By Greg W. Steadman

BJS Statistician

In calendar year 2000 publicly

operated forensic crime laboratories

that perform DNA analyses reported

analyzing almost 25,000 cases which

involved DNA evidence and over

148,000 DNA samples collected from

persons convicted of a crime. These

are increases over the approximately

14,000 cases and 45,000 convicted

offender samples reported analyzed in

1997. 

As of January 2001, 81% of DNA

crime laboratories reported DNA analyses backlogs totaling 16,081 subject

cases and 265,329 convicted offender

samples. To complete DNA case and

convicted offender sample analyses,

45% of the crime laboratories surveyed

contracted private laboratories. Those

private laboratories had a reported

backlog of 918 subject cases and

100,706 convicted offender samples.

These findings come from the Bureau

of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2001

National Study of DNA Laboratories,

the second national survey of publicly

operated forensic crime laboratories

that perform DNA testing. Information

from the initial survey was reported 

in 2000.1

 This follow-up to the initial

survey obtained data from 110 of 

the approximately 120 known public

forensic DNA laboratories.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

• In 2000 DNA crime laboratories

received about 31,000 subject cases,

an increase from almost 21,000 

cases in 1999. Cases with identified

suspects accounted for almost threequarters of the total in both 

1999 and 2000.

• The DNA crime laboratories

analyzed almost 16,000 subject

cases in 1999 and 25,000 cases 

in 2000. About 80% of the cases

analyzed in both 1999 and 2000 were

known subject cases.

• At the beginning of 2001, 81% of

DNA crime laboratories had backlogs

totaling 16,081 subject cases and

265,329 convicted offender samples.

• The number of full-time staff in DNA

laboratories ranged from 1 to 60 with

a median staff of 6. A majority of 

full-time employees (88%) were on

the technical staff.

• All DNA laboratories received DNA

case samples from local police and

sheriffs' offices. About half received

samples from State police (56%) and

medical examiners (48%).

• Forty-five percent of laboratories

reported contracting a private laboratory to do forensic DNA testing in

2000. They contracted 944 subject

cases and 204,359 convicted offender

samples.

• A third of the DNA laboratories 

that contracted with private facilities,

reported private lab backlogs at the

start of 2001 totaling 918 subject

cases and 100,706 convicted offender

samples.

Highlights

Number of cases received and analyzed 

by publicly operated DNA crime laboratories

1999 2000 1999 2000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Number of cases

Received

Analyzed

Subject cases Convicted offender

samples

Survey of DNA

Crime Laboratories, 2001

 January 2002, NCJ 191191

1

Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998,

February 2000, NCJ 179104. <http://www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sdnacl98.htm>
As part of their DNA Laboratory

Improvement Program, the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the

initial 1998 survey to help identify

workload and technology issues.2 

Between 1997 and 2000 the workload

for the Nation's DNA crime laboratories

increased substantially. During this

period DNA labs recorded a more than

50% increase in subject cases and

convicted offender samples received

(table 1). In that same time the total

number of full-time employees working

at DNA crime laboratories increased by

a third, the number of subject cases

analyzed increased by 73%, and the

number of convicted offender samples

analyzed more than tripled. 

The increases in work received and

analyzed between 1997 and 2000

resulted in casework backlogs reported

by DNA crime laboratories increasing

by 135% while reported convicted

offender backlogs decreased by 7%.

Forensic Laboratory Survey

While the technology available for

analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

for criminal justice purposes has been

progressing rapidly, the U.S. Department of Justice has undertaken several

initiatives to assist forensic laboratories

in improving their DNA analysis

capabilities. This survey was

conducted to collect current information about publicly funded forensic

crime laboratories performing DNA

testing across the Nation. That information can be compared to the

baseline information collected in 1999.

The survey was sent to 135 forensic

laboratories, and 124 responses were

received from individual public laboratories and headquarters for statewide

forensic crime laboratory systems. The

responses included 110 publicly funded

forensic laboratories that perform DNA

testing in 47 States. (See a description

of the agencies on page 7.)

About half of the forensic laboratories

(49%) were part of a Statewide laboratory system. For most of these forensic crime laboratories, DNA analysis

was just one of several forensic analyses the labs performed. About 

90% of DNA crime laboratories 

were also responsible for controlledsubstance analysis and firearms/

toolmark/footwear/tireprint analysis

(table 2). Sixty-five percent of DNA

crime laboratories also performed

crime scene investigation, blood

alcohol testing, fire debris analyses,

and trace analyses.

An aspect of the laboratories’ ability to

perform accurate, consistent analyses

and to have those analyses used and

defended in court is the adherence to

accepted procedures and guidelines.

One indication that a laboratory

successfully follows the forensic

community's standards is accreditation

by a recognized forensic organization.

2 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 

Note: Workloads and backlogs do not include all DNA crime laboratories because of 

non-responses of some laboratories.

*Casework includes known and unknown subject cases.

Full-time employees 672 893 33

 Convicted offender 286,819 265,329 -7

 Casework* 6,800 15,981 135

Backlog of work

 Convicted offender 44,810 148,347 231

 Casework* 14,289 24,790 73

Work analyzed

 Convicted offender 115,681 177,184 53

 Casework* 20,793 31,394 51%

Work received

Case status and type of work 1997 2000 Percent change

Table 1. Status of workloads in DNA crime laboratories, 

by type of case, 1997-2000

Note: Though some multiple responses were

received only the most advanced level of

accreditation process is reported for each

laboratory.

None 20 18

6 5

Pre-accreditation

 inspection

Applied for accreditation 15 14

Laboratory accredited 69 63%

 Total 110 100%

Number Percent

Labs performing 

DNA analyses

Table 3. Status of DNA crime 

laboratory accreditation, 2001

Note: Details do not add to total because 

of multiple responses.

Other 21 19

Crime scene 75 68

16 15

Computer crime

 investigation

Questioned documents 51 46

Blood alcohol 71 65

Toxicology 52 47

Conventional serology 63 57

Controlled substance 101 92

Explosive residue 54 49

Fire debris 84 76

Latent prints 71 65

Trace analysis 88 80

98 89%

Firearms/toolmark/

 footwear/tireprint

 Total 110 100%

Areas of analysis Number Percent

Crime laboratories

Table 2. Analytical responsibilities 

of crime laboratories which perform

DNA analysis, 2001

2

For more information on NIJ programs related

to forensic science see their website at

<www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/sciencetech/invest.htm>
As of January 1, 2001, 63% of laboratories were accredited by an official

organization, and 19% had applied for

accreditation or had a pre-accreditation

inspection by an accredited laboratory

(table 3). Most of the accredited

laboratories (87%) had been accredited by the American Society of Crime

Lab Directors-Laboratory Accreditation

Board (ASCLD-LAB) (table 4).

Standards for performing DNA testing

involve the selection of markers, the

number of tests required, and what

procedures should be followed. Such

standards have been developed by a

working group of forensic experts

which includes representatives from

the State and Federal crime laboratories, academia, and the FBI.3

Congress required the FBI to establish

the DNA Advisory Board (DAB) to

develop benchmarks for laboratories

doing forensic DNA analysis. The final

DAB report was completed in February

1997 and forwarded to the Director of

the FBI. The FBI has since used the

DAB recommendations to issue

Quality Assurance Guidelines that are

statutorily required. Adherence to

those standards is a benchmark for

court acceptance of the results of DNA

analysis as evidence.

Every laboratory doing DNA analysis

reported following some standard

procedural guidelines. All the laboratories followed either the Quality Assurance Guidelines of the FBI or the

SWGDAM standards or both. FBI

guidelines and SWGDAM standards

do not cover all the same areas of

laboratory operations and procedures;

however, they are similar because the

FBI incorporated many of the

SWGDAM standards into its

guidelines. A small percentage of

laboratories (9%) also followed their

own in-house standards (table 5).

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 3

Note: Details do not add to total due 

to multiple responses.

ASCLD-LAB — American Society of Crime

Lab Directors — Laboratory Accreditation

Board

NFSTC — National Forensic Science

Technology Center

Other 8 12

NFSTC 8 12

ASCLD-LAB 60 87%

 Total 69 100%

Number Percent

Accredited laboratories

Table 4. DNA crime laboratory 

accrediting organizations, 2001

Crime laboratory budgets are sometimes administered by the agency or

department responsible for the operation of the laboratory. In many cases

that is a State or local law enforcement department. Consequently,

some laboratories have only partial

budget or no budget information available. Most forensic DNA laboratories

are part of a larger crime laboratory

responsible for many different types of

evidence analyses. In this study, 62%

of DNA laboratories provided information on the entire forensic laboratory's

annual budget for 1999, and 68% for

the 2000 budget.

The laboratories that did report had a

wide range of budgets. In 1999 the

reported budgets for entire forensic

laboratories ranged from $60,000 to

$13 million, in fiscal year

2000 they ranged from

$45,000 to $15.5 million. 

Depending on the organization of the laboratories, the

costs of DNA analyses may

not be identifiable. About

half (52%) of the laboratories performing DNA analyses reported that they could

identify budget amounts

used for DNA testing.

Of the laboratories that reported

budget amounts for DNA work, the

annual DNA budget ranged from

$15,000 to $1.8 million in fiscal year

1999 and from $5,000 to $1.95 million

in fiscal year 2000.

Laboratory budgets may change

drastically from year to year during a

period of changing technologies and

shifting demands. For example, if

new equipment purchases and/or

capital improvements are included in

a single year of a laboratory's budget,

that year will not be representative of

the ongoing cost of running the

laboratory. This study did not attempt

to identify how much of each laboratory budget could be classified as

one-time expenditures versus recurring expenses. 

Crime laboratory budgets

2000 49 464 5 1,950

1999 44 $410 $15 $1,800

DNA laboratory

2000 77 3,091 45 15,500

1999 71 $2,952 $60 $13,000

Total forensic 

 laboratory

reported Mean Minimum Maximum

Annual laboratory budgets 

(in thousands)

Number of

budgets

Annual laboratory budgets

3

Group developing standards for DNA testing

was called the Technical Working Group on

DNA Analysis and Methodology (TWGDAM)

which is now known as the Scientific Working

Group on DNA Analysis and Methodology

(SWGDAM).

Note: Percentages do not add to 100%

because of multiple responses.

SWGDAM — Scientific Working Group on

DNA Analysis and Methodology

Other 1 1

In-house standards 10 9

SWGDAM 62 56

93 85%

Quality Assurance

 Guidelines of the FBI

 Total 110 100%

Guidelines Number Percent

States and laboratories

Table 5. Standard guidelines DNA

crime laboratories follow, 2001
Staffing

The median number of full-time staff

members working in DNA laboratories

as of January 2001 was 6. The DNA

laboratories full-time staffs ranged from

1 employee to a staff of 60 employees.

The 110 laboratories employed a total

of 893 full-time DNA employees. A

majority of those full-time employees

were on the technical staff (88%) with

most of them having the primary duty

of a DNA examiner/analyst (table 6).

In many instances a single staff

member has responsibility for more

than one position. This survey counted

each employee only once, using

his/her primary duty. Therefore, even

though a laboratory may have had

someone responsible for managing

laboratory administration or managing

the laboratory's Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS), they may not

have classified any person as primarily

an administrative manager or a CODIS

manager.

Workload

Laboratories received DNA samples

for analysis from several different

sources. All DNA laboratories reported

receiving DNA samples from local

police and sheriffs' offices. About half

of the laboratories received samples

from State police (58%) and medical

examiners (50%). Nineteen percent of

laboratories reported "other agencies,"

including Federal agencies, submitting

DNA for analysis (table 7).

A single criminal incident can involve

one or more victims, one or more

suspects, multiple pieces of evidence,

and multiple biological samples for

testing. Therefore, a single incident

can have a few, to potentially hundreds

of possible samples for testing, and

laboratories use different counting

methods to measure workload.

Almost all laboratories (95%) reported

counting workload by case, defined as

a single criminal incident or event,

which may have multiple pieces of

evidence and multiple samples. Nine

percent of laboratories counted

workload by sample and 8% count by

pieces of evidence.

In 2000 DNA laboratories received

about 31,000 known and unknown

subject cases, an increase from almost

25,000 cases in 1999 (table 8). Known

subject cases accounted for about

three-quarters of the total casework in

1999 and 2000 just as they did in the

previous survey of years 1996 and

1997. The DNA laboratories analyzed

almost 16,000 cases in 1999 and

25,000 cases in 2000. About 80% of

the cases analyzed in both 1999 and

2000 were known subject cases.

