2005 Census of Public Funded Forensic Crime Labs Report

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin

July 2008, NCJ 222181

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic
Crime Laboratories, 2005
By Matthew R. Durose
BJS Statistician
Overview
In 2005 the nation’s forensic crime laboratories received
evidence from an estimated 2.7 million criminal investigations. These cases included requests for a variety of forensic services, such as DNA analysis, controlled substance
identification, and latent fingerprint examination. A case not
completed within 30 days was classified as backlogged. An
estimated 359,000 cases were backlogged at the end of
2005—a 24% increase from the estimated 287,000 cases
backlogged at yearend 2002. Other major findings on publicly funded forensic crime laboratories in 2005 included—
• Controlled substance identification accounted for about
half of all requests backlogged at yearend.
• DNA testing was performed by about half of the laboratories.
• About half of the public laboratories outsourced one or
more types of forensic services to private laboratories.
• Eight in 10 laboratories were accredited by the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory
Accreditation Board.
About 80% of forensic requests backlogged from 2004 and
new requests received in 2005 were completed by the end
of 2005. The remaining requests were backlogged at
yearend. To achieve a 30-day turnaround on all 2005
requests, the different forensic disciplines would have
needed varying increases in the number of full-time examiners performing that work—ranging from an estimated
73% increase in DNA examiners to an estimated 6%
increase in examiners conducting toxicology analysis.
The average backlog rose for a wide range of forensic
analyses during 2005. A typical laboratory performing DNA
testing began 2005 with 86 backlogged requests for DNA
analysis and finished the year with a backlog of 152
requests (figure 1).

The nation’s crime laboratories experienced an increase in
the median number of backlogged requests during 2005
Type of forensic service
Biology screening

January 1, 2005
December 31, 2005

Firearms/toolmarks
DNA analysis
Latent prints
Controlled substances

0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160

Median number of backlogged requests per lab
Figure 1

These findings are based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census of Publicly Funded Forensic
Crime Laboratories. Forensic crime laboratories are
responsible for examining and reporting on physical evidence collected during criminal investigations for federal,
state, and local jurisdictions. This report provides a comprehensive look at forensic services across the nation and
the resources devoted to completing the work.
BJS first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998,
focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998
study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program.1 The BJS’ National Study of DNA Laboratories was
repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, was conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002. A total of 306 of the 351 crime laboratories operating in 2002 responded to the census. The latest
census obtained data from 351 of the 389 laboratories
operating in 2005, including at least 1 lab from every state.
________
1

More information on NIJ forensic science research can be obtained on the
Internet at .

State-operated laboratories, which can serve the entire
state or regional areas, accounted for more than half of all
forensic crime laboratories in 2005. More than 80% of state
laboratories were part of a multiple laboratory system.
Crime laboratories had nearly 12,000 full-time
employees in 2005
The nation’s forensic crime laboratories employed an estimated 11,900 full-time personnel in 2005, compared to
about 11,000 in 2002 (table 1). About half of full-time crime
laboratory employees worked in state laboratories. In 2005
forensic crime laboratories filled about 98% of their authorized full-time equivalent (FTE) positions (not shown in
table). The median staff size in 2005 was 16. With more
than 600 employees, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) Laboratory Division was the largest publicly funded
laboratory in the United States.
Most crime laboratory employees (58%) were analysts or
examiners who were responsible for preparing and analyzing evidence (table 2). Managers (directors and supervisors) accounted for 13% of all the crime laboratory employees. About 10% of staff provided technical support to the
analysts.

The combined annual budget for all laboratories
exceeded $1 billion
The 2005 census obtained budget data from 254 laboratories. The median budget among these laboratories was
$1.7 million. The FBI Laboratory had an annual budget of
more than $130 million. The estimated budget for all 389
crime laboratories in 2005 exceeded $1 billion, nearly half
of which funded state laboratories (table 3).
Personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, typically accounted for three-quarters of a laboratory's total
budget. Median base annual salaries for laboratory directors ranged from $62,900 to $94,700, and for supervisors
from $51,000 to $77,000 (table 4). Analysts or examiners at
both the state and local level had a median maximum salary of about $70,000.
Laboratory expenditures also included supplies, equipment, and construction costs. In addition to their budgets,
laboratories received funding from other sources, such as
fees and grants. Twenty-eight percent of laboratories
charged fees for forensic services in 2005, and nearly twothirds (65%) received some funding from grants (not shown
in table).

