By Greg W. Steadman

BJS Statistician

As of December 1997, 69% of publicly

operated forensic crime labs across

the Nation reported a DNA analyses

backlog totaling 6,800 subject cases

and 287,000 convicted offender

samples. To address this backlog,

44% of the labs had hired additional

staff since 1997, 34% were using

overtime, and 13% were contracting

with private labs.

These findings come from the initial

survey of publicly operated forensic

crime labs that perform DNA testing.

Data were obtained from 108 labs of

the approximately 120 known & including all statewide labs.

The 1994 Crime Act* included provisions establishing the FBI’s Combined

DNA Index System (CODIS), a national

DNA database program. As of June

1998, all 50 States require the collection

of DNA samples, primarily from convicted sex offenders. Some State statutes

and legislation also include collection of

DNA from persons convicted of murder,

manslaughter, assault, robbery, carjacking, home invasion, stalking, and 

endangering children.

As part of their DNA Laboratory

Improvement Program, the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the

survey to help identify workload and

technology issues. 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

• At the end of 1997, 69% of DNA

labs had a backlog of 6,800 known

and unknown subject cases and

287,000 convicted offender samples.

• To alleviate case backlogs 44% 

of the labs had hired additional staff,

34% were using overtime, 13% were 

contracting with private labs, and 28%

were using other methods.

• The number of full-time staff in DNA

labs ranged from 1 to 47, with a

median staff size of 5. Three

quarters of labs had fewer than 10

full-time staff. 

• Almost all DNA labs (98%) received

cases for analysis from local police

and sheriffs’ offices. Sixty-five percent

of DNA labs received cases from

State police, 48% from medical

examiners, and 43% from State

corrections.

• In 1997 labs received about 21,000

known or unknown subject cases, up

from 15,000 in 1996. Known subject

cases in both years accounted for

over 75% of the total.

• In 1997 labs analyzed about 14,000

known or unknown cases received, an

increase from 10,000 in 1996. 

• The median number of cases received

by a lab in 1997 was 221; the median

number analyzed, 130. During the

previous year half of the labs received

at least 192 cases and analyzed 122 or

more.

• In 1997 the median number of cases

received by labs with less than 10 fulltime staff members was 201. Labs

with 10 or more full-time staff had a

median of 320 cases. The median

backlog in 1997 was 50 cases for the

smaller labs and 77 cases for the rest.

• Labs received 116,000 convicted

offender samples for analysis in 1997

and 72,000 in 1996. Less than half

were analyzed: 45,000 in 1997 and

37,000 in 1996.

• Labs in 17 States indicated their

state criminal history records specify

whether a DNA sample has been

collected. In 5 states the DNA identification is also attached to the records.

Other agencies

Medical examiner

Local police/sheriff

State police

State corrections

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Agencies from which DNA labs

Percent of DNA labs receiving material

may receive samples to analyze:

98% of publicly operated DNA crime laboratories analyzed 

material from local law enforcement agencies

Highlights

*Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322, September 13,

1994, 108 Stat. 1796.

Survey of DNA

Crime Laboratories, 1998

 February 2000, NCJ 179104
Forensic Laboratory Survey

While the technology available for

analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

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 is

intended to provide baseline information about publicly funded forensic

crime laboratories across the Nation

that were performing DNA testing in

1997 and 1998.

This survey was sent to approximately

140 laboratories, and 126 responses

were received from individual labs and

headquarters for statewide forensic

crime lab systems. The responses

included 108 publicly funded forensic

laboratories that perform DNA testing

in 43 States.

For most of these forensic crime labs,

DNA analysis was just one of several

forensic analyses the labs performed.

Three-quarters or more of the forensic

labs also were responsible for

controlled substance analysis,

firearms/toolmark/footwear/tireprint

examination, and trace analysis. About

two-thirds of the labs also performed

crime scene investigation and fire

debris analysis (table 1).

About half of these laboratories (55%)

were part of a Statewide laboratory

system. The laboratories were located

in a variety of government agencies.

2 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) — Forensic DNA

Laboratory Improvement Program

Authorized by the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (Public

Law 103-322), the Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement

Program was created to improve the capabilities and

capacity of State and local forensic DNA laboratories to

support the investigation and prosecution of violent crime.

NIJ's successes in this program include —

• The development or establishment of forensic DNA

testing capabilities in state and local forensic laboratories to conduct DNA testing.

• Improvements in the abilities of State DNA labs to

meet national standards for DNA quality assurance 

and proficiency testing.

• Fostering cooperation and mutual assistance among

forensic DNA laboratories by funding laboratory compliance with the FBI's CODIS. (See page 8 for more detail

about CODIS.)

The laboratory improvement program is authorized to

award grants through fiscal year 2000 and has received

applications for funding beyond the available

appropriations. NIJ has proposed several programs to

continue support of forensic laboratories, DNA testing,

research, and development. For more information about

NIJ programs see their website at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) — State 

Identification Systems (SIS) Program

The State Identification Systems (SIS) Program is a

formula grant program administered by BJA with funding

from the FBI. The SIS Program enhances the capability 

of State and local governments to identify and prosecute

offenders by establishing or upgrading information systems

and DNA analysis capabilities. One intended use of these

grants is to improve the ability to analyze DNA in ways that

are compatible and integrated with the FBI’s CODIS.

For answers to questions and technical assistance in

completing and submitting a SIS application call the U.S.

Department of Justice Response Center at (800)

421-6770.

NIJ — National Commission on the Future 

of DNA Evidence

The Attorney General directed NIJ to establish a commission to provide her with recommendations on the use of

current and future DNA methods applications and

technologies in the operation of the criminal justice system,

from the crime scene to the courtroom.

The commission addressed 5 specific issues: 

(1) the use of DNA in post-conviction relief cases 

(2) legal concerns including Daubert challenges 

and the scope of discovery in DNA cases

(3) criteria for training and technical assistance 

for criminal justice professionals involved in the 

identification, collection, and preservation of DNA

evidence at the crime scene

(4) essential laboratory capabilities in the face 

of emerging technologies 

(5) the impact of future technological developments 

on the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.

For more information see www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna/.

U.S. Department of Justice laboratory support programs

Note: Details do not add to total because 

of multiple responses.

Other 19 15

Crime scene 83 66

Computer crime 11 9

 investigation

Questioned documents 59 47

Blood alcohol 69 55

Toxicology 51 41

Conventional serology 79 63

Controlled substance 107 86

Explosive residue 53 42

Fire debris 82 66

Latent prints 76 61

Trace analysis 94 75

102 82

Firearms/toolmark/

 footwear/tireprint

 Total 125 100%

Areas of analysis Number Percent

Crime laboratories

Table 1. Forensic crime laboratory

responsibilities, 1998
Most frequently the State police (42%)

operated the DNA labs; another 25%

of labs were part of a local police or

sheriff's department. The remaining

labs operated under a variety of

government agencies such as public

health and safety and prosecutors'

offices (table 2).

An important aspect of the laboratories’ ability to perform accurate, consistent analyses and then to have those

analyses used and defended in court is

the adherence to accepted procedures

and guidelines. One indication that a

lab successfully follows the forensic

community's standards is accreditation

by a recognized forensic organization. 

At the start of 1998, 56% of the labs

were accredited by an official organization, and 18% had applied for accreditation or had undergone a preaccreditation inspection by an accredited lab. Almost all of the accredited

labs (93%) had been accredited by the

American Society of Crime Lab

Directors-Laboratory Accreditation

Board (ASCLD-LAB) (table 3).

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

through the Technical Working Group

on DNA Analysis and Methodology

(TWGDAM). The TWGDAM includes

representatives from the Office of Law

Enforcement Standards at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

and State and Federal crime labs. 

Another source of laboratory standards

is the DNA Advisory Board (DAB). The

FBI established the DAB to develop

benchmarks for labs doing forensic

DNA analyses. The final DAB report

was completed in February 1997 and

was forwarded to the Director of the

FBI for review and implementation.

Every lab responding to the survey

reported following some standard

procedural guidelines. Ninety-nine

percent of the labs follow the guidelines developed by the DAB or the

TWGDAM or both. 

Procedural Labs reported

standards using standards

DAB 27

TWGDAM 13

DAB and TWGDAM 63

DAB, TWGDAM and other 3

Other 1

All labs required their examiner/

analysts to perform proficiency testing

and follow the TWGDAM established 

guidelines of testing every 180 days 

or less. Eighty-six percent of the labs

required the technical leader or

manager to undergo proficiency

testing, and 33% required the technicians to do so. 

Although a few labs required technical

leaders and technicians to perform

proficiency testing only about once a

year, most labs that required the

testing also tested every 180 days or

fewer. Ten percent of labs required

certification or completed proficiency

testing at the time of hiring for DNA

technical positions.

Nearly all labs, 97%, used a second

examiner to interpret DNA typing

results.

Budget

The laboratories ranged in staff size

and budget. In fiscal year 1997 the

reported budgets for entire forensic

laboratories ranged from $15,000 to

$14.3 million. In fiscal year 1998 they

ranged from $30,000 to $16.9 million.

Forty-three percent of forensic labs

indicated they could identify the portion

of their budgets used strictly for DNA

analyses. Of the labs that reported

budget amounts for DNA work, the

annual DNA budget ranged from

$5,000 to $3.9 million in fiscal year

1997 and $2,000 to $4.1 million in

fiscal year 1998 (table 4). 

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 3

Note: Detail do not add to total because 

of multiple responses.

Other 35 33

Prosecutor’s office 3 3

Local police/sheriff 27 25

State police 44 42%

 Total 106 100%

Government agency Number Percent

Labs performing DNA

analyses

Table 2. Agencies responsible for

DNA laboratories, 1998 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100%

because of rounding. Labs my report multiple accreditations.

None 29 27%

Pre-accreditation inspection 6 6%

Applied for accreditation 13 12%

Other 3 3

NSFTC 3 3

ASCLD-LAB 56 52

Laboratory accredited 60 56%

Percent

Number of labs

Labs performing 

DNA analyses

Table 3. DNA laboratory 

accreditations, 1998

1998 45 654,000 2,000 4,106,000

1997 41 $556,000 $5,000 $3,954,000

DNA laboratory

1998 82 2,889,000 30,000 16,900,000

1997 79 $2,608,000 $15,000 $14,300,000

Total forensic laboratory

reported Mean Minimum Maximum

Annual laboratory budgets

Number of

budgets

Table 4. Annual budgets for forensic laboratories 

and for DNA laboratories, 1997-98
In both fiscal years some labs received

all their funding from the State, all their

funding from the county, or all their

funding from the city. The main source

of funding of DNA labs was State

governments, providing an average

43% of the reported budgets (table 5).

On average, just over half of DNA

laboratory budgets were allocated for

personnel costs in both fiscal year

1997 and 1998 (table 6). The next

largest expenditure in each fiscal year

was supplies, approximately a quarter

of the budget.

Staffing

Ninety-eight laboratories reported their

DNA staff size (table 7). The DNA labs

full-time staffs ranged from 1 full-time

employee to 47 full-time employees.

The 98 DNA labs employed a total of

672 full-time and 85 part-time personnel. 

Salaries

About three-quarters of the labs used a

salary schedule for the DNA technical

staff, and about half used a schedule

for administrative staff. Of labs using

salary schedules, the starting annual

salaries for examiners ranged from

$23,650 to $58,000 with a median

starting salary of $34,831 (table 8).

Technical leader/manager starting

salaries ranged from $28,000 to

$66,400 with a median starting salary

of $45,000. The median starting salary

for an administrative manager was

$49,431 with a top starting salary of

$84,000.

Educational requirements

Nearly all labs reported having minimum educational requirements for

technical staff. Of the labs reporting

their specific requirements, 64%

required a master’s degree and 35%

required a bachelor’s degree to be a

technical leader or technical manager.

Examiners and analysts needed a

bachelor’s degree in 97% of the labs

and a master’s degree in 3%. 

Laboratory directors

While some forensic crime labs with

multiple areas of analysis may have a

director or supervisor responsible for

just the DNA section, in many labs the

director of the entire forensic crime

laboratory is considered the director or

supervisor of the DNA laboratory. The

median annual salary for a DNA lab

director was $55,000.

Of the laboratories reporting educational and experience requirements for

their DNA lab director, about 50% of

labs required the director to have a

bachelor’s degree, and another 36%

required a graduate degree. The 

median required years of experience 

for a DNA lab director was 5 years.

4 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 

Other 74 4 0 90 75 3 0 75

Grants 74 14 0 100 75 18 0 100

City 74 17 0 100 75 14 0 100

County 74 22 0 100 75 21 0 100

State 74 43% 0% 100% 75 43% 0% 100%

budgets Mean Minimum Maximum budgets Mean Minimum Maximum

Percentage of budget, 1998

Number

of 

Percentage of budget, 1997 reported

Number

of

reported

Table 5. Sources of funding for DNA laboratories, 1997-98

— More than half the labs reported none.

