2002 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crimb Labs Report

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin
February 2005, NCJ 207205

Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002
Joseph L. Peterson
University of Illinois at Chicago
Matthew J. Hickman
BJS Statistician
Federal, State, and local forensic crime
laboratories employed over 9,300 fulltime equivalent (FTE) personnel in
2002 and had total budgets exceeding
$750 million. These publicly funded
labs received nearly 2.7 million new
cases, including a much larger number
of separate requests for forensic
services during calendar year 2002.1
These labs ended the year with over
500,000 backlogged requests for
forensic services — a more than 70%
increase in the backlog of requests
compared to the beginning of the year.2
The backlog increased in most categories of forensic services.
The Nation’s publicly funded crime labs
estimated that about 1,900 additional
FTEs would have been needed to
achieve a 30-day turnaround for all
2002 requests for forensic services.
Based on starting salaries for analysts
or examiners in these labs, the
estimated cost of the additional FTEs
exceeds $70.2 million.
Over three-quarters of the labs
indicated that resources beyond
1
A "case" is defined as evidence submitted from
a single criminal investigation. A case may
include multiple "requests" for forensic services.
For example, one case may include a request
for biology screening and a request for latent
prints.
2
A case or request is defined as backlogged if it
is in the laboratory and remains unreported for a
period of 30 days or more.

Highlights
• A total of 351 publicly funded forensic crime laboratories operated in the
United States as of yearend 2002.
This total includes 203 State or
regional labs, 65 county, 50 municipal,
and 33 Federal labs.

• Forty-one percent of publicly funded
labs in 2002 reported outsourcing one
or more types of forensic services to
private labs. Overall, labs outsourced
nearly 240,000 requests for forensic
services.

• A typical laboratory in 2002 had 2
managers, 2 secretaries or clerks,
12 analysts, and 2 technicians. The
median laboratory operating budget
in 2002 was $1.3 million.

• Ninety-one percent of outsourced
requests were DNA-related, including
nearly 13,000 casework requests and
205,000 convicted offender samples
in the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS). The median cost of outsourcing one CODIS sample was $30.

• A typical laboratory in 2002 started
the year with a backlog of about 390
requests, received 4,900 requests,
and completed 4,600 requests.
• About half of all requests in 2002
were in the area of controlled
substances.
• Nearly all laboratories employed
standard protocols for DNA testing
(98%), controlled substances (98%),
and latent prints (97%).

• Sixty-one percent of the labs are
accredited by the American Society
of Crime Laboratory Directors Lab
Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB).
An additional 10% are accredited by
some other organization.
• Fifty-five percent of non-Federal
labs received some funding from
grants in 2002.

• Examiners in the Nation’s crime
laboratories processed requests at or
above 90% of the expected examiner
averages in 8 of 10 categories
of forensic services.

• About half (52%) of publicly funded
labs in 2002 had resources dedicated
to training. Twelve percent had
resources dedicated to research.

personnel increases would also have
been needed to achieve a 30-day
turnaround on all 2002 requests.
These resource needs included capital
expenditures for new and renovated
laboratory space and facilities;
additional and updated equipment;
instrumentation, robotics, and

computers; basic and advanced training opportunities; and improved
Laboratory Information Management
Systems (LIMS). The total estimated
cost of these needs exceeds $500
million.

Background
Several surveys of crime laboratories
have been conducted over the past 35
years, beginning with the 1967 John
Jay College survey of crime laboratories.3 Surveys conducted in the
1970’s and 1980’s4 and in the 1990’s5
have enumerated laboratory facilities in
the United States, examined the role
and impact of scientific evidence in the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, and documented workloads
and other administrative data among
various samples of laboratories.
In recent years BJS has surveyed DNA
crime laboratories (Survey of DNA
Crime Laboratories, 2001, ). The National Institute of Justice
has commissioned studies of DNA
backlog and other topics in the forensic
sciences, both in the United States and
abroad (
and ).

Table 1. Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories and employees
in the United States, by size of laboratory, 2002
Total laboratories
Number of FTE
employees

Number

All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Percent

2

Number

Percent

305

100%

9,397

100%

15
46
60
92
92

5%
15
20
30
30

2,268
3,061
2,096
1,455
518

24%
33
22
15
6

Table 2. Publicly funded forensic crime laboratories and employees
in the United States, by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction

Total laboratories
Number
Percent

Total FTE employees
Number
Percent

All laboratories

305

100%

9,397

100%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

176
60
45
24

58%
20
15
8

4,797
1,760
1,746
1,095

51%
19
19
12

As of yearend 2002, 351 publicly
funded forensic crime laboratories
operated in the United States. This
total includes all labs that employed at
To obtain current baseline information
least one full-time scientist whose
about the workload and operations of
principal function is examination of
the Nation’s forensic crime laboraphysical evidence for law enforcement
tories, BJS in 2003-04 conducted its
first Census of Publicly Funded Foren- agencies and to provide reports and
testimony to courts of law with respect
sic Crime Laboratories. This report
to that evidence. This report is based
details the organization, functions,
on data for 305 responding laborabudget, staffing, workload, and
tories, unless specifically noted in
performance expectations of the
Nation’s publicly funded Federal, State, tables and figures. Data for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory
and local forensic crime laboratories
division, the Nation’s largest publicly
currently operating. BJS previously
reported data for the 50 largest publicly funded forensic crime laboratory, are
funded State and local labs (50 Largest summarized separately. (See page
11.)
Crime Labs, 2002,).
Just over half (54%) of the laboratories
are units of larger laboratory systems,
3
A. Joseph, Crime Laboratories – Three Study
and most (90%) of these laboratories
Reports, OLEA Projects 013, 140, and 66-3,
serve State or regional jurisdictions.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
1968.
The census collected information from
4
R. Fox and C. Cunningham, Crime Scene
each lab within larger laboratory
Search and Physical Evidence Handbook,
systems.
Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration, 1973, and J. Peterson, S.
Mihajlovic, and J. Bedrosian, "The Capabilities,
Uses, and Effects of the Nation's Criminalistics
Laboratories," Journal of Forensic Sciences,
30:1, 1985, pp. 10-23.
5
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), Survey of crime laboratory needs
(unpublished), 1998.

Total FTE employees

Just 5% of publicly funded labs had
100 or more FTEs in 2002, but these
labs employed nearly a quarter (24%)
of all FTE personnel.
Most of the labs (58%) served State or
regional jurisdictions (table 2). Twenty
percent served county-level jurisdictions, and 15% municipal jurisdictions.
Eight percent served Federal or
national jurisdictions.
State or regional laboratories employed
4,797 FTEs, or about half (51%) of all
FTE personnel. County and municipal
labs accounted for 1,760 (19%) and
1,746 (19%), respectively. Federal or
national labs employed 1,095 FTEs, or
about 12% of the total.
Overall, publicly funded crime labs in
2002 were authorized for a total of
9,798 FTEs and actually employed
9,397 FTEs, or 96% of the authorized
total.

Personnel

Type of jurisdiction

Authorized
FTEs

Percent
employed

All laboratories

9,798

96%

Publicly funded crime laboratories in
2002 employed about 9,400 full-time
equivalent (FTE) personnel (table 1).
Most labs were relatively small. For
example, 60% of labs employed fewer
than 25 FTE personnel, and 80%
employed fewer than 50 FTEs.