Table 1. Full-time employees in the nation's publicly funded crime laboratories in 2005 and 2002, by type of jurisdiction
Type of
jurisdiction
All labs
State
County
Municipal
Federal
Number of labs

Full-time employees reporteda
2005
2002
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
9,364
4,842
1,720
1,602
1,200

100%
52
18
17
13

9,013
4,336
1,644
1,594
1,440

296

National estimate of full-time employeesb
2005
2002
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

100%
48
18
18
16

11,900
5,600
2,200
1,900
2,100

278

100%
47
18
16
18

11,000
5,200
1,900
1,900
2,000

389

100%
47
17
17
18

351

Note: Detail does not sum to total due to rounding.
aNumber
bBased

of employees reported by labs in the census.
on imputations for labs that did not report employee data. See Methodology for imputation procedures.

Table 2. Positions of employees in publicly funded crime
laboratories in 2005, by type of jurisdiction
Type of position

Totala

State

All employees
Analyst/examiner
Technical support
Manager
Clerical support
Crime scene technician
Other

100%
58
10
13
8
6
5

100%
63
11
13
9
1
3

Estimated national totalb

11,900

5,600

County
100%
57
11
14
8
8
1
2,200

Municipal
100%
50
5
13
6
16
10
1,900

Table 3. Total operating budget (in millions) for publicly
funded crime laboratories in 2005 and 2002, by type of
jurisdiction
Type of jurisdiction
All labsb
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs
a

aIncludes

b

b

National estimates were adjusted to account for missing data.

2 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

National estimate
(in millions)a
2005
2002

$821
406
173
94

$835
345
164
83

$1,155
529
236
130

$1,036
454
172
112

254

267

389

351

Note: Budget totals were not adjusted for inflation.

Note: Percentages are based on labs reporting personnel data.
Detail does not sum to total due to rounding.
federal labs, not shown separately.

Total operating budget
reported (in millions)
2005
2002

Based on imputations for labs that did not report budget data.
Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

Table 4. Median base salaries of employees in publicly
funded crime laboratories in 2005, by type of jurisdiction
Type of position
Director
Maximum
Minimum
Supervisor
Maximum
Minimum
Analyst/examiner
Maximum
Minimum
Technical support
Maximum
Minimum

Total*

State

County

Municipal

$94,700
62,900

$92,500
59,000

$99,100
76,100

$89,800
69,700

$77,000
51,000

$76,200
50,100

$84,800
58,600

$77,000
58,000

$67,700
37,800

$66,700
35,400

$71,600
42,300

$66,800
40,700

$42,200
27,400

$40,100
26,400

$45,000
29,800

$44,200
30,700

*Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

More laboratories were accredited in 2005
In 2005 more than three-quarters of laboratories (78%)
were accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/
LAB) (table 5). Another 3% were accredited by some other
professional organization, such as the International Organization for Standardization. State-operated laboratories
(91%) were more likely to be accredited than laboratories
serving county (67%) or municipal (62%) jurisdictions.
Among the 230 laboratories providing accreditation information in both the 2002 and 2005 censuses, the accreditation rate increased during the 3 years from 75% to 87%.
Crime laboratories provided an average of
6 different forensic services
Crime laboratories are typically responsible for several
analytical services. They receive evidence from criminal
investigations submitted by a variety of sources, including
law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and medical examiners. In 2005 laboratories provided a median number of six
functions. Controlled substance identification was the analysis performed by the largest percentage (89%) of the 351
laboratories responding to the census (table 6). Forensic
work for computer crime investigations was the function
reported to be performed by the smallest percentage of laboratories (12%).
Table 5. Percent of crime laboratories accredited
by a professional organization in 2005 and 2002

Type of accreditation
Total

Labs reporting in—
2005
2002

Comparable
labs reporting
in both year
2005 2002

82%

71%

87%

75%

ASCLD/LAB*
Other organization

78
3

61
10

84
3

67
8

Number of labs reporting

293

299

230

230

Note: Detail does not sum to total because of rounding.
*American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board.

About 6 in 10 crime labs examined firearms or toolmarks in
2005. Labs that performed this function were asked about
their use of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). Using this electronic system, forensic examiners can compare evidence (such as fired bullets and cartridges) from crime scenes to firearm evidence from other
criminal investigations for matches (or hits). Seventy-six
laboratories reported making about 95,000 NIBIN entries
and searches in 2005. Almost 2,000 hits that year were
reported by 56 laboratories.
More than half (55%) of crime laboratories analyzed latent
(or hidden) fingerprints recovered from crime scenes.
These laboratories were asked to report on their use of the
FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) in 2005. More than 100 laboratories reported
making about 328,000 searches and finding 33,000 hits
using IAFIS in 2005.
Crime laboratories received an estimated 2.7 million
cases in 2005
Laboratories have different methods for measuring workload, such as cases or requests. A case is defined as evidence submitted to a crime laboratory from a single criminal incident. A case may require more than one request for
forensic services. For instance a laboratory may receive
samples of fibers and blood from the same case that
require analysis by different discipline areas of the laboratory. This study examined workload in terms of both cases
and requests.
The nation's 389 crime laboratories received an estimated
2.7 million new cases during 2005 (table 7). Almost half—
or 1.3 million—were submitted to state laboratories. Laboratories serving local jurisdictions received about 1.3 million
cases in 2005, including 727,000 cases received by county
laboratories and 566,000 by municipal laboratories. Federal laboratories received the fewest cases that year.
Table 6. Forensic functions performed by crime laboratories
in 2005, by type of jurisdiction
Forensic function

