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

November 2016, NCJ 250151

Matthew R. Durose and Andrea M. Burch, BJS Statisticians
Kelly Walsh and Emily Tiry, Urban Institute

I

n 2014, the nation’s 409 crime labs received
an estimated 3.8 million requests for forensic
services, down from the 4 million requests
received in 2009 (figure 1). The analysis of controlled
substances, biological samples collected from
convicted offenders and arrestees for a DNA database,
and toxicology accounted for about 3 in 4 requests
submitted to crime labs in both 2009 and 2014.
This report summarizes data from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2014 Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL)
and provides comparisons with data from prior
years. It focuses on the forensic services performed
by crime labs across the nation and the resources
devoted to completing the work. For information
on accreditations, proficiency tests, and other
quality assurances within publicly operated labs, see
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories: Quality
Assurance Practices, 2014 (NCJ 250152, BJS web,
November 2016).

Figure 1
Number of requests for services received by publicly
funded forensic crime labs, by type of request, 2009
and 2014
Number (in millions)
5
4

2009

2014

3
2
1
0

All requests

Controlled
substances

Convicted Toxicology
offender/
arrestee samples

Other
requests

Type of request
Note: See table 4 and appendix table 4 for estimates and
standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic
Crime Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„ Publicly funded crime labs received an estimated

3.8 million forensic requests in 2014 and completed
3.6 million requests that year (which included
requests received prior to 2014).
„„ At the end of 2014, U.S. crime labs had an

estimated backlog of 570,100 requests for forensic
services—a decline from 895,500 backlogged
requests at yearend 2009.
„„ DNA database samples from convicted offenders

and arrestees made up 39% of requests to federal
labs, 36% of state labs, and less than 5% of requests
to county and municipal labs.

„„ Thirty-eight percent of publicly funded crime labs

outsourced one or more types of forensic services
during 2014.
„„ Publicly funded crime labs employed 14,300 full-time

personnel in 2014.
„„ The combined operating budgets for publicly

funded crime labs in 2014 was $1.7 billion.

Bul l etin

Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories: Resources and
Services, 2014

Publicly funded forensic crime labs examine and report on
physical evidence collected during criminal investigations
for federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Crime labs perform
a variety of forensic analyses and receive requests for these
services from criminal justice agencies, such as police
departments, prosecutors offices, courts, and correctional
facilities. The ability of a lab to handle its forensic workload
depends on many factors, including the complexity of the
procedures and the availability of analysts and other resources.
Most crime labs provided forensic services in
multiple disciplines
Publicly funded crime labs provided an average of five different
forensic functions in 2014 (not shown) (See Methodology
for definitions of forensic functions.) Since 2002, crime labs
most commonly performed analyses of controlled substances.
Eighty-one percent of crime labs handled the identification of
illegal drugs and other controlled substances in 2014 (table 1).
Among crime labs that processed controlled substances,
9 in 10 analyzed synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., Spice or K2) and
synthetic cathinones (e.g., bath salts) in 2014 (not shown).
Sixty-two percent of crime labs analyzed biological samples,
such as blood and saliva, during 2014. Sixty-one percent
analyzed forensic biology collected during criminal casework
from crime scenes, victims, or suspects, and 16% analyzed
biological samples collected from convicted offenders and
arrestees for inclusion in a local, state, or national DNA
database (not shown). Crime labs enter DNA profiles from
criminal casework, convicted offenders, and arrestees into the
FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). CODIS software
allows crime labs to compare biological evidence collected
from criminal investigations to DNA profiles stored in a
database for the purpose of linking serial crimes together and
identifying suspects. All 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the federal government require offenders convicted of
certain crimes to provide DNA samples. Some jurisdictions
Table 1
Functions performed by publicly funded forensic crime labs,
2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014
Forensic function
Controlled substances
Crime scene
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology*
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence
Number of labs

2002
89%
60
12
60
65
…
59
24
46
56
351

2005
89%
39
15
57
61
50
57
20
50
54
389

2009
81%
52
19
54
59
44
60
16
42
50
411

2014
81%
52
22
55
62
40
63
14
43
48
409

Note: See appendix table 1 for standard errors.
…Not available.
*Includes forensic biology from either criminal casework or convicted offenders and
arrestees for a DNA database.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

must also collect DNA from certain arrestees. In 2014, state
labs (25%) were more likely than county (9%) and municipal
(4%) labs to analyze biological samples collected from
convicted offenders and arrestees for a DNA database (table 2).
Among crime labs that handled forensic biology requests in
2014, 15% conducted familial searching of a DNA database
for the purpose of identifying close biological relatives to
an unknown DNA profile collected from a crime scene
(not shown). Three percent of crime labs that performed
forensic biology services in 2014 reported using a Rapid DNA
instrument, which provided a fully automated method to
develop a DNA profile for a database.
The majority (63%) of crime labs analyzed latent (or hidden)
fingerprints recovered from crime scenes. About 8 in 10
(82%) of these labs used the FBI’s Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System to perform latent
fingerprint comparisons in 2014 (not shown). Overall, nearly
half (48%) of crime labs examined trace evidence in 2014.
Among these crime labs, 70% performed fire debris analysis,
44% conducted hair examinations, and 38% analyzed gunshot
residue (table 3).
Table 2
Functions performed by publicly funded forensic crime labs,
by type of jurisdiction, 2014
Forensic function
Controlled substances
Crime scene
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence
Number of labs

Federal
55%
42
54
27
27
12
26
67
34
9
57
39

State
87%
48
10
58
71
25
43
53
12
48
53
193

County Municipal
86%
71%
51
75
20
36
60
58
68
42
9
46
62
12
52
50
98

4
35
88
14
36
29
79

Note: See appendix table 2 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Table 3
Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that examined
trace evidence, by type of examination, 2009 and 2014
Trace evidence
Explosives analysis
Fiber examination
Fire debris analysis
Gunshot residue
Hair examination
Paint analysis
Unknown chemical
Number of labs that examined trace evidence

2009
32%
60
72
36
50
59
62
204

2014
32%
52
70
38
44
52
63
197

Note: Percentages based on labs that examined trace evidence. See appendix
table 3 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

2

Crime labs received nearly 4 million requests for forensic
services in 2014

More than half of all requests for forensic services were
sent to state labs

Crime labs play a critical role in the justice system, analyzing
millions of pieces of evidence from criminal investigations
each year. A criminal case may generate more than one type of
request to process or analyze evidence. For example, a crime
lab may receive fingerprints and DNA evidence from the same
case, which requires two separate requests for analysis by
different sections of the lab.

In 2014, more than half (2.2 million) of the estimated
3.8 million requests for forensic services received by publicly
funded crime labs nationwide were submitted to state
labs (table 5). Labs serving county and municipal jurisdictions
received 1.4 million forensic requests in 2014.
Table 5
Percent of requests for services received by publicly funded
forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014

The CPFFCL asked labs to provide the total number of
requests received and completed within their facility for each
forensic service. Completed requests included those received
prior to and during 2014. Submitting agencies sometimes
canceled requests before labs completed them because services
were no longer needed (e.g., law enforcement solved or closed
the case). The CPFFCL defined a pending forensic request as
backlogged if it was not completed within 30 days.

Type of request
Federal
All requests
100%
Controlled substances
27
Crime scene
-Digital evidence
2
Firearms/toolmarks
-Forensic biology casework
2
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
39
Impressions
-Latent prints
24
Questioned documents
1
Toxicology
4
Trace evidence
1
Total requests received*
254,000

In 2014, the nation’s 409 crime labs received an estimated
3.8 million new requests for forensic services and completed
3.6 million requests (table 4). About three-quarters of
requests received in 2014 were for either analysis of controlled
substances (33%), biological samples collected from convicted
offenders and arrestees for a database of DNA profiles (24%),
and toxicology (15%). Forensic biology casework accounted
for a larger proportion of the overall number of requests
received in 2014 (9%) than in 2009 (6%).

State
100%
33
--3
9

County
100%
40
9
-5
9

Municipal
100%
31
17
3
10
13

36
-4
-14
1
2,164,000

1
-10
-25
2
775,000

4
-12
-9
1
589,000

Note: Detail does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 5 for
standard errors.
--Less than 0.5%.
*Rounded to the nearest thousand.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Table 4
Requests for services received and completed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of request, 2009 and 2014
Received
2009
Type of request
All requests
Controlled substances
Crime scene
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence

Completed
2014

Number
4,020,000
1,358,000
188,000
33,000
147,000
260,000

Percent
100%
34
5
1
4
6

1,053,000
11,000
270,000
13,000
629,000
58,000

26
-7
-16
1

Number
3,783,000
1,265,000
171,000
25,000
154,000
333,000
908,000
7,000
295,000
9,000
566,000
49,000

2009

2014

Percent
100%
33
5
1
4
9

Number
3,830,000
1,261,000
188,000
33,000
132,000
239,000

Percent
100%
33
5
1
3
6

Number
3,646,000
1,197,000
170,000
24,000
142,000
296,000

Percent
100%
33
5
1
4
8

24
-8
-15
1

1,027,000
11,000
274,000
12,000
606,000
47,000

27
-7
-16
1

904,000
7,000
301,000
9,000
554,000
41,000

25
-8
-15
1

Note: Totals exclude requests outsourced to other labs. The number of requests completed in 2009 and 2014 exceeded the number of requests received during that year for
certain disciplines because the completed requests included some requests received prior to that year. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Detail does not sum to
total due to rounding. See appendix table 4 for standard errors.
--Less than 0.5%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

3

The composition of the forensic work handled by U.S. crime
labs during 2014 varied among those serving federal, state,
county, and municipal jurisdictions. Toxicology requests
accounted for 25% of the requests received by county labs,
compared to less than 10% received by federal and municipal
labs. In comparison, biological samples collected from
convicted offenders and arrestees for a database of DNA
profiles comprised 39% of requests made to federal labs and
36% of requests to state labs, compared to less than 5% of
requests to county (1%) and municipal (4%) labs. Crime
scene investigations accounted for 17% of requests made to
municipal labs, compared to 9% of requests to county labs and
less than 1% of requests to state and federal labs.
Publicly funded crime labs had a backlog of 570,100 requests
for forensic services at yearend 2014, down from 895,500
backlogged requests at yearend 2009 (table 6). Biological
samples collected from convicted offenders or arrestees for a
DNA database that were backlogged decreased from 502,500
at yearend 2009 to 64,800 at yearend 2014. The FBI crime lab
reported the majority of these backlogged requests in 2009
because of an increase in the collection of DNA samples as
mandated by federal legislation. Since 2009, the FBI crime lab
has reduced its backlog of requests for DNA samples taken
from convicted offenders and arrestees. The overall reduction
in DNA samples led to a decline in the overall number of
backlogged requests within U.S. crime labs observed at yearend
2009. The DNA samples collected from convicted offenders
and arrestees for a database of DNA profiles made up 11%
of all backlogged requests at yearend 2014. Forensic biology
casework samples accounted for 19% of the overall backlog at
yearend 2014.
The CPFFCL asked labs about requests to process forensic
biology from sexual assault cases. Not all labs that handled
forensic biology requests were able to separately report how
Table 6
Requests for services backlogged in publicly funded forensic
crime labs, by type of request, yearend 2009 and 2014
2009
Number Percent
895,500
100%
139,200
16
1,600
-48,300
5
103,500
12

Type of request
All requests
Controlled substances
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
502,500
Impressions
6,100
Latent prints
49,500
Questioned documents
2,600
Toxicology
27,600
Trace evidence
14,700

56
1
6
-3
2

2014
Number Percent
570,100
100%
213,700
37
7,800
1
51,100
9
107,800
19
64,800
2,400
69,400
800
40,000
12,200

11
-12
-7
2

Note: A request is classified as backlogged if it was not examined and reported
to the submitting agency within 30 days of submission. Totals exclude requests
outsourced to other labs. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. Detail does
not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.
--Less than 0.5%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

many received, completed, or backlogged requests were from
sexual assault cases. In the 2014 CPFFCL, 135 labs reported
receiving an estimated 45,000 requests to process sexual
assault evidence during 2014 and completed about 43,000 of
these types of requests that year (not shown). The requests
completed in 2014 included evidence collected before and
during 2014. At yearend 2014, 128 crime labs reported
approximately 9,000 backlogged requests to process sexual
assault evidence.
About 4 in 10 labs outsourced some forensic work in 2014
To address the demands for forensic services, some publicly
funded crime labs outsourced work to private labs or other
public facilities. Thirty-eight percent of publicly funded crime
labs outsourced one or more types of forensic services in 2014,
up from 28% in 2009 (table 7). During 2014, municipal labs
(60%) were more likely than federal (28%) and state (23%) labs
to outsource requests for services. Publicly funded crime labs
that outsourced requests to private or other public labs in 2014
were most likely to outsource toxicology analysis (68%) and
forensic biology casework (55%) (table 8).
Table 7
Percent of publicly funded forensic crime labs that outsourced
requests for services, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009,
and 2014
Type of jurisdiction
All labs
Federal
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs

2002
40%
17
31
61
64
351

2005*
47%
^
39
68
57
389

2009
28%
20
23
40
32
411

2014
38%
28
23
54
60
409

Note: See appendix table 7 for standard errors.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
*Total includes federal labs, not shown separately.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Table 8
Percent of publicly funded crime labs that outsourced requests
for services, by type of service, 2014
Type of request
Controlled substances
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted offender/arrestee samples
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence
Number of labs that outsourced requests

Percent
19%
15
25
55
37
16
10
24
68
37
155

Note: Percentages based on labs that performed the forensic service and
outsourced requests. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

4

More than 14,000 full-time employees worked in crime
labs in 2014
Overall, the combined operating budgets for the 409 crime
labs in 2014 was $1.7 billion (table 9). Labs serving state
jurisdictions accounted for nearly half ($796 million) of the
overall budget in 2014. Labs with 25 or more employees
accounted for more than 80% of the total combined budget
nationwide. Typical expenditures among crime labs include
personnel (salaries and fringe benefits), supplies, equipment,
and construction costs. In addition to their budgets, crime
labs received funding from other sources, such as grants and
fees. In 2014, about 4 in 10 crime labs charged the submitting
agencies fees for completing the forensic services (not shown).
Table 9
Annual operating budget for publicly funded forensic
crime labs, by type of jurisdiction and number of full-time
employees, 2014
All labs
Type of jurisdiction
Federal
State
County
Municipal
Number of full-time employees*
100 or more
50–99
25–49
10–24
9 or fewer

Number of labs
409

Annual operating
budget (in millions)
$1,680

39
193
98
79

$302
796
306
277

27
51
90
134
107

$568
416
378
262
56

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest million. Detail does not sum to total due
to rounding. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
*Includes both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5 assigned to
part-time employees.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Publicly funded crime labs employed 14,300 full-time
personnel in 2014, an increase from 11,000 in the 351 labs
operating in 2002 (table 10). Nearly half (6,600) of these
employees in 2014 worked in state-operated labs. In 2014,
the majority (59%) of crime labs had 24 or fewer employees
(not shown). The mean number of full-time lab employees
was 35, and the median number was 20 employees per lab.
Twenty-six percent of federal labs, 19% of state labs, and
18% of county and municipal labs had 100 or more employees
in 2014. In 2014, more than half (60%) of crime lab employees
were analysts or examiners who prepared and analyzed
evidence and reported on their conclusions (table 11).
The majority of analysts were intermediate- or senior-level
employees. Municipal and county labs were more likely than
state and federal labs to employ crime scene technicians, who
record and collect evidence from crime scenes and submit that
evidence to a crime lab for analysis.

Table 10
Number of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic
crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014
Type of jurisdiction
All labs
Federal
State
County
Municipal
Number of labs

2002
11,000
2,000
5,300
1,900
1,900
351

2005
12,200
2,400
5,600
2,200
2,000
389

2009
13,100
2,300
6,100
2,500
2,200
411

2014
14,300
2,100
6,600
2,900
2,700
409

Note: Estimates include both full-time and part-time employees, with a weight of 0.5
assigned to part-time employees. Numbers are rounded to nearest hundred. Detail
does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Table 11
Positions of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014
Type of position
All full-time employees
Analyst/examiner
Entry level
Intermediate/senior level
Technical support
Manager
Clerical support
Crime scene technician
Other*

Total
100%
60%
12
48
7%
13%
9%
6%
5%

Federal
100%
52%
2
51
13%
16%
10%
-15%

State
100%
66%
16
50
8%
12%
8%
1%
3%

County
100%
56%
11
45
7%
12%
8%
12%
4%

Municipal
100%
55%
11
44
4%
12%
10%
15%
2%

Note: Detail does not sum to total due to rounding. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.
--Less than 0.5%.
*Includes other positions in labs, such as building maintenance, photographers, and polygraph examiners.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

5

Methodology
Overview
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) periodically conducts
the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL) to collect data on crime lab services, budgets,
staffing, workload, outsourcing, and quality assurance
practices. The data collection is directed to federal, state,
county, and municipal crime labs that are funded solely by the
government or whose parent organization is a government
agency. The CPFFCL includes agencies that employ one or
more full-time scientists (1) with a minimum of a bachelor’s
degree in chemistry, physics, biology, criminalistics, or a
closely related forensic science field, and (2) whose principal
function is examining physical evidence in criminal matters
and providing reports and testimony to courts of law regarding
such evidence.
About half of the crime labs included in the CPFFCL were part
of a multi-lab system (two or more physically separate facilities
that were overseen by a single organization). The CPFFCL
attempted to collect information from each lab in multi-lab
systems. The CPFFCL did not include operations that engage
exclusively in evidence collection and documentation, such as
fingerprint recovery and development, crime scene response,
and photography. In addition, the census did not collect data
on the forensic services performed by police identification
units outside of the crime lab, and it also did not include
privately operated crime labs.
Data collection and response rate
BJS conducted its fourth CPFFCL to collect detailed
information on the workload and operations of the nation’s
409 crime labs during 2014 and to examine changes since the
previous censuses conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2009. The
CPFFCL population frame and questionnaire were developed
by BJS and the Urban Institute with input from the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors and researchers and
practitioners in the forensic science field. BJS pretested the
CPFFCL questionnaire on a small sample of labs representing
facilities of different sizes and governmental affiliations.
In April 2015, the Urban Institute initiated the data collection
on behalf of BJS through a web-based data collection interface
and mailed questionnaire. Follow-up emails and phone
calls were made to nonrespondents and labs that submitted
incomplete questionnaires. Of the 409 eligible crime labs that
received the questionnaire, 360 (88%) provided responses to
at least some of the items (table 12).* Of the 360 respondents,
351 (98%) completed the questionnaire through the automated
web system. The 2014 CPFFCL response rate ranged from
72% for federal labs to 94% for state labs.

Methods for producing national estimates
To generate national estimates for this report, BJS used
several imputation methods to account for missing data
among labs that did not respond to either the entire CPFFCL
questionnaire (unit-level response) or certain questions
(item-level response). Because the CPFFCL data collection
was a census with no sampling, each crime lab was initially
self-representing and had a design weight of 1. BJS developed
weighting class adjustments for the 2002, 2005, 2009, and
2014 CPFFCL data to compensate for unit nonresponse and
reduce nonresponse bias. Sixteen subpopulations of labs were
stratified into groups by crossing four categories of jurisdiction
(federal, state, county, and municipal) and four categories of
staff size (9 or fewer, 10 to 24, 25 to 49, and 50 or more). A
seventeenth stratum was assigned to the FBI crime laboratory,
given its unique size of more than 500 employees. Within each
of the subgroups, statistical weights were applied to the data
from the crime labs that responded to the census to allow their
responses to represent the labs that did not respond.
In addition to adjusting for unit nonresponse through the
use of weighting class adjustments, BJS also imputed for item
nonresponse. BJS measured staff size by full-time equivalent
employees and included both full-time and part-time
employees with part-time employees weighted by 0.5. For
the labs that responded to the CPFFCL but did not report
employee data, imputations were made for the count- and
percentage-based measures using their employee data reported
in the other CPFFCL data collections. If that information
was not available, BJS used the median staff size in 2014
among labs of similar jurisdiction. Among the 360 labs that
responded to the 2014 CPFFCL, 339 reported their 2014
employee total. For the 22 labs that did not report their 2014
staff total, the previous reported staff total was used. Estimates
for the 2002, 2005, and 2009 CPFFCL were generated using
similar imputation methods. When employee totals from
other CPFFCL data collections were not available to account
for item nonresponse, the median staff size of labs of similar
jurisdiction was used.
Table 12
Publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of
jurisdiction, 2014
Type of jurisdiction
All labs
Federal
State
County
Municipal

All labs in
CPFFCL
409
39
193
98
79

Labs responding
to CPFFCL
360
28
182
87
63

Response rate
88%
72
94
89
80

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL), 2014.

*Of the 351 crime labs in the 2002 CPFFCL, 306 (87%) provided responses to
the 2002 questionnaire. Of the 389 crime labs in the 2005 CPFFCL, 351 (90%)
provided responses to the questionnaire. Of the 411 crime labs surveyed in the
2009 CPFFCL, 397 (97%) provided responses to that data collection.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

6

When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire
but was unable to provide budget data, imputations were made
for the count- and percentage-based measures using their
budget data from the other CPFFCL data collections. If that
information was unavailable, the lab’s staff size was multiplied
by the median ratio of budgets per employee for labs of similar
jurisdiction and size. Among the 360 labs that responded to the
2014 CPFFCL, 331 reported their 2014 budget. Twenty-four
labs did not report their 2014 budget and the previous reported
budget was used. Five labs did not report their 2014 or
previous budget and the median ratio of budgets per employee
was used.
When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire
but did not provide data on the number and types of requests
received, completed, and backlogged, data imputations were
made for the count- and percentage-based measures within
each category of a forensic function they performed that year.
Depending on the availability of data, imputations for requests
received and completed were based on either information
provided in the other CPFFCL data collections or on the
median number of requests among labs of similar size and
jurisdiction. Depending on the availability of information,
imputations for backlogs were made using the number of
pending requests in 2014, the number of backlogged requests
reported in the other CPFFCL data collections, or the median
backlog among labs of similar size and jurisdiction.
When a crime lab responded to the CPFFCL questionnaire
but could not provide data on outsourcing requests for
services, BJS used sequential hot-deck imputation procedures
to impute the missing responses for 2002, 2005, 2009, and
2014. Sequential hot-deck imputation replaces a missing
value with a response provided by a crime lab with similar
characteristics. Data on outsourcing were reported by
93% of the 360 labs responding to the 2014 CPFFCL,
98% of the 397 labs responding to the 2009 CPFFCL, 76% of
the 351 labs responding to the 2005 CPFFCL, and 88% of the
306 labs responding to the 2002 CPFFCL. BJS grouped both
respondents and nonrespondents into the strata previously
described and then sorted within each stratum by the number
of forensic functions each lab performed. Once the list of
crime labs was sorted within strata, the respondents provided
donor responses for nonrespondents using the nearest
neighbor method. This method identifies and replaces a
missing value with the response donated from the lab listed
immediately prior to the lab with missing data. If the donor
listed immediately prior to the lab with missing data also had a
missing response, BJS imputed a response from a donor listed
immediately after the lab with the missing value. BJS repeated
the process of going backwards and forwards to obtain
donated responses from neighbors until all missing values
were imputed.

Comparability to prior reports
Except for count-based estimates for staff size, budget, and
workload, data presented in the 2002, 2005, and 2009 CPFFCL
reports were not adjusted for unit or item nonresponse.
Estimates presented in this report may be different from
previously presented data because some adjustments for unit or
item nonresponse were made. For example, Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 (NCJ 238252, BJS
web, August 2012) reported that 31% of municipal crime labs
outsourced forensic services in 2009. However, this publication
reported that 32% of municipal crime labs outsourced
forensic services in 2009. In the August 2012 report, data on
outsourcing were based on 389 crime labs (of the 397 labs
that responded to the 2009 CPFFCL). In this report, 2009
data have been adjusted to account for nonresponse and
represent all 411 crime labs in the 2009 CPFFCL. In addition
to the revisions to the workload estimates based on the
new imputation procedures, the overall number of requests
received, completed, and backlogged in 2009 for forensic
biology casework reported in Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 were adjusted because of a
revision in the information collected from the FBI crime lab.
Conducting tests of statistical significance
BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in
the estimates were statistically significant. All differences
discussed in this report are statistically significant at or
above the 95% confidence interval. Standard errors were
generated using SPSS statistical software that estimates
variance for complex survey designs. The standard errors for
the tables and figures are presented in appendix tables. These
standard error estimates may be used to construct confidence
intervals around percentages in this report. For example, the
95% confidence interval around the percentage of crime labs
that outsourced requests for services in 2014 is 38% ± 1.96 ×
0.9% (or approximately 1.8%), where 38% is the point estimate
in table 6 and 0.9% is the standard error in appendix table 7.
The standard errors may also be used to test the significance of
the difference between two statistics by pooling the standard
errors of the two estimates. For example, the standard error
of the difference between state and county crime labs that
outsourced requests for services in 2014 is 3.9% (or the
square root of the sum of the squared standard errors for each
group). The 95% confidence interval around the difference
is 1.96 × 2% (or 3.9%). Because the observed difference of
31% (54% minus 23%) is greater than 3.9%, the difference is
considered statistically significant.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