The median number of known and

unknown subject cases received by 

all laboratories in 2000 was 244: the

median number of cases analyzed was

176. During the previous year, half of

the laboratories received 186 or more

known and unknown subject cases and

analyzed 110 or more cases.

DNA laboratories also received

177,000 convicted offender samples 

in 2000 and analyzed about 148,000.

That was an increase from 100,000

convicted offender samples received

and 61,000 samples analyzed in 1999.

4 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 

*Table includes laboratories with DNA staff doing screenings and test validations, 

but not yet performing DNA analyses. Not all DNA labs reported staff size.

-- More than half the laboratories reported none.

 Lab support 110 42 -- 7

 Technician 110 72 0 8

 Examiner/analyst 110 590 4 43

 Manager/leader 110 78 1 2

Technical staff

 Support staff 110 29 -- 4

 CODIS manager 110 27 -- 1

 Admin. Manager 110 55 -- 5

Administration

 Total 110 893 6 60

staff size* Total Median Maximum

Full-time DNA staff members

Number of 

labs reporting

Table 6. Crime laboratories with full-time DNA staff, 2001

Note: Cells do not add to total because 

of multiple responses. Data are missing for 

4 laboratories.

Other 5 5

Sample 10 9

Evidence 9 8

Case 101 95%

 Total 106 100%

casework Number Percent

Laboratories performing 

DNA analyses, 2001

Unit by which 

laboratories count

Note: Percentages do not add to 100

because of multiple responses.

Missing responses from 3 laboratories.

Other agencies 20 19

Medical examiner 53 50

47 44

State Corrections

 department

Local police/Sheriff 107 100

State police 62 58%

Submitting agency Number Percent

Laboratories receiving

DNA cases/samples

Table 7. Type of agencies submitting

 DNA samples to laboratories 

for analyses, 2001

*Casework totals include laboratories that could not separate known and unknown subject cases.

--Backlogs not reported for 1999.

 Convicted offender 91 177,184 0 148,347 0 265,329 0

 Unknown subject cases 83 7,244 46 4,070 23 5,606 10

 Known subject cases 83 18,125 187 14,999 120 5,068 28

 Casework* 88 31,394 244 24,790 176 15,981 65

2000

 Convicted offender 92 100,242 0 61,036 0 -- --

 Unknown subject cases 77 4,155 23 2,408 10 -- --

 Known subject cases 77 13,809 130 10,987 78 -- --

 Casework* 81 20,707 186 15,884 110 -- --

1999

Year and type of case reporting Total* Median Total* Median Total* Median

Labs Cases received Cases analyzed Backlog of cases

Table 8. Status of case workloads in DNA crime laboratories, 

by type of case, 1999-2000
Forty-five percent of all laboratories

reported contracting a private laboratory to do DNA testing in 2000 (not

shown in a table). The laboratories

reported a total of 798 known and

unknown subject DNA cases and

32,510 convicted offender samples

contracted to private laboratories in

1999. In 2000 they contracted 944

subject cases and 204,359 convicted

offender samples.

The number of cases and convicted

offender samples received and

analyzed varied by the size of the

laboratory. In 2000 the median

number of known and unknown

subject cases received by laboratories

with fewer than 10 full-time staff

members was 196. These smaller

laboratories analyzed a median of 101

cases in 2000. Less than half of small

laboratories reported receiving or

analyzing any convicted offender

samples. In general only State

operated laboratories process

convicted offender samples.

DNA laboratories with 10 or more fulltime staff received a median of 480

known and unknown subject cases 

and half those laboratories analyzed

377 or more cases in 2000. Half of

these larger laboratories also reported 

receiving 2019 or more convicted

offender samples and analyzing 868 

or more samples

Case backlog

Eighty-one percent of DNA laboratories

reported having a backlog of known or

unknown subject cases, or a backlog

of convicted offender samples, as of

January 1, 2001. The survey defined a

case as backlogged if it had complete

sets of samples ready for analysis in

the laboratory for more than 15 days,

and convicted offender samples as

backlogged if the sample was in the

laboratory more than 10 days. 

The laboratories and State headquarters reported backlogs totaling 16,081

known and unknown subject cases

and 265,000 convicted offender

samples. To help alleviate the backlog

of convicted offender samples, as of

September 30, 2000, the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) began awarding grants through the DNA Backlog

Reduction Program 2001 to fund-inhouse and contracted private laboratory analyses of backlogged samples.