Total*

State

County

Municipal

Controlled substances
Firearms/toolmarks
Biology screening
Latent prints
Trace evidence

89%
59
57
55
55

88%
60
58
50
57

94%
59
61
51
59

85%
56
51
76
44

DNA analysis
Toxicology
Impressions
Crime scene
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

53%
53
52
40
20
12

55%
57
50
36
18
9

61%
49
53
46
22
16

42%
47
56
56
24
15

79

55

Number of labs reporting

351

207

Note: Detail sums to more than 100% because some laboratories
reported performing more than one function. See Methodology for
definitions of individual forensic functions.
*Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 3

An estimated 359,000 cases were backlogged (not completed within 30 days) at the end of 2005, compared to
287,000 at yearend 2002 (table 8). This represents a 24%
increase in backlogged cases between 2002 and 2005.
State laboratories accounted for more than half of the backlog in both years.
Among the 288 laboratories that reported this information,
the median number of cases received in 2005 was about
4,100. Overall, laboratories ended the year with a median
backlog of about 400 cases. Six percent of laboratories that
received cases in 2005 reported having no backlog at
yearend.
Two hundred laboratories provided data in both the 2002
and the 2005 censuses on the total numbers of cases
received during each year. The number of cases received
during 2005 (1,654,023) was less than the total received in
2002 (1,862,009). Of the 172 laboratories that reported
backlog totals for the 2002 and 2005 censuses, the number
of backlogged cases increased from 142,739 to 192,126.
Nearly 20% of all requests in 2005 were backlogged
at yearend
About 75% of the forensic requests pending at the beginning of 2005 had been held for 30 days or more and were
classified as backlogged. To examine the capacity of laboratories to process all requests within a 30-day period, BJS
asked crime laboratories to provide the total number of
requests for each forensic function performed that were:

About half of laboratories performed DNA analysis
in 2005
DNA testing was conducted by about half (53%) of all
laboratories in 2005, mainly involving casework and offender
samples. Laboratories were asked how many of these requests
they completed in 2005; however, the information was not
provided by all laboratories that conducted DNA analysis that
year.
Casework involves the processing of biological samples (such
as blood and saliva) collected from crime scenes, victims, or
suspects to develop a DNA profile for cases with or without a
suspect. In 2005, 86 laboratories reported completing about
14,000 DNA requests for cases where no suspect had been
identified. Ninety laboratories reported analyzing about 25,000
requests from cases that year where a suspect had been
identified.
In 2005 all 50 states and the District of Columbia required
offenders convicted of certain crimes to submit DNA samples.
Most states required samples from all felons. A few states also
collected DNA from certain arrestees. In the census 22
laboratories reported processing about 234,000 samples from
offenders and arrestees in 2005.
Federal, state, and local laboratories enter DNA profiles from
offenders, arrestees, and casework into the FBI's Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS). CODIS software enables crime
laboratories to compare biological evidence from criminal
investigations to profiles in the database for matches (or hits).
In 2005 crime laboratories provided more than 800,000
profiles to the National DNA Index System of CODIS. About
8,700 hits were made between profiles in CODIS that year.2
_______
2The Federal

• backlogged as of January 1, 2005

Bureau of Investigation FBI Laboratory 2005 Report is
accessible at .

• received in 2005
• completed during 2005.

Table 7. Cases received by publicly funded crime laboratories during 2005 and 2002, by type of jurisdiction

Type of jurisdiction
All labsb
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs

Reported cases received in—
2005
2002

Cases received by comparable
labs reporting in both years
2005
2002

National estimatea
2005
2002

2,106,478
1,166,786
495,665
413,932

2,399,468
898,642
798,118
622,775

1,654,023
837,154
466,017
335,667

1,862,009
803,545
555,456
498,813

2,712,000
1,302,000
727,000
566,000

2,891,000
1,230,000
847,000
711,000

288

265

200

200

389

351

aBased

on imputations for labs that did not report data on cases received.
b
Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

Table 8. Cases backlogged in publicly funded crime laboratories at yearend 2005 and 2002, by type of jurisdiction
Type of
jurisdiction
All labsb
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs

Reported backlogged cases in—
2005
2002

Cases backlogged in comparable
labs reporting in both years
2005
2002

National estimatea
2005
2002

260,821
166,337
40,314
44,881

212,676
117,092
47,954
42,218

192,126
126,162
35,859
29,544

142,739
90,056
29,555
22,128

359,000
203,000
65,000
70,000

287,000
155,000
55,000
59,000

265

243

172

172

389

351

a

Based on imputations for labs that did not report data on backlogged cases.
b
Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