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

5,031
1,816
1,779
1,173

95%
97
98
93

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

Analysts or examiners - persons who
typically prepare evidence, conduct
tests, interpret results, sign laboratory
reports, and testify in court - comprised
60% of all crime lab FTEs in 2002
(table 3). Technical support personnel,
who typically assist analysts or examiners in preparing evidence and conducting tests, accounted for 12% of all
FTEs. Twelve percent of FTEs were
managerial personnel, 9% were in
clerical positions, and 6% in miscellaneous categories.
Analysts or examiners comprise
between 55% and 64% of all FTEs
across laboratory size categories.
Likewise, technical support personnel
range from 9% to 15% of FTEs,
managerial personnel range from 10%
to 16% of FTEs, and clerical support
personnel range from 8% to 13% of
FTEs.
Similar ranges in the distribution of
personnel are evident among labs by
type of jurisdiction served (table 4).
A typical laboratory operation has
about 18 FTE employees, including 2
managers, 2 secretaries/clerks, 12
analysts, and 2 technicians (table 5).
Among the largest labs – those having
100 or more FTEs – a typical operation
has 135 FTEs, including 17 managers,
14 secretaries/clerks, 76 analysts, and
16 technicians.
Among the smallest labs – those
having fewer than 10 FTEs – a typical
operation has 6 FTEs, including 1
manager, 1 secretary/clerk, and 3
analysts.
Laboratories serving Federal or
national jurisdictions tend to be larger
than labs serving other types of jurisdictions, typically employing about
45 FTEs, including 5 managers, 4
secretaries/clerks, 29 analysts, and
6 technicians (table 6).

Table 3. Employment by publicly funded forensic crime laboratories
in the United States, by size of laboratory, 2002
FTE employees in listed categories –
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

Analyst /
examiner

Technical
support

5,651

Managerial

1,162

1,133

Clerical
support

Other

843

573

100 or more
1,251
264
308
215
233
50 to 99
1,828
463
307
256
179
25 to 49
1,333
211
267
175
108
10 to 24
933
179
169
128
38
Fewer than 10
306
46
82
69
15
Note: Personnel data for some labs are imputed. See Methodology section, page 15, for greater
detail. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding of fractional FTEs.

Table 4. Employment by publicly funded forensic crime laboratories
in the United States, by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

Analyst /
examiner

FTE employees in listed categories –
Technical
Clerical
support
Managerial
support

5,651

1,162

1,133

Other

843

573

State/regional
2,959
580
556
462
225
County
1,046
232
229
167
84
Municipal
953
237
204
104
244
Federal/national
693
114
145
111
20
Note: Personnel data for some labs are imputed. See Methodology section, page 15, for greater
detail. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding of fractional FTEs.

Table 5. Median number of FTEs in different employment categories,
by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

Median FTE
employees
18

Median number of FTE employees in listed categories –
Analyst/
Technical
Clerical
examiner
support
Managerial
support
Other
12

2

100 or more
135
76
16
50 to 99
61
37
8
25 to 49
35
21
3
10 to 24
16
10
1
Fewer than 10
6
3
0
Note: Median values are rounded to nearest whole value.

2

2

0

17
6
4
2
1

14
5
3
1
1

14
1
1
0
0

Table 6. Median number of FTEs in different employment categories,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

Median FTE
employees
18

Median number of FTE employees in listed categories –
Analyst/
Technical
Clerical
examiner
support
Managerial
support
Other
12

2

State/regional
16
10
1
County
17
11
2
Municipal
19
14
2
Federal/national
45
29
6
Note: Median values are rounded to nearest whole value.

2

2

0

1
2
2
5

2
2
1
4

0
0
0
0

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

3

Laboratory functions

Forensic crime laboratory functions, 2002

About 90% of laboratories reported they
examined controlled substances (figure
1). About two-thirds of laboratories
examined firearms and toolmarks
(63%), performed the screening of
biological samples (usually in preparation for DNA analysis on selected
exhibits) (65%), and examined latent
prints (61%).
Examiners in 62% of laboratories
engaged directly in crime scene investigations; however, most forensic
examiners did not visit crime scenes.
When asked who in their jurisdiction
performs most major crime scene
investigations, a quarter of the labs
indicated that laboratory scientists
doubled as crime scene investigators.
The majority (62%) of laboratories
reported that agencies or persons
separate from the lab handled most
major investigations. These typically
include a police unit having specialized
evidence technicians or crime scene
search officers who go to such scenes,
take photographs, and locate, preserve, label and gather the physical
evidence.
A much smaller percentage (14%) of
laboratories reported that crime scene
investigators operated from their
laboratory and have primary responsibility for processing major crime scene
investigations. Most of these are city or
municipal laboratories.
Fifty-nine percent of laboratories
examined one or more forms of trace
evidence (such as hairs, fibers, glass,
or paint) that may associate offenders
and victims with one another and/or
offenders with crime scenes.

Type of service
Controlled substances
Biology screening
Firearms / toolmarks
Crime scenes
Latent prints
Trace evidence
DNA analysis
Toxicology
Questioned documents
Computer crimes
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of laboratories providing forensic function

Figure 1

Less common functions were the
examination of questioned documents
(26% of laboratories), and computer
crime investigations (11%).
Larger labs are generally able to
handle a broader range of functions.
Across all labs, the median number of
forensic functions performed was 6,
ranging from 3 functions among the
smallest labs – those having fewer
than 10 FTEs – to 8 functions among
the largest labs – those having 50 or
more FTEs.
Number of FTE
employees

Median number of
forensic functions

All laboratories

6

100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

8
8
7
6
3

A majority of larger labs were performing each of the listed functions. Among
the smallest labs, a majority performed
two of the listed functions: controlled
substances (84%) and crime scene
processing (57%).
Labs serving Federal or national jurisdictions were more specialized,
typically performing three forensic
functions, while labs serving other types
of jurisdictions typically perform six or
seven functions.
Type of jurisdiction

Median number of
forensic functions

All laboratories

6

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

6
7
6
3

About three-quarters of labs serving
Federal or national jurisdictions
processed controlled substances
(78%) and latent prints (74%) (table 8).

Table 7. Forensic crime laboratory functions, by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

Controlled Biology
substances screening
90%

Firearms/
toolmarks

65%

100 or more
100%
93%
50 to 99
96
80
25 to 49
97
83
10 to 24
88
67
Fewer than 10
84
39
Note: Table does not include “other” category.

4

Percent of laboratories performing listed forensic functions
Crime
Latent
Trace
DNA
scenes
prints
evidence
analysis Toxicology

Questioned
documents

Computer
crimes

63%

62%

61%

59%

55%

48%

26%

11%

93%
80
86
66
31

57%
74
66
58
57

80%
86
75
56
39

100%
77
79
57
32

93%
77
81
55
21

67%
48
53
52
36

80%
46
44
14
7

14%
27
14
9
3

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

Table 8. Forensic crime laboratory functions, by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Percent of laboratories performing listed forensic functions
Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

Controlled
substances
90%

Biology
screening
65%

State/regional
91%
68%
County
93
75
Municipal
88
67
Federal/national
74
14
Note: Table does not include “other” category.

Workload

Management information systems
Laboratory Information Management
Systems (LIMS) manage cases and/or
evidence. These computer-based
systems enable the laboratories to
track the thousands of cases and items
of evidence that they process. A single
case may result in different forms of
evidence undergoing analysis in
various sections of a crime laboratory.
Three-quarters of laboratories had
LIMS. Labs serving municipal jurisdictions were less likely to have LIMS
(29%), compared to 88% of labs
serving State or regional jurisdictions,
74% of Federal/national labs, and 69%
of county labs.
Type of jurisdiction

Percent of labs
with LIMS

All laboratories

75%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

88%
69
29
74

Evidence processing
Publicly funded crime laboratories in
2002 received 2,695,269 new cases –
evidence submitted from a single criminal investigation that may include multiple requests for forensic services – and
ended the year with a backlog of
262,637 cases (table 9).
Overall, labs received a median 4,429
cases in 2002 and ended the year with
a median backlog of 370 cases.
Larger labs typically handled more
cases; those having 100 or more FTEs
received a median 31,388 cases and
ended the year with a median backlog
of 3,190 cases.

Firearms/
toolmarks

Crime scenes

Latent
prints

Trace
evidence

DNA
analysis

63%

62%

61%

59%

55%

48%

26%

11%

64%
67
72
27

59%
63
82
39

55%
58
76
78

58%
73
50
41

57%
70
48
14

55%
51
36
5

21%
31
33
38

7%
14
16
26

In contrast, the smallest labs – those
having fewer than 10 FTEs – received
a median 1,997 cases and ended the
year with a median backlog of 101
cases.

Questioned Computer
Toxicology documents crimes

and the median backlog was about 520
cases.

Labs serving municipal jurisdictions
received about 684,000 cases in 2002
(a quarter of all cases), and had the
Labs serving State or regional jurisdic- highest median (about 5,900 cases).
tions received about 1.1 million cases
These labs had a yearend backlog of
in 2002 (or 42% of all cases) (table 10). about 50,000 cases – or 19% of the
The median number of cases received total – and had a median backlog of
by these labs was about 4,000 cases.
about 150 cases.
These labs ended the year with a
backlog of about 145,000 cases – 55% Labs serving Federal or national jurisof the total backlog – and the median
dictions received about 86,000 cases
backlog was about 470 cases.
in 2002, or about 3% of the total, and
had the lowest median (about 1,300
Labs serving county jurisdictions
cases). These labs ended the year with
received about 791,000 cases in 2002, nearly 8,800 backlogged cases – 3% of
or 29% of the total. The median
the total – and had a median backlog
number of cases received in these labs of about 140 cases.
was about 5,800 cases. These labs
ended the year with nearly 59,000
backlogged cases – 22% of the total –
Table 9. Cases received and yearend case backlog, by size of
laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees

Cases received during 2002
Total
Median

All laboratories

2,695,269

4,429

Cases backlogged at yearend
Total
Median
262,637

370

100 or more
567,725
31,388
53,883
3,190
50 to 99
692,067
11,983
74,445
1,100
25 to 49
640,145
7,102
63,459
784
10 to 24
581,036
4,590
53,075
347
Fewer than 10
214,296
1,997
17,775
101
Note: Case data for some labs are imputed. See Methodology section, page 15, for detail.

Table 10. Cases received and yearend case backlog,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction

Cases received during 2002
Total
Median

All laboratories

2,695,269

4,429

Cases backlogged at yearend
Total
Median
262,637

370

State/regional
1,133,702
4,092
145,167
472
County
791,310
5,756
58,804
521
Municipal
684,097
5,933
49,890
153
Federal/national
86,160
1,296
8,776
136
Note: Case data for some labs are imputed. See Methodology section, page 15, for detail.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

5

Publicly funded crime laboratories
began 2002 with a backlog of about
290,000 requests for forensic services
(table 11). These labs received an
additional 2.7 million requests during
2002 and completed nearly 2.5 million
requests.

the form of pills, powders, vegetable
matter (for example, marijuana), and
other residues.

A typical lab in 2002 had a backlog of
about 390 requests, received 4,900
new requests, completed 4,600
requests, and finished the year with a
backlog of about 650 requests (median
values).

Labs performing controlled substances
analysis processed a total of nearly 1.2
million requests during 2002, with a
typical lab completing about 2,800
requests. These labs ended the year
with about 233,000 backlogged
requests, or about 290 requests per
lab on average.

A typical lab performing analyses of
controlled substances received about
3,000 such requests during 2002.

backlogged requests, or about 140
requests per lab on average.
For every three latent print requests
completed in 2002, approximately one
request was outstanding at yearend.

DNA analysis

The total estimated backlog at yearend
– about 501,000 requests – represents
an increase of 211,000 requests, or
73%, from the backlog at the beginning
of the year. Overall, for every five
requests completed by publicly funded
crime laboratories in 2002, one request
was outstanding at yearend.
Seventy-three percent of the total
backlogged requests at yearend 2002
were attributable to controlled
substances (46%), latent prints (17%),
and DNA analysis (10%).

Controlled substances
Almost half of all new requests (about
1.3 million requests, or 48%) for analysis were for controlled substances, in

Just 2% of all new requests – about
61,000 requests – were in the area of
DNA analysis. A typical lab performing
DNA analysis received about 250 such
requests during 2002.

Labs performing DNA analysis
processed nearly 42,000 requests, with
a typical lab completing about 170
Overall, for every five controlled
substance requests completed in 2002, requests. These labs ended the year
with about 49,000 backlogged
about one request was outstanding at
requests, or about 130 requests on
yearend.
average.
Latent prints
For every five DNA analysis requests
About 274,000 new requests (or 10%
completed in 2002, approximately six
of all new requests) were for analysis
requests remained outstanding at
of latent prints. A typical lab performing yearend.
latent prints analysis received about
860 such requests during 2002.
As would be expected, larger labs
processed a greater volume of
Labs performing latent prints analysis
requests than smaller labs during 2002
processed about 238,000 requests
(table 12). Although the overall median
during 2002, with a typical lab complet- backlog at the beginning of the year
ing about 790 requests. These labs
was about 390 requests, the median
ended the year with about 86,000
ranged from 70 requests among the

Table 11. Requests for forensic services and estimated yearend backlog in the
Nation’s publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, by type of function, 2002

Type of function
Total

Backlogged requests
as of January 1, 2002
Total
Median

New requests received
during 2002
Total
Median

Requests completed
in 2002
Total
Median

Estimated backlogged
requests at yearend
Total
Median

289,938

394

2,706,785

4,892

2,495,313

4,559

501,410

646

Controlled substances
Biology screening
Firearms/toolmarks
Crime scene
Latent prints

95,404
18,456
22,636
1,579
50,245

171
66
43
0
119

1,291,488
88,857
104,068
166,588
274,225

3,045
381
290
65
860

1,154,221
76,332
88,997
165,461
238,135

2,822
332
240
53
786

232,671
30,981
37,707
2,706
86,335

294
102
65
1
140

Trace
DNA analysis
Toxicology
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

9,997
29,516
17,523
3,391
952

30
72
30
23
20

41,531
60,887
467,752
16,683
2,839

132
246
1,541
131
49

36,878
41,592
455,624
15,562
2,757

124
172
1,457
123
45

14,650
48,811
29,651
4,512
1,034

40
131
51
27
34

Other functions
40,239
12
191,867
165
219,754
107
12,352
21
Note: Examples of forensic services listed by labs in ‘other functions’ category include fire debris, polygraph, shoe/tire print, and digital imaging.
Backlog data should be interpreted with caution for a variety of reasons. First, some laboratories may not have included pending requests that had
been logged in December of the year prior to the reference period, but were not yet 30 days old. As such, backlogged requests may represent a
subset of total pending requests for some laboratories. Second, in State laboratory systems requests may occasionally be moved between laboratories, with the initial request being logged at one laboratory and the completion at another laboratory. Third, some complex cases may start with an
initial request and evolve into multiple requests. The additional work may be completed without logging additional requests. Finally, data were
imputed for labs that did not provide complete forensic request processing information. See Methodology section, page 15, for greater detail.
Collectively, these concerns suggest that the backlog estimates are conservative and that the actual backlog may be greater than estimated.