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 5

Forensic crime laboratories receive

biological samples for DNA analysis

from a variety of sources for different

types of analyses. For purposes of

this study, the DNA analyses that

crime laboratories perform are

categorized into two general types:

casework and convicted offender

samples.

Casework

Casework refers to cases received by

forensic crime laboratories which

involve a criminal incident under

investigation. Each case may involve

multiple pieces of evidence retrieved

from a crime scene, and each piece

of evidence may have multiple

samples for testing. Casework may

involve many different types of

biological samples (such as blood,

semen, saliva, and hair) which must

be identified, selected for analysis,

and sampled from crime scene

evidence. Casework is generally

more difficult and time consuming

than analysis of convicted offender

samples.

Because each case may also have a

subject or subjects identified as

suspects, casework can be further

divided into "suspect cases" and

"nonsuspect cases." This distinction

can change. For example, if testing

eliminates all suspects, the case can

be recategorized as a "nonsuspect

case." For the purposes of this study,

suspect and nonsuspect cases refer

to whether there were any suspects at

the time the case was originally

received.

Convicted offender samples

Convicted offender samples are DNA

samples collected from persons

convicted of a crime, normally a

violent crime or felony. The samples 

are to be analyzed, and the results

are to be included in a DNA database.

Convicted offender samples are

usually blood or saliva.

The DNA Identification Act of 1994

(42 U.S.C. 14132) authorizes the FBI

to establish DNA indexes for —

• persons convicted of crimes

• samples recovered from crime

scenes, and

• samples recovered from unidentified

human remains.

As of June 1998, legislation in all 50

States and the District of Columbia

requires convicted offenders to

provide samples for DNA databases.

Types of DNA work received by forensic crime laboratories

State court prosecutors' offices

use of DNA evidence

In the 2001 National Survey of

Prosecutors, all the prosecutors'

offices serving large districts

reported using DNA evidence. The

survey collected data from more

than 100 chief prosecutors that

handled felony cases in State courts

of general jurisdiction and served

districts with a population over

500,000. 

Nearly 90% of these large offices

reported having used DNA evidence

during plea negotiations and all

offices reported having used DNA

evidence during felony trials. Threequarters of the offices received DNA

analyses from State-operated forensic laboratories.

The most common problem with the

use of DNA evidence by prosecutors' offices were excessive delay in

getting laboratory results, reported 

by 70% of offices. The next most

common complaint, reported by 43%

of offices, was inconclusive results.

Source: State Court Prosecutors in

Large Districts, 2001, December 2001,

NCJ 191206.
Data processing

Almost three-quarters of the laboratories (72%) waited until an analytical

report was complete before reporting

DNA test results, while nearly a quarter

of labs reported results as soon as all

laboratory testing was completed. A

small number of labs specified that a

technical report must also have been

done before results were released 

(not shown in a table).

When the laboratories reported subject

case results, over half said they

regularly reported to the agency or

office that submitted the case (59%)

and regularly reported to the prosecutor's office (57%). Nearly as many

(45%) also reported test results to an

investigating office. After being

analyzed, convicted offender samples

were most frequently reported to a

CODIS office. Seven laboratories also

reported convicted offender sample

analyses to other offices and agencies

such as a sexual offender registry.

Over three-quarters of laboratories

reported that they maintain a local DNA

database of some type, such as the

Local DNA Indexing System (LDIS),

the community level part of the CODIS

program. Access to the local DNA

databases is limited to personnel only

at each of those laboratories.

Processing policies and procedures 

To help control the flow of cases

through DNA labs, a majority of laboratories had policies for the acceptance

and processing of casework. Nearly all

the laboratories, 97%, reported a policy

for acceptance of DNA case submissions. While 79% of the laboratories

said they accept any criminal cases,

14% of the laboratories had some

restrictions on the known subject cases

or unknown subject cases they accept.

To further control DNA case processing, 91% of laboratories reported

having a system for prioritizing how

cases are assigned for analysis.

Seventy percent of laboratories

assigned cases for analysis according

to cases' court dates. Over half of

laboratories started cases based on

prosecutor requests, and 41% started 

analysis of cases in the order cases

were received by the laboratory.

Eighty-three percent of DNA laboratories also had a program for looking at

inactive, closed, or previously analyzed

cases. Eighty-two percent of the

laboratories that analyzed these types

of old cases did so when requested by

the agency that submitted the case's

evidence. Nearly half of the laboratories reanalyzing cases had a program

that analyzed cases when DNA testing

was not previously done, and over 40%

reanalyzed cases when DNA was

tested with an earlier method.

For casework evidence, over half

(53%) of the DNA laboratories had a

policy to minimize the number of

samples taken per case, such as

taking only the most probative samples

and encouraging discussions between

laboratory personnel and investigator

offices.

Storage of DNA

Most laboratories, (85%), reported

storing samples of DNA in case there

was a need to reanalyze the DNA

evidence in the future. Seventy-eight

percent of laboratories had a written

policy regarding sample disposition.

Many of these policies specified what

form of DNA was stored, for how long,

and what evidence was returned or

destroyed.

Eighty-one percent of the laboratories

that stored DNA stored it frozen, and

18% stored it ultra-frozen. The laboratories' capacity to store DNA ranged

from 500 to 710,000 samples.

Equipment/supplies

As the techniques for performing DNA

analysis have advanced, the

6 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 

This report is a follow-up to the report

Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories,

1998 published in February 2000.

Data in the earlier report were

collected primarily for 1997 and 1998.

So that comparisons could be made,

data were collected in this study

primarily for 1999 and 2000.

Of 120 laboratories responding to the

1998 survey, 108 reported performing

DNA analysis. Of the 124 laboratories responding in 2001, 110 reported

performing DNA analysis.

In 1998, 56% of DNA laboratories

were accredited by an official organization, and 99% of DNA laboratories

used DNA Advisory Board (DAB) or

Technical Working Group on DNA

Analysis and Methodology

(TWGDAM) standard guidelines to

perform DNA analyses. In 2001, 63%

of DNA laboratories were accredited,

and 100% of DNA laboratories used

Quality Assurance Guidelines of the

FBI or Scientific Working Group on

DNA Analysis and Methodology

(SWGDAM) standard guidelines.

Laboratories continue to receive

cases primarily from law enforcement

sources. In 1998 and 2001, 98% and

96% of laboratories received cases

from local police and sheriff's

departments.

In 1997 DNA laboratories received

nearly 21,000 subject cases and

116,000 convicted offender samples.

By 2000 the labs were receiving

31,000 subject cases and 265,000

convicted offender samples. The

number of cases analyzed also

increased from 14,000 subject cases

in 1997 to nearly 25,000 in 2000, and

from 45,000 to 148,000 convicted

offender samples analyzed.

At yearend 1998, 69% of labs

reported having a backlog totaling

6,800 subject cases and 287,000

convicted offender samples. As of

January 1, 2001, 81% of labs

reported having a backlog totaling

16,000 subject cases and 265,000

convicted offender samples.

The number of full-time staff members

increased from a total of 672 (with 

the largest staff including 47) in 1998 

to a total of 897, with the largest staff

including 60 in 2000.

Comparisons with Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998
equipment used by laboratories has

needed to be updated. The types of

DNA analysis that can be done and the

number of DNA samples that can be

analyzed are directly dependent on the

equipment the laboratory has

available. For example, a genetic

analyzer commonly found in DNA

laboratories in 2001 has an advertised

standard-mode throughput of 5,220

basecalls per day, while a newer

model made by the same company

has a standard-mode throughput of

90,720 basecalls per day.

Laboratories reported owning a total of

391 thermocyclers, mainly the various

Perkin-Elmer models. There was a

median of 3 thermocyclers per DNA

lab.

The DNA labs reported owning a total

of 284 analyzers. The most commonly

owned analyzer was the ABI310,

making up three-quarters of all the

analyzers. The next most common

analyzers were the ABI377 (12%) and

the Hitachi/FMBIO (10%). Each DNA

lab owned from 0 to 20 analyzers, with

a median of 2 analyzers per laboratory.

While 19% of responding laboratories

reported that they planned to use

robotics or some type of automated

processing in their DNA analyses in 

the next 2 years, only 8 laboratories

reported currently using automation.

Four of those laboratories reported

using automation in spotting/aliquoting,

in the extraction of DNA , and in the

separation and analysis. Three laboratories reported using automation for

PCR reaction set up.

The forensic community has been

moving away from Restricted

Fragment Length Polymorphism

(RFLP) testing as the newer technology of Polymerase Chain Reaction

(PCR) has been implemented in

laboratories. The results of this survey

demonstrate that change when

compared to the previous DNA crime

laboratory study. In 1998, 43 DNA

laboratories reported using RFLP 

for casework and 14 for convicted

offender samples. In 2001 one 

laboratory reported using RFLP for

casework, and none used it for

convicted offender samples.

The test kits most commonly used 

by laboratories for DNA typing of

casework evidence at the start of 2001

were CoFiler, by 82 laboratories, and

Profiler Plus, by 79 laboratories. The

Polymarker and DQ Alpha kits were

also used for casework analyses by 23

and 22 laboratories respectively. The

Profiler Plus and CoFiler were also the

most often used kits for DNA typing of

convicted offender samples by the

laboratories with 20 using Profiler Plus

and 21 using CoFiler.

Work contracted to private laboratories

used similar test kits for DNA typing.

Contract laboratories used the Profiler

Plus and CoFiler most often for both

casework and convicted offender

samples. When contracting with

private laboratories, a laboratory can

identify the information required in a

completed analysis without having to

specify which test kit(s) need to be

used in the DNA typing. Four laboratories reported not knowing what test kits

were used by contracted private

laboratories.

Study population and number of

respondents

To begin this study BJS created a list

of publicly funded crime laboratories

that we believed had performed DNA

analyses. The list of laboratories was

drawn from several sources, primarily

respondents from the initial survey of

DNA crime laboratories, laboratories

that applied for grants from NIJ, and

laboratories participating in CODIS.

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 7

CODIS enables State and local law

enforcement crime laboratories to

exchange and compare DNA information electronically, thereby linking

serial violent crimes to each other 

and to known violent offenders. 

All 50 States and the District of

Columbia have passed legislation

requiring offenders convicted of

certain crimes, determined by each

State, to provide DNA samples for

databasing. Analysis of those DNA

samples reveals a set of genetic

characteristics, a DNA profile, unique

to each individual. Those DNA

profiles are then entered into the

convicted offender index of CODIS.

DNA profiles developed from crime

scene evidence, such as semen

stains or blood spatters are entered

into the forensic index of CODIS.

CODIS uses the two indexes to

generate investigative leads in crimes

where biological evidence is recovered from the crime scene. CODIS

software searches the two indexes 

for matching DNA profiles.

The FBI has provided CODIS

software, together with installation,

training, and user support, free of

charge to any State or local law

enforcement laboratories performing

DNA analysis. 

For more information about the FBI

and the CODIS program see their

website at <www.fbi.gov>.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — Combined DNA Index 

System (CODIS)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

is the statistical agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Lawrence A. Greenfeld is acting 

director.

Greg W. Steadman wrote this report

under the supervision of Steven K.

Smith. Lisa Forman, Ph.D., and

Anjali Swienton, of the National 

Institute of Justice provided assistance on technical issues and project

development. Marika Litras provided

statistical assistance and review.

Tom Hester and Tina Dorsey edited

the report. Jayne Robinson

prepared the report for publication.

January 2002, NCJ 191191

This report, survey questionnaire,

and other materials from the Bureau

of Justice Statistics are available

through the Internet 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Verification of laboratories contacts

and addresses was done by telephone

for a small number of these laboratories before the first mailing of the

survey.

In February 2001, surveys were mailed

to 135 forensic crime laboratories and

state laboratory system headquarters.

An electronic version of the survey, on

a BJS website, was also made available to the laboratories so they could

provide information using the Internet.

Laboratories were given until midMarch to return the surveys. Followupto the initial mailing continued for

four months with a second mailing,

phone calls, and faxes to laboratories

that had not responded. 

When data collection was stopped we

had received 124 responses. Of those

respondents, 110 reported that they

currently performed DNA analyses.

The respondents that did not test DNA

included State headquarters, laboratories in the process of setting up DNA

analysis capability, and one lab that

screened for presence of DNA but did

not perform analyses.

We do not have information from the

13 laboratories that did not respond,

but we are confident that a majority of

those nonrespondents perform some

level of DNA analysis. Including those

with the 110 DNA laboratories that did

respond, we estimate that approximately 120 forensic crime laboratories

in the United States currently perform

DNA analyses.

8 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001 

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531