4 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

A total of 260 laboratories (of the 351 that responded to the
census) provided complete request processing data for at
least one forensic service (table 9). These 260 laboratories
reported a total of 252,810 backlogged requests on January 1, 2005, and that they received 2,003,544 new requests
during 2005 for a total of 2,256,354 requests. Laboratories
completed 81% (1,820,475) of those requests by the end of
2005, leaving 19% (435,879) backlogged at yearend. The
yearend backlog represented a 72% increase in backlogged requests from the beginning of 2005.
In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 69
requiring a DNA sample from all persons convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors or arrested for rape or murder. As a result of the increased workload, the state data
bank reported ending 2005 with about 235,000 backlogged
samples.

with a backlog of 86 requests for DNA analysis, received
337 new requests, completed 265 requests, and finished
the year with 152 backlogged requests.
Controlled substance identification (51%), latent print
examination (16%), and DNA analysis (9%) accounted for
about three-quarters of the total yearend backlog (figure 2).
Firearm and toolmark examination (8%), biology screenings (7%), and toxicology analysis (5%) made up an additional 20% of backlogged requests at the end of 2005.

Types of requests backlogged at the end of 2005
Type of request
Controlled substances

Although the California DNA Data Bank reported completing nearly 67,000 samples in 2005, the laboratory did not
provide the number of backlogged DNA samples from 2004
and the number of new DNA samples received in 2005.
Without complete request processing data from this laboratory, the number of samples completed (67,000) and backlogged at yearend 2005 (235,000) could not be included in
the analysis of request processing.

Latent prints
DNA analysis
Firearm/toolmarks
Biology screening
Toxicology
Trace evidence
Impressions

During 2005 the backlog grew for a range of commonly
performed services. Laboratories performing controlled
substance identification began 2005 with a median backlog
of 44 such requests. At yearend the median backlog was
107. A typical lab performing DNA testing in 2005 began

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent distribution of total yearend backlog
Note: Percentages are based on the 435,879 backlogged requests
at yearend reported by the 260 labs that provided complete
request processing data. Questioned documents and
computer crimes accounted for less than 0.5% of the total.
Figure 2

Table 9. Median number of requests for forensic services and yearend backlog in 2005, by type of request

Type of request

Labs performing
function

Labs reporting request totals
Percent
Numbera

Median number of forensic requests—
Backlogged
Backlogged
Received
Completed at yearend
on January 1

All requests

351

260

74%

215

4,328

3,980

401

Controlled substances
Firearms/toolmarks
Biology screening
Latent prints
Trace evidence

312
207
200
194
194

226
133
115
130
132

72%
64
58
67
68

44
40
45
87
11

2,716
257
358
909
108

2,638
249
296
931
105

107
62
85
115
19

DNA analysis
Toxicology
Impressions
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

187
185
181
70
43

124
133
81
43
12

66%
72
45
61
28

86
5
1
5
15

337
1,234
16
105
76

265
1,226
16
105
71

152
23
2
7
14

Total number of requests reportedb

252,810

2,003,544

1,820,475

435,879

Note: Numbers based on the 260 labs that reported complete request processing data. Request processing data were not collected for crime
scene analysis. Table does not include data from the California DNA Data Bank. See appendix table 1 for request totals for each type of request.
a

Some labs provided data for more than one function.

bThe

yearend backlog was calculated by subtracting the number of requests completed in 2005 from the total number of new requests that year and
backlogged from 2004.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 5

The percent of requests backlogged at yearend 2005
was similar to the percent backlogged at yearend 2002
To examine change in the overall capacity of crime laboratories to turn around all requests within a 30-day period,
comparisons were made among laboratories that provided
request processing data in 2002 and 2005 for individual
forensic services including controlled substance identification, latent prints, DNA analysis, firearm and toolmark, biology screening, and toxicology. Together these types of
requests accounted for almost the entire backlog.
Both censuses received complete data for controlled substance requests from 150 laboratories (table 10). These
laboratories began 2002 with an initial backlog of approximately 51,000 requests for controlled substance identification and received an additional 793,000 requests. During
2002, 80% (676,000) of the 844,000 total requests were
completed, leaving 20% backlogged at the end of the year.
The same laboratories reported a total of 856,000 controlled substance requests received during 2005 and backlogged from 2004. As in 2002 about 20% of these requests
were backlogged at yearend 2005. The overall number of
full-time examiners in these laboratories increased 5%
between 2002 and 2005 (not shown in table).
About 1 in 4 (23%) of the requests for latent prints analysis
in 2002 were backlogged at yearend. Despite more latent
print requests in 2005, these laboratories ended the year
with a similar percentage backlogged (24%). The ability to
maintain a similar completion rate in 2005 may have been
aided by the increase in personnel to process the requests.
The number of examiners in these 79 laboratories
increased 4% from 2002 to 2005.
Relatively no change was found in the percentage of DNA
requests that were backlogged at yearend 2002 and 2005.
During both years laboratories were able to process about
60% of the requests backlogged from the previous year
and received during the year. About 40% were backlogged
at yearend. The number of examiners in these 67 laboratories grew 5% during the 3 years.
Greatest personnel need was DNA analysts
The ability to process a larger percentage of evidence
depends on numerous factors including the complexity of
the procedures, use of innovative solutions, and availability
of examiners and other resources. Overall, laboratories
were able to complete about 80% of all outstanding
requests in 2005. The remaining requests were backlogged
at yearend. This completion rate was lower for more complex types of examinations, such as DNA analysis and biology screening.
Laboratories were asked how many full-time examiners or
analysts were required to process their requests. The work
of a single examiner varied depending on the type of
request. DNA analyses were more time consuming and
complex than the examination of controlled substances or
toxicology.
6 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

Table 10. Percent of total forensic requests backlogged at
yearend 2005 and 2002, by type of request
Number of requests
Status at yearend
Backlogged
from previ- Number Percent
Total
New ous year
completed backlogged

Type of
request
Controlled
substances
2005
2002
Latent prints
2005
2002
Toxicology
2005
2002
Firearms/
toolmarks
2005
2002
DNA analysis
2005
2002
Biology
screening
2005
2002

855,817
844,183

774,001
793,492

81,816
50,691

677,030
675,595

21%
20

197,471
155,793

171,470
128,983

26,001
26,810

150,792
120,037

24%
23

251,585
298,704

242,034
287,108

9,551
11,596

238,262
279,662

5%
6

77,876
70,132

59,923
60,050

17,953
10,082

54,693
52,919

30%
25

51,269
37,202

38,227
27,730

13,042
9,472

30,932
22,882

40%
38

38,463
41,362

29,214
33,619

9,249
7,743

25,689
28,464

33%
31

Note: Numbers for each request type were based on labs that reported
data for the 2005 and 2002 censuses: 150 labs for analysis of controlled
substances, 79 for latent prints, 81 toxicology, 97 firearms/toolmarks, 67
DNA analysis, and 67 biology screening. Totals do not represent all
requests received by the nation's crime labs.

A typical DNA analyst completed 77 requests in 2005
(figure 3). By comparison, the average forensic examiner
completed about 10 times the number of controlled substance requests that year (752). These examiners compared drug-related evidence with standards of known origin
to identify unknown substances.
Mean number of requests completed per full-time examiner
in 2005
Type of request
Toxicology
Controlled substances
Latent prints
Firearms/toolmarks
Impressions
Biology screening
Trace evidence
DNA analysis
Questioned documents
Computer crimes
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Note: Numbers based on labs that provided complete data
on request processing and employee performance.
See appendix table 2 for more information.
Figure 3

Information on work performance (the average number of
requests an examiner completed in 2005) was used to
determine which forensic disciplines were most understaffed to handle their workload. DNA work needed the
largest increase in full-time examiners to eliminate the
yearend backlog. Based on the average performance of a
DNA analyst in 2005 (77), laboratories performing DNA
analysis would have needed an estimated 73% more staff
to complete all DNA requests in 2005 (figure 4). Biology
screening (usually in preparation of DNA analysis) represented the next highest need for an increase in full-time
analysts (57%) followed by firearm and toolmark analysis
(46%) and examination of trace evidence, such as hair and
fibers, (43%).

Percent increase in full-time examiners needed to achieve
a 30-day turnaround on all requests in 2005
Type of request
DNA analysis
Biology screening
Firearms/toolmarks
Trace evidence
Latent prints
Controlled substances
Questioned documents
Computer crimes
Impressions
Toxicology
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Note: Numbers based on labs that provided complete data
on request processing and employee performance.
See appendix table 3 for more information.

8 in 10 crime labs had a Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS)
A LIMS is used by laboratories to manage and track forensic evidence received from criminal investigations. In 2005
about 80% of crime laboratories had a LIMS (table 11).
Laboratories serving state jurisdictions (90%) were more
likely than county (70%) or municipal (45%) laboratories to
have this system. Overall 4 in 10 laboratories with a LIMS
reported that the system needed major improvements or
replacement.
About half of laboratories outsourced some forensic
work
To meet demands for forensic services, about half of the
publicly funded forensic crime laboratories contracted
private laboratories for at least one type of forensic service
in 2005 (table 12). Nearly 30% of laboratories reported
outsourcing DNA casework, and 11% outsourced CODIS
samples.
A total of 190 laboratories provided outsourcing data for
both censuses. A larger percentage of those laboratories
outsourced forensic work in 2005 (54%) than in 2002
(44%).
Different strategies helped to manage workload
Laboratories were asked whether they engaged in any special procedures to manage their workloads in 2005. The
following are examples of strategies laboratories reported
using:

Figure 4

Table 11. Percent of crime laboratories with a Laboratory
Information Management System (LIMS) in 2005
and 2002, by type of jurisdiction

Type of jurisdiction
All labs*
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs reporting

Labs reporting in—
2005
2002
79%
90
70
45
302

75%
88
70
33
271

Comparable labs
reporting in both years
2005
2002
81%
89
76
56
216

77%
89
69
33
216

*Includes federal labs, not shown separately.

Table 12. Percent of publicly funded crime laboratories
outsourcing requests for forensic services in 2005 and 2002

Type of request

Comparable labs
Labs reporting in— reporting in both years
2005
2002
2005
2002

Any outsourcing
DNA casework
Toxicology
CODIS* samples
Controlled substances
Number of labs reporting

51%
28
17
11
6
268

41%
19
14
9
4
269

54%
29
18
11
5
190

44%
23
15
11
5
190

*Combined DNA Index System.

• prioritize requests by investigative need
• screen out requests for cases that will not be prosecuted
• allow customers to cancel requests for services no
longer needed
• assist laboratories in the same system that have larger
backlogs.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 7

Methodology

Imputation procedures for national estimates

Data collection
Data collection for the 2005 Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories was conducted by Sam Houston State University (SHSU) for BJS. The National Forensic
Science Technology Center and the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors assisted in developing and
administering the data collection instrument, which was
pre-tested with 17 laboratories.
In May 2006 the census form was mailed to 393 facilities
that self-identified as crime laboratories. Some laboratories
were part of a multiple laboratory system. The census
attempted to collect information from each laboratory in the
system. Police identification units, although sometimes
responsible for crime scene analysis, were not included in
the census.
Four laboratories were subsequently dropped because
they did not meet the project definition of a publicly funded
forensic crime laboratory (see Definitions section). Completed forms were obtained from 291 of the 389 eligible laboratories. Follow-up telephone calls and emails encouraged non-responding laboratories to participate. In a final
effort to improve response, a shorter census instrument
was developed to collect basic information about laboratory
operations. An additional 60 laboratories responded to the
short form, for a final response rate of 90% (table 13). Of
the 351 responses received for the 2005 census, 197 were
submitted electronically and 154 were mailed or faxed.
The 389 eligible laboratories included 210 state, 84 county,
62 municipal, and 33 federal laboratories. Ten federal laboratories responded to the 2005 census, compared to 25 for
2002. Because of the low response rate in 2005, summary
statistics for federal laboratories were not presented in
many of the tables.
Data from the FBI Laboratory were included in the summary statistics of this report. The FBI Laboratory provided
2003 data for the 2002 collection.
Table 13. Response rates for the Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 and 2002
Type of
jurisdiction

Number of labs in
census
2005
2002

Labs reporting to census
Number
Percent
2005
2002
2005
2002

All laboratories

389

351

351

306

90 %

87 %

State
County
Municipal
Federal

210
84
62
33

198
67
53
33

207
79
55
10

171
62
48
25

99 %
94
89
30

86 %
93
91
76

Note: Seventeen labs reported a different government affiliation in 2005
than 2002. To allow for jurisdiction-level comparisons between 2002 and
2005, the government affiliation of these labs was based on information
from the most recent census.

8 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

To generate national estimates for personnel, budgets, and
case totals, several imputation methods were used to
account for missing data. For the 2005 census 296 laboratories reported a combined staff of 9,364 full-time employees in 2005 (table 14). Employee data were obtained for 13
non-responding laboratories through alternative sources
(call backs, the Internet, or annual reports). For the other
80 laboratories, imputations were made using either the
number of authorized FTE in 2005, employee data from the
2002 census, or the median staff size in 2005 among laboratories of similar type, depending on the availability of
data. Estimates for 2002 were generated using the same
methods.
Budget data were provided by 254 laboratories for the 2005
census, 10 of which provided combined budget data for the
entire system. Those totals were distributed proportionately
across each laboratory in the system based on the staff
size. Budget information from the 2002 census was used
for 65 laboratories that had missing budget data in 2005.
For the 70 remaining laboratories, the staff size was multiplied by the median ratio of expenditures per employee for
laboratories of similar type and size.
The 2002 national estimates in this report differ from the
respondent-level estimates in the BJS report Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002 published in February 2005. The revised estimates represent
all laboratories operating in 2002, not just those that
responded to the census.
Reason for no nationally estimated forensic request totals
Findings in this report on the processing of forensic
requests are based on laboratories that reported complete
information. Table 9 provides the total number of requests
received, processed, and backlogged among the 260 laboratories that reported complete data for at least 1 of their
services. National estimates could not be generated for all
389 laboratories operating in 2005.
Data on laboratory functions were provided by 351 laboratories. Without knowing the services performed by the 38
other laboratories, nationally estimated request totals cannot be generated for all laboratories performing a specific
function. To illustrate, of the 194 laboratories that reported
performing latent print analysis in 2005, 130 laboratories
provided complete request processing data for that function. Although it would be possible to estimate request
totals for the 64 latent print laboratories missing request
data, imputations could not be made for the 38 laboratories
that did not respond to the census. Without information on
how many of the 38 laboratories performed this function,
the number of latent print requests received, completed,
and backlogged cannot be reliably estimated at the
national level.

Table 14. Imputation procedures for national estimates
Number of labs
All publicly funded forensic labs
Full-time employees
Reported to census
Obtained from alternative source (call back, website, or annual report)
Imputed using—
the number of FTE positions authorized that year
employee data from the other census
median staff size for labs of similar jurisdiction
Annual operating budget
Reported to census
Distributed combined budget data across each lab in system
Imputed—
using budget data from the other census
by multiplying the staff size by the median ratio of expenditures per employee for
labs of similar size and jurisdiction
Number of cases received during the year
Reported to census
Imputed—
using data on cases received from the other census
by multiplying the staff size by the median ratio of cases per employee for labs of
similar size and jurisdiction
Number of cases backlogged at yearend
Reported to census
Imputed—
using data on backlogged cases from the other census
by multiplying the number of cases received by the median percentage of backlogged cases for labs of similar size and jurisdiction

Definitions
Analyst/examiner—an investigator who inspects, analyzes, and interprets physical evidence, writes reports, and
delivers testimony in court about the evidence.
Backlogged request—a request that has been submitted to
a specialized area of the crime laboratory and is not completed within 30 days.
Biology screening—the location, screening, identification,
and characterization of blood and other biological stains
and substances.
Case—all physical evidence from a single criminal investigation submitted for crime laboratory analysis.
Computer crimes analysis—investigation of various types
of computer-based crime, such as the recovery, extraction,
and analysis of electronic digital images.
Controlled substance identification—the identification of
drugs and other substances whose possession or use, in
either legal or illicit dosages, is restricted by the government.
Crime laboratory—a scientific laboratory (with at least one
full-time natural scientist) that examines physical evidence
in criminal matters, and provides reports and opinion testimony with respect to such physical evidence in courts of
law.

2005

2002

389

351

296
13

278
0

55
24
1

25
43
5

244
10

225
42

65

42

70

42

288

265

51

52

50

34

265

243

46

56

78

52

Crime scene analysis—the identification, documentation,
collection, and interpretation of physical evidence at a location external to a laboratory facility and where a suspected
crime has occurred.
DNA analysis—the identification and comparison of DNA in
biological samples, including those from crime scenes
(casework) and those from convicted offenders.
Firearms/toolmarks analysis—examination and comparison of evidence resulting from discharge and/or use of firearms; comparison of marks made by various tools.
Impressions analysis—identification, documentation, collection, and interpretation of two-dimensional and threedimensional impressions and imprints found at crime
scenes (including footwear and tire tread).
Latent prints analysis—development and/or comparison of
finger or palm print impressions.
Municipal—pertains to cities, towns, villages, and boroughs.
Questioned documents analysis—examination of printed,
typed, or written material for the purpose of identifying the
source or determining alterations, or other means of gaining information about the item or the circumstances surrounding its production.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 9

Request—submission of physical evidence from a case to
a single specialized area of a crime laboratory. Multiple
submissions of new evidence from the same case to one or
more sections of the laboratory would count as separate
requests.

Other BJS reports related to forensics are available on
the BJS website.
Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 1998, February 2000;

Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001, January 2002;

Toxicology—analysis of biological samples for the presence of drugs and other potentially toxic materials. Includes
antemortem, postmortem, and BAC (blood alcohol content).

50 Largest Crime Labs, 2002, September 2004;

Trace evidence—any analytical procedure using microscopy or chemical and instrumental techniques. Includes the
examination of gunshot residue, explosives, hair, fibers,
and fire debris.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories,
2002, February 2005;
Medical Examiners and Coroners’ Offices, 2004, June
2007;
Unidentified Human Remains in the United States, 19802004, November 2007;

Appendix table 1. Number of requests for forensic services and yearend backlog in 2005, by type of request

Type of request

Labs reporting
request totalsa

Number of forensic requests reported in 2005
Backlogged on
Backlogged at
January 1
Received
Completed
yearendb

All requests

260

252,810

2,003,544

1,820,475

435,879

Controlled substances
Firearms/toolmarks
Biology screening
Latent prints
Trace evidence

226
133
115
130
132

112,693
26,316
18,545
44,123
8,685

1,086,672
84,453
62,127
237,049
38,491

976,687
75,889
51,429
211,019
32,838

222,678
34,880
29,243
70,153
14,338

DNA analysis
Toxicology
Impressions
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

124
133
81
43
12

24,030
16,200
1,041
931
246

67,009
389,446
29,623
6,793
1,881

52,812
383,441
27,890
6,605
1,865

38,227
22,205
2,774
1,119
262

Note: Numbers based on the 260 labs that reported complete request processing data. Request processing data were not
collected for crime scene analysis. Table does not include data from the California DNA Data Bank. Totals do not represent all
requests received by the nation's crime labs.
aSome

labs provided data for more than one function.

b

Calculated by subtracting the number of requests completed in 2005 from the total number of new requests that year and
requests backlogged from 2004.

Appendix table 2. Mean number of requests completed per full-time examiner in 2005, by type of request

Type of request

Labs
reporting

Total

Number of requests
Backlogged
New in 2005 from 2004

Total requests Reported full-time
completed in examiners com- Requests per
2005
pleting requests examiner*

Toxicology
Controlled substances
Latent prints
Firearms/toolmarks
Impressions

131
223
127
130
80

404,473
1,187,443
281,049
110,007
30,650

388,281
1,077,028
236,937
83,729
29,612

16,192
110,415
44,112
26,278
1,038

382,279
967,218
210,946
75,193
27,882

490
1,286
563
389
157

780
752
375
193
178

Biology screening
Trace evidence
DNA analysis
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

114
130
120
43
12

77,871
47,086
89,648
7,724
2,127

59,474
38,447
65,907
6,793
1,881

18,397
8,639
23,741
931
246

49,658
32,834
51,905
6,605
1,865

417
398
672
89
36

119
83
77
74
52

Note: Numbers based on labs that provided complete data on request processing and employee performance.
Request processing data were not collected for crime scene analysis.
*Calculated by dividing the number of requests completed in 2005 by the number of examiners completing requests that year.

10 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

Appendix table 3. Percent increase in full-time examiners needed to achieve
a 30-day turnaround on all requests in 2005, by type of request

Type of request

Labs reporting

Requests per
examiner

Requests
backlogged at
yearend

Full-time examiners needed
to eliminate backlog
Percent
Numbera increaseb

DNA analysis
Biology screening
Firearms/toolmarks
Trace evidence
Latent prints

120
114
130
130
127

77
119
193
83
375

37,743
28,213
34,814
14,252
70,103

490
237
180
172
187

73%
57
46
43
33

Controlled substances
Questioned documents
Computer crimes
Impressions
Toxicology

223
43
12
80
131

752
74
52
178
780

220,225
1,119
262
2,768
22,194

293
15
5
16
28

23%
17
14
10
6

Note: Numbers based on labs that provided complete data on request processing and employee
performance. Request processing data not collected for crime scene analysis.
a
Calculated by dividing the number of requests backlogged at yearend by the number of requests completed per examiner.
bCalculated by dividing the number of examiners needed to complete the backlog in 2005 by the number of
examiners completing requests that year.

BJS

For electronic versions of this report,
visit the BJS website
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
To order paper copies of this or other BJS reports —
• Visit
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/bjspubs.aspx
• Call 1-800-851-3420
Download datasets and documentation from
the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data —
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/index.html

11 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

*NCJ~222181*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical
agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L.
Sedgwick is the director.
This Special Report was written by Matthew R.
Durose. Brian Reaves provided statistical review.
Lauren Giordano verified the report. Catherine Bird
and Tina Dorsey edited and produced the report,
under the supervision of Doris J. James. Jayne E.
Robinson prepared the report for final printing.
Matthew Hickman, former BJS Statistician, was
project manager for the 2005 census. Sam Houston
State University staff, under grant number 2006-BJCX-K005 and in collaboration with BJS, developed the
questionnaire, and collected and processed the data:

This report in portable document format (includes
(2) appendix tables) and in ASCII and its related
statistical data are available at the BJS World Wide
Web Internet site:

12 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005

Joseph Peterson, Principal Investigator; Dennis
Longmire, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator; Steven
Cuvelier, Ph.D., On-line Data Entry Technical
Consultant; Anna Leggett, Research Assistant; and
Robert Morris, Research Assistant.
Kevin Lothridge, of the National Forensic Science
Technology Center, and representatives of the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
(ASCLD), including Earl Wells, Susan Johns,
Elizabeth Carpenter, Linda Erdei, and Bill Marbaker,
served as subject matter experts and consultants to
this project, providing assistance with the
development and review of the census instrument,
project guidance, and non-response follow-up.
July 2008, NCJ 222181
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov