FIGG at a Crossroads
The Decisions That Will Define the Next Decade
Author: Jessica Koong, Senior Business Development Manager, QIAGEN
Share this article
Image generated with the assistance of AI
In August 2025, Ancestry updated its Terms of Service to explicitly prohibit the use of its platform in connection with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings [1, 2]. The change extended across the full Ancestry ecosystem: DNA data, family trees, Newspapers.com, Find a Grave, Fold3. It also included anti-circumvention language addressing the downloading of raw DNA data for prohibited purposes.
The change itself was not unexpected. Ancestry had been signaling this direction since at least January 2024 [3]. The forensic investigative genetic genealogy community responded with a degree of alarm that exposed something important: a level of this field's operational foundation rests on platforms, tools, and resources that were never designed for forensic use.
That vulnerability is worth examining and an invitation to think critically about what sustainable FIGG infrastructure actually looks like. The conversations happening right now about database access, laboratory adoption, funding, and the role of genealogical research in investigations are not new. But they surely have taken on a new urgency. The decisions that come out of our discussion will shape whether FIGG reaches its full potential and becomes routine, and delivers the maximum good it is capable of delivering.
What We've Built
Since the Golden State Killer arrest in 2018, over 1,400 publicly reported cases have been resolved with the aid of forensic investigative genetic genealogy [4]. That number reflects only what has been documented through media reports and public announcements; the actual total is almost certainly higher. FIGG has expanded beyond the United States — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, and others have enacted legislation or conducted casework using these methods [5, 6, 7]. The DOJ Interim Policy established a federal framework in 2019 [8]. Professional standards are emerging. And the laboratory technologies for generating genealogy-database-compatible single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profiles have matured, with multiple validated approaches: targeted sequencing, microarrays, and whole-genome sequencing.
This progress is real. And much of it was built by a community that was industrious and opportunistic, especially in the early days of working with the tools and platforms that were readily available, often ahead of any formal framework or dedicated infrastructure. For example, genealogists used to contact close DNA matches directly to work out the relationship to an unknown profile, operating without established protocols because none existed yet. That industriousness moved the community forward. It also created ethical and procedural questions the community is still sorting out. Getting to the next level requires a fully fleshed-out ecosystem with mature infrastructure: dedicated databases, sustainable funding, trained investigators, and laboratories equipped to generate profiles in-house. Today, we arguably have more credentialed forensic investigative genetic genealogists looking for work than there are investigators trained and available to identify the cases so they're ready to be worked using FIGG. The question is whether, as a community, we have directed our resources at the right priorities in the right order.
I'm not sure we have entirely. I think that's worth reflecting on as a community.
Without the Horse, the Carriage Goes Nowhere
The Engine: Government Lab Adoption of Next-generation Sequencing (NGS)
FIGG's operational backbone was built largely on consumer platforms never designed for forensic use; this is where the dependency and fragility originated. The genealogists who pioneered this work did so with the tools available to them, and their contributions have been foundational to every case resolved since. Another pillar of growth has been the private forensic laboratories that stepped in and have carried the majority of the community's casework to date. Frankly, the most impactful change the forensic community needs to move beyond borrowed tools and outsourced expertise, is for government forensic laboratories to step up and join the movement. As of 2026, the vast majority of FIGG casework is still outsourced to private service providers. Public crime labs, the institutions best positioned to sustain FIGG as a long-term forensic capability, are involved in varying degrees – some support their agencies by reviewing cases or helping implement cold case units. But most have not yet brought SNP profiling in-house. Some have validated and are operational, and they are demonstrating that government labs can generate SNP profiles and support FIGG casework in-house. Others are still evaluating or waiting. The barriers are real: instrument costs, validation timelines, the shortage of NGS-trained analysts, and the constant competition for resources against existing CE/STR backlogs. The global implementation curve is early. We are past the beginning, but nowhere near the middle.
The Fuel: Dedicated Funding
Law enforcement agencies that want to pursue FIGG today typically face a per-case outsourcing cost of $5,000 to $10,000, if not more. Federal funding through NIJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (US Department of Justice) exists but the application process is complex, competitive, and the funds come with usage restrictions that can be difficult to navigate. The Carla Walker Act (S. 1890 / H.R. 3591) would authorize $5 million per year in DOJ grants specifically for FIGG, but it remains in committee [9]. In the meantime, the community has gotten resourceful: organizations like Season of Justice fund cases directly, Compass IGG and DNA Doe Project provide genealogy services at no cost, and UNT's Center for Human Identification offers free SNP generation and related genealogy research. The FBI has established its own IGG unit, providing support to law enforcement agencies [10, 11]. These resources help but the deeper need is for law enforcement leadership to build the cost of FIGG into existing budgets, and for more funding to be directed toward public lab adoption of NGS so that SNP profiling becomes an in-house capability rather than a per-case expense.
The Driver: Law Enforcement Readiness
For the past four years, I have worked with the International Homicide Investigators Association (IHIA) to develop FIGG training courses for investigators. That experience has given me a front-row seat to the implementation challenges that still remain for FIGG to become mainstream. No matter how effective the technique becomes, without investigators trained to identify cases and equipped to use the technique, we will still see FIGG as a novelty with lots of potential as opposed to a standard tool in the everyday toolbox. Law enforcement readiness is what drives the entire ecosystem forward with urgency.
Integration is key. Violent crime investigations are already variable, unpredictable, and resource-intensive; FIGG only adds to the complexity. There are qualified forensic genetic genealogists available, but integrating genealogical research into law enforcement workflows is not straightforward. Today, much of this work is done through external service providers, and that model has delivered real outcomes. The work moves faster and more effectively when genealogy tools and services are integrated directly into the investigative toolkit — when leads can be validated, redirected, or discarded in real time alongside case intelligence. Automating and streamlining genealogical research within law enforcement systems is what will move FIGG from a specialty service to a standard practice.
People are already working on this. Indago, developed by Steve Kramer and Steve Busch — two of the earliest architects of the FBI's approach to FIGG — is designed to automate genealogical research and integrate it into existing law enforcement resources. Whether automation can fully replicate the judgment of an experienced genealogist is an open question. But the fact that there are dedicated professionals building tools to attempt it tells us something about where the community needs to go.
Image generated with the assistance of AI
The Technology Adoption Curve
FIGG is not the first investigative technology to face these growing pains. Every tool that is now standard in law enforcement went through similar cycles: early promise, proven utility, controversy, resistance, regulation, and eventual integration.
Body-worn cameras existed for years before they became mainstream. It took the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 and the national scrutiny that followed to catalyze widespread adoption. The Obama administration responded with a $263 million investment to help law enforcement agencies purchase body-worn cameras, develop usage policies, and implement training programs [12, 13]. Today, roughly 60% of US local police departments use them. The debate continues, but adoption is irreversible.
FIGG is on the same curve but depending on who you ask, there may not be consensus on where exactly we are. The Ancestry ToS change may prove to be the catalyzing moment . It didn't create a crisis so much as expose a fragility that practitioners had been working with for years. There is no longer any question that FIGG is becoming a mainstream investigative technique. The question is whether we are building the foundation to sustain it when it does.
The Road Ahead
I have worked with the GEDmatch team for six and a half years. I have watched this field grow from a fledgling, promising premise into a recognized game-changer that has given many families answers they waited decades for. I have seen investigators light up when a cold case moves for the first time in thirty years. And I have also seen the gaps: the labs that want to adopt NGS but don't have the bandwidth, the agencies that run out of funding after a few cases, the genealogists who are well-trained but have nowhere to apply their expertise.
Closing those gaps entails a few things. Forensic laboratories need to treat FIGG as a core capability they build in-house through NGS adoption, not a specialty service they outsource. Funding mechanisms have to scale with implementation. Genealogical research be integrated into investigative organizations, where it can do the most good. And the field needs to operate on infrastructure specifically designed for forensic application.
The decisions made in the next decade will determine whether FIGG reaches its rightful potential. We are in the full swing of this moving landscape. What remains to be seen is whether the forensic DNA community matches that momentum with the commitment and resources it deserves.
Jessica Koong is Senior Business Development Manager for North America Forensics at QIAGEN, where she works at the intersection of forensic NGS technology, GEDmatch, and law enforcement engagement. She has worked with the forensic investigative genetic genealogy community since 2019.
References
[1] Ancestry Terms and Conditions. https://www.ancestry.com/c/legal/termsandconditions
[2] AMU Edge, "IGG and The Crippling Effects of Ancestry's Legal Changes," February 2026. https://amuedge.com/igg-and-the-crippling-effects-of-ancestrys-legal-changes/
[3] Ramapo College IGG Center, "Words, Words, Words: Ancestry's New Terms and Conditions Remain Vague for IGG," January 2024. https://www.ramapo.edu/igg/2024/01/22/words-words-words-ancestrys-new-terms-and-conditions-remain-vague-for-igg/
[4] Dowdeswell T. Forensic Genetic Genealogy Project v. DEC2024. Mendeley Data, 2025. doi:10.17632/WDZ96CZ3NR.1
[5] Tillmar A, Fagerholm SA, Staaf J, et al. "Getting the conclusive lead with investigative genetic genealogy — A successful case study of a 16 year old double murder in Sweden." Forensic Science International: Genetics 53 (2021): 102525.
[6] Aanes H, Vigeland MD, Star B, et al. "Heating up three cold cases in Norway using investigative genetic genealogy." Forensic Science International: Genetics 76 (2025): 103217.
[7] Ward J, Coakley L, Grisedale K, et al. "Operationalization of the National DNA Program for Unidentified and Missing Persons' Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy Capability for Human Remains Identification in Australia." Forensic Genomics 4 (2024): 32–40.
[8] United States Department of Justice. Interim Policy: Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching, 2019. https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download
[9] Carla Walker Act: S. 1890 / H.R. 3591, 119th Congress (2025).
[10] Glynn CL. "Bridging Disciplines to Form a New One: The Emergence of Forensic Genetic Genealogy." Genes 13(8) (2022): 1381. doi:10.3390/genes13081381. PMC9407302.
[11] ISOGG Wiki. Investigative Genetic Genealogy FAQs. https://isogg.org/wiki/Investigative_genetic_genealogy_FAQs
[12] Bureau of Justice Assistance. Body-Worn Camera Partnership Program. https://bja.ojp.gov/program/body-worn-cameras-bwcs/overview
[13] National Institute of Justice. Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement