U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Special RepoRt

Making Sense of DNA Backlogs — Myths vs. Reality 

June 2010 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Laurie O. Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

Kristina Rose 

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice 

This and other publications and products of the National Institute 

of Justice can be found at: 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
 

 

June 2010 

Making Sense of DNA Backlogs — 

Myths vs. Reality 

by Mark Nelson 

NCJ 230183 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kristina Rose 

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community 

Capacity Development Office; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

About This Report 

Federal funding made available by the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) through 

the DNA Initiative helped state and 

local governments significantly increase 

the capacity of their DNA laboratories 

between 2005 and 2008. At the same 

time, the demand for DNA testing continues to outstrip the capacity of crime laboratories to process these cases. 

The bottom line: crime laboratories are 

processing more cases than ever before, 

but their expanded capacity has not been 

able to meet the increased demand. 

Definitions of backlogs 

There is no industrywide agreement about 

what constitutes a backlog; NIJ defines a 

backlogged case as one that has not been 

tested 30 days after submission to the 

crime laboratory. Many crime laboratories, 

however, consider a case backlogged 

if the final report has not been provided 

to the agency that submitted the case. 

Which definition one uses naturally affects 

the count of cases backlogged. 

In addition to the definition of a backlog, 

identifying the type of backlog is also 

important. This report reviews the two 

types of DNA backlogs found in crime 

laboratories: those of forensic evidence 

(also called backlog of DNA cases) and the 

backlog of DNA samples taken from convicted offenders and/or arrestees pursuant 

to state statutes. This report also reviews 

untested forensic DNA evidence in storage in law enforcement agencies. 

Nailing down exact numbers of backlogged cases is complicated by the 

dynamic nature of the business. Backlogs 

are not static. In many laboratories, new 

DNA submissions come in at a rate faster 

than case reports go out. This means that 

the backlog of cases pending analysis will 

increase. This does not mean that older 

cases will not be tested. Laboratories generally require more serious cases to be 

worked first, and the oldest cases in a backlog to be addressed before newer ones. 

Why demand is increasing 

The demand for DNA testing is rising primarily because of increased awareness 

of the potential for DNA evidence to help 

solve cases. The demand is coming from 

two primary sources: (1) the increased 

amount of DNA evidence that is collected 

in criminal cases and (2) the expanded 

effort to collect DNA samples from convicted felons and arrested persons. 

All states and the federal government 

have laws that require collecting DNA 

from convicted offenders. The federal government also requires collecting DNA from 

arrestees, and there is a growing trend 

among states to pass legislation to collect 

DNA samples from arrestees. 

Using federal funds to 

reduce backlogs 

Federal funds have been used to purchase 

automated workstations and high-throughput instruments, hire new personnel 

and validate more efficient procedures. 

Without this funding, the backlog picture 

would be much worse. 

NIJ has several programs to help laboratories address their workload. Some programs address overall DNA backlog 

reduction; others are specifically for testing samples from convicted offenders 

and arrestees. Some funds are used by 

laboratories for in-house processing of 

iii 
iv 

Special RepoRt / June 2010 

cases. Other funds are used by laboratories to outsource the work. NIJ also 

funds basic research and development 

to enhance testing processes. 

Until laboratories can meet the rising 

demand for DNA services and until their 

capacity to process samples is greater 

than the demand, backlogs will continue 

to exist and increase in proportion to the 

demand for services. 
 

 

Making Sense of DNA Backlogs — 


DNA backlog 

reduction issues 

are a function 

of supply and 

demand. 

Myths vs. Reality 

by Mark Nelson 

We have all seen the headlines: thousands of rape kits in law enforcement 

agencies are untested; crime laboratories 

that have substantial backlogs of DNA 

cases waiting to be analyzed. 

Delays in submitting evidence to a forensic laboratory as well as delays in analyzing the evidence result in delays in justice. 

In worst-case situations, delays can result 

in additional victimization by serial offenders or in the incarceration of individuals 

who have not committed the crime they 

are accused of or charged with. 

Policymakers ask why DNA backlogs persist even after the federal government has 

provided hundreds of millions of dollars to 

eliminate the backlog. This is a fair question; to answer it requires understanding 

both what a backlog is and how backlogs 

can be reduced. This report addresses that 

question and the answers to it. 

What is — and is not — 

a backlogged case? 

There is no industrywide definition of a 

backlog. Some laboratories consider a 

case backlogged if the DNA has not been 

analyzed in 90 days. Others consider a 

case backlogged when the DNA has not 

been analyzed and the final report has not 

been sent to the agency that originally 

submitted the DNA. The National Institute 

of Justice (NIJ) defines a backlogged case 

as one that has not been tested 30 days 

after it was submitted to the laboratory. 

Crime laboratories have two kinds of DNA 

backlogs, and each has its own particular 

issues: 

1. Casework backlogs. This type of backlog consists of forensic evidence collected 

from crime scenes, victims and suspects 

in criminal cases and submitted to a laboratory. Processing this type of evidence 

is time-consuming because the evidence 

must be screened to determine if, and 

what kind of, biological materials are present before DNA testing can even begin. 

Some of these samples can be degraded 

or fragmented and can contain DNA from 

multiple suspects and victims. 

2. Convicted offender and arrestee sample backlogs. By 2009, the federal government and all 50 states had passed bills 

requiring collection of DNA from offenders 

convicted of certain crimes. In addition, 

the federal government and many states 

had also passed legislation to allow collection from people who are arrested for 

certain crimes. 

The processing of convicted offender and 

arrestee samples involves the DNA testing 

of the samples and the subsequent review 

and upload of the resulting DNA profiles 

into the national DNA database, called 

CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System), 

which is operated by the FBI. (See sidebar 

“What Is CODIS?”) 

Delays in processing convicted offender 

and arrestee samples may occur at several 

stages along the way: the analysis, the 

review or the uploading into CODIS. 

1 
Special RepoRt / June 2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ has provided funds 

to assist in the testing 

of more than 1.6 million 

convicted offender and 

arrestee samples since 

2005 and more than 

56,000 data reviews. 

More than 15,000 hits 

in CODIS have resulted. 

What Is CODIs? 

The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System 

(CODIS) is a software platform that blends 

forensic science and computer technology. 

CODIS has multiple levels at which DNA profiles can be stored and searched: the local 

level (for city and county DNA laboratories), 

the state level and the national level. Data 

stored at the national level are found in the 

National DNA Index System (NDIS). It is at 

this level that a DNA profile from a crime 

scene sample (also known as a forensic 

unknown) can be searched against offender 

profiles across the nation to solve cases 

between states. 

DNA analysts use CODIS to search DNA 

profiles obtained from crime scene evidence against DNA profiles from other 

crime scenes and from convicted offenders 

and arrestees. CODIS generates leads for 

investigators when a match is obtained. For 

example, if the DNA profile from a crime 

scene matches a sample taken from another 

crime scene, the cases may be linked 

in what is called a forensic “hit.” If the 

crime scene sample matches a convicted 

offender or arrestee sample, an offender hit 

is obtained. Hits give investigating officers 

valuable information that helps them focus 

their investigation appropriately. 

At the end of 2004, CODIS contained just over 

2 million offender profiles. As of June 30, 

2009, the FBI reported that more than 7 million offender profiles and 272,000 forensic 

profiles from crime scene samples had been 

uploaded to CODIS. The result has been 

more than 93,000 hits and more than 91,000 

investigations aided nationwide. 

Learn more about CODIS at the FBI’s Web 

site at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/ 

codisbrochure_text.htm. 

Because DNA samples taken from convicted offenders and arrestees are always 

collected on a standard, consistent 

medium (usually a paper product), they are 

significantly easier and faster to analyze 

than casework samples. The standardized 

collection methods used in each state for 

convicted offender and arrestee samples 

makes it possible to use automated analysis on robotic platforms that can process 

approximately 96 samples and controls 

simultaneously. In addition, the laboratory 

does not need to “find” the DNA, unlike 

the forensic casework samples. 

Evidence collected from crime scenes 

and stored in law enforcement evidence 

rooms waiting to be sent to a laboratory 

for analysis is not defined as a crime laboratory backlog. Some of the headlines 

about backlogs refer to rape kits being 

stored in law enforcement evidence 

rooms. NIJ considers untested evidence 

awaiting submission to laboratories to be 

a separate and different problem from 

backlogs in crime laboratories. Federal 

programs to reduce backlogs in crime 

laboratories are not designed to address 

untested evidence stored in law enforcement agencies. Untested evidence in law 

enforcement custody becomes part of a 

crime laboratory backlog only when law 

enforcement agencies submit the evidence to a crime laboratory. (See page 5, 

“Untested Evidence in Law Enforcement 

Custody” for further discussion.) 

Why do backlogs continue to 

be a problem? 

Consider exhibit 1, “DNA Casework Trends: 

Supply, Demand, Backlogs” and the story 

it tells about DNA backlogs in the nation’s 

publicly funded crime laboratories. 

Each of the three graphs depicts DNA 

backlogs at a particular moment in time. 

Although the studies do not share a single 

2 
Making SenSe of Dna BacklogS MythS vS. Reality 

Total to be Processed

Completed

Yearend Backlog 

Total to be Processed

Completed

Yearend Backlog 

Total to be Processed

Completed

Yearend Backlog 

— 

Exhibit 1. DNA casework trends: Supply, demand, backlogs 

the 2005 graph is based on information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics report “census of publicly funded forensic crime 

laboratories.” in that report, 124 of 187 laboratories that self-identified as handling forensic Dna contributed data. the 2007 graph is 

based on data reported by 153 of 154 laboratories in the study “2007 Dna evidence and offender analysis Measurement: Dna Backlogs, 

capacity and funding.” Data for 2008, reported by applicants for niJ’s 2009 Dna Backlog Reduction program, come from 109 applicants 

representing 160 Dna laboratories. (State laboratory systems with multiple Dna laboratories or consortium applications representing 

more than one laboratory were asked to provide data for all laboratories included in the application.) 

yearend backlog numbers were computed from the information reported by laboratories: the number of cases they had at the beginning 

of the year plus the number of new requests they received during that year minus the number of those requests that were completed 

that year. 

2005 2007 2008 

250,000 250,000 250,000 

200,000 200,000 200,000 

150,000 150,000 150,000 

100,000 100,000 100,000

50,000 50,000 50,000

0 0 0 

Backlog from previous year New cases 

Sources: 

2005 – Durose, Matthew R., census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005, Washington, Dc: uS Department of Justice, 

July 2008, ncJ 222181, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/content/pub/pdf/cpffc105pdf. 

2007 – national forensic Science technology center, “2007 Dna evidence and offender analysis Measurement: Dna Backlogs, 

capacity and funding,” final report to niJ from grant 2006-Mu-BX-k002, January 2010, ncJ 230328, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ 

grants/230328.pdf. 

2008 – 2009 grant applications to Dna Backlog Reduction program, national institute of Justice. 

3 
Special RepoRt / June 2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the cases that 

were in backlog in 

2004 when Congress 

passed the DNA 

Initiative were worked 

years ago. Today’s 

backlog consists 

of recent cases. 

methodology (survey response rates differ, for instance), each portrays the same 

pattern: as new cases received by DNA 

laboratories continue to outpace the ability 

of laboratories to complete these cases, 

backlogs persist. Taken together, these 

data depict increasing laboratory capacity 

but also growing backlogs. 

Today’s crime laboratory backlog consists 

of recent cases, not older cases; the backlogged cases from 2004 — when Congress 

passed the legislation that created the DNA 

Initiative — have been analyzed. 

The bottom line: Crime laboratories have 

significantly increased their capacity to 

work cases, but they are not able to eliminate their backlogs because the demand 

outstrips the increased capacity. 

Why is demand increasing? 

Demand for DNA testing is rapidly increasing for many reasons: 

Increasing Awareness—Knowledge of 

the potential of DNA evidence to solve 

cases has grown exponentially in recent 

years, not just among professionals in the 

criminal justice system but also among the 

general public. 

Property Crimes—The number of samples from property crime cases being 

sent for DNA testing is skyrocketing, and 

property crimes are considerably more 

common than violent crimes. (Most laboratories require violent crime cases to be 

worked before property crime cases.) 

Scientific Advances—Thanks to scientific advances, we can test smaller DNA 

samples than ever before, such as “touch 

DNA” samples, which occur when DNA is 

transferred by the simple touching of an 

object. This has led to more requests for 

DNA testing of guns (to find out who may 

have handled the weapon) and the swabbing of steering wheels from stolen cars to 

try to identify the last driver of the car. 

Cold Cases—Many older and unsolved 

cases from the “pre-DNA” era are being 

reopened and subjected to DNA testing 

with the hope of solving them. 

Post-Conviction Testing—Numerous 

older, pre-DNA cases that resulted in a 

conviction have been reopened so DNA 

testing can be done. 

Crime laboratory backlogs are not static: 

The numbers are in constant flux as (1) laboratories increase their capacity by improving processes, getting additional or newer 

and faster equipment and hiring new staff, 

(2) more jurisdictions pass legislation to 

collect DNA from arrestees and (3) laboratories receive more and more requests for 

DNA analysis or lose trained DNA analysts. 

Do the data in exhibit 1 mean that the 

problem of casework backlogs is getting 

worse instead of better? The answer is 

“yes” and “no.” Exhibit 1 shows that 

casework backlogs are increasing, but only 

in proportion to the increased demand 

for service. Crime laboratories have significantly increased their capacity to work 

DNA cases, but they have not been able 

to reduce backlogs because the increase 

in demand is outpacing the increases in 

capacity. 

The good news is that thousands more 

cases were solved in 2008 than in 2005 as 

laboratories processed more DNA cases 

and the resulting profiles were uploaded 

into CODIS. 

4 
Making SenSe of Dna BacklogS MythS vS. Reality —

Untested evidence in law 

enforcement custody 

The issue of untested evidence in law 

enforcement agencies was first measured 

in an NIJ-funded study published in 2009. 

A nationwide sample of more than 2,000 

agencies found that in 2007, 14 percent 

of unsolved homicide cases (an estimated 

3,975 cases) and 18 percent of unsolved 

rape cases (an estimated 27,595 cases) 

contained forensic evidence that was not 

submitted by law enforcement agencies 

to a crime laboratory for analysis.1 

Serological/biological evidence and DNA 

were the most common forms of forensic 

evidence associated with these cases. 

Results also indicated that 23 percent of 

all unsolved property crimes (an estimated 

5,126,719 cases) contained unanalyzed 

forensic evidence. 

There are many reasons why a law 

enforcement agency might not submit 

forensic evidence to a crime laboratory 

for analysis. For example, subsequent 

investigation may show that the evidence 

is not probative, charges might have 

been dropped in the case, the case might 

be unfounded or a guilty plea may have 

already been taken.2 

More research is needed to completely 

understand how law enforcement agencies decide to submit or not submit evidence to a laboratory, what proportion of 

open cases could benefit from forensic 

testing and how cases should be prioritized for testing. 

There are several implications to the findings from the study of law enforcement 

forensic evidence not submitted to a 

laboratory: 

■	 Law enforcement personnel may benefit 

from improved training on the benefits 

and use of forensic analysis. 

■	 Many law enforcement agencies lack 

information management systems to 

track forensic evidence. 

■	 There is a need for more standardized 

policies for evidence retention. 

Submitting untested evidence in law 

enforcement custody for analysis could 

have a serious impact on DNA backlogs 

in crime laboratories if the evidence were 

suddenly submitted to a crime laboratory 

all at once. It would cause huge spikes in 

the workload and immediately drive up 

backlogs. 

A better approach would be for investigating officers to carefully review the 

untested evidence and the case files to 

determine if forensic analysis is needed 

and if the laboratory would need additional 

elimination samples to identify suspects. 

Evidence may not need to be submitted, 

for example, in cases that have been adjudicated (either by trial or plea bargain) and 

in those cases where the victim has withdrawn the criminal complaint or the prosecutor has refused to file charges. 

Open, active cases where the analysis of 

the evidence may provide important investigative leads to solve the case should be 

given the highest priority for submission 

to a crime laboratory. Evidence should be 

submitted gradually over time rather than 

all at once. 

What is NIJ doing to deal 

with DNA backlogs? 

Congress has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce DNA backlogs 

in crime laboratories and grow the FBI’s 

Myth — Backlogs 

are a onetime event. 

As long as one chips 

away at the backlog 

of untested cases, 

it will eventually 

go away. 

Reality — Backlogs 

are not a onetime 

event. They are 

dynamic and subject 

to the law of supply 

and demand. They 

may go down, but 

they may go up. 

5 
Special RepoRt / June 2010 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 2. Funding for DNA Backlog Reduction Exhibit 3. Number of cases tested with federal funds 

Program 

Year Funding Provided Year Number of Cases Funded 

Myth — If we test 

every single 

backlogged case 

in one huge effort, 

then we will 

solve the backlog 

problem and will 

never have to deal 

with it again. 

Reality — DNA 

backlogs will exist 

until the supply 

(capacity of the 

nation’s crime 

laboratories 

to test cases) 

surpasses demand 

(new service 

requests). 

2004 $ 66,567,851.00 

2005 $ 48,440,841.00 

2006 $ 55,412,877.00 

2007 $ 44,239,199.00 

2008 $ 53,245,922.00 

2009 $ 62,271,832.00 

Total $330,178,522.00 

national DNA database, called CODIS. 

(See sidebar “What Is CODIS?”) NIJ 

distributes the money through several 

programs that address different aspects 

of the backlog issues. These programs are 

making a big difference. 

1. DNA Backlog Reduction Program. 

This is NIJ’s largest funding program. It 

provides direct grants to accredited public 

sector DNA laboratories. The program’s 

short-term goal is to reduce the backlog of 

untested cases by providing crime laboratories with funds to work more cases. The 

crime laboratories can either outsource 

backlogged cases to private laboratories or 

test more cases in-house. 

The long-term goal is to build the capacity 

of crime laboratories by providing funds 

to purchase high-throughput instruments 

capable of processing multiple samples 

at the same time, automated robotic 

systems and laboratory information management systems to manage the data 

generated more efficiently. Funds can also 

be used to validate newer, more efficient 

laboratory procedures and hire additional 

personnel. 

NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program 

has helped crime laboratories nationwide 

to reduce backlogs by 135,753 cases. It 

2004 29,414 

2005 19,369 

2006 16,057 

2007 9,278 

2008 30,350 

2009 31,285 

Total 135,753 

has also helped state and local DNA laboratories significantly increase their capacity 

to work cases between 2005 and 2008. 

(See exhibits 2 and 3.) 

Without federal funds, there is no doubt 

many laboratories would not have been 

able to increase beyond the capacity they 

had in 2005.3 

In a 2007 survey of publicly funded crime 

laboratories, 90 percent reported that they 

would not have sufficient funding if NIJ 

grants were no longer available.4 They estimated that on average about 26 percent 

of their casework budget comes from NIJ. 

With respect to particular aspects of DNA 

analysis, the laboratories estimated that 

federal funding covered 10 percent of the 

budget for reagents, 85 percent for instrumentation and 20 percent for training. 

Federal funds have been used to purchase automated DNA extraction robots, 

high-throughput genetic analyzers, expert 

systems to assist in the analysis of DNA 

profile data, and laboratory information 

management systems to collect, process 

and assimilate case data. Funds have also 

been used to hire and train personnel and 

renovate laboratory space to increase 

efficiency. 

6 
Making SenSe of Dna BacklogS MythS vS. Reality 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

The degree of reliance on federal funding 

reported by many laboratories suggests 

a critical need for state and local governments to seriously evaluate investment 

in their own forensic crime laboratories. 

Without a commitment to find permanent 

funding solutions for crime laboratories, it 

is likely that laboratory dependence on federal grants will continue. 

2. Convicted Offender and Arrestee 

Backlog Reduction Programs. The software available in CODIS allows DNA analysts to automatically check unsolved case 

DNA profiles against profiles of convicted 

offenders and arrestees stored in CODIS. 

When a match is made, investigators get 

a lead as to the potential perpetrator of an 

unsolved crime. 

Delays and backlogs in testing convicted 

offender and arrestee samples and uploading their DNA profiles into CODIS limit 

the potential to identify suspects and may 

result in additional victimization by repeat 

offenders. Delays in uploading DNA profiles from both casework and convicted 

“The Kentucky State Police Forensic 

Laboratory is indebted to the National 

Institute of Justice and its continued support 

for the DNA operations of the Kentucky State 

Police Forensic Laboratory. Without this 

valuable funding, backlogs would be on the 

rise instead of steadily falling and the laboratory would have no choice but to severely 

restrict the number and/or types of cases 

accepted for DNA analysis. Beyond meeting 

the needs of today, the consistent support is 

allowing us to build for the future.“ 

— Laura Sudkamp 

Laboratory Manager 

Kentucky State Police Forensic Laboratories 

offender and arrestee samples give law 

enforcement fewer opportunities to get 

a match, identify and arrest a culprit, and 

prevent a future crime. 

Exhibit 4 shows the status of backlogs in 

convicted offender and arrestee samples 

between 2007 and 2008. 

Exhibit 4. DNA database sample backlogs trends from 2007-2008 

2007 Convicted 

Offenders 

2008 Convicted 

Offenders 2008 Arrestees 

2008 Totals 

(Convicted Offenders 

+ Arrestees) 

Beginning backlog 

January 1 841,847 426,620 28,544 455,164 

new receipts 1,021,930 1,267,504 80,609 1,348,113 

completed samples 1,206,612 952,039 57,386 1,009,425 

average turnaround 

time not available 153 days 42 days not available 

Sources: 2007 data from “2007 Dna evidence and offender analysis Measurement, Dna Backlogs, capacity and funding,” 

January 2010, nfStc; 2008 data provided to niJ by applicants to the fy 2009 Dna Backlog Reduction program. 

7 
Special RepoRt / June 2010 

Exhibit 4 also shows that between 2007 

and 2008 the submission of new DNA 

samples from convicted offenders and 

arrestees increased. At the same time, 

the number of samples processed and 

completed decreased. This decrease may 

result in a rise in the number of backlogged samples at year’s end. At least 

another year’s worth of data is required 

before any trends can be established 

regarding backlogs of convicted offender 

and arrestee samples. Even with another 

year of data, however, trends may be hard 

to establish because state legislatures 

continue to pass laws expanding the collection of DNA and uploading of the profiles into CODIS. 

The lower turnaround time for arrestee 

samples is directly proportional to the fact 

that there were fewer samples being collected from arrestees during 2008 than 

from convicted offenders. Some of the 

difference may also be due to requirements mandated by some states to process arrestee samples more quickly than 

offender samples. 

NIJ offers two programs to help laboratories reduce the backlog of convicted 

offender and arrestee samples: 

1. Convicted Offender/Arrestee DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program. Funds from 

this program are delivered in the form of 

grants to state agencies responsible for 

database sample analysis. Between 2005 

and 2009, NIJ made more than $32 million available to the nation’s DNA database 

laboratories to reduce the backlog of convicted offender and arrestee samples. See 

exhibit 5. 

Exhibit 5. Funding for in-house convicted offender/ 

arrestee backlog reduction 

Year Funding Provided 

2005 $4,746,710 

2006 $6,669,608 

2007 $5,486,756 

2008 $6,022,421 

2009 $9,178,072 

Total $32,103,567 

Exhibit 6. Funding for outsourcing of convicted 

offender/arrestee backlog reduction 

Year Funding Provided 

2005 $2,562,105 

2006 $9,741,077 

2007 $7,947,984 

2008 $790,208 

2009 $665,104 

Total $21,706,478 

2. Convicted Offender/Arrestee Backlog 

Reduction Outsourcing Program. Funds 

from NIJ’s Convicted Offender/Arrestee 

Backlog Reduction Outsourcing Program 

are delivered via federal contracts to pay 

vendors directly for samples residing in a 

state’s backlog. Exhibit 6 shows funding 

levels by year. 

Since 2005, the two programs together 

have provided funds to help test more 

than 1.6 million convicted offender and 

arrestee samples and have made possible 

more than 56,000 reviews of profiles generated from this analysis. The result has 

been more than 15,000 CODIS hits. 

8 
Making SenSe of Dna BacklogS MythS vS. Reality 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— 

an OvervIeW Of Dna aCtIvItIes at nIJ 

Solving Cold Cases With DNA 

NIJ has a program supporting the resolution of 

older cold cases using DNA technologies. For 

more information on this program, visit http:// 

www.dna.gov/solving-crimes/cold-cases. 

Missing Persons 

NIJ has funded the collection and analysis of 

DNA from cases involving missing persons and 

unidentified remains, and supports laboratories 

that perform this type of work. For more information on this program, visit http://www.dna.gov 

and click on the link for Identifying Persons and 

Victims. 

In 2007, NIJ launched the National Missing and 

Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). NamUs 

is the first national online repository designed 

to help medical examiners and coroners share 

information about missing persons and the 

unidentified dead. For more information on this 

program, or to report a missing person, visit 

http://www.namus.gov. 

Post-Conviction Testing 

Since the advent of forensic DNA analysis, a 

number of people convicted of crimes have been 

subsequently exonerated through DNA analysis 

of crime scene evidence that was not tested at 

the time of trial. To learn more about NIJ’s efforts 

to support post-conviction testing, visit http:// 

www.dna.gov/funding/postconviction. 

Training 

NIJ has supported the development of training 

for law enforcement officers, officers of the 

court and forensic DNA analysts. To review the 

portfolio of training opportunities, visit http:// 

www.dna.gov/training. 

Improving DNA Unit Efficiency 

NIJ has supported the development of novel 

and innovative technologies towards improving 

the efficiency of DNA unit operations. To learn 

more about this program, visit http://www.dna. 

gov/funding/laboratory-efficiency. 

Research and Development 

NIJ uses novel ways to harness the tremendous 

growth in fields such as molecular biology, 

genetics and biotechnology, and direct it toward 

the development of highly discriminating, reliable, cost-effective and rapid forensic DNA 

testing methods. As a result, NIJ has developed 

technologies that have: 

■ Increased the success rate of the analysis of 

samples (such as skeletal remains) that are 

degraded, damaged, limited in quantity or otherwise compromised. 

■ Improved the examination of sexual assault 

evidence. 

■ Miniaturized the DNA testing process and 

made it field portable. 

For more information on NIJ’s DNA Research 

and Development Portfolio, visit http://www.dna. 

gov/research. 

9 
10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special RepoRt / June 2010 

3. Cantillon, Dan, Kathy Kopiec, and Heather Clawson, Notes Evaluation of the Impact of the Forensic Casework 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program, Fairfax, VA: ICF 1. Strom, Kevin J., Jeri Ropero-Miller, Shelton Jones, International, February 2009, NCJ 225803, http:// Nathan Sikes, Mark Pope, and Nicole Horstmann, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225803.pdf. The 2007 Survey of Law Enforcement Forensic 

Evidence Processing, Research Triangle Park, NC: 4. National Forensic Science Technology Center, RTI International, October 2009, NCJ 228415, http:// “2007 DNA Evidence and Offender Analysis www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228415.pdf. Measurement: DNA Backlogs, Capacity and 

Funding,” January 2009, final report submitted to 2. Read more about evidence in law enforcement NIJ, grant no. 2006-MU-BX-K002, NCJ 230328, agencies on NIJ’s Web topic page at http:// http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/nij/grants/230328.pdf. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/ 

handling-evidence/unanalyzed-evidence.htm. 

Learn MOre 

■ About benchmarking in forensic science laboratories: 

Houck, Max M., Richard A. Riley, Paul J. Speaker, and Tom S. Witt, “FORESIGHT: A Business 

Approach to Improving Forensic Science Services,” in Forensic Science Policy and Management: 

An International Journal 1 (2) (May 2009): 85–95. 

■ About the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS): 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/clickmap.htm. 

■ About untested evidence in law enforcement agencies: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/law-enforcement/handling-evidence/unanalyzed-evidence.htm. 

■ About using DNA in property crimes: 

—Ritter, Nancy, “DNA Solves Property Crimes (But Are We Ready for That?),” NIJ Journal 261 

(October 2008): 2–12, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/261/dna-solves-property-crimes.htm. 

—Web topic page: http://www.dna.gov/solving-crimes/property-crimes. 


 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About the National Institute of Justice 

A component of the Office of Justice Programs, NIJ is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Institute’s mission is to advance scientific 

research, development and evaluation to enhance the administration of justice and public safety. NIJ’s principal authorities are derived from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968, as amended (see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3721–3723). 

The NIJ Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the 

U.S. Department of Justice, and the needs of the field. The Institute actively solicits the views of 

criminal justice and other professionals and researchers to inform its search for the knowledge 

and tools to guide policy and practice. 

Strategic Goals 

NIJ has seven strategic goals grouped into three categories: 

Creating relevant knowledge and tools 

1. Partner with state and local practitioners and policymakers to identify social science research 

and technology needs. 

2. Create scientific, relevant, and reliable knowledge—with a particular emphasis on terrorism, 

violent crime, drugs and crime, cost-effectiveness, and community-based efforts—to enhance 

the administration of justice and public safety. 

3. Develop affordable and effective tools and technologies to enhance the administration of 

justice and public safety. 

Dissemination 

4. Disseminate relevant knowledge and information to practitioners and policymakers in an 

understandable, timely and concise manner. 

5. Act as an honest broker to identify the information, tools and technologies that respond to 

the needs of stakeholders. 

Agency management 

6. Practice fairness and openness in the research and development process. 

7. Ensure professionalism, excellence, accountability, cost-effectiveness and integrity in the management and conduct of NIJ activities and programs. 

Program Areas 

In addressing these strategic challenges, the Institute is involved in the following program 

areas: crime control and prevention, including policing; drugs and crime; justice systems and 

offender behavior, including corrections; violence and victimization; communications and information technologies; critical incident response; investigative and forensic sciences, including 

DNA; less-lethal technologies; officer protection; education and training technologies; testing 

and standards; technology assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies; field testing 

of promising programs; and international crime control. 

In addition to sponsoring research and development and technology assistance, NIJ evaluates 

programs, policies, and technologies. NIJ communicates its research and evaluation findings 

through conferences and print and electronic media. 

To find out more about the National 

Institute of Justice, please visit: 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

or contact: 

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.gov
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

June 2010 

NCJ 230183 

PreSOrTeD STANDArD 

POSTAge & feeS PAID 

DOJ/NIJ 

PermIT NO. g –91 *NCJ~230183*