At the same time, jurisdictions across the country passed legislation mandating the testing of all sexual assault kits—often with no additional funding attached. Add in growing pressure to apply DNA analysis to property crimes and cold cases, and you have a system that’s stretched at every seam.

James Carroll, Director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s crime lab, summed it up bluntly: “It’s important for policymakers to realize that the criminal justice system is demanding more from us, and so we need the resources to keep up with the increased demand.” (Hernández, 2025).

The consequences of that deficit aren’t theoretical.

Labs are losing analysts to burnout and better-paying private positions. Some are forgoing equipment upgrades entirely or relying on refurbished instruments that are well past their prime. Others are unable to outsource backlogged kits because federal dollars that once funded those partnerships have dried up.

And when a lab can’t keep up? Cases stall. Leads go cold. Survivors wait.

Still, some labs are adapting—using federal grants strategically, redesigning workflows, or leaning into local partnerships to stay afloat.

Here are a few success stories worth replicating:

Michigan State Police: CEBR for Technical Innovation

Using a competitive CEBR grant, the Michigan State Police validated low-input and degraded DNA extraction methods, expanding their capability to analyze difficult sexual assault kits and touch DNA cases. As a result, they saw a 17% increase in interpretable DNA profiles from complex evidence within 12 months. This technical innovation was coupled with hiring two additional DNA analysts, directly supported by the grant.

“CEBR is an excellent opportunity to get funding for a purely technical project,” says Lauren Lu, Assistant Division Director and Quality Assurance Manager for the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division. “If we successfully validate the niche extraction methods, we can potentially yield a higher volume of good data and samples that can then be used to close criminal cases." (Lu, 2024).

Connecticut: From Backlog to Best-in-Class

Connecticut's lab faced a staggering backlog of over 12,000 cases in the early 2010s-nearly half of them DNA-related. After implementing a LEAN-inspired workflow redesign, supported by state funding and Coverdell grants, the lab reduced its average DNA turnaround to under 60 days, the backlog fell below 1,700 cases, and the crime lab achieved zero audit deficiencies for three consecutive years. Internal tracking systems now flag urgent cases at intake, streamlining triage and analyst assignment (Connecticut DESPP, 2025; Flynn, 2015).

Director Guy Vallaro credits staff dedication: “When you have a good staff, you can do incredible things” (Hernández, 2025).

Louisiana: Lean Six Sigma Rebuild

With a $600,000 NIJ Efficiency Grant (Award #2008-DN-BX-K188) and $150,000 in state match, the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory implemented Lean Six Sigma principles to improve DNA case intake and processing.

• Average turnaround time dropped from 291 days to just 31
• 95% of DNA requests were completed within 30 days
• DNA case throughput tripled from approximately 50 to 160 cases/month (Richard & Kupferschmid, 2011; Brocato et al., 2012).

Shelby County, TN: Regional Lab Funded Locally

To reduce reliance on overburdened state labs, Shelby County partnered with the Memphis City Council in June 2025 to fund a $1.5 million regional crime lab. The facility integrates DNA, ballistics, and digital forensics. The project was championed by DA Steve Mulroy and Mayor Lee Harris and aims to slash forensic backlogs and improve case resolution efficiency (Shelby County District Attorney’s Office, 2025; Forensic Magazine, 2025).

At a time when forensic science is central to solving crimes and clearing the innocent, failing to invest in labs isn’t just a funding issue—it’s a public safety risk.

As backlogs swell, some labs are triaging low-priority cases out of necessity. In Oregon, the state paused DNA testing for property crime samples entirely until sexual assault kit backlogs could be reduced —a policy shift confirmed by the 2018 audit from the Oregon Secretary of State’s office. (Oregon Secretary of State Audits Division, 2018)

If you’re leading a lab through this storm, here are five actions worth considering:

✅ Use CEBR Competitive Grants to Fund Innovation

Even modest awards through CEBR’s competitive funding track—launched in FY 2022—enabled high-impact pilot projects such as validating automated DNA extraction on legacy samples, expanding STRmix™ probabilistic interpretation, and conducting internal performance evaluations on Rapid DNA instruments. Labs that leveraged RTI’s Forensics TTA support- which provides technical assistance, training, and peer-learning-often reported stronger outcomes in competitive applications (RTI Forensics TTA, n.d.; CEBR Fact Sheet, 2023)

✅ Bundle Multi-Discipline Lab Improvements with Coverdell

Coverdell grants can support:

• Cross-training DNA analysts in toxicology or trace evidence
• Funding overtime to manage backlogs
• Lab accreditation costs

Because Coverdell funds can be used across forensic disciplines, they’re ideal for labs that need to modernize workflows or stretch limited resources across multiple teams.

✅ Propose Local or Regional Funding Partnerships

If your lab supports multiple municipalities or counties, consider a cost-sharing model similar to Shelby County’s regional lab intiative. These models often unlock additional federal funds by demonstrating sustainability or matching capacity. Drafting a regional forensic services MOU (memorandum of understanding) can formalize these partnerships and assist in meeting federal grant requirements.

✅ Adopt Case Triage or Evidence Acceptance Protocols

Labs that have implemented structured protocols—including DNA evidence acceptance rules and case triage systems—report measurable gains in workflow efficiency. In Orange County, CA, the property crime DNA platform established a submission review process involving both lab analysts and prosecutors, dedicated case teams, and automated workstreams. Between 2009–2012, this system helped:

• Assign property case submissions more precisely based on probative value
• Prioritize CODIS-eligible samples
• Reduce redundant administrative steps
• Improve overall throughput of DNA case processing (National Institute of Justice, 2012)

✅ Advocate for Federal and State Support with Local Data

The most compelling advocacy is local: bring concrete lab data—such as year-over-year case volume, projected analyst output with vs. without external funding, and success stories like cases cleared—from your jurisdiction when meeting policymakers. Congressional staffers frequently report that in-person constituent meetings and facility tours are the most persuasive advocacy methods, particularly when they involve working professionals showing real-world impact. Consulting staff and state/local elected officials in lab tours gives an essential human context to budget requests.

• Congressional staff surveys show that 94% (2015), 97% (2010), and 99% (2004) of staffers said in‑person visits by constituents would have “some” or “a lot” of influence on an undecided lawmaker—a higher rate than any other form of advocacy. (Congressional Management Foundation, 2016)
• Organizations like the Society for Neuroscience and the College of American Pathologists confirm that hosting a lab tour helps policymakers see firsthand the impact of forensic or scientific work, making the case for funding much more memorable and compelling. (Society for Neuroscience, n.d.)

Use Congress.gov to find your representative’s contact information and request meetings or tours for maximum advocacy impact.