 Lab support 98 33 — 7

 Technician 98 82 — 16

 Examiner/analyst 98 408 3 16

 Manager/leader 98 73 1 5

Technical staff

 Support staff 98 20 — 4

 CODIS manager 98 14 — 1

 Admin. manager 98 42 — 2

Administration

 Total 98 672 5 47

Staff labs reporting Total Median Maximum

Number of DNA Full-time staff members

Table 7. Number of full-time staff members for DNA

laboratories, by type of position, 1998

Other 51 2 0 17

Travel 51 2 0 8

Training 51 2 0 10

Supplies 51 24 5 100

Equipment 51 12 0 60

Personnel 51 58% 0% 87%

1998

Other 50 4 0 45

Travel 50 2 0 8

Training 50 2 0 15

Supplies 50 24 4 100

Equipment 50 12 0 80

Personnel 50 56% 0% 90%

1997

reporting Mean Minimum Maximum

Percentage of expenditures

Number of

DNA labs

Table 6. Expenditures by DNA laboratories, 1997-98

 Lab support 19 22,000 18,000 28,548

 Technician 37 24,677 15,400 37,343

 Examiner/analyst 73 34,831 23,650 58,000

 Manager/leader 49 $45,000 $28,000 $66,400

Technical staff

 Support staff 9 19,548 16,000 50,000

 CODIS manager 16 39,596 24,000 66,400

 Administrative manager 50 $49,431 $24,864 $83,976

Administration

Median Minimum Maximum

DNA laboratory staff 

starting salaries 

Number of

DNA laboratories reporting

Table 8. Starting salaries in DNA laboratories, 

by type of position, 1998
Workload

Laboratories receive DNA samples for

analysis from several different sources.

Almost all DNA labs (98%) reported

receiving DNA samples from local

police and sheriffs' offices. Sixty-five

percent of DNA labs received cases

from State police, 48% from medical

examiners, and 43% from State

corrections (table 9). 

A single crime incident can involve 

one or more victims, one or more

offenders, multiple pieces of evidence, 

and multiple biological samples for

testing. A single incident can have just

a few to hundreds of possible samples

for testing. Therefore, labs use different ways to measure workload, such

as by —

• case, a single criminal incident or

event 

• piece of evidence, possibly multiple

pieces of evidence for a single case

• sample, possibly multiple samples for

each piece of evidence.

While almost every lab (97%) reported

counting the workload by the case, 

about 20% also used pieces of

evidence, samples analyzed, or other

measures to count their workload.

 Labs performing

 DNA analyses 

Unit for counting Number Percent

 Total 103 100%

Case 100 97%

Evidence 7 7

Sample 11 11

Other 6 6

Details do not add to total because of

multiple responses.

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 5

Note: Multiple responses were possible.

Other agencies 29 27

Medical examiner 50 48

State corrections 45 43

Local police/sheriff 102 98

State police 68 65%

Submitting agency NumberPercent

Labs receiving

DNA

cases/samples

Table 9. Agencies or organizations 

submitting DNA samples to 

laboratories for analysis, 1998

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 labs perform are categorized into two general

types: casework and convicted offender samples.

Casework

Casework refers to cases received by a forensic crime lab

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) that 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 or may not 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 where 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, that are to be analyzed and included 

in a DNA database.

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

• samples recovered from unidentified human remains. 

As of June 1998, legislation had passed requiring

convicted offenders to provide samples for DNA

databases in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

By October 1998 the FBI estimated that States had

collected approximately 600,000 DNA samples and

analyzed more than 250,000.

Convicted offender samples are normally blood or saliva

collected from an identified offender. Ninety percent of

DNA labs that receive convicted offender samples receive

samples of offenders’ blood, and 18% receive offenders'

saliva.

Types of DNA work received by forensic crime labs

,Backlogs not reported for 1996.

—More than half reported none.

*Totals include State-level responses not used in calculating medians.

Convicted offender 69 115,681 — 44,810 — 286,819 —

Unknown subject cases 62 5,198 30 2,194 7 4,062 36

Known subject cases 75 15,595 126 12,095 99 2,738 —

1997

Convicted offender 66 71,926 — 36,893 — , ,

Unknown subject cases 49 3,663 22 1,339 10 , ,

Known subject cases 58 11,479 138 8,812 100 , ,

1996

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

Labs Cases received Cases analyzed Backlog of cases

Table 10. Status of case workloads in DNA laboratories, 

by type of case, 1996-97
In 1997 DNA labs received about

21,000 known and unknown subject

cases, up from 15,000 in 1996 (table

10). Known subject cases in both

years accounted for over 75% of the

total casework. In 1997 the DNA labs

analyzed about 14,000 of the cases

received, an increase from 10,000 in

1996.

DNA labs also received 116,000

convicted offender samples in 1997

and analyzed about 45,000, less than

half the number received. That was an

increase from 72,000 received and

37,000 convicted offender samples

analyzed in 1996. 

The median number of known and

unknown subject cases received by all

labs in 1997 was 221; the median

number of cases analyzed was 130.

During the previous year half of the

labs received 192 or more cases and

analyzed 122 or more of those cases. 

The number of cases received and

analyzed varied by the size of the lab.

In 1997 the number of known and

unknown subject cases received by

labs with less than 10 full-time staff

members was 201. These smaller labs

had a median backlog in 1997 of 50

cases. DNA labs with more than 10

full-time staff received a median of 320

known and unknown subject cases

with a backlog 77 cases to be

analyzed. 

Case backlog

Sixty-nine percent of DNA labs

reported having a backlog at the end of

1997 that totaled 6,800 known and

unknown subject cases and 287,000

convicted offender samples. To alleviate case backlogs 44% of the labs had

hired additional staff, 34% were using

overtime, 13% were contracting with

private labs, and 28% were using

various other methods.

 Labs reporting on

 casework backlogs

Initiatives Number Percent

 Total 110 100% 

Hired additional staff 48 44% 

Used overtime 37 34

Contracted with

 private labs 14 13

Other 31 28

Details do not add to total because of

multiple responses.

The DNA labs that hired private labs to

do DNA testing in 1996 and 1997 used

the private labs mainly for convicted

offender testing. Public labs sent

almost 400 known and unknown

subject cases and 17,700 convicted

offender samples to private labs for

analysis in 1997, an increase from

about 330 cases and 5,500 convicted

offender samples in 1996 (table 11). 

Data processing

After completing casework analyses,

63% of DNA labs reported their results

to the agency or office that submitted

the case for analysis. Fifty-seven

percent of DNA labs regularly reported

the results to prosecutors' offices and

40% regularly reported to the investigating office.

For convicted offender samples nearly

all labs reported their results to a

CODIS office. (See the discussion of

CODIS on page 8.) One lab regularly

reported convicted offender results to a

sexual offender database, and two

regularly reported to a State identification system.

Policies and procedures for case

processing

To help control the flow of cases

through DNA labs, a majority of labs

had policies for the acceptance and

processing of casework. Sixty-nine

percent of labs reported having a policy

for acceptance of DNA submissions.

While two-thirds of the labs said they

would accept any criminal cases,

nearly 30% of the labs had some

restrictions on the known subject cases

and unknown subject cases they would

accept (table 12). 

6 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 

— More than half the labs reported none.

Convicted offender 3 9,593 492

Unknown subject 3 7 2

Known subject 3 1 —

Backlog of contracted cases 

at the end of 1997

Convicted offender 26 17,740 —

Unknown subject 26 321 5

Known subject 26 68 —

Cases contracted in 1997

Convicted offender 21 5,571 —

Unknown subject 21 293 6

Known subject 21 30 —

Cases contracted in 1996

Median number

of DNA cases

Total

cases

Number

Year and type of case of labs

Table 11. DNA analysis cases contracted to private laboratories, 

by type of case, 1996-97

Note: Multiple responses reported.

Certain 30 29

All 21 20

Unknown subject 

Certain 31 29

All 16 15

Known subject 

All criminal 69 66%

Types of cases accepted

72 69%

Had an acceptance policy

for DNA submissions

Policies Number Percent

Labs receiving

DNA cases/

samples

Table 12. Forensic laboratory

policies for acceptance of DNA

submissions, 1998
Nearly all labs (92%) reported having a

system for prioritizing how cases are

assigned for analysis. Eighty-one

percent of labs assigned cases for

analysis according to the cases' court

dates. Half of labs started cases

based on prosecutor requests and just

over a third of the labs used the date

cases were received (table 13).

A majority, 65%, of DNA labs also had

a program for looking at inactive,

closed, or previously analyzed cases

(table 14). Nearly half the labs that

analyzed these types of old cases did

so when requested by the agency

submitting the case's evidence. Thirty

percent of labs that reanalyzed cases

had a program that analyzed cases

when DNA testing was not previously

done.

For casework evidence, a third of DNA

labs reported a policy to minimize the

number of samples taken per case,

such as taking only the most probative

samples (table 15). Half of labs took

adjacent cuttings to act as a substrate

control, and 85% of labs saved DNA

samples for possible retesting.

Fifty-nine percent of labs attempted to

notify someone, such as the agency

that submitted the evidence, when

retesting would not be possible

because the original analysis would

use all available material.

Storage of DNA

Most labs store samples of DNA in

case there is a need to reanalyze the

DNA evidence in the future. The most

common forms in which labs stored

DNA for retesting were extracted DNA,

used by 88% of labs that stored DNA,

and cuttings and swabs stored by 82%

of those labs (not shown in a table).

Eighty-six percent of labs that stored

DNA stored it frozen, and 22% stored it

ultra-frozen.

The labs' capacities to store DNA

ranged from 500 to 250,000 samples.

On average 52% of their storage

capacity was being used. Of DNA labs

that saved DNA samples, about 80%

stored the samples indefinitely, and the

remaining labs reported storing DNA

samples from 2 to 84 months. The

median time DNA samples were

stored by those labs was 24 months.

Equipment and supplies

Laboratories reported owning a total of

292 thermocyclers, mainly PerkinElmer models. The median number of

thermocyclers for a DNA lab was two.

The DNA labs reported owning a total

of 183 analyzers. The most commonly

owned analyzer was the ABI310,

making up two thirds of all the analyzers. The next most common analyzers

were the Hitachi/FMBIO (17%) and the

ABI377 (11%). Each DNA lab owned

from 0 to 10 analyzers with the median

number of analyzers per lab being 1.

While 30 labs reported that they

planned to use robotics or some type

of automated processing in their DNA

analyses, 6 labs reported that they

were currently using automation. Five

of those labs reported using automation in the extraction of DNA ; five used

it in separation and analysis. Four of

the labs used automation in spotting 

or aliquoting, and two labs used it for

PCR reaction set up.

The forensic community is moving

away from Restricted Fragment Length

Polymorphism (RFLP) testing toward

the newer technology of Polymerase

 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 7

Note: Multiple responses reported.

Other 31 29

Prosecutor’s request 54 50

Prison release date 3 3

Court date 87 81

Date evidence is received 38 36%

Criteria for starting cases

98 92%

Had a priority system for 

starting DNA cases

System for prioritizing cases Number Percent

Labs receiving DNA cases/samples

Table 13. Forensic laboratory criteria for assigning

or starting DNA cases, 1998

Note: Multiple responses reported.

Other 7 6

DNA test with earlier technique 21 19

DNA not tested before 32 30

Requested by submitting agency 53 49%

Reasons cases were reviewed

Had a program to review DNA cases 70 65%

Number Percent

Labs receiving DNA cases/samples

Table 14. Forensic laboratory programs to review inactive, 

closed, or previously analyzed DNA cases, 1998

Note: Multiple responses reported.

Save sample for retesting 108 92 85

Notify when all material used up 108 64 59

Test adjacent cutting 107 53 50

Policy to minimize samples taken per case 106 35 33%

Casework evidence

Receive other samples 28 2 7

Receive saliva 28 5 18

Receive blood 28 25 89%

Convicted offender samples

responses Number Percent

Total Analyze DNA cases/samples

Table 15. DNA laboratory sample receipt and case processing, 1998
Chain Reaction (PCR). Even so, 43

DNA labs reported using RFLP for

casework, and 14 labs reported using it

for convicted offender samples.

The DQ Alpha test kit was reported by

73 labs for casework, followed closely

by Polymarker, used by 67 labs.

Casework was also done by 44 labs

using Profiler Plus and by 41 labs with

D1S80. For convicted offender

samples, 17 labs reported using

Profiler Plus, and 13 labs used Cofiler.

FBI — Combined DNA Index System

(CODIS)

CODIS enables State and local law

enforcement crime laboratories to

exchange and compare DNA information electronically.

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. Analysis of those

samples reveals a set of genetic

characteristics, a DNA profile, unique

to each individual. Those DNA profiles

are 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 from

which biological evidence is recovered.

CODIS software searches the two

indexes for matching DNA profiles.

The FBI provides CODIS software,

installation, training, and user support,

free of charge to any State or local law

enforcement lab performing DNA

analysis. 

For more information about the FBI

and the CODIS program visit the FBI

website at www.fbi.gov.

8 Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

is the statistical agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.

BJS Special Reports address a 

specific topic in depth from one or

more datasets that cover many

topics.

Greg W. Steadman wrote this report

under the supervision of Steven K.

Smith. Marika Litras provided statistical assistance and review. Tom

Hester and Tina Dorsey edited the

report. Jayne Robinson prepared

the report for publication.

February 2000, NCJ 179104

This report, survey questionnaire,

and other materials from the Bureau

of Justice Statistics are 

available through the Internet 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/