked in crime 

labs in 2014

Overall, the combined operating budgets for the 409 crime 

labs in 2014 was $1.7 billion (table 9). Labs serving state 

jurisdictions accounted for nearly half ($796 million) of the 

overall budget in 2014. Labs with 25 or more employees 

accounted for more than 80% of the total combined budget 

nationwide. Typical expenditures among crime labs include 

personnel (salaries and fringe benefits), supplies, equipment, 

and construction costs. In addition to their budgets, crime 

labs received funding from other sources, such as grants and 

fees. In 2014, about 4 in 10 crime labs charged the submitting 

agencies fees for completing the forensic services (not shown).

Publicly funded crime labs employed 14,300 full-time 

personnel in 2014, an increase from 11,000 in the 351 labs 

operating in 2002 (table 10). Nearly half (6,600) of these 

employees in 2014 worked in state-operated labs. In 2014, 

the majority (59%) of crime labs had 24 or fewer employees 

(not shown). The mean number of full-time lab employees 

was 35, and the median number was 20 employees per lab. 

Twenty-six percent of federal labs, 19% of state labs, and 

18% of county and municipal labs had 100 or more employees 

in 2014. In 2014, more than half (60%) of crime lab employees 

were analysts or examiners who prepared and analyzed 

evidence and reported on their conclusions (table 11). 

The majority of analysts were intermediate- or senior-level 

employees. Municipal and county labs were more likely than 

state and federal labs to employ crime scene technicians, who 

record and collect evidence from crime scenes and submit that 

evidence to a crime lab for analysis.

Table 9

Annual operating budget for publicly funded forensic 

crime labs, by type of jurisdiction and number of full-time 

employees, 2014

Number of labs

Annual operating 

budget (in millions)

All labs 409 $1,680

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 39 $302

State 193 796

County 98 306

Municipal 79 277

Number of full-time employees*

100 or more 27 $568

50–99 51 416

25–49 90 378

10–24 134 262

9 or fewer 107 56

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest million. Detail does not sum to total due 

to rounding. 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, 2014.

Table 10

Number of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic 

crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Type of jurisdiction 2002 2005 2009 2014

All labs 11,000 12,200 13,100 14,300

Federal 2,000 2,400 2,300 2,100

State 5,300 5,600 6,100 6,600

County 1,900 2,200 2,500 2,900

Municipal 1,900 2,000 2,200 2,700

Number of labs 351 389 411 409

Note: Estimates include both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 

assigned to part-time employees. Numbers are rounded to nearest hundred. Detail 

does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Table 11

Positions of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Type of position Total Federal State County Municipal

All full-time employees 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Analyst/examiner 60% 52% 66% 56% 55%

Entry level 12 2 16 11 11

Intermediate/senior level 48 51 50 45 44

Technical support 7% 13% 8% 7% 4%

Manager 13% 16% 12% 12% 12%

Clerical support 9% 10% 8% 8% 10%

Crime scene technician 6% -- 1% 12% 15%

Other* 5% 15% 3% 4% 2%

Note: Detail does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.

--Less than 0.5%.

*Includes other positions in labs, such as building maintenance, photographers, and polygraph examiners.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 6

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 were 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 also 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 and 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 12).* Of the 360 respondents, 

351 (98%) completed the questionnaire through the automated 

web system. The 2014 CPFFCL response rate ranged from 

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

Methods for producing national estimates

To generate national estimates for this report, BJS used 

several 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 12

Publicly funded forensic crime labs, 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.

*Of the 351 crime labs in the 2002 CPFFCL, 306 (87%) provided responses to 

the 2002 questionnaire. Of the 389 crime labs in the 2005 CPFFCL, 351 (90%) 

provided responses to the questionnaire. Of the 411 crime labs surveyed in the 

2009 CPFFCL, 397 (97%) provided responses to that data collection.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 7

When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire 

but was unable to provide budget data, imputations were made 

for the count- and percentage-based measures using their 

budget data from the other CPFFCL data collections. If that 

information was unavailable, the lab’s staff size was multiplied 

by the median ratio of budgets per employee for labs of similar 

jurisdiction and size. Among the 360 labs that responded to the 

2014 CPFFCL, 331 reported their 2014 budget. Twenty-four 

labs did not report their 2014 budget and the previous reported 

budget was used. Five labs did not report their 2014 or 

previous budget and the median ratio of budgets per employee 

was used.

When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire 

but did not provide data on the number and types of requests 

received, completed, and backlogged, data imputations were 

made for the count- and percentage-based measures within 

each category of a forensic function they performed that year. 

Depending on the availability of data, imputations for requests 

received and completed were based on either information 

provided in the other CPFFCL data collections or on the 

median number of requests among labs of similar size and 

jurisdiction. Depending on the availability of information, 

imputations for backlogs were made using the number of 

pending requests in 2014, the number of backlogged requests 

reported in the other CPFFCL data collections, or the median 

backlog among labs of similar size and jurisdiction.

When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire 

but could not provide data on outsourcing requests for 

services, BJS used sequential hot-deck imputation procedures 

to impute the missing responses for 2002, 2005, 2009, and 

2014. Sequential hot-deck imputation replaces a missing 

value with a response provided by a crime lab with similar 

characteristics. Data on outsourcing were reported by 

93% of the 360 labs responding to the 2014 CPFFCL, 

98% of the 397 labs responding to the 2009 CPFFCL, 76% of 

the 351 labs responding to the 2005 CPFFCL, and 88% of the 

306 labs responding to the 2002 CPFFCL. BJS grouped both 

respondents and nonrespondents into the strata previously 

described and then sorted within each stratum by the number 

of forensic functions each lab performed. Once the list of 

crime labs was 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

Except for count-based estimates for staff size, budget, and 

workload, data presented in the 2002, 2005, and 2009 CPFFCL 

reports were not adjusted for unit or item nonresponse. 

Estimates presented in this report may be different 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 31% of municipal crime labs 

outsourced forensic services in 2009. However, this publication 

reported that 32% of municipal crime labs outsourced 

forensic services in 2009. In the August 2012 report, data on 

outsourcing were based on 389 crime labs (of the 397 labs 

that responded to the 2009 CPFFCL). In this report, 2009 

data have been adjusted to account for nonresponse and 

represent all 411 crime labs in the 2009 CPFFCL. In addition 

to the revisions to the workload estimates based on the 

new imputation procedures, the overall number of requests 

received, completed, and backlogged in 2009 for forensic 

biology casework reported in Census of Publicly Funded 

Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 were adjusted because of a 

revision in the information collected from the FBI crime lab.

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 

that outsourced requests for services in 2014 is 38% ± 1.96 × 

0.9% (or approximately 1.8%), where 38% is the point estimate 

in table 6 and 0.9% is the standard error in appendix table 7.

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 county crime labs that 

outsourced requests for services in 2014 is 3.9% (or the 

square root of the sum of the squared standard errors for each 

group). The 95% confidence interval around the difference 

is 1.96 × 2% (or 3.9%). Because the observed difference of 

31% (54% minus 23%) is greater than 3.9%, the difference is 

considered statistically significant.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 8

Pilot study of digital evidence laboratories

BJS expanded the 2014 CPFFCL from previous data collections 

to include a pilot study of agencies that solely analyze digital 

and multimedia evidence in support of criminal investigations 

and prosecutions. Law enforcement agencies obtain digital 

evidence in various formats, including audio, video, and 

graphical images from computers, cell phones, cameras, and 

other electronic devices. The traditional CPFFCL definition 

of a crime lab limited the information collected about digital 

evidence. Some crime labs only handle this type of evidence 

and employ forensic experts with training in computer science 

or information technology as opposed to natural sciences. 

The expanded scope of the 2014 CPFFCL included additional 

questions related to the analysis of digital evidence. BJS 

will use the results of this pilot study to inform future data 

collections directed toward criminal justice agencies that 

process forensic evidence.

Definitions

Analyst/examiner—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.

Controlled substance analysis—the identification of drugs 

and other substances whose possession or use, in either legal or 

illicit dosages, is restricted by the government.

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.

Digital evidence—the investigation of various types of analog 

or multimedia evidence, such as the recovery, extraction, 

and analysis of computer files, film, tape, and magnetic and 

optical media.

Firearms analysis—the examination and comparison of 

evidence resulting from the discharge or use of firearms.

Forensic biology—includes the discipline areas of biology 

screening and DNA analysis. Biology screening is the 

examination of evidence for the presence of stains from 

blood, saliva and other physiological fluids. DNA analysis is 

the process used to develop a DNA profile from convicted 

offenders or arrestees as required by federal and state laws 

or casework samples collected from crime scenes, victims, 

or suspects.

Impressions analysis—the identification, documentation, 

collection, and interpretation of two- and three-dimensional 

impressions and imprints found at crime scenes (including 

shoes and tires).

Latent prints analysis—the development or comparison of 

finger or palm print impressions.

Municipal—cities, towns, villages, and boroughs.

Questioned documents analysis—the 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—the 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 are counted as 

separate requests.

Synthetic cannabinoids—synthetically produced compounds 

that mimic naturally occurring cannabinoids. These 

compounds are added to some other substrate, marketed as 

“spice” or herbal incense products, and are used illicitly for 

their psycho-active properties.

Synthetic cathinones—a cathinone is a compound naturally 

found in the khat plant. When produced synthetically, these 

compounds are marketed as bath salts and abused for their 

stimulant properties.

Toolmark analysis—the comparison of marks made by 

various tools.

Toxicology—the analysis of biological samples for the presence 

of drugs and other potentially toxic materials. Includes 

antemortem, postmortem, and 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.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 9

Appendix Table 1

Standard errors for table 1: Functions performed by publicly 

funded forensic crime labs, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Forensic function 2002 2005 2009 2014

Controlled substances 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9%

Crime scene 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.9

Digital evidence 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.8

Firearms/toolmarks 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.9

Forensic biology 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.9

Impressions ... 1.0 0.4 0.9

Latent prints 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8

Questioned documents 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7

Toxicology 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8

Trace evidence 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8

...Not available.

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 2

Standard errors for table 2: Functions performed by publicly 

funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Forensic function Federal State County Municipal

Controlled substances 5.0% 0.6% 1.5% 2.8%

Crime scene 5.7 0.8 1.9 2.5

Digital evidence 5.1 0.4 1.4 2.7

Firearms/toolmarks 4.6 0.8 1.8 2.8

Forensic biology casework 4.6 0.7 1.7 2.5

Forensic biology from convicted

 offender/arrestee samples 3.8 0.5 1.1 1.0

Impressions 4.5 0.7 1.8 2.6

Latent prints 5.2 0.8 1.8 1.8

Questioned documents 5.5 0.4 0.9 1.5

Toxicology 2.3 0.8 1.9 2.7

Trace evidence 4.6 0.8 1.8 2.3

...Not available.

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

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 3

Standard errors for table 3: Percent of publicly funded 

forensic crime labs that examined trace evidence, by type of 

examination, 2009 and 2014

Trace evidence 2009 2014

Explosives analysis 1.9% 2.2%

Fiber examination 2.2 2.5

Fire debris analysis 2.0 2.3

Gunshot residue 1.9 2.2

Hair examination 2.3 2.6

Paint analysis 2.1 2.4

Unknown chemical 2.1 2.4

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

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Appendix Table 4

Standard errors for table 4: Requests for services received and completed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of 

request, 2009 and 2014

Received Completed

2009 2014 2009 2014

Type of request Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All requests 57,609 56,050 56,623 55,354

Controlled substances 13,576 0.6% 22,041 0.5% 14,035 0.6% 20,104 0.5%

Crime scene 3,471 0.1 8,804 0.2 3,469 0.1 8,808 0.2

Digital evidence 824 0.0 2,099 0.1 816 0.0 2,140 0.1

Firearms/toolmarks 1,611 0.1 4,411 0.1 1,391 0.1 3,570 0.1

Forensic biology casework 2,088 0.1 10,699 0.3 2,074 0.1 4,622 0.2

Forensic biology from convicted 

 offender/ arrestee samples 57,036 1.1 34,970 0.8 56,036 1.1 36,428 0.8

Impressions 478 0.0 366 0.0 543 0.0 381 0.0

Latent prints 2,462 0.1 24,275 0.6 2,457 0.1 24,401 0.6

Questioned documents 2,103 0.1 774 0.0 1,801 0.0 821 0.0

Toxicology 14,100 0.4 23,675 0.6 13,305 0.4 23,304 0.6

Trace evidence 1,662 0.0 2,446 0.1 1,668 0.0 1,991 0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 10

Appendix Table 5

Standard errors for table 5: Percent of requests for services 

received by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type 

of jurisdiction, 2014

Type of request Federal State County Municipal

Controlled substances 3.5% 0.6% 1.4% 1.5%

Crime scene 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.4

Digital evidence 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3

Firearms/toolmarks 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6

Forensic biology casework 0.4 0.1 0.4 1.5

Forensic biology from convicted

 offender/arrestee samples 6.3 1.0 0.2 1.2

Impressions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Latent prints 7.5 0.1 0.6 0.8

Questioned documents 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Toxicology 1.6 0.4 2.2 0.7

Trace evidence 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Total requests received 30,898 33,205 23,717 22,843

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

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 6

Standard errors for table 6: Requests for services backlogged 

in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of request, 

yearend 2009 and 2014

2009 2014

Type of request Number Percent Number Percent

All requests 10,124 12,693

Controlled substances 2,848 0.3% 8,147 0.9%

Digital evidence 97 0.0 87 0.0

Firearms/toolmarks 997 0.1 2,532 0.4

Forensic biology casework 1,172 0.2 3,782 0.6

Forensic biology from convicted

 offender/arrestee samples 8,961 0.5 4,702 0.8

Impressions 914 0.1 110 0.0

Latent prints 693 0.1 2,920 0.5

Questioned documents 518 0.1 62 0.0

Toxicology 931 0.1 1,789 0.3

Trace evidence 153 0.0 282 0.1

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

Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

Appendix Table 7

Standard errors for table 7: Percent of publicly funded forensic 

crime labs outsourcing requests for services, by type of 

jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Type of jurisdiction 2002 2005 2009 2014

All labs 0.9% 1.1% 0.4% 0.9%

Federal 2.8 ^ 1.6 4.8

State 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.6

County 1.8 1.0 0.7 1.9

Municipal 2.3 2.3 1.3 2.9

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 8

Standard errors for table 8: Percent of publicly funded crime 

labs outsourcing requests for services, by type of service, 2014

Type of request Percent

Controlled substances 1.6%

Digital evidence 2.0

Firearms/toolmarks 1.5

Forensic biology casework 1.8

Forensic biology from convicted offender/arrestee samples 2.4

Impressions 1.7

Latent prints 1.1

Questioned documents 2.5

Toxicology 2.0

Trace evidence 2.0

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

Laboratories, 2014.
PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES: RESOURCES AND SERVICES, 2014 | NOVEMBER 2016 11

Appendix Table 9

Standard errors for table 9: Annual operating budget for 

publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction and 

number of full-time employees, 2014

Annual operating budget

All labs $27,666,159

Type of jurisdiction

Federal 23,728,956

State 8,072,029

County 4,123,355

Municipal 10,963,271

Number of full-time employees

100 or more 16,019,940

50–99 23,976,084

25–49 11,263,190

10–24 6,679,329

9 or fewer 1,816,089

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

Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 10

Standard errors for table 10: Number of employees in publicly 

funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 

2009, and 2014

Type of jurisdiction 2002 2005 2009 2014

All labs 102 387 105 123

Federal 68 376 97 59

State 58 40 39 66

County 48 54 7 17

Municipal 7 61 7 84

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

Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 11

Standard errors for table 11: Positions of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

Type of position Total Federal State County Municipal

Analyst/examiner 0.4% 3.0% 0.4% 0.9% 1.0%

Entry level 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9

Intermediate/senior level 0.6 2.8 0.6 1.0 0.8

Technical support 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

Manager 0.3% 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5%

Clerical support 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 1.0%

Crime scene technician 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 1.3%

Other 0.3% 2.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3%

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

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ 250151

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 Matthew R. Durose and Andrea M. Burch 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. Tina Dorsey and 

Barbara Quinn produced the report.

November 2016, NCJ 250151