7

Pilot study of digital evidence laboratories
BJS expanded the 2014 CPFFCL from previous data collections
to include a pilot study of agencies that solely analyze digital
and multimedia evidence in support of criminal investigations
and prosecutions. Law enforcement agencies obtain digital
evidence in various formats, including audio, video, and
graphical images from computers, cell phones, cameras, and
other electronic devices. The traditional CPFFCL definition
of a crime lab limited the information collected about digital
evidence. Some crime labs only handle this type of evidence
and employ forensic experts with training in computer science
or information technology as opposed to natural sciences.
The expanded scope of the 2014 CPFFCL included additional
questions related to the analysis of digital evidence. BJS
will use the results of this pilot study to inform future data
collections directed toward criminal justice agencies that
process forensic evidence.
Definitions
Analyst/examiner—an investigator who inspects, analyzes,
and interprets physical evidence, writes reports, and delivers
testimony in court about the evidence.
Backlogged request—a request that has been submitted to a
specialized area of the crime laboratory and is not completed
within 30 days.
Controlled substance analysis—the identification of drugs
and other substances whose possession or use, in either legal or
illicit dosages, is restricted by the government.
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.
Digital evidence—the investigation of various types of analog
or multimedia evidence, such as the recovery, extraction,
and analysis of computer files, film, tape, and magnetic and
optical media.
Firearms analysis—the examination and comparison of
evidence resulting from the discharge or use of firearms.

Impressions analysis—the identification, documentation,
collection, and interpretation of two- and three-dimensional
impressions and imprints found at crime scenes (including
shoes and tires).
Latent prints analysis—the development or comparison of
finger or palm print impressions.
Municipal—cities, towns, villages, and boroughs.
Questioned documents analysis—the 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—the 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 are counted as
separate requests.
Synthetic cannabinoids—synthetically produced compounds
that mimic naturally occurring cannabinoids. These
compounds are added to some other substrate, marketed as
“spice” or herbal incense products, and are used illicitly for
their psycho-active properties.
Synthetic cathinones—a cathinone is a compound naturally
found in the khat plant. When produced synthetically, these
compounds are marketed as bath salts and abused for their
stimulant properties.
Toolmark analysis—the comparison of marks made by
various tools.
Toxicology—the analysis of biological samples for the presence
of drugs and other potentially toxic materials. Includes
antemortem, postmortem, and 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.

Forensic biology—includes the discipline areas of biology
screening and DNA analysis. Biology screening is the
examination of evidence for the presence of stains from
blood, saliva and other physiological fluids. DNA analysis is
the process used to develop a DNA profile from convicted
offenders or arrestees as required by federal and state laws
or casework samples collected from crime scenes, victims,
or suspects.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

8

Appendix Table 1
Standard errors for table 1: Functions performed by publicly
funded forensic crime labs, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014
Forensic function
Controlled substances
Crime scene
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence

2002
0.8%
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
…
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0

2005
0.8%
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0

2009
0.4%
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5

2014
0.9%
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8

Appendix Table 3
Standard errors for table 3: Percent of publicly funded
forensic crime labs that examined trace evidence, by type of
examination, 2009 and 2014
Trace evidence
Explosives analysis
Fiber examination
Fire debris analysis
Gunshot residue
Hair examination
Paint analysis
Unknown chemical

2009
1.9%
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.1

2014
2.2%
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

…Not available.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 2
Standard errors for table 2: Functions performed by publicly
funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014
Forensic function
Federal
Controlled substances
5.0%
Crime scene
5.7
Digital evidence
5.1
Firearms/toolmarks
4.6
Forensic biology casework
4.6
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
3.8
Impressions
4.5
Latent prints
5.2
Questioned documents
5.5
Toxicology
2.3
Trace evidence
4.6

State
0.6%
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.7

County
1.5%
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.7

Municipal
2.8%
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.5

0.5
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.8

1.1
1.8
1.8
0.9
1.9
1.8

1.0
2.6
1.8
1.5
2.7
2.3

…Not available.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 4
Standard errors for table 4: Requests for services received and completed by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of
request, 2009 and 2014
Received

Completed

2009
Type of request
All requests
Controlled substances
Crime scene
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/ arrestee samples
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence

2014

Number
57,609
13,576
3,471
824
1,611
2,088

Percent

57,036
478
2,462
2,103
14,100
1,662

2009
Percent

0.6%
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1

Number
56,050
22,041
8,804
2,099
4,411
10,699

1.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0

34,970
366
24,275
774
23,675
2,446

0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.1

0.5%
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3

2014

Number
56,623
14,035
3,469
816
1,391
2,074

Percent

56,036
543
2,457
1,801
13,305
1,668

1.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0

0.6%
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1

Number
55,354
20,104
8,808
2,140
3,570
4,622

Percent

36,428
381
24,401
821
23,304
1,991

0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.1

0.5%
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

9

Appendix Table 5
Standard errors for table 5: Percent of requests for services
received by publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type
of jurisdiction, 2014

Appendix Table 7
Standard errors for table 7: Percent of publicly funded forensic
crime labs outsourcing requests for services, by type of
jurisdiction, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014

Type of request
Federal
State
Controlled substances
3.5%
0.6%
Crime scene
0.2
0.0
Digital evidence
0.5
0.0
Firearms/toolmarks
0.1
0.1
Forensic biology casework
0.4
0.1
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
6.3
1.0
Impressions
0.0
0.0
Latent prints
7.5
0.1
Questioned documents
0.4
0.0
Toxicology
1.6
0.4
Trace evidence
0.2
0.1
Total requests received
30,898
33,205

Type of jurisdiction
All labs
Federal
State
County
Municipal

County
1.4%
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.2
0.2
23,717

Municipal
1.5%
1.4
0.3
0.6
1.5
1.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.7
0.1
22,843

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 6
Standard errors for table 6: Requests for services backlogged
in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of request,
yearend 2009 and 2014
2009
Type of request
Number Percent
All requests
10,124
Controlled substances
2,848
0.3%
Digital evidence
97
0.0
Firearms/toolmarks
997
0.1
Forensic biology casework
1,172
0.2
Forensic biology from convicted
offender/arrestee samples
8,961
0.5
Impressions
914
0.1
Latent prints
693
0.1
Questioned documents
518
0.1
Toxicology
931
0.1
Trace evidence
153
0.0

2014
Number Percent
12,693
8,147
0.9%
87
0.0
2,532
0.4
3,782
0.6
4,702
110
2,920
62
1,789
282

2002
0.9%
2.8
1.2
1.8
2.3

2005
1.1%
^
0.4
1.0
2.3

2009
0.4%
1.6
0.4
0.7
1.3

2014
0.9%
4.8
0.6
1.9
2.9

^Too few cases to provide a reliable estimate.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

Appendix Table 8
Standard errors for table 8: Percent of publicly funded crime
labs outsourcing requests for services, by type of service, 2014
Type of request
Controlled substances
Digital evidence
Firearms/toolmarks
Forensic biology casework
Forensic biology from convicted offender/arrestee samples
Impressions
Latent prints
Questioned documents
Toxicology
Trace evidence

Percent
1.6%
2.0
1.5
1.8
2.4
1.7
1.1
2.5
2.0
2.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

0.8
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2009 and 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

10

Appendix Table 9
Standard errors for table 9: Annual operating budget for
publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction and
number of full-time employees, 2014
Annual operating budget
$27,666,159

All labs
Type of jurisdiction
Federal
State
County
Municipal
Number of full-time employees
100 or more
50–99
25–49
10–24
9 or fewer

23,728,956
8,072,029
4,123,355
10,963,271

Appendix Table 10
Standard errors for table 10: Number of employees in publicly
funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2002, 2005,
2009, and 2014
Type of jurisdiction
All labs
Federal
State
County
Municipal

2002
102
68
58
48
7

2005
387
376
40
54
61

2009
105
97
39
7
7

2014
123
59
66
17
84

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014.

16,019,940
23,976,084
11,263,190
6,679,329
1,816,089

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, 2014.

Appendix Table 11
Standard errors for table 11: Positions of full-time employees in publicly funded forensic crime labs, by type of jurisdiction, 2014
Type of position
Analyst/examiner
Entry level
Intermediate/senior level
Technical support
Manager
Clerical support
Crime scene technician
Other

Total
0.4%
0.4
0.6
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%

Federal
3.0%
0.7
2.8
0.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.3%
2.3%

State
0.4%
0.5
0.6
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%

County
0.9%
0.6
1.0
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.6%
0.4%

Municipal
1.0%
0.9
0.8
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.3%
0.3%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2014.

P U B L I C LY F U N D E D F O R E N S I C C R I M E L A B O R ATO R I E S : R E S O U R C E S A N D S E R V I C E S , 2014 | N O V E M B E R 2016	

11

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the
principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and
valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems,
and participates with national and international organizations to develop
and recommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeri M. Mulrow is
acting director.
This report was written by Matthew R. Durose and Andrea M. Burch of
BJS and Kelly Walsh and Emily Tiry of Urban Institute. Christina Aldada,
Samantha Lowry, Eddie Mohr, Elizabeth Pelletier, Jennifer Yahner, and Lilly
Yu from the Urban Institute assisted with data collection and processing
activities. Anastasios Tsoutis verified the report.
Caitlin Scoville and Jill Thomas edited the report. Tina Dorsey and
Barbara Quinn produced the report.
November 2016, NCJ 250151

NCJ 250151

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov