U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005 July 2008, NCJ 222181 --------------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpffcl05.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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). These findings are based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS)Census of Publicly Funded 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.***More information on NIJ forensic science research can be obtained on the Internet at *** 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. 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 two-thirds (65%) received some funding from grants (not shown in table). 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%). 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. 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: * backlogged as of January 1, 2005 * received in 2005 * completed during 2005. 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.***The Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI Laboratory 2005 Report is accessible at . 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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%). 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: * 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. Methodology 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. Imputation procedures for national estimates 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. Definitions Analyst/examine--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. 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 three-dimensional 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. 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. Toxicology--analysis of biological samples for the presence of drugs and other potentially toxic materials. Includes antemortem, postmortem, and BAC (blood alcohol content). Trace evidence--any analytical procedure using microscopy or chemical and instrumental techniques. Includes the examination of gunshot residue, explosives, hair, fibers, and fire debris. 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; 50 Largest Crime Labs, 2002, September 2004; Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002, February Medical Examiners and Coroners' Offices, 2004, June 2007; Unidentified Human Remains in the United States, 1980-2004, November 2007; 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-BJ-CX- K005 and in collaboration with BJS, developed the questionnaire, and collected and processed the data: 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 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: Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2:31 PM 7/28/2008/JER