6

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

smallest labs to nearly 5,200 requests
among the largest.
Likewise, the median number of new
requests ranged from about 1,700
among the smallest labs to over 35,000
among the largest; median completed
requests ranged from about 1,600 to
over 37,000; and median yearend
backlog ranged from about 70 to nearly
3,700 requests.
Labs serving county jurisdictions had
the lowest median backlog at the
beginning of the year, about 360
requests (table 13). These labs
received a median 5,300 requests
during 2002, completed about 4,900
requests, and finished the year with a
backlog of about 690 requests.
Municipal labs had a median backlog
of about 390 requests at the beginning
of the year. These labs received a
median 5,400 requests during 2002
and completed about 5,000. Municipal
labs had the lowest median yearend
backlog – about 400 requests.
State or regional labs had a median
backlog of about 400 requests at the
beginning of the year. These labs
received a median 4,400 requests
during 2002, completed about 4,200,
and finished the year with a backlog of
about 650 requests.
Labs serving Federal or national jurisdictions had the highest median
backlog at the beginning of the year,
about 430 requests. These labs
received a median 5,500 requests,
completed about 4,900 requests, and
finished the year with the highest
median backlog – about 860 requests.

Table 12. Median number of requests for forensic services and estimated
yearend backlog in the Nation’s publicly funded forensic crime laboratories,
by size of laboratory, 2002
Median number of –
Number of FTE
employees

New requests
received

Requests
completed

394

4,892

4,559

646

5,164
1,343
678
373
70

35,146
12,949
6,963
4,776
1,705

37,201
11,854
6,458
4,335
1,610

3,682
1,816
1,426
520
72

All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Backlogged
requests
at yearend

Backlogged
requests as of
January 1, 2002

Table 13. Median number of requests for forensic services and estimated
yearend backlog in the Nation’s publicly funded forensic crime laboratories,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Median number of –
Backlogged
requests
at yearend

Backlogged
requests as of
January 1, 2002

New requests
received

Requests
completed

All laboratories

394

4,892

4,559

646

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

404
362
387
434

4,412
5,347
5,447
5,460

4,234
4,926
4,966
4,944

651
694
403
858

Number of FTE
employees

Procedures included in standard protocols for latent prints, 2002
Type of procedure
Chemical or laser
processing
Comparison with
known prints
AFIS search
Computer enhancement
Limiting items to be
analyzed
0%

20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of laboratories using procedure

100%

Figure 2

Standard protocols

Fingerprint examination

Standard protocols are an important
consideration in explaining resource
needs because the complexity of a
protocol will affect the speed with which
exams can be completed and the
volume of requests that can be
processed on an annual basis. A protocol that requires an analyst to follow
prescribed steps, while enhancing
completeness and reliability, may slow
the speed with which samples are
processed.

Fingerprint examination is one of the
oldest specialty areas within the forensic sciences, and one that has resisted
firm standards for how to examine a
print and the criteria to be used in
making an identification. Fingerprint
examination is also an area in which
the experience of the examiner and
individual judgment are considered
paramount.

Ninety-seven percent of labs conducting fingerprint examination reported
they have a standard protocol for
fingerprint examination. Of these labs,
more than 90% report they process
them (that is, chemically or via laser
examination), compare them with
known prints, and use an AFIS
(Automated Fingerprint Identification
System) to search a database (figure
2). AFIS enables investigators to
consult large local, State, and national
databases to determine the identity of
prints of unknown origin found at crime

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

7

scenes. Two-thirds of laboratories
reported they regularly enhance latent
prints using computer techniques. A
third of labs report they routinely limit
the number of items examined; crime
scenes may yield many latent prints
and the majority of labs report they
examine all that are recovered.

Controlled substances
Almost all laboratories (98%) that
examine controlled substances have
standard protocols. This is to be
expected because the field as a whole
has agreed to the minimum wet chemical and instrumental means needed to
identify a particular controlled
substance.

Procedures included in standard protocols for controlled
substances, 2002
Type of procedure
Limiting items to be
analyzed
Routine quantifications
Identification of adulterants
and/or dilutents
Reports of preliminary
analytic findings

0%

More laboratories are experimenting
with managerial and technical steps to
reduce their caseloads and the time for
analyses and giving testimony in court.
Whereas labs once proceeded with a
complete analysis when a suspected
controlled substance was submitted –
regardless of input from any other
criminal justice agency – more laboratories today are requiring proof from
the police and/or prosecutor that the
case will proceed (that is, be prosecuted) before continuing with a
complete analysis.

8

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of laboratories using procedure

Figure 3

Procedures included in standard protocols for DNA analysis, 2002
Type of procedure

Most labs (71%) attempt to limit the
drugs they seek to identify (figure 3).
This is not unexpected given the large
drug-related caseloads, and many labs
examine only a representative sample
of the total drug seizure and/or
conclude their testing once they identify
a controlled substance that supports
the state’s prosecution.
Drug seizures are commonly
composed of “cutting agents” that
dilute the purity of the sample and may
also be used to determine the point or
manufacturer of origin. Unlike other
forms of evidence, however, examiners
do not usually attempt to determine a
drug’s manufacturer or point of origin.
About a quarter of the labs report they
identify adulterants and/or diluents in
the samples and issue preliminary
findings based on these analyses.

20%

Limiting items to be
analyzed
Batch processing
Use of technicians
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of laboratories using procedure

Figure 4

DNA testing
Almost all laboratories (98%) that
perform DNA analysis follow a
standard protocol for DNA testing.
DNA testing has been the subject of
great scientific and legal scrutiny, and,
as a result, forensic DNA analysts have
adopted protocols acceptable to both
legal and scientific communities.
In addition to requiring an accepted
laboratory protocol, specific steps
included limiting the number of items
examined (70%), by asking
investigators/prosecutors to be explicit
in what questions they expect the DNA
tests to answer, and handling the
samples via batch processing (66%)
(figure 4). Both steps enable laboratories to focus on particular stains and
save the laboratory time and expense.
Forty-one percent of the laboratories
indicated they use technicians in DNA
testing, a step that calls for personnel
with less training and experience to
examine garments and to select stains

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

that will likely yield scientific results that
may help to resolve a critical question
in the case.
Performance expectations
Performance expectations of examiners vary depending on the complexity
of examinations in different evidence
areas. Analysts are expected to
perform large numbers of controlled
substance and toxicology examinations
annually, given that the purpose of the
exam is to identify the substance in
question. For most other examination
areas, examiners compare evidence of
unknown origin with standards of
known origin, to determine whether the
evidence and standard originated from
the same source. These latter types of
examinations typically require a longer
period for analysis.

Crime laboratory directors in 2002
expected their controlled substances
analysts to process nearly 900
requests per FTE examiner (table 14).
Likewise, the median expectation for
toxicology analysts was nearly 500
requests per FTE examiner. The next
highest category was latent prints,
where the median expectation was 264
requests per FTE examiner.
Expected performance was much
lower in all other categories, where
examiners typically attempt not only to
identify the evidence, but to associate
that evidence with a suspect, weapon,
or some other instrument of the crime.
Expectations for computer investigations and DNA analysis – 2 areas
where procedures may be very time
consuming and interpretations complex
– were the lowest of the 10 categories.
Overall, examiners in the Nation’s
crime laboratories processed requests
at or above 90% of the expected
averages in 8 of the 10 listed categories, and exceeded expected performance in two of these areas – latent
prints and toxicology. Analysts
processed requests in the remaining
two categories, firearms/toolmarks and
computer crimes, at about 80% of the
expected average.
Human resource needs
Overall, publicly funded laboratories
estimated that an additional 1,917

FTEs would be needed in order to
achieve a 30-day turnaround on all
requests for forensic services received
in 2002 (table 15). The estimated total
cost of the additional FTEs exceeds
$70.2 million, with a median per lab
cost of $161,000.
Over half (54%) of the needed FTEs
were in three areas: DNA analysis
(19%); controlled substances (19%);
and latent prints (16%).

DNA analysis
Labs performing DNA analysis
estimated that about 370 additional
FTEs would have been needed to
achieve a 30-day turnaround on all
DNA analysis requests received during
2002, given current laboratory conditions and analysis tools. These
additional FTEs represent a 79%
increase in FTEs currently performing
DNA analysis. The estimated cost of
these additional FTEs exceeds $14.4
million, with a median per lab cost of
$82,100.

Table 14. Expected and actual
requests completed per examiner
FTE, by type of function, 2002
Type of function
Controlled substances
Biology screening
Firearms/toolmarks
Crime scene
Latent prints

Median requests
Expected Actual
892
159
142
96
264

810
153
115
86
286

Trace
100
93
DNA analysis
74
67
Toxicology
490
614
Questioned documents
100
98
Computer crimes
60
46
Note: Table includes labs that reported both
expected and actual performance data in
listed categories.

analysis. The estimated cost of
additional FTEs needed for analysis of
controlled substances exceeds $11.2
million, with a median per lab cost of
$50,300.

Latent prints

Labs performing latent print analysis
estimated that about 300 additional
FTEs would have been needed to
Controlled substances
achieve a 30-day turnaround on all
such requests received during 2002.
Labs performing analysis of controlled
These additional FTEs represent a
substances estimated that 355
51% increase in FTEs that were
additional FTEs would have been
needed to achieve a 30-day turnaround currently performing latent print
services. The estimated cost of these
on all such requests received during
2002. These additional FTEs represent additional FTEs exceeds $10.4 million,
with a median cost of $69,400 per lab.
a 16% increase in FTEs currently
performing controlled substance

Table 15. Estimated additional personnel needs in order to achieve a 30-day turnaround on all requests
for forensic services received, by type of function, 2002

Type of function

Number of FTEs currently
performing function
Total
Median per lab

Number of additional FTEs
needed to achieve 30-day
turnaround
Total
Median per lab

Estimated cost of
additional FTEs
Total
Median per lab

Total

5,813

9

1,917

2

$70,208,000

$161,000

Controlled substances
Firearms/toolmarks
Biology screening
DNA analysis
Latent prints

2,232
448
347
465
582

4
2
2
3
3

355
196
165
369
298

1
1
1
2
1

$11,253,000
7,238,000
6,053,000
14,421,000
10,488,000

$50,300
40,700
50,200
82,100
69,400

322
564
466
119
82

2
4
2
2
2

150
75
145
56
63

1
0
1
0
1

$5,733,000
2,753,000
5,359,000
2,405,000
3,304,000

$49,200
73,700
50,000
38,400
56,000

Trace
Crime scene
Toxicology
Questioned documents
Computer crimes

Other functions
162
1
31
0
$1,149,000
$39,300
Note: Estimated cost is based on starting salaries of analysts or examiners, and does not include benefits or other personnel
costs. Some labs did not provide information for this table. Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

9

Outsourcing laboratory services
Crime laboratories address the problem of rising caseloads by outsourcing various types of analyses. DNA
analysis is an area where demand has
increased in recent years as laboratories try to keep up with expanding
casework as well as examining
samples to enter into convicted
offender computerized databases that
belong to the Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS).
DNA analysis is one area in which
many private laboratories are equipped
to perform forensic casework. Fewer
private laboratories engage in more
traditional forensic work such as
firearms and trace analysis. Publicly
funded labs have elected to divert
cases to such facilities to partially
relieve caseload pressure. Once
private labs satisfy accreditation
standards set by the field, public crime
labs will use them to handle routine
cases.
Forty-one percent of publicly funded
laboratories reported outsourcing one
or more types of forensic services in
2002 (table 16). Outsourcing was more
common among larger labs, with 71%
of the largest labs – those having 100
or more FTEs – reporting some type of
outsourcing. About a quarter of the
smallest labs reported some type of
outsourcing.
Nearly two-thirds of labs serving
municipal jurisdictions reported
outsourcing some requests for
forensic services in 2002 (table 17).
Forty-two percent outsourced DNA
casework, and 26% outsourced toxiciology requests.
Fifty-seven percent of labs serving
county jurisdictions outsourced
requests in 2002. Thirty-two percent
outsourced toxicology requests, and
28% outsourced DNA casework.
About a third of labs serving State or
regional jurisdictions outsourced
requests in 2002. Thirteen percent
outsourced CODIS samples, and 12%
outsourced DNA casework.

10

Table 16. Outsourcing of requests for forensic services,
by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees

Any
outsourcing

All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

DNA
analysis

Percent of labs outsourcing -CODIS
Controlled
Toxicology
samples
substances

41%

19%

14%

9%

5%

71%
64
42
42
24

43%
28
22
17
10

21%
17
11
18
10

21%
19
13
7
1

0%
3
4
6
5

Table 17. Outsourcing of requests for forensic services,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002

Type of jurisdiction

Any
outsourcing

DNA
analysis

Percent of labs outsourcing -CODIS
Controlled
Toxicology
samples
substances

All laboratories

41%

19%

14%

9%

5%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

34%
57
63
11

12%
28
42
0

7%
32
26
0

13%
6
3
0

11%
4
4
0

Eleven percent of labs serving Federal
or national jurisdictions reported
outsourcing requests in 2002. These
requests were in the area of digital
evidence (computer crimes) and other
unspecified areas.

Quality, training, and research

Accreditation

Seventy-one percent of publicly funded
laboratories in 2002 were accredited by
some type of professional organization.
Overall, labs outsourced nearly
Larger labs were more likely to be
240,000 requests for forensic services accredited, including more than 80%
in 2002. The majority of these requests of labs having 25 or more FTEs and
(91%) were DNA-related. These
more than 70% of labs having 10 to 24
included nearly 13,000 casework
FTEs (table 18). About half (51%) of
requests and 205,000 CODIS samples. the smallest labs were accredited.
Labs outsourcing DNA-related
requests spent nearly $4.4 million on
casework requests and $5.9 on CODIS
samples. The median cost per outsourced request was nearly $1,200 for
casework, and just $30 for CODIS
samples.
In addition to DNA-related requests,
about 14,300 toxicology and 6,000
controlled substances requests were
outsourced in 2002. Labs outsourcing
in these areas spent $990,000 on
toxicology requests and $450,000 on
controlled substances requests. The
median cost per outsourced toxicology
request was $138. For controlled
substances, the median cost was $88
per outsourced request.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

Labs serving a State or regional jurisdiction were most likely to be accredited (79%), and labs serving a municipal jurisdiction, the least (47%) (table
19).
Table 18. Publicly funded labs
accredited by professional organizations, by size of laboratory, 2002
Percent of labs
accredited by –
Number of FTE ASCLDOther
employees
LAB
organization
All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

61%

10%

73%
71
75
58
46

13%
15
9
15
5

Table 19. Publicly funded labs
accredited by professional organizations, by jurisdiction served, 2002
Percent of labs
accredited by -ASCLD- Other
LAB
organization

Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

61%

10%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

71%
50
37
54

8%
16
10
13

Sixty-one percent of labs were accredited by the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors Lab Accreditation
Board (ASCLD-LAB). This includes
more than 70% of labs having 25 or
more FTE employees, and about 60%
of those having 10 to 24 FTEs. Less
than half of the smallest labs were
accredited by ASCLD-LAB.
Labs having a State or regional jurisdiction were the most likely to be
ASCLD-LAB accredited (71%), and
labs with municipal jurisdictions were
least likely (37%).

Ninety-seven percent of publicly funded
laboratories in 2002 were engaged in
proficiency testing, a procedure that
has become an essential quality assurance practice over the past 30 years.
Proficiency testing was slightly less
common among smaller labs (those
having fewer than 10 FTEs) and
among labs serving municipal jurisdictions, although a strong majority of labs
in both categories did engage in such
testing.
Percent of labs engaged
in proficiency testing, 2002

100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Type of test*
Declared
Random case
reanalysis
Blind
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of laboratories using test
*Labs could report more than 1 type of test.

Figure 5

Among the labs engaged in proficiency
testing, almost all (97%) use declared
tests, a type of test in which the
examiner knows he/she is being tested
(figure 5).
Another testing process that has
gained favor over the past several
years is random case reanalysis,
where examiners’ completed prior
casework is randomly selected for

reanalysis by a supervisor or another
examiner. A little over half (54%) of
laboratories engaged in proficiency
testing use this type of test. Twenty-six
percent of the labs engaged in proficiency testing use blind tests, a type of
test in which the examiner doesn't
know the sample being analyzed is a
test sample.
Almost all (98%) of laboratories
engaged in proficiency testing used
tests that were generated externally
(not shown in a table). External tests
allow the laboratory to compare its
results against other laboratories
engaged in similar testing.
In addition to external tests, 74% of
laboratories engaged in proficiency
testing used internally generated tests.
For example, a laboratory director or
supervisor or a quality control unit may
create test samples. Externally generated proficiency tests are generally
deemed a more objective measure of a
laboratory’s performance.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory

Proficiency testing

Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

Types of proficiency tests used
for analysts/examiners, 2002

97%
100%
100
100
99
92

Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

97%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

99%
94
90
100

The FBI Laboratory Division is the largest publicly funded forensic crime
laboratory in the United States, with 585 FTE employees as of January 2004.
The FBI lab is more than twice as large as the next largest publicly funded
crime lab.
The FBI lab provides a full range of forensic services, including all of those
catalogued by the BJS census of forensic crime labs.
The FBI’s fiscal budget for laboratory operations is about $172.2 million, nearly
8 times greater than the operating budget of the next largest publicly funded
crime lab. The total budget includes about $31.5 million (or 18% of the total)
for research and development.
The FBI lab began 2003 with an estimated backlog of 3,062 requests for
forensic services. About two-thirds of the backlog was attributable to latent
prints requests.
During 2003, the FBI lab received 6,994 new requests and completed 7,403
requests. The estimated yearend backlog was 2,653 requests, a 13% reduction in total backlog from the beginning of the year. Latent print requests
comprised half of the yearend 2003 backlog.
By the end of the first quarter of 2004, the FBI lab reported a total backlog of
2,585 requests. This included 1,216 latent print requests, or 47% of the total.
The FBI laboratory reported a need for additional equipment and 249
additional FTEs in order to have achieved a 30-day turnaround on all 2003
requests. The cost of the additional equipment was estimated to be $40
million. Based on starting salaries for analyst/examiners, the estimated cost
of the additional FTE’s exceeds $17.5 million.
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

11

Percent of labs
with resources
dedicated to
research, 2002

Training and research
About half (52%) of publicly funded
laboratories in 2002 dedicated
resources to training, defined as ‘a
structured interaction process with the
function of teaching the history,
theories, and/or the application of
those scientific techniques and
methods that are utilized within the
crime laboratory.’
Nearly 80% of labs having 50 to 99
FTEs and nearly 60% of those having
100 or more FTEs reported having
resources dedicated to training.
Slightly less than half of labs having 10
to 49 FTEs dedicated resources
to training.
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Percent of labs
with resources
dedicated to
training, 2002
52%
57%
78
44
44
54

By type of jurisdiction served, 74% of
labs having federal or national jurisdictions and 63% of labs having municipal
jurisdictions reported having resources
dedicated to training. Less than half of
labs serving State or regional jurisdictions had resources dedicated to
training.

Type of jurisdiction

Percent of labs
with resources
dedicated to training, 2002

All laboratories

52%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

47%
54
63
74

Twelve percent of laboratories dedicate
resources to research, defined as
‘experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, the
revision of accepted theories, or practical application of such new or revised
theories or technologies.’

Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

12%

100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

21%
32
13
6
7

Larger labs were more likely to have
resources dedicated to research.
Thirty-two percent of labs having 50 to
99 FTEs and 21% of those with 100 or
more FTEs had resources dedicated to
research. Less than 10% of labs
having fewer than 25 FTEs had
resources dedicated to research.
Percent of labs
with resources
dedicated to
research, 2002

Type of jurisdiction
All laboratories

12%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

8%
12
11
53

More than half (53%) of labs serving
Federal or national jurisdictions had
resources dedicated to research, while
about 10% of labs serving other types
of jurisdictions had such resources.
Budget and pay

Operating budgets
Obtaining information on budgets is
difficult because some laboratories are
units of larger scientific and/or law
enforcement systems that do not have
accurate figures on an individual lab’s
expenditures. For example, personnel
expenditures, facility leases, and

equipment contracts might be covered
by a centralized unit. Because of these
difficulties, budget figures should be
considered with care.
Publicly funded crime labs in 2002 had
estimated total annual budgets exceeding $750 million (table 20). The median
annual budget per laboratory was $1.3
million, ranging from $359,000 among
the smallest labs to $8.7 million among
the largest.
On a per employee basis, the median
operating budget was $125,600 per
analyst/examiner and $74,200 per FTE
employee. Medium-sized labs – those
having 25 to 49 FTEs – had the highest
median operating budgets on a per
employee basis – $155,500 per
analyst/examiner and $89,800 per
FTE.
Laboratories serving State or regional
jurisdictions accounted for about $400
million, or 53% of the total (table 21).
County labs accounted for $155 million
(21%) and municipal labs, $100 million
(13%). Labs serving Federal or
national jurisdictions accounted for $96
million, or about 13% of the total.
On a per laboratory basis, those
serving Federal or national jurisdictions
had the highest median budgets at
nearly $2.6 million. Median budgets in
labs serving other types of jurisdictions
ranged from $1.2 million (State or
regional) to $1.6 million (municipal).
Labs serving Federal or national jurisdictions had the highest median
operating budgets on a per employee
basis – $163,500 per analyst/examiner

Table 20. Operating budget of publicly funded laboratories,
by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees
All sizes
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Total operating
budget, 2002

Median operating budget per -Analyst /
FTE
Laboratory
examiner
employee

$752,139,000

$1,346,000

$125,600

$74,200

$160,981,000
222,021,000
197,099,000
130,138,000
41,900,000

$8,700,000
4,447,000
3,070,000
1,152,000
359,000

$116,600
117,300
155,500
123,700
125,900

$68,200
64,900
89,800
74,500
67,800

Note: Total and per agency figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000; per
analyst/examiner and per employee figures, to the nearest $100. Budget data for some
labs are imputed. See Methodology section for greater detail.

12

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

Funding sources

Table 21. Operating budget of publicly funded laboratories,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Median operating budget per –
Analyst /
FTE
Laboratory
examiner
employee

Type of
jurisdiction

Total operating
budget, 2002

All sizes

$752,139,000

$1,346,000

$125,600

$74,200

$401,189,000
154,712,000
100,369,000
95,868,000

$1,165,000
1,488,000
1,557,000
2,588,000

$120,200
140,800
123,200
163,500

$74,000
87,600
61,100
105,000

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

Note: Total and per agency figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000; per analyst/examiner
and per employee figures, to the nearest $100. Budget data for some labs are imputed. (See
Methodology section for greater detail.)

Table 22. Laboratories receiving at least some funding from various sources,
by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories

State
government
67%

Percent of labs receiving funding from –
Local
Federal
government Government
Grants
41%

21%

55%

100 or more
73%
36%
36%
82%
50 to 99
63
47
23
77
25 to 49
76
45
26
57
10 to 24
61
44
18
56
Fewer than 10
69
34
18
40
Note: Labs serving Federal/national jurisdictions are excluded from this table.

Fees
29%
18%
37
33
25
28

Table 23. Laboratories receiving at least some funding from various sources,
by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction
All laboratories

State
government
67%

Percent of labs receiving funding from –
Local
Federal
government Government
Grants
41%

21%

55%

State/regional
96%
9%
29%
53%
County
28
91
7
61
Municipal
14
97
9
53
Note: Labs serving Federal/national jurisdictions are excluded from this table.

and $105,000 per FTE. Labs serving
State or regional jurisdictions had the
lowest - $120,200 per analyst/examiner
and $74,200 per FTE.

Budget categories
The largest operating budget category
was personnel, typically accounting for
nearly 80% of labs’ total operating
budgets. About 15% of laboratory
budgets were typically devoted to
supplies (7%), equipment (5%), and
services (3%). Facilities and travel
each accounted for about 1% of labs’
operating budgets.

Budget category

Fees
29%
31%
30
16

Median percentage
of total operating
budgets, 2002

Personnel
79%
Supplies
7
Equipment
5
Services
3
Facilities
1
Travel
1
Training
-Quality assurance
-Note: Table does not include ‘other’ costs.
--Less than 0.5%.

Excluding labs having Federal or
national jurisdictions, for which all
funding was derived from Federal
sources, 67% of labs reported receiving at least some funding from State
sources (table 22). Forty-one percent
of laboratories reported receiving at
least some funding from local sources.
Twenty-one percent of laboratories
reported receiving at least some
funding from Federal sources. Federal
funding was more likely among larger
labs, including 36% of those having
100 or more FTEs. In contrast, about
18% of labs having less than 25 FTEs
reported receiving Federal funding.
Over half (55%) of labs reported
receiving at least some funding from
grants. Grant funding was more likely
among larger labs, including 82% of
those having 100 or more FTEs. Forty
percent of the smallest labs received
grant funding.
About 3 in 10 labs reported receiving
fees for services.
Labs receiving State funding included
96% of those serving State or regional
jurisdictions, 28% of county labs, and
14% of municipal labs (table 23).
Recipients of local governmental
funding included 97% of labs serving
municipal jurisdictions, 91% of county
labs, and 9% of State or regional labs.
Federal funding was reported by 29%
of labs serving State or regional jurisdictions, 9% of municipal labs, and 7%
of county labs.
Labs receiving grant funding included
61% of those serving county jurisdictions, and 53% of those serving municipal, State or regional jurisdictions.
About 3 in 10 county, State, and
regional labs received fees for
services. Sixteen percent of municipal
labs received such fees.

While most laboratories are engaged in
quality assurance programs like proficiency testing, accreditation, and
methods validation, only a small
proportion of laboratory operating
budgets (typically less than 1%) is
devoted to training or quality
assurance.
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

13

Average proportion of laboratory
budgets from Federal, State, and
local sources, by type of
jurisdiction served, 2002
Percent of
total budget
100%
Federal
80%
60%

State
40%
20%

Local
0%

Muni- County State/
regional
cipal

Type of jurisdiction served

Figure 6

Among labs serving municipal
jurisdictions, the greatest share of
laboratory budgets was funding from
local governments. Local funding
comprised 86% of municipal laboratory
budgets on average (figure 6). Three
percent was from State governments,

and less than half of 1% was from the
Federal Government.
Similarly, funding from local governments comprised 75% of county
laboratory budgets on average. Eight
percent was from State governments,
and less than half of 1% was from the
Federal Government.
Labs serving State or regional jurisdictions received 5% of their total budgets
from local governments, on average.
The greatest share of State or regional
laboratory budgets came from State
governments, about 80% on average.
Three percent was from Federal
Government.
Grants and fees contribute significantly
to laboratory operating budgets. On
average, the percentage of total
budgets attributable to grant funds is
10% among labs serving county jurisdictions, 8% among municipal labs,
and 5% among State or regional
laboratories.
The average percentage of total
budgets attributable to fees is 7%
among labs serving State or regional

jurisdictions, 4% among county labs,
and half of 1% among municipal
laboratories.

Salaries
Overall, median salaries for laboratory
directors ranged from $65,000 to
$89,200 annually; for mid-level supervisors, the range was $49,800 to
$75,600; for analyst/examiners,
$35,400 to $63,000; and for technicians, $26,400 to $40,200 (table 24).
In general, salary ranges were higher
among larger labs, and lower among
smaller labs. For example, median
salaries for laboratory directors ranged
from $78,800 to $110,900 among labs
with 100 or more FTEs, and from
$55,700 to $79,700 among labs with
fewer than 10 FTEs.
Median salaries for supervisors ranged
from $61,000 to $80,800 among labs
with 100 or more FTEs, and from
$47,100 to $65,000 among labs with
fewer than 10 FTEs. Analyst or
examiner salaries ranged from $36,200
to $77,000 among the largest labs, and
from $34,100 to $57,500 among the

Table 24. Median base annual salary for selected positions
in publicly funded laboratories, by size of laboratory, 2002
Number of FTE
employees
All laboratories
100 or more
50 to 99
25 to 49
10 to 24
Fewer than 10

Technical support
Minimum
Maximum

Median base annual salary, 2002
Analyst/examiner
Supervisor
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum

Director
Minimum
Maximum

$26,400

$40,200

$35,400

$63,000

$49,800

$75,600

$65,000

$89,200

$29,000
27,000
26,500
25,800
25,900

$42,800
42,700
42,700
38,400
35,000

$36,200
36,000
36,300
35,000
34,100

$77,000
67,000
67,500
62,000
57,500

$61,000
49,700
54,000
49,800
47,100

$80,800
80,100
77,600
74,200
65,000

$78,800
66,000
69,800
61,000
55,700

$110,900
95,400
95,800
83,800
79,700

Note: Salary figures have been rounded to the nearest $100.

Table 25. Median base annual salary for selected positions
in publicly funded laboratories, by type of jurisdiction served, 2002
Type of
jurisdiction

Technical support
Minimum
Maximum

Median base annual salary, 2002
Analyst / examiner
Supervisor
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum

Director
Minimum
Maximum

All laboratories

$26,400

$40,200

$35,400

$63,000

$49,800

$75,600

$65,000

$89,200

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

$25,000
26,600
30,100
27,500

$39,600
39,900
42,700
52,800

$33,200
40,100
38,600
35,100

$59,800
66,500
62,300
93,000

$47,800
55,600
49,800
80,000

$74,500
75,400
77,200
109,300

$59,000
68,200
65,000
96,000

$83,800
93,500
89,000
124,800

Note: Salary figures have been rounded to the nearest $100.

14

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

smallest. Salaries for technical support
personnel ranged from $29,000 to
$42,800 among the largest labs and
from $25,900 to $35,000 among the
smallest.
Median salary ranges were also generally higher among labs serving Federal
or national jurisdictions, and lower
among those serving State or regional
jurisdictions (table 25). For example,
median salaries ranged from $96,000
to $124,800 for directors of Federal or
national labs, and from $59,000 to
$83,800 for directors of State or
regional labs.
Salary ranges for supervisors ranged
from $80,000 to $109,300 among
Federal or national labs, and from
$47,800 to $74,500 among State or
regional labs. Analyst or examiner
salaries ranged from $35,100 to
$93,000 among Federal or national
labs and from $33,200 to $59,800
among State or regional labs. Salaries
for technical support personnel ranged
from $27,500 to $52,800 among
federal or national labs and from
$25,000 to $39,600 among State or
regional labs.
Methodology
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
awarded grant no. 2002-BJ-CX-K011
to the University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC) to undertake the 2002 Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories. UIC partnered with the
American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors (ASCLD) and the UIC Survey
Research Laboratory (SRL) to administer the census.

Appendix table. Laboratory response rates, by type of jurisdiction
Type of jurisdiction

All laboratories
Number
Percent

Responding laboratories
Number
Percent

Response rate

All laboratories

351

100%

306

100%

87%

State/regional
County
Municipal
Federal/national

203
65
50
33

58%
19
14
9

176
60
45
25

58%
20
15
8

87%
92
90
76

were removed from the list because
callers either determined the facility
was not a crime laboratory, was a
duplicate listing, or contained faulty
contact information.
Following the initial mailing of 430
surveys and a second round, 218 facilities completed the survey. Twelve labs
were determined to be ineligible. This
resulted in an initial response rate of
52% (218/418).
Following extensive follow-up efforts, it
was discovered that the list contained
many facilities that did not meet the
project definition of a crime laboratory:

A laboratory which employs one or
more full time scientists whose principal function is the examination of physical evidence for law enforcement
agencies and that provides reports and
testimony to courts of law with respect
to such evidence.
A number of police agency units on the
list investigated crime scenes,
searched for and gathered evidence,
and took photographs, but did not
employ full-time scientists to examine
the evidence collected. The list
contained names and addresses of
police “identification units” that typically
investigated crime scenes for fingerprints, and processed and examined
those fingerprints, but were not laboratories and did not employ at least one
scientist who examined and interpreted
the physical evidence.

The survey instrument was designed
by project staff with input from BJS
staff and the ASCLD advisory committee. The survey was pre-tested with 10
laboratories representing different
sized facilities (by number of FTE
scientists) and governmental affiliations The population subsequently dropped
to 351 eligible laboratories. Completed
(Federal, State, and local).
surveys were obtained from 281
ASCLD provided UIC with a mailing list laboratories, for a response rate of
80%. In a final effort to improve
of 469 facilities that self-identified as
response, UIC and BJS developed a
crime laboratories, and which ASCLD
reduced length survey instrument that
used for membership purposes.
collected basic information about
Advance letters were mailed to all
laboratory operations. In conjunction
laboratories followed by telephone
with additional telephone calls and
screening. A total of 39 laboratories

e-mails, another 25 laboratories
responded to the shorter survey, for an
overall response rate of 87%
(306/351).
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) laboratory division provided data
for 2003. This report presents the FBI
data separately.
Among the 45 non-responding laboratories are 27 State or regional labs, 5
county labs, 5 municipal labs, and 8
Federal labs. This results in response
rates of 87%, 92%, 90%, and 76%,
respectively (appendix table).
Among responding laboratories,
missing data imputations were made
for personnel, budgets, and evidence
processing data.
Missing actual FTE data were imputed
by multiplying authorized FTE by the
mean percentage of authorized FTEs
actually employed among labs of
similar type and size. Total FTEs in
specific categories of employment
were imputed by multiplying total actual
FTE by the median percentage of total
FTEs employed in specific categories
for labs of similar type and size.
Missing annual budget data were
imputed as follows: for labs reporting a
combined budget figure as part of a
laboratory system, the combined
budget was split proportionately, based
on a given labs’ share of total FTE for
the laboratory system. For other labs,
total FTE was multiplied by the median
ratio of expenditures per FTE for
similar labs by size and type. If the lab
was part of a State system in which
other labs reported individual budgets,
the median ratio method was used
within that system. Among labs serving
Federal jurisdictions, the median ratio
method was used for labs within the
same service.

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

15

Missing case processing data (cases
received and backlogged) were
imputed by multiplying total FTE by the
median ratio of cases per FTE for
similar labs by size and type.
Labs which did not provide complete
request processing data (initial
backlog, new requests, and completions) received imputed values within
each category of forensic service they
perform based on median requests per
FTE for similar labs by size. Total FTE
was multiplied by the median ratio for
labs of similar size for each type of
request.
Bureau of Justice Statistics reports
and questionnaires are available on
the BJS website . Files of the original
data may be obtained from the
BJS/NIJ archive at the University of
Michigan: National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) .

16

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the
statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Lawrence A. Greenfeld is director.

project, providing assistance with the
development and review of the
census instrument, project guidance,
and non-response follow-up.

Joseph L. Peterson, Professor and
Acting Head of the Department of
Criminal Justice, University of Illinois
at Chicago (UIC) and Matthew J.
Hickman, BJS Statistician, collaborated on this report. Steven K. Smith
reviewed the report. Tom Hester
edited the report.

ASCLD representatives included the
following: Elizabeth Carpenter, Director of the Portland (OR) State Police
Forensic Laboratory; Roger Kahn,
Deputy Superintendent of Laboratories of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Investigation; Susan
Johns, Bureau Chief of the Illinois
State Police Division of Forensic
Services; David Petersen, Assistant
Director of the Minnesota State
Forensic Science Laboratory; and the
late Jan Bashinski, Chief of the
Bureau of Forensic Services (retired),
California Department of Justice.

The 2002 census was directed by
Joseph L. Peterson and Sandra K.
Costello, Associate Director of the
UIC Center for Research in Law and
Justice (CRLJ). CRLJ project staff
included Laura Kunard, Andrew
Krzak, Cosmina Menghes, and Tiffany
Vasquez.
The UIC Survey Research Laboratory
(SRL) produced and administered the
Kevin Lothridge, Fellow of the
final census instrument.
National Institute of Justice, and
representatives of the American
February 2005, NCJ 207205
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors
Office of Justice Programs
(ASCLD) served as subject matter
Partnerships for Safer Communities
experts and consultants to this

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov