Testimony of Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, FBI
Before the House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations
June 12, 2001
"The FBI's DNA Program"

Attachment A

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for inviting the FBI to provide an update on our activities relating to forensic DNA analysis specifically with respect to the Combined DNA Index System or CODIS, our National DNA database and our efforts to provide this technology and assistance to state and local forensic laboratories.

The importance of collaboration between federal, state and local forensic laboratories is illustrated by that first group of federal, state and local forensic scientists that were convened by the FBI Laboratory in the 1980's to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in laboratories. This group, the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or TWGDAM (now known as the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods or SWGDAM), not only developed the guidelines which formed the basis for our national quality assurance standards but they also proposed the creation of a national DNA database for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles developed from crime scenes. This proposal formed the genesis of the development of our CODIS program - software that enables federal, state and local laboratories to store and compare DNA profiles electronically and thereby link serial crimes to each other and identify suspects by matching DNA from crime scenes to convicted offenders. The FBI Laboratory provides this CODIS software, installation, training and user support to other federal, state and local forensic laboratories at no charge. Additionally, the FBI continues to sponsor semi-annual meetings of SWGDAM for over fifty federal, state and local forensic scientists.

How does CODIS work? For example, a sexual assault is committed and an evidence kit is collected from the victim. A DNA profile of the perpetrator is developed from the sexual assault evidence kit. If there is no suspect in the case or if the suspect's DNA profile does not match that of the evidence, the laboratory will search the DNA profile against the convicted offender index. If there is a match in the convicted offender index, the laboratory will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. If there is no match in the convicted offender index, the DNA profile is searched in the forensic or crime scene index. If there is a match in the forensic index, the laboratory has linked two or more crimes together and the law enforcement agencies involved in the cases are able to pool the information obtained on each of the cases.

One of the underlying concepts behind CODIS is to create a database of a state's convicted offender profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects. Recognizing this, as early as the late 1980's, the states began to enact laws that required offenders convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes to provide DNA samples. These DNA samples were to be analyzed and entered into state DNA databases. As you know, all fifty states now have such DNA database laws. All fifty of these laws cover offenders convicted of sex offenses. Well over one-half of these state laws also include offenders convicted of other violent crimes - such as murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, and robbery. See Attachment A - Chart of Qualifying Offenses. Ten states have enacted legislation to include all offenders convicted of a felony offense; one state, Texas, has an all felon bill awaiting gubernatorial approval and proposals are pending in over twenty states to expand their databases to all felony offenders.

As developers of the CODIS system, the FBI has been in an unique position to observe the implementation of DNA databases across the nation. An identification tool that was initially thought to benefit the investigation of sexual assault cases has proven to have much wider application in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. States have observed this first hand and sought to expand coverage of their databases beyond sexual offenses - first to more serious violent felonies and then all felony offenses. Over the past several years, over one-half of the states have expanded the coverage of their DNA databases. So far this year, proposals have been introduced in over 30 states to expand their DNA databases yet again, and in most of these cases, to all felons. The enactment and now amendment of state DNA database laws is another area where the FBI Laboratory has offered assistance to the states. Beginning with the issuance of Legislative Guidelines for DNA Databases in 1991, the FBI Laboratory has provided numerous briefings to state Legislatures and their committees and reviewed legislative proposals to ensure compliance with the DNA Identification Act of 1994 and CODIS/NDIS procedures.

The DNA Identification Act of 1994 [contained within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and hereinafter referred to as "DNA Act"] provided the statutory authority for creation of the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and specified the type of data that could be included in this national index. Only the following types of DNA data may be stored in the national index administered by the FBI Director:

• DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes;
• analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes;
• analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains; and
• analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons. See 42 U.S.C.S. §14132(a).

In accordance with the DNA Act, the FBI recommends that states include all felony offenders and misdemeanor sex offenders within the scope of their database laws. A review of other states' experiences indicate that it is valuable to include what may not be traditionally characterized as violent felony offenses, such as burglary and some drug-related offenses. States have been identifying offenders for subsequent offenses based upon their inclusion in the DNA database for such non-violent felonies.

As states have enacted and then expanded their DNA database laws, there has been a similar increase in the number of laboratories participating in CODIS. CODIS began as a pilot program in 1990 with a dozen participating state and local laboratories. Today, CODIS is in 137 laboratories across the nation representing 47 states and the District of Columbia (FBI Laboratory).

Is CODIS successful? Our primary method of gauging the effectiveness of the CODIS program is the number of investigations it assists by either identifying a perpetrator or by linking serial crimes. Thus far, CODIS has assisted in over 1,900 investigations in 31 states.

In addition to the software, the most significant feature of the CODIS program is the National DNA Index System or NDIS. The National DNA Identification Index has been in operation since October, 1998. Today, there are a total of 108 laboratories representing 35 states participating in the national index system. There are currently over 600,000 convicted offender DNA profiles in NDIS and 26,000 forensic samples. All DNA records in NDIS are protected from unauthorized access through administrative, physical and technical safeguards. For example, DNA records in the national database contain only the following limited information: an agency identifier representing the agency submitting the DNA profile; the specimen identification number; the DNA profile; and the name of the DNA personnel associated with the DNA analysis. It is also important to note that the DNA profiles generated according to national standards do not reveal information relating to a medical condition or disease. The Short Tandem Repeat (STR) core loci selected for use in CODIS were specifically selected as law enforcement identification markers because they were not directly linked to any genetic code for a medical condition. As previously mentioned, the DNA Act also specifies the type of information that may be maintained in the National DNA Database as well as disclosure requirements for those participating in the national database.

Requisites for Success

As the states address both their convicted offender and casework backlogs, CODIS will begin to realize its full potential as an investigative tool. One of the reasons for the convicted offender backlog is the fact that states may have implemented legislation covering a larger number of convicted offenders than could be accommodated by their laboratory. Rather than risk letting a qualifying offender be released from prison or parole and probation, the state collected those DNA samples but was unable to analyze them and enter the data into CODIS. Federal grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs within the Department of Justice provide funding for states to analyze their samples in-house or to contract out the analysis of these collected offender samples. In just one year's time, approximately 300,000 convicted offender samples have been analyzed and entered into state DNA databases, thereby reducing the nationwide backlog. This number is expected to more than double during 2001. Thus, the continuation of federal grant funding for the analysis of these convicted offender samples coupled with the use of designated private high-throughput contract laboratories should result in a significant reduction, if not elimination of, the convicted offender sample backlog.

Equally as important as the analysis of the convicted offender samples, is the analysis of the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. A large national database containing the DNA profiles of convicted offenders alone will not solve crimes. We know that. We also know that state and local laboratories do not currently have the capacity to analyze all the cases with biological evidence that are submitted to them. Because of limited capacities, laboratories are forced to prioritize their cases based upon court dates and whether or not a suspect has been identified. This oftentimes leaves those cases for which there are no suspects - and the cases for which CODIS was specifically designed - unanalyzed in laboratory storage. Federal grant funding pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 will soon be available to address these needs. Until the laboratories have the capacity to analyze every case with biological evidence, CODIS will continue to be underutilized.

The expansion of state DNA database laws to include all felony offenders translates into an increased number of profiles entered into and searched in CODIS. While the FBI has funded research efforts to design a new matching algorithm capable of searching millions of profiles in minutes and even seconds, further research and evaluation into this effort is needed before it can be integrated into the CODIS software. Moreover, as the number of CODIS laboratories has steadily increased over the years, the initial tiered architecture has not changed, necessitating the contractor's maintenance of and user support for three levels of software. Other approaches for the delivery and maintenance of the CODIS software and development of a new platform need to be evaluated. And lastly, as all public DNA laboratories seek participation in the national system, the telecommunication circuits and routers must be upgraded and network maintenance provided to the participating state and local laboratories.

Another key element for the full utilization of CODIS as a law enforcement investigative tool is the continuing research and exploration into new technologies that can offer the forensic community more efficient mechanisms for analyzing convicted offender and casework samples while maintaining the highest quality work. An example of such a new technology is the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) found in most human cells. Certain tissues, such as hair, bones and teeth, that have little nuclear DNA, can often be successfully analyzed for mtDNA when conventional DNA technologies would not be effective. Biological evidence recovered in missing persons cases is often in advanced stages of decomposition, with little or no nuclear DNA remaining intact. In such cases, mtDNA may be the only form of DNA testing possible. After four years of research and validation, the FBI Laboratory began forensic mtDNA analysis in June 1996. To date, nearly 700 cases have been completed and testimony has been provided in 26 states, Canada and Australia. As its success and admissibility in court have grown, demands for mtDNA testing exceed the FBI Laboratory's current or likely future capacity. Anticipating the need for other forensic laboratories to develop their own mtDNA capabilities, in 1998, the FBI Laboratory began training forensic scientists in mtDNA during a two week course at the FBI Academy.

CODIS includes a Missing Person Index which can match the DNA profiles of nuclear DNA technologies or mtDNA. This Index contains very little DNA data because the FBI Laboratory remains the only public crime laboratory conducting mtDNA testing. While the laboratory equipment for mtDNA analysis is similar to the other current forms of DNA analysis, three factors significantly increase the cost and difficulty of establishing mtDNA analysis. First, and most importantly, stringent quality assurance standards require dedicated laboratory rooms and equipment that cannot be used for any other purpose. Second, supplies and laboratory reagents required for mtDNA are more expensive than for any other routine forensic analysis technique, including conventional DNA analysis. Lastly, mtDNA requires special software for data analysis which is costly. One solution might be a nationwide mtDNA laboratory network of six to eight state and local forensic laboratories, affiliated with the FBI Laboratory, to provide mtDNA analyses to state and local criminal justice agencies. The FBI Laboratory could provide administration for the network and select the laboratories, train personnel, provide annual funding and ensure adherence to the quality assurance standards.

One final area for discussion is the availability of forensic scientists to implement these new technologies. There a very few advanced degree programs currently available for forensic scientists. Science majors in colleges and universities may earn a Bachelor of Science degree and if offered a position in a forensic laboratory, complete an in-house training program under the direct supervision of a forensic scientist for one to two years. The forensic scientist trainer cannot provide total dedication to his/her casework because the time must be apportioned between casework and training. One of the important contributions of SWGDAM has been the development of a training program for forensic scientists performing DNA analyses. The FBI has worked with the University of Virginia in designing a Master of Science degree program in which newly hired DNA analysts will participate in a 12 to 18 month program of study at the FBI Academy and work and validation at the laboratory where hired. Support for these collaborative arrangements with universities would assist these efforts to produce well-qualified forensic scientists.

Commitment to Quality

The DNA Act also authorized the creation of a DNA Advisory Board to recommend quality assurance standards to the FBI Director and funding for the CODIS program and for state and local laboratories to enhance or expand their DNA testing capabilities. Over its five year life, the DNA Advisory Board recommended quality assurance standards for both forensic DNA laboratories and convicted offender DNA databasing laboratories. The FBI Director issued these quality assurance standards as national standards for CODIS and participation in the national DNA Index. Compliance with these quality assurance standards is also required for laboratories receiving federal funding for DNA purposes under the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Byrne Grant Program and the National Institute of Justice's DNA Grant Programs. Also required by the DNA Act for participation in the national index and receipt of federal funding is compliance with a semi-annual external proficiency testing program by each analyst performing forensic DNA analyses. Compliance with both the quality assurance standards and the external proficiency testing program are monitored by annual audits of laboratories.

The Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories [hereinafter referred to as "Quality Assurance Standards"] cover the following subjects: organization and management, personnel, facilities, evidence control, validation, analytical procedures, equipment calibration and maintenance, reports, review, proficiency testing, corrective action, audits, safety, and use of subcontractor laboratories. Several of the quality assurance standards specifically address contamination. Standard 6.1 provides that the laboratory "shall have a facility that is designed to provide adequate security and minimize contamination." "The laboratory shall ensure that the laboratory follows written procedures for monitoring, cleaning and decontaminating facilities and equipment." See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 6.1.4. This means that during the annual audit of the laboratory, the laboratory will need to identify their procedures designed to minimize contamination as well as document that those procedures are in place and have been followed.

The Quality Assurance Standards also require that laboratories retain or return a portion of the evidence sample or extract, where possible. See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 7.2. Specifically, laboratories "shall have a procedure requiring that evidence sample/extract(s) are stored in a manner that minimizes degradation. See Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard 7.2.1. Again, these procedures and their implementation are reviewed during the annual audit. Beginning in July 2001, all DNA audits will be conducted by forensic scientists trained by the FBI Laboratory. Finally, the DNA Act provides that access to the National database is subject to cancellation if the quality control requirements are not met.

We are often asked how can we maximize CODIS and again, having observed the implementation of CODIS across the country, we identified several factors that contribute to a successful DNA database program. First is enactment of a comprehensive DNA database law that covers the retroactive and supervised offender populations. To their credit, all 50 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of DNA samples from certain categories of convicted offenders. As states have found, the larger the size of the database, the more crimes that are solved, a fact that is evidenced by the dozens of proposals now pending before state Legislatures to expand the coverage of their convicted offender databases. Second, ensure that DNA samples are collected from all eligible offenders and that those samples are analyzed and entered into CODIS. We know from our annual CODIS survey that the majority of states' analyses efforts have been unable to keep pace with the collection of these convicted offender samples. Convicted offender samples, unlike casework, have been shown to be more amendable to automation and thus high throughput so that the per sample analysis costs of these samples is significantly less than casework samples. We would expect that the continuation of federal funding would assist in correcting this imbalance and enable the states to have these samples analyzed and entered into CODIS so that if one of these convicted offenders reoffends, he/she will be identified for that first offense.

Third, and equally as important as the analysis of the convicted offender samples, is the analysis of the biological evidence collected from crime scenes, regardless of whether a suspect has been identified in that case. To maximize the potential of DNA as a law enforcement investigative tool, federal, state and local forensic laboratories should develop the capacities to analyze all the cases (containing biological evidence) submitted to them. And fourth, compatible analysis methods must be used for both convicted offender and casework samples. With the acceptance of the 13 core STR loci as the national standard, this final factor for success has been institutionalized.

The foundation for the use of CODIS as an investigative tool has been established. The continuation of federal funding to support these efforts in state and local forensic laboratories will ensure its full potential is realized. The FBI Laboratory is committed to the support of the CODIS program and will continue to work with state and local forensic laboratories towards that end.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and provide this update on CODIS and our DNA program. Thank you.