Attachments

CPFFCL_OMB Attachments.pdf

2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories

Attachments

OMB: 1121-0269

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

CPFFCL 2020 Attachments
Attachment 1. 34 U.S.C. §10131–10132
Attachment 2. 2020 CPFFCL questionnaire: Formatted paper instrument
Attachment 3. 2020 CPFFCL questionnaire: Example screen shots of web instruments
Attachment 4. 60-day Federal Register Notice
Attachment 5. 30-day Federal Register Notice
Attachment 6. Pre-notification letter
Attachment 7. Survey invitation cover letter
Attachment 8. Survey invitation email
Attachment 9. 1st reminder – postcard
Attachment 10. 1st reminder – email
Attachment 11. 2nd reminder – letter
Attachment 12. 3rd reminder – email
Attachment 13. 3rd reminder – letter
Attachment 14. 4th reminder – letter
Attachment 15. 5th reminder – postcard
Attachment 16. Data quality follow-up telephone script
Attachment 17. Sample call script for telephone prompting calls
Attachment 18. Sample call script for nonresponse telephone calls
Attachment 19. End-of-Study letter
Attachment 20. End-of-Study email
Attachment 21. Thank you letter
Attachment 22. Letter of Support: American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD)
Attachment 23. Data quality assessment of 2014 CPFFCL
Attachment 24. Cognitive testing report

Attachment 1. 34 U.S.C. §10131–10132
§10131. Statement of purpose
It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide for and encourage the collection and analysis of
statistical information concerning crime, juvenile delinquency, and the operation of the criminal
justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system and to support the development of
information and statistical systems at the Federal, State, and local levels to improve the efforts of
these levels of government to measure and understand the levels of crime, juvenile delinquency,
and the operation of the criminal justice system and related aspects of the civil justice system.
The Bureau shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible State governmental organizations and
facilities responsible for the collection and analysis of criminal justice data and statistics. In
carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Bureau shall give primary emphasis to the
problems of State and local justice systems.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §301, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176;
amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §605(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2079.)
§10132. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(a) Establishment
There is established within the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney
General, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereinafter referred to in this subchapter as "Bureau").
(b) Appointment of Director; experience; authority; restrictions
The Bureau shall be headed by a Directorappointed by the President. The Director shall have had
experience in statistical programs. The Director shall have final authority for all grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts awarded by the Bureau. The Director shall be responsible
for the integrity of data and statistics and shall protect against improper or illegal use or
disclosure. The Director shall report to the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney
General. The Director shall not engage in any other employment than that of serving as Director;
nor shall the Director hold any office in, or act in any capacity for, any organization, agency, or
institution with which the Bureau makes any contract or other arrangement under this Act.
(c) Duties and functions of Bureau
The Bureau is authorized to—
(1) make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with public agencies,
institutions of higher education, private organizations, or private individuals for purposes related
to this subchapter; grants shall be made subject to continuing compliance with standards for
gathering justice statistics set forth in rules and regulations promulgated by the Director;

(2) collect and analyze information concerning criminal victimization, including crimes against
the elderly, and civil disputes;
(3) collect and analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social
indication of the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime,
juvenile delinquency, civil disputes, and other statistical factors related to crime, civil disputes,
and juvenile delinquency, in support of national, State, tribal, and local justice policy and
decisionmaking;
(4) collect and analyze statistical information, concerning the operations of the criminal justice
system at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels;
(5) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent,
distribution, and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency, at the Federal, State, tribal, and
local levels;
(6) analyze the correlates of crime, civil disputes and juvenile delinquency, by the use of
statistical information, about criminal and civil justice systems at the Federal, State, tribal, and
local levels, and about the extent, distribution and attributes of crime, and juvenile delinquency,
in the Nation and at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels;
(7) compile, collate, analyze, publish, and disseminate uniform national statistics concerning all
aspects of criminal justice and related aspects of civil justice, crime, including crimes against the
elderly, juvenile delinquency, criminal offenders, juvenile delinquents, and civil disputes in the
various States and in Indian country;
(8) recommend national standards for justice statistics and for insuring the reliability and validity
of justice statistics supplied pursuant to this chapter;
(9) maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal Government and State and tribal
governments in matters relating to justice statistics, and cooperate with the judicial branch in
assuring as much uniformity as feasible in statistical systems of the executive and judicial
branches;
(10) provide information to the President, the Congress, the judiciary, State, tribal, and local
governments, and the general public on justice statistics;
(11) establish or assist in the establishment of a system to provide State, tribal, and local
governments with access to Federal informational resources useful in the planning,
implementation, and evaluation of programs under this Act;
(12) conduct or support research relating to methods of gathering or analyzing justice statistics;
(13) provide for the development of justice information systems programs and assistance to the
States, Indian tribes, and units of local government relating to collection, analysis, or
dissemination of justice statistics;
(14) develop and maintain a data processing capability to support the collection, aggregation,
analysis and dissemination of information on the incidence of crime and the operation of the
criminal justice system;

(15) collect, analyze and disseminate comprehensive Federal justice transaction statistics
(including statistics on issues of Federal justice interest such as public fraud and high
technology crime) and to provide technical assistance to and work jointly with other Federal
agencies to improve the availability and quality of Federal justice data;
(16) provide for the collection, compilation, analysis, publication and dissemination of
information and statistics about the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution and
attributes of drug offenses, drug related offenses and drug dependent offenders and further
provide for the establishment of a national clearinghouse to maintain and update a
comprehensive and timely data base on all criminal justice aspects of the drug crisis and to
disseminate such information;
(17) provide for the collection, analysis, dissemination and publication of statistics on the
condition and progress of drug control activities at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels with
particular attention to programs and intervention efforts demonstrated to be of value in the
overall national anti-drug strategy and to provide for the establishment of a national
clearinghouse for the gathering of data generated by Federal, State, tribal, and local criminal
justice agencies on their drug enforcement activities;
(18) provide for the development and enhancement of State, tribal, and local criminal justice
information systems, and the standardization of data reporting relating to the collection, analysis
or dissemination of data and statistics about drug offenses, drug related offenses, or drug
dependent offenders;
(19) provide for improvements in the accuracy, quality, timeliness, immediate accessibility, and
integration of State and tribal criminal history and related records, support the development and
enhancement of national systems of criminal history and related records including the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, the National Incident-Based Reporting System,
and the records of the National Crime Information Center, facilitate State and tribal
participation in national records and information systems, and support statistical research for
critical analysis of the improvement and utilization of criminal history records;
(20) maintain liaison with State, tribal, and local governments and governments of other nations
concerning justice statistics;
(21) cooperate in and participate with national and international organizations in the
development of uniform justice statistics;
(22) ensure conformance with security and privacy requirement of section 10231 of this title and
identify, analyze, and participate in the development and implementation of privacy, security and
information policies which impact on Federal, tribal, and State criminal justice operations and
related statistical activities; and
(23) exercise the powers and functions set out in subchapter VII.
(d) Justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination
(1) In general
To ensure that all justice statistical collection, analysis, and dissemination is carried out in a

coordinated manner, the Director is authorized to—
(A) utilize, with their consent, the services, equipment, records, personnel, information, and
facilities of other Federal, State, local, and private agencies and instrumentalities with or without
reimbursement therefor, and to enter into agreements with such agencies and instrumentalities
for purposes of data collection and analysis;
(B) confer and cooperate with State, municipal, and other local agencies;
(C) request such information, data, and reports from any Federal agency as may be required to
carry out the purposes of this chapter;
(D) seek the cooperation of the judicial branch of the Federal Government in gathering data from
criminal justice records;
(E) encourage replication, coordination and sharing among justice agencies regarding
information systems, information policy, and data; and
(F) confer and cooperate with Federal statistical agencies as needed to carry out the purposes of
this subchapter, including by entering into cooperative data sharing agreements in conformity
with all laws and regulations applicable to the disclosure and use of data.
(2) Consultation with Indian tribes
The Director, acting jointly with the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (acting through the
Office of Justice Services) and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall work
with Indian tribes and tribal law enforcement agencies to establish and implement such tribal
data collection systems as the Director determines to be necessary to achieve the purposes of this
section.
(e) Furnishing of information, data, or reports by Federal agencies
Federal agencies requested to furnish information, data, or reports pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(C) shall provide such information to the Bureau as is required to carry out the purposes of
this section.
(f) Consultation with representatives of State, tribal, and local government and judiciary
In recommending standards for gathering justice statistics under this section, the Director shall
consult with representatives of State, tribal, and local government, including, where appropriate,
representatives of the judiciary.
(g) Reports
Not later than 1 year after July 29, 2010, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to
Congress a report describing the data collected and analyzed under this section relating to crimes
in Indian country.
(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §302, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1176;
amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §605(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2079; Pub. L. 100–690, title
VI, §6092(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4339; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330001(h)(2),

Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2139; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1115(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3103;
Pub. L. 111–211, title II, §251(b), July 29, 2010, 124 Stat. 2297; Pub. L. 112–166, §2(h)(1),
Aug. 10, 2012, 126 Stat. 1285.)

Attachment 2. 2020 CPFFCL Questionnaire: Formatted paper instrument

Form CFCL-20

OMB No. XXXX-XXXX: Approval Expires MM/DD/YYYY

2020 Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Acting as collection agent: RTI International

Please use this form to provide information on behalf of the following agency:
[FILL AGENCY NAME HERE]
If the agency name printed above is incorrect, please call us at 1-800-XXX-XXXX.

Survey Instructions:
• Submit this form using one of the following four methods:
o Online: www.bjsforensics.org

Agency ID:
Password:

•
•
•
•

o E-mail: bjsforensics@rti.org
o Fax: 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX (toll-free)
o Mail: Use the enclosed postage-paid envelope
Please do not leave any items blank.
If the answer to a question is none or zero, write “0” in the space provided. When exact numeric answers
are not available, provide estimates and indicate that the answer is estimated using the provided checkbox.
Use blue or black ink and print as neatly as possible.
Use an X when marking an answer in a box.

Indicate who completed this form. We are only collecting this information to identify a point of contact for
questions related to the survey responses. This information will not be shared or published.
Name:
Last Name

First Name

Title:

—

Phone:
Area Code Number

Extension

—

Fax:
Area Code Number

E-mail:
Agency
Website:
If you have any questions, call RTI toll-free at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or send an e-mail to bjsforensics@rti.org. If you
have general project-related questions, please contact Connor Brooks of BJS at (202)-514-8633 or
Connor.Brooks@usdoj.gov (please include “CPFFCL” in the subject line).
Burden Statement
Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 90 minutes per response, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspects of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (34 USC
10132), authorizes this information collection. Although this survey is voluntary, we urgently need your cooperation to make the results comprehensive, accurate,
and timely. We greatly appreciate your assistance.

Section A: Organization
A1. What level of government operates this laboratory facility? Mark one.
City, borough, village, or town
County or parish
State
Federal
A2. Which of the following best describes the agency that has administrative oversight of your
laboratory? Mark one.
Law enforcement agency (e.g., department or division of public safety)
Department or division of forensic science
Government attorney’s office (e.g., district attorney)
Public health agency (e.g., department or division of public health)
Other (please specify)

A3. As of December 31, 2020, was your laboratory part of a multi-laboratory system? A multilaboratory system is defined as two or more separate laboratory entities that are overseen by a single
organization. If a laboratory includes multiple physical buildings, but is considered to be a single
laboratory, please mark “No” as a response.” Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to A5
A4. If yes, as of December 31, 2020, how many distinct laboratories were in your multilaboratory system? Include your own laboratory in this total.
Laboratories
A5. During 2020, did any of the following types or levels of government agencies submit requests
for forensic services to your individual laboratory? Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes

a. City, borough, village, or town
b. County or parish
c. State (state-wide or regional)
d. Federal (nationwide or regional)
e. Tribal lands

A6. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with controlled
substances? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No
A7. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with
toxicology? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to A9
A8. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes No
a. Antemortem BAC analysis
b. Antemortem drug analysis
c. Postmortem analysis
2

A9. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with trace
analysis? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No Skip to A11
A10. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes
a. Chemical unknown analysis
b. Explosives analysis
c. Fire debris analysis
d. Fiber examination
e. Gunshot residue testing
f. Hair examination
g. Paint analysis
h. Other trace (please specify)

A11. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with
impressions? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to A13
A12. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes No
a. Footwear analysis
b. Tire tread analysis
A13. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with
firearms/toolmarks? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No
A14. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with digital and
multimedia evidence? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to A16
A15. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes
a. Traditional cellphone (not smartphone) analysis
b. Smartphone, tablet, or mobile device analysis
c. Laptop or desktop computer analysis
d. Thumb and external drives, CDs, DVDs, or other storage media analysis
e. GPS and navigation systems analysis
f. Audio files analysis
g. Video analysis
h. Cloud and server data (including social media) analysis
i. Other analyses of digital/multimedia evidence (please specify)

A16. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with latent
prints? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No Skip to A18
A17. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes No
a. Print development
b. Comparisons analysis
A18. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with questioned
documents? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No
A19. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with crime
scene investigation? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to A21
A20. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
Yes No
a. Evidence collection
b. Scene reconstruction
A21. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform forensic functions with forensic
biology? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No Skip to A23
A22. If yes, what specific functions did your individual laboratory facility perform?
Mark yes or no for each row.
a. Casework– excluding sexual assault
b. Sexual assault casework
c. Convicted offender DNA samples
d. Arrestee DNA samples
e. Other DNA samples analysis (e.g., missing persons, paternity) (please specify)

Yes

f. Direct to DNA approach
g. Probabilistic genotyping
A23. During 2020, did your individual laboratory facility perform other forensic functions not
already captured in A6-A22? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to Section B: Budget
A24. If yes, what other forensic functions did your laboratory facility perform?

Section B: Budget
B1. During the fiscal year that included December 31, 2020, did your individual laboratory receive
funding from any of the following sources? Mark yes or no for each funding source.
Yes No
a. Asset forfeitures
b. Donations
c. Fees (e.g., case processing fees)
d. Grants - federal
e. Grants - state or local
f. Other revenue sources (please specify)

B2. What was the total operating budget for your individual laboratory for the fiscal year that
included December 31, 2020? Include all funding from sources selected in B1 (e.g., fees and
grants). Include personnel budgets. Do not include budgets for building construction or major
equipment purchases.

.00

If estimate, check here:

B3. Does your total operating budget (your answer to B2) include your entire multi-laboratory
system? Mark one.
Yes
No
N/A – Laboratory is not part of a multi-laboratory system
B4. What are the start and end dates of your fiscal year that included December 31, 2020?

M M / D D / Y Y Y Y

MM / D D / Y Y Y Y

Section C: Staffing
This next question asks for the number of employees your laboratory had in 2019.
C1. As of December 31, 2019, how many full-time and part-time employees did your laboratory
have? Include managerial staff, clerical/administrative staff, analysts/examiners, crime scene
technicians, technical support, and other staff.
Number of employees
a. Full-time employees
b. Part-time employees

The remaining questions in this section ask about 2020.
C2. How many full-time employees, part-time employees, and position vacancies in the following
categories did your laboratory have as of December 31, 2020? Report each employee in only one
category, based on primary function. Report employees who normally work less than 35 hours per
week as part-time. If none, enter 0.
Full-time
Part-time
Vacancies
a. Managerial
b. Clerical or administrative
c. Analyst/examiner in-training
d. Analyst/examiner full-performance
e. Crime scene technician
f. Technical support (e.g., laboratory technicians)
g. Other
Total (Sum a-g)

C3. As of December 31, 2020, how many personnel did you have in the following categories?
If none, enter 0.
Number provided
Number of personnel
is an estimate
a. Consultants/contractors
b. Interns
C4. How many hires and separations of key personnel occurred in 2020? Key personnel are defined:
Managerial; Clerical or Administrative; all levels of Analyst/Examiner; Crime Scene Technician; and
Technical Support. Mark if number was estimated.
Number provided
Number of personnel
is an estimate
a. Hires
b. Separations
C5. As of December 31, 2020, how many of full-time analysts/examiners (as specified in C2d) in your
individual laboratory were certified by one or more of the following entities?
If none were certified, enter ‘0’.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

American Board of Criminalistics
American Board of Forensic Anthropology
American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
American Board of Forensic Odontology
American Board of Forensic Toxicology
American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators
Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners
Board of Forensic Document Examiners
Digital Forensics Certification Board
Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board

Full-time analysts/examiners
6

•
•
•
•
•
•

Forensic Toxicologist Certification Board
International Association for Identification (not
including 10-print certification)
International Association for Property and Evidence
International Association of Computer Investigative
Specialists
International Institute of Forensic Engineering
Sciences
Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video
Association

Section D: Workload
Questions D1 through D6 ask for information about your individual laboratory workload. Please consider the
following definitions as you complete this section.
• Case – a single criminal investigation. A case may consist of more than one request to multiple
disciplines/departments/units (e.g., toxicology, latent prints, and forensic biology).
• Request – a request for analysis by a forensic discipline/department/unit of one or more items of
evidence from a single criminal investigation (i.e., case). For example, a case may result in separate
requests for toxicology, digital evidence, or forensic biology. Some labs may refer to requests as
“forensic service requests”, “client requests”, or “assignments.”
• Item – a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis resulting from a request. There may be
multiple items within a request (e.g., multiple pill bags collected from different locations from the same
crime scene).
• LIMS – Laboratory Information Management System, a computerized system used to manage,
compile, or track requests and/or evidence.
D1. As of December 31, 2020, did your individual laboratory have a Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS)? If your laboratory’s LIMS is only deployed for certain disciplines, or is
being upgraded or installed, please select “yes.” Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to instructions before D3
D2. If yes, does your LIMS allow you to track the number of requests for analysis received by
your laboratory? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No
Questions D3-D6 ask about requests for analysis your laboratory received for reporting years 2019
and 2020. For these questions, do not include requests that your laboratory sent outside of your
laboratory system for analysis. Include requests sent to other labs in your multi- laboratory system.
Include requests for controlled substances, toxicology, trace, impressions, firearms/toolmarks, digital and
multimedia evidence, latent prints, questioned documents, crime scene, forensic biology casework, and
DNA databasing.
D3. How many requests for analysis did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2019 through
December 31, 2019?

Requests

If estimate, check here:

Number is unknown
D4. How many requests for analysis did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2020 through
December 31, 2020?

Requests

If estimate, check here:

Number is unknown
D5. As of January 1, 2021, how many pending requests for analysis that were unreported for 30
days or longer did your laboratory have?

Requests

If estimate, check here:

Number is unknown
7

D6. How many requests for analysis did your laboratory receive, complete, and have pending in
2020? If an exact number is not available, please provide an estimate and check the “Estimate” box.
Total number of
Total number of all pending requests
pending requests
that were
Total number of
Total number of awaiting analysis unreported for 30
new requests
requests
as of
days or longer as
received in 2020 completed in 2020 January 1, 2021 of January 1, 2021 N/A
a.Controlled
substances

,
Estimate:

b.Toxicology

,
Estimate:

c. Trace

,
Estimate:

d.Impressions

,
Estimate:

e.Firearms/
Toolmarks

,
Estimate:

g.Latent prints

,
Estimate:

h.Questioned
documents

,
Estimate:

N/A

i. Crime scene
investigation

,
Estimate:

f. Digital &
multimedia
evidence

j. Forensic biology
casework
(including sexual
assault casework)
DO NOT
INCLUDE DNA
DATABASING
i. Sexual assault
casework
k. DNA databasing
i. Convicted
offender
samples
ii. Arrestee
samples

D7. How long does your laboratory typically retain digital evidence after analysis is completed?
Digital evidence refers to information of probative value that is stored or transmitted in binary form.
Not applicable, because my laboratory does not
perform forensic functions with digital evidence
 Skip to Section E: Outsourcing
My laboratory does not retain or archive digital evidence
Less than 6 months
6 months to less than 1 year
1 to less than 3 years
3 to less than 5 years
5 to less than 10 years
10 or more years
Indefinitely
D8. If your laboratory retains or archives digital evidence, as of January 1, 2021, how much
storage for digital evidence does your individual laboratory have available?
Mark if number was estimated.
Terabytes

If estimate, check here:

Section E: Outsourcing
E1. During 2020, did your laboratory outsource the testing of any type of evidence or samples?
Outsourcing refers to contracting or procuring analytical services from an outside vendor to
accomplish laboratory functions. It does not refer to purchasing consumables, materials, or
equipment. Mark yes or no.
Yes
No  Skip to E6 on Page 10
E2. If yes, where did your laboratory send outsourced requests in 2020?
Mark yes or no for each laboratory type.
Yes No
a. Commercial or privately funded laboratory
b. Publicly funded laboratory
c. University laboratory (public or private)
E3. During 2020, did your laboratory outsource analysis of any of the following types of
evidence or samples? Mark yes, no, or N/A if your laboratory does not perform this function.
Yes No N/A
a. Controlled substances
b. Toxicology
c. Trace
d. Impressions
e. Firearms/Toolmarks
f. Digital and multimedia evidence
g. Latent prints
h. Questioned documents
i. Crime scene investigation
j. Forensic biology
k. Other (please specify)
 If you answered “No” to E3j (Forensic Biology), skip to E5 on Page 9.
E4. Did your laboratory outsource analysis of the following types of Forensic Biology
evidence or samples? Mark yes, no, or N/A if your laboratory does not perform this function.
Yes No N/A
i. Casework – excluding sexual assault
ii. Sexual assault casework
iii. Convicted offender DNA samples
iv. Arrestee DNA samples
9

E5. What were your laboratory’s total outsourcing costs in 2020? Outsourcing refers to
contracting or procuring services from an outside vendor to accomplish laboratory functions. It
does not refer to purchasing consumables, materials, or equipment.

.00

If estimate, check here:

Please check here if “Don’t know”

E6. In 2020, did your laboratory bring in personnel (e.g., consultants or contractors) to assist with
completing forensic analyses? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No

Section F: Quality Assurance
F1.

As of December 31, 2020, did any of the jurisdictions you serve require accreditation?
Mark yes or no.
Yes
No

F2.

As of December 31, 2020, were any disciplines in your laboratory accredited? Mark yes or no.
Yes
No Skip to F5

F5.

F3.

If yes, as of December 31, 2020, to which standard(s) is your laboratory accredited?
Mark yes or no for each standard.
Yes No
a. ISO 17025
b. ISO 17020
c. Other (please specify)

F4.

Who is (are) your accreditation body(ies)? Mark yes or no for each accreditation body.
Yes No
a. American Association of Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)
b. American Association of Blood Banks (AABB)
c. American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT)
d. ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB)
e. College of American Pathologists (CAP)
f. Health and Human Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (HHS/SAMHSA)
g. International Association for Property and Evidence (IAPE)
h. International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (IAC&ME)
i. National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME)
j. Other (please specify)

During 2020, did your laboratory have resources dedicated primarily to research? Research is
experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, the revision of accepted methods,
or practical application of such new or revised methods or technologies. Resources may include
dollars, work-hours, supplies, or other funding dedicated specifically to supporting research.
Mark yes or no.
Yes
No
10

F6.

During 2020, did your laboratory conduct proficiency testing? Proficiency testing is defined as
the evaluation of a participant’s performance against pre-established criteria by means of interlaboratory comparison. Mark yes or no.
Yes
No Skip to F8
F7.

If yes, during 2020, which of the following proficiency tests did your laboratory perform
internally and externally? Mark yes or no for each proficiency test.
Yes No
a. Blind: analyst/examiner is not told which case is for testing
b. Declared: analyst/examiner is told when he/she is being tested
c. Random case reanalysis: random selection of analyst/examiner’s prior
casework for reanalysis by another analyst/examiner
d. Round robin/challenge testing
e. Other proficiency testing (please specify)

F8.

During 2020, did your laboratory conduct competency testing on its analysts/examiners?
Competency is defined as the evaluation of a person’s knowledge and abilities before performing
independent forensic case work. Mark yes or no.
Yes
No

F9.

In 2020, did your laboratory have a written code of ethics? Mark one.
Yes, our laboratory adopted an existing code of ethics
Yes, our laboratory created its own code of ethics
No

F10. In 2020, at what level did your laboratory perform technical reviews? A technical review refers to
a qualified second party's evaluation of reports, notes, data, and other documentation to ensure there
is appropriate and sufficient support for resulting actions, results, conclusions, opinions, and
interpretations. Include technical reviews that are completed internally AND technical reviews that are
outsourced. Mark one.
My laboratory performed technical reviews on none of the casework.
My laboratory performed technical reviews on some of the casework.
My laboratory performed technical reviews on all of the casework.
F11. As of December 31, 2020, did your laboratory have the following? Mark yes or no for each item.
Yes No
a. Written standard operating procedures
b. Management systems documents (e.g., policy and
objective statements)
c. Performance verification checks
d. Structured training program
11

F12. As of December 31, 2020, did your analysts have access to the following safety and wellness
resources? If yes, indicate if your laboratory primarily provided these resources directly or through an
external agency. Mark yes, directly; yes, through an external agency; or no, analysts did not have
access to this resource for each row.
No, analysts
Yes,
did not have
through an
access to this
Yes, directly external agency
resource
a. Behavior/stress management
b. Employee assistance programs
c. Mental health debrief
d. Proactive resiliency programs
e. Web-based resources
f. Other resources (please specify)

Section G: Feedback & Submission
G1. Please write any comments you would like to share with the Bureau of Justice Statistics
about:
• Your survey responses
• The survey content or format
• The manner of administration of the survey, or
• Any other applicable information

Please return your questionnaire in the enclosed return envelope or mail it to:
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
RTI International
ATTN: Data Capture
5265 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27690

Thank you for participating in the
Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories
12

Attachment 3. 2020 CPFFCL questionnaire: Example screen shots of web
instruments

Attachment 7: 2020 CPFCCL questionnaire: Example screen shots of web instruments

Attachment 4. 60-day Federal Register Notice

3198

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Controlled substance
Tetrahydrocannabinols ...........
3,4-Methylene
dioxyamphetamine.
3,4-Methylenedioxy-Nethylamphetamine.
3,4-Methylene
dioxymethamphetamine.
5-Methoxy-N–Ndimethyltryptamine.
Alpha-methyltryptamine ..........
Bufotenine ...............................
Diethyltryptamine ....................
Dimethyltryptamine .................
Psilocybin ................................
Psilocyn ...................................
5-Methoxy-N,Ndiisopropyltryptamine.
Dihydromorphine .....................
Heroin .....................................
Nicocodeine ............................
Nicomorphine ..........................
Normorphine ...........................
Thebacon ................................
Normethadone ........................
Acryl fentanyl (N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylacrylamide).
Para-Fluorofentanyl ................
3-Methylfentanyl ......................
Alpha-methylfentanyl ..............
Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl ....
N-(2-fluorophenyl)-N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4yl)propionamide.
Acetyl Fentanyl (N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylacetamide).
Butyryl Fentanyl ......................
4-Fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl (N(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4yl)isobutyramide).
2-methoxy-N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylacetamide.
Beta-hydroxyfentanyl ..............
Beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl
Alpha-methylthiofentanyl .........
3-Methylthiofentanyl ................
Furanyl fentanyl (N-(1phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylfuran-2-carboxamide).
Thiofentanyl ............................
Beta-hydroxythiofentanyl ........
N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)N-phenyltetrahydrofuran-2carboxamide.
Amphetamine ..........................
Methamphetamine ..................
Codeine ...................................
Dihydrocodeine .......................
Oxycodone ..............................
Hydromorphone ......................
Hydrocodone ...........................
Isomethadone .........................
Methadone ..............................
Methadone intermediate .........
Morphine .................................
Thebaine .................................
Levo-alphacetylmethadol ........
Oxymorphone .........................
Thiafentanil .............................
Alfentanil .................................
Sufentanil ................................
Carfentanil ...............................
Fentanyl ..................................

Drug
code

Schedule

7370
7400

I
I

7404

7405

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.

7431

[FR Doc. 2021–00647 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]

7432
7433
7434
7435
7437
7438
7439

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

9145
9200
9309
9312
9313
9315
9635
9811

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

9812
9813
9814
9815
9816

I
I
I
I
I

9821

9822
9824

I
I

9825

9830
9831
9832
9833
9834

I
I
I
I
I

9835
9836
9843

I
I
I

1100
1105
9050
9120
9143
9150
9193
9226
9250
9254
9300
9333
9648
9652
9729
9737
9740
9743
9801

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

BILLING CODE P

The company plans to manufacture
bulk controlled substances for use in
analytical testing. In reference to drug
codes 7360 (Marihuana) and 7370

VerDate Sep<11>2014

(Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company
plans to bulk manufacture these drugs
as synthetics. No other activities for
these drug codes are authorized for this
registration.

23:48 Jan 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0269]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested; Reinstatement,
With Change, of a Previously
Approved Collection for Which
Approval Has Expired: 2020 Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL)
Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-day notice.
AGENCY:

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until March
15, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Connor Brooks, Statistician, Law
Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street
NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Connor.Brooks@usdoj.gov; phone: 202–
514–8633).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement of the Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories,
with changes, of a previously approved
collection for which approval has
expired.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2020 Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number is CFCL–20. The
applicable component within the
Department of Justice is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract:
This information collection is a
census of federal, state, and local
publicly funded forensic crime
laboratories that analyze criminal
evidence. This data collection follows
the 2014 study and will collect
information on personnel, budgets,
workloads, policies, and procedures of
crime laboratories. BJS plans to field the
2020 CPFFCL from May to October
2021. The census form was assessed by
practitioners and subject matter experts
to update it from the 2014 form and
ensure its relevance to forensic crime
laboratories as well as reduce
respondent burden. The form was then
cognitively tested with 23 forensic
crime laboratories of different sizes,
regions, and government levels. In
addition to collecting detailed data for
the 2020 reference year, CPFFCL will
also collect summary data for the 2019
reference year.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: A projected 500 respondents
will take an average of 2.5 hours each
to complete form, including time to
research or find information not readily

E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM

14JAN1

3199

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
available. BJS expects additional time
will be needed for data quality followup for up to 250 respondents, which
will require another 15 minutes of
respondent’s time.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated
1312.5 total burden hours associated
with this information collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: January 11, 2021.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA,U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021–00746 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
On December 29, 2020, the
Department of Justice lodged a proposed
Consent Decree with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas in the lawsuit entitled United
States et al. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company and The Chemours
Company FC, LLC, Case No. 1:20–cv–
00556. The proposed Consent Decree
resolves the United States’ claims, on
behalf of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the
United States Department of the
Interior, as Federal Trustees, joined by
the State of Texas, on behalf of the
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, the Texas General Land Office,
and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, as State Trustees, pursuant
to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42
U.S.C. 9607(a), and the Texas Hazardous
Substances Spill Prevention and Control
Act, Texas Water Code §§ 26.261–
26.267, for the recovery of damages for
injury to, destruction of, loss of, and
loss of use of natural resources and their
services resulting from the release of
hazardous substances at and from the
Beaumont Works Industrial Park
Complex into the West Marsh Site
located in Beaumont, Texas. Plaintiffs
are trustees for those natural resources.
The proposed Consent Decree resolving

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:43 Jan 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

these claims provides for Settling
Defendants to implement a Restoration
Project that entails recording a
conservation easement on a 500-acre
tract of valuable but otherwise
unprotected habitat near the injured
area (the ‘‘Acquisition Property’’) to
compensate for the natural resource
damages. The Restoration Project also
includes the performance of baseline
biological monitoring of the Acquisition
Property, annual monitoring of
Acquisition Property, and legal
enforcement of the Conservation
Easement. The Decree also provides for
payments by Settling Defendants
totaling $198,853 to reimburse the
Trustees’ costs of assessment and for
payment of the Trustees’ Future Costs of
overseeing the Restoration Project.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
Consent Decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States et al. v. E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company and The
Chemours Company FC, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00556, D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–
10852. All comments must be submitted
no later than thirty (30) days after the
publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:

Send them to:

By e-mail ......

pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.

By mail .........

During the public comment period,
the Consent Decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department website: http://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_
Decrees.html. We will provide a paper
copy of the Consent Decree upon
written request and payment of
reproduction costs. Please mail your
request and payment to: Consent Decree
Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box
7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $11.75 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury.
Kenneth G. Long,
Acting Assistant Section Chief,
Environmental Enforcement Section,
Environment and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–00689 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging of Proposed
Consent Decree Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
On December 16, 2020, the
Department of Justice lodged a proposed
consent decree with the United States
District Court for the District of
Delaware in the lawsuit entitled United
States v. Delaware, Civil Action No.
1:20–cv–01703–UNA.
The United States filed this lawsuit
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) against the state of Delaware.
The complaint seeks recovery of past
costs that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
incurred in responding to releases or
threatened releases of hazardous
substances at a former landfill at the
Governor Bacon Health Center/Fort
DuPont State Park in New Castle
County, Delaware. Under the consent
decree, Delaware agrees to pay
$1,889,992.30 of EPA’s past response
costs, while the United States
Department of Defense (Settling Federal
Agency) agrees to pay $1,700,993.07 of
EPA’s past response costs. In return, the
United States agrees not to sue Delaware
under Sections 107 and 113 of CERCLA,
and Delaware agrees not to sue the
United States for any portion of EPA’s
past response costs, including under
Sections 107 or 113 of CERCLA.
The publication of this notice opens
a period for public comment on the
consent decree. Comments should be
addressed to the Assistant Attorney
General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, and should refer to
United States v. Delaware, D.J. Ref. No.
90–11–3–11709. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days
after the publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
By email .......
By mail .........

Send them to:
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.

During the public comment period,
the consent decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department website: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the

E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM

14JAN1

Attachment 5. 30-day Federal Register Notice

15500

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Notices

or why your request is otherwise
insufficient. The component also shall
give you an opportunity to discuss your
request so that you may modify it to
meet the requirements of this section. If
your request does not reasonably
describe the records you seek, the
agency’s response to your request may
be delayed. (c) Agreement to pay fees.
If you make a FOIA request, it shall be
considered an agreement by you to pay
all applicable fees charged under
§ 16.11, up to $25.00, unless you seek a
waiver of fees. The component
responsible for responding to your
request ordinarily will confirm this
agreement in an acknowledgement
letter. When making a request, you may
specify a willingness to pay a greater or
lesser amount.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An estimated 14,000 FOIA
requests are completed annually. These
requests can be submitted via free-form
letter or the eFOIA form. In FY 2020
approximately 150 online eFOIA forms
were submitted. An average of 8
minutes per respondent is needed to
complete the eFOIA form. The
estimated range of burden for
respondents is expected to be between
4 minutes to 12 minutes for completion.
6. An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The estimated public burden
associated with this collection is .13
hours. It is estimated that respondents
will take .13 hour to complete a
questionnaire. The burden hours for
collecting respondent data sum to 20
hours (150 respondents × .13 hours = 20
hours).
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: March 18, 2021.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021–05951 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:45 Mar 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1121–0269]

The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection
was previously published, allowing a
60-day comment period. BJS received
four comments in response. The
responses were all favorable to the
reinstatement of the CPFFCL program
and emphasized the utility of the
CPFFCL program to the field.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until April
22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement of the Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories,
with changes, a previously approved
collection for which approval has
expired.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection:
2020 Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories.
(3) The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
The form number is CFCL–20. The
applicable component within the
Department of Justice is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: This information collection is
a census of federal, state, and local
publicly funded forensic crime
laboratories that analyze criminal
evidence. This data collection follows
the 2014 study and will collect
information on personnel, budgets,
workloads, policies, and procedures of
crime laboratories. BJS plans to field the
2020 CPFFCL from May to October
2021. The census form was assessed by
practitioners and subject matter experts
to update it from the 2014 form and
ensure its relevance to forensic crime
laboratories as well as reduce
respondent burden. The form was then
cognitively tested with 23 forensic
crime laboratories of different sizes,
regions, and government levels. In
addition to collecting detailed data for
the 2020 reference year, CPFFCL will
also collect summary data for the 2019
reference year.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: A projected 500 respondents
will take an average of 2.5 hours to
complete each form, including time to
research or find information not readily
available. BJS expects additional time
will be needed for data quality followup for up to 250 respondents, which
will require another 15 minutes of
respondent’s time.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Notices
1312.5 total burden hours associated
with this information collection.
If additional information is required
contact: Melody Braswell, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: March 18, 2021.
Melody Braswell,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2021–05949 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Arts
Request for Comments To Assist in
the Development of the National
Endowment for the Arts’ 2022–2026
Strategic Plan: Extension of Public
Comment Period
National Endowment for the
Arts, National Foundation on the Arts
and Humanities.
ACTION: Extension of comment period.
AGENCY:

The National Endowment for
the Arts (NEA) is in the process of
developing a new strategic plan for the
years 2022–2026. The NEA Office of
Research & Analysis is soliciting public
input to inform the development of the
NEA 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. Through
this Request for Comments, the NEA
invites ideas and insights from the
general public, including arts
organizations, artists, arts educators,
state and local arts agencies, other arts
funders and policy-makers, researchers,
and individuals and groups outside the
arts sector. In the summer of 2021,
stakeholders will have a second
opportunity to provide comments and
input in response to the drafted version
of the NEA 2022–2026 Strategic Plan.
DATES: The due date for public
comments requested in the Federal
Register Notice published on March 10,
2021 (86 FR 13760) has been extended.
Written comments must be submitted to
the office listed in the address section
below on or before the close of business
on Wednesday, March 31, 2021.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sunil
Iyengar, National Endowment for the
Arts, via email
(NEAstrategicplanninggroup@arts.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:45 Mar 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

A. About the National Endowment for
the Arts
Established by Congress in 1965, the
National Endowment for the Arts is an
independent federal agency, providing
funding and support to give Americans
the opportunity to participate in the
arts, exercise their imaginations, and
develop their creative capacities.
Currently, the NEA supports arts
organizations and artists in every
Congressional district in the country.
B. Supplemental Information
On March 10, 2021 the National
Endowment for the Arts posted a
Request for Comments, seeking public
input to guide the development of the
agency’s 2022–2026 Strategic Plan (86
FR 13760). The public comment period
was originally scheduled to close on
Friday, March 26, 2021. The National
Endowment for the Arts is extending the
public comment period until
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 to allow
members of the public more time to
submit their input and comments.
As a federal agency, the National
Endowment for the Arts is required to
establish a new strategic plan every four
years. The Strategic Plan sets key
priorities for the agency and presents
management-focused objectives and
strategies. The NEA’s most recent
strategic plan covers the years 2018–
2022, and can be found online here:
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/
NEA-FY2018-2022-StrategicPlan2.16.18.pdf.
The NEA is seeking public input and
comments from a broad array of
stakeholders (see SUMMARY) to guide the
development of the agency’s 2022–2026
Strategic Plan. A call for comments has
been posted to the agency’s website:
https://www.arts.gov/strategic-planinput. In particular, the NEA welcomes
input on the development of its
Strategic Framework, which includes
the following elements: Mission, Vision,
Strategic Goals, and Strategic
Objectives.
The NEA is particularly interested in
how these elements should be viewed in
light of new and emerging challenges
and opportunities, among other
contextual factors.
Examples of these factors include, but
are not limited to:
• The post-pandemic recovery of the
arts sector;
• Changes in work-and-leisure
patterns;
• The rise of virtual engagement in
the arts;
• Growing integration of the arts with
other sectors (e.g., health, science,
education, technology, community
development); and

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

15501

• Greater public attention to issues of
diversity, equity, inclusion,
accessibility, and social justice.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 306.
Dated: March 17, 2021.
Meghan Jugder,
Support Services Specialist, Office of
Administrative Services & Contracts, National
Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2021–05908 Filed 3–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2021–0068]

Monthly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Monthly notice.
AGENCY:

Pursuant to section 189.a.(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular monthly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued, and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This monthly notice includes all
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued, from February 5, 2021, to March
4, 2021. The last monthly notice was
published on February 23, 2021.
DATES: Comments must be filed by April
22, 2021. A request for a hearing or
petitions for leave to intervene must be
filed by May 24, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following method;
however, the NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal Rulemaking website:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2021–0068. Address
questions about Docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann;
telephone: 301–415–0624; email:
Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM

23MRN1

Attachment 6. Pre-notification letter

«Date»
«Salutation» «ContactFirstName» «ContactLastName»
«CrimeLab»
«ContactAddress1» «ContactAddress2»
«ContactCity», «ContactState» «ContactZip»
Dear «Salutation» «ContactLastName»:
I am pleased to announce that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is preparing to conduct the fifth
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). This survey was last conducted in
2014. By conducting the 2020 CPFFCL, BJS will be able to understand how the current services offered
by publicly funded crime laboratories and the challenges you face have changed since the previous
2014 survey. The information you provide is critical to providing accurate and reliable information to
policy makers and other stakeholders in the crime laboratory community.
In the next few weeks, BJS will invite <> to participate in the 2020 CPFFCL; specifically,
your laboratory will be asked to complete an online survey focusing on administrative issues, budget and
resources, workload, records and evidence retention, training, and information about quality assurance.
I appreciate that you may receive a number of data requests throughout the year and I thank you for your
support for CPFFCL. If you have questions about CPFFCL, please contact BJS’s data collection agent,
RTI International, via phone or e-mail at ###-###-#### or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general
comments about this data collection, please contact the Bureau of Justice Statistics Program Manager
Connor Brooks at 202-514-8633 or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Doris J. James, Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 7. Survey invitation cover letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL). This survey was last conducted in 2014, and we are aware that the work of your
laboratory has likely changed over the past 6 years. Your response to the 2020 CPFFCL is critical to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics’ effort to produce national estimates of personnel, resources, policies, and
practices of the laboratories that conduct this important work.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS]. You may start and
stop as needed. Your individualized log-in information is:
User name: «WebUsername»
Password: «PIN»
Please complete this questionnaire online by [DATE].
The questionnaire takes approximately 2.5 hours to complete including time to research or find
information you may not have readily available. You may download a PDF copy of the survey from the
website to assist you in gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your laboratory who
can assist you in providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your laboratory or update your contact information
(including email address), go to [WEB ADDRESS] using the user name and password shown above and
follow the instructions provided on the website. If you have questions about CPFFCL, please contact the
CPFFCL data collection team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any
general comments about this data collection, please contact me at ###-###-#### or
connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.

BJS uses the data collected in CPFFCL only for research and statistical purposes, as described in Title 34,
USC §10134. RTI International, BJS’s CPFFCL data collection agent, is required to adhere to BJS Data
Protection Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes, regulations, and other authorities that
govern all BJS data and data collected and maintained under BJS’s authority. The Guidelines may be
found at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your laboratory’s participation in CPFFCL. I appreciate your consideration,
time, and effort.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: Endorsement Letter

Case ID: «caseid»

Attachment 8. Survey invitation email

TO: «TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
SUBJECT: Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Last week, we sent you the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL). This email message requests confirmation that you successfully received your
invitation. I encourage you to contact BJS’ data collection agent for CPFFCL, RTI
International, if you have any questions related to the data collection or did not receive the
materials.
Please reply to this message to indicate that you received the 2020 CPFFCL invitation.
In the event you did not receive the packet, the information contained in the mailed materials is
provided below.
Thank you,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
I am writing to ask for your participation in the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic
Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). This survey was last conducted in 2014, and we are
aware that the work of your laboratory has likely changed over the past 6 years. Your
response to the 2020 CPFFCL is critical to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ effort to
produce national estimates of personnel, resources, policies, and practices of the
laboratories that conduct this important work.
To complete your survey, please access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS]. You may
start and stop as needed. Your individualized log-in information is:
User name:
Password:

«WebUsername»
«PIN»

Please complete this questionnaire online by [DATE].

The questionnaire takes approximately 2.5 hours to complete including time to research or find
information you may not have readily available. You may download a copy of the survey from
the website to assist you in gathering the necessary data. You may share it with others at your
office who can assist you in providing the requested information.
If you need to change the point of contact for your laboratory or update your contact information
(including email address), go to [WEB ADDRESS] using the user name and password shown
above and follow the instruction provided on the website. If you have questions about CPFFCL,
please contact the CPFFCL data collection team via phone or e-mail at [ RTI NUMBER] or
cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at
###-###-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
BJS uses the data collected in CPFFCL only for research and statistical purposes, as described in
Title 34, USC §10134. RTI International, the CPFFCL data collection agent, is required to
adhere to BJS Data Protection Guidelines, which summarize the many federal statutes,
regulations, and other authorities that govern all BJS data and data collected and maintained
under BJS’s authority. The Guidelines may be found at
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/BJS_Data_Protection_Guidelines.pdf.
Thank you in advance for your office’s participation in CPFFCL. I appreciate your time and
effort.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: Endorsement Letter

Case ID: «caseid»

Attachment 9. 1st reminder – postcard

The CPFFCL survey focuses on
the forensic services performed
by crime labs across the nation
and the resources devoted to
completing the work. The 2020
CPFFCL results will impact
decisions, policies, and budgets.
The 2020 data will be compared to
the previous four administrations
and be the definitive data source
about forensic labs nationwide.

BE HEARD. CONNECT TODAY.
YOUR 2020 CPFFCL SURVEY IS NEEDED. RESPOND NOW.

RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

CPFFCL

CENSUS OF PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES

CPFFCL data show the NATIONAL FORENSIC BACKLOG decreased
from 895,500 to 570,100 requests from 2009 to 2014.
(for more information visit www.bjs.gov)

Your CPFFCL
response is
INVALUABLE
to the
forensic
community.
FOR ASSISTANCE
PLEASE SEE THESE
RESOURCES:

CPFFCL_WEBSITE
CPFFCL_EMAIL

JOHN DOE
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Attachment 10. 1st reminder – email

TO: «TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
SUBJECT: Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2020
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). RTI reached out to
<> on [INITIAL DATE]. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the
census data reflect the variety of responsibilities and resources of publicly funded crime
laboratories of all types and sizes. Information from your office is needed to ensure the quality
of the study.
We hope that you can complete the CPFFCL questionnaire as soon as possible. I understand that
you receive a number of survey requests, and I genuinely appreciate your attention to this effort.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CPFFCL, need to change the point of contact for your laboratory,
or need to update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or e-mail at
[RTI NUMBER] or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at ###-###-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«caseID»

Attachment 11. 2nd reminder – letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE»
«ZIP» Dear «TITLE»
«NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2020
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). RTI reached out to
<> on [INITIAL DATE]. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the
census data reflect the variety of responsibilities and resources of publicly funded crime
laboratories of all types and sizes. Information from your laboratory is needed to ensure the
quality of the study.
We hope that you can complete the CPFFCL questionnaire as soon as possible. I understand
that you receive a number of survey requests, and I genuinely appreciate your attention to this
effort.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name:
<>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CPFFCL, need to change the point of contact for your laboratory, or
need to update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or e-mail at
[RTI NUMBER] or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection,
please contact me at ###-###-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«caseID»

Attachment 12. 3rd reminder – email

TO: «TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
SUBJECT: Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Recently, materials related to the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL) were sent to you by mail. This email message is to request confirmation that we have
successfully reached you and encourage you to contact us if you have any questions related to
the data collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <>.
The information contained in the letter that we mailed most recently (on <>) is
provided below.
Thank you,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2020
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). RTI has been reaching
out to <> since May. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the
census data reflect the variety of responsibilities and resources of publicly funded crime
laboratories of all types and sizes. Information from your laboratory is needed to ensure the
quality of the study.
The due date is [DUE DATE]. Please complete the CPFFCL questionnaire as soon as possible. I
understand that you receive a number of survey requests and I genuinely appreciate your
attention to this request.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CPFFCL, need to change the point of contact at your laboratory, or
need to update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or

e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data
collection, please contact me at ###-###-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«caseID»

Attachment 13. 3rd reminder – letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RTI International is conducting the 2020 Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). RTI has been reaching out to <> since May. We hope to receive your survey soon so that the census data reflect the variety of
responsibilities and resources of publicly funded crime laboratories of all types and sizes. Information
from your laboratory is needed to ensure the quality of the study.
The due date is [DUE DATE]. Please complete the CPFFCL questionnaire as soon as possible. I
understand that you receive a number of survey requests and I genuinely appreciate your attention to this
request.
You may access the questionnaire online at [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
If you have questions about CPFFCL, need to change the point of contact for your laboratory, or need to
update your contact information, please contact the RTI team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or
cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at ######-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
«caseID»

Attachment 14. 4th reminder – letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
«CRIME LAB» has been asked to participate in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). CPFFCL data will be used by policy makers
and researchers to better understand and respond to the challenges facing forensic laboratories and the
forensic community. No other national data collection can provide comprehensive data on administrative
issues, budget and resources, workload, records and evidence retention, quality assurance, and training.
Since CPFFCL is a census, your laboratory’s responses cannot be replaced.
I recognize that you may not have received the previous correspondence or that you may not have
responded because of time constraints. I appreciate that your time is limited; however, the reliability of
the study directly depends on your participation. The questionnaire includes items that are relevant to all
publicly funded crime laboratories, and your responses are essential to our ability to provide the
information needed by practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and other stakeholders.
Please complete the questionnaire by using this link [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the following
information:
User Name: <>
Password: <>
Alternatively, you can submit your data by mail using the enclosed hardcopy questionnaire and business
reply envelope.
The questionnaire due date was [DUE DATE]. Please submit your questionnaire as soon as possible. If
you have questions about the CPFFCL survey or having difficulty accessing the website, please contact
the CPFFCL data collection team via phone or e-mail at [RTI NUMBER] or cpffcl@rti.org. If you have
any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at ###-###-#### or
connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Enclosures: CPFFCL questionnaire; Business reply
envelope

«caseID»

Attachment 15. 5th reminder – postcard

RESPONSE NEEEDED

CPFFCL

CENSUS OF PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES

The Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL)
focuses on the forensic services performed by crime labs across the
nation and the resources devoted to completing the work.

The 2014 CPFFCL data showed
an estimated 3.8M requests for
services nationwide.
The 2020 CPFFCL will be the
BE HEARD.
CONNECT TODAY.

definitive data source about the
forensic community to decisionmakers
and government leaders.

2002 2005 2009 2014 2020

RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Combined Operating Budget for Publicly Funded
Laboratories, CPFFCL 2009 and 2014.

1.6B
2009

1.7B
2014

?
2020

What will the 2020 CPFFCL data show?
FOR ASSISTANCE
PLEASE SEE THESE
RESOURCES:

CPFFCL_WEBSITE
CPFFCL_EMAIL

CPFFCL

CENSUS OF PUBLICLY FUNDED FORENSIC CRIME LABORATORIES

YOUR INPUT BENEFITS CRIME LABS LIKE YOURS,

BUT ONLY IF YOU PARTICIPATE!

JOHN DOE
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Attachment 16. Data quality follow-up telephone script

Sample Call Script for Data Quality Follow-up Calls
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL). I am following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to
<>. May I speak with <>?
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC]
Hello, this is <> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories. It is important that we obtain complete data from all publicly funded forensic
laboratories in the United States. I’m calling now to confirm that we have everything recorded
correctly and completely for your office. This should only take a few minutes of your time.

BEGIN READING QUESTION(s) THAT IS (ARE) MISSING INFORMATION OR
HAVE INCONSISTENT RESPONSES.
Thank you for your time.

Attachment 17. Sample call script for telephone prompting calls

Phone Prompting Specifications
CPFFCL Incomplete Response Follow-Up CATI Script
NT00.
PROGRAMMER, DISPLAY:
STATUS, DATE OF LAST CALL, NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS
QINT1. Hello, this is <>, calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories, also known as CPFFCL.
To ensure I’ve contacted the correct laboratory director, I would like to ask a few brief questions
about your laboratory. I have the name as…
[PROGRAMMER: FILL LAB DIRECTOR.]
Is that correct?
1 YES [GO TO QINT3]
2 NO [GO TO QINT2]
QINT2. What is the laboratory’s name?
QINT3. What is the laboratory’s address?
[PROGRAMMER: FILL ADDRESS]
1 YES – MATCH TO RECORDS [GO TO QINT5]
2 NO – DOES NOT MATCH RECORDS [GO TO NEW_ADDR1]
NEW_ADDR1. INTERVIEWER: RECORD ADDRESS, ASKING RESPONDENT TO REPEAT IF NECESSARY.
ADDRESS 1:
ADDRESS 2:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP:
QINT5. Let me just check to see if the information we have on record is up-to-date.
[PROGRAMMER: DISPLAY CRIME LABORATORY ADDRESS, NEW INFORMATION JUST PROVIDED
AND VICINITY LIST.]
INTERVIEWER: USE LOOKUP TABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY AGENCIES WITH NAMES THAT ARE
SIMILAR TO THE NAME OF THE LABORATORY TI IS TALKING TO. IF ANY SIMILAR, DISCUSS WITH
RESPONDENT. ONCE LABORATORY IS CONFIRMED SELECT FROM LIST AND CONTINUE.
QINT7. I’m following up on a survey invitation that we sent to <>.
Have I reached <>-<>?
1 CORRECT NUMBER [GO TO QINT10]
2 NOT CORRECT [GO TO QINT8]
3 WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED ON A NEW NUMBER [GO TO TEL06]

QINT8. What phone number have I reached?
[PROGRAMMER: APPEND THE PHONE NUMBER TO THIS CASE.]
[GO TO QINT10]
TEL06. What is the number you would like to be contacted at?
(ENTER NUMBER WITH NO DASHES, SPACES OR OTHER PUNCTION)
INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER, THEN CALL THE RESPONDENT BACK ON THE NEW
NUMBER.
[PROGRAMMER: APPEND THE PHONE NUMBER TO THIS CASE.]
[GO TO QINT11]
QINT11. May I speak with <> <<name>>?
1 TRANSFER TO POC (LIVE) [GO TO QINT14]
2 GATEKEEPER IS POC [GO TO QINT14]
3 TRANSFER TO VM FOR POC [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]
4 NO/NOT AVAILABLE – SCHEDULE CALLBACK [GO TO INT06]
5 POC NO LONGER IN MEC [GO TO QINT12]
-2 REFUSED [GO TO QINT18]
QINT12.

What is the new (laboratory director’s) name?

9 REFUSED
[GO TO QINT13]
QINT13. May I speak with the (laboratory director)?
1 TRANSFER TO POC (LIVE) [GO TO QINT14]
2 GATEKEEPER IS POC [GO TO QINT14]
3 TRANSFER TO VM FOR POC [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]

NO/NOT AVAILABLE – SCHEDULE CALLBACK [GO TO INT06]
REFUSED [GO TO QINT18]

4
5

QINT14.
[IF Q11=1 OR Q13=1, FILL: Hello, this is <<INTERVIEWER NAME>> calling on behalf of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, also known as CPFFCL.]
I’m following up on our invitation that asked your laboratory to participate in the CPFFCL
survey. Since we did not hear back from your laboratory, I wanted to call to see if you
received the invitation.
1
2
3
4
-2

YES [GO TO QINT18]
NO [GO TO QINT19]
NO ANSWER [END CALL]
WENT TO VOICEMAIL [GO TO ANSPROMPT1]
REFUSED [GO TO QINT17]

ANSPROMPT1. [DISPLAY FOR CALLING ROUNDS 1 AND 2] Hello, this is
, calling on behalf
of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, also known as CPFFCL. This message is for <<POC
name>>. Our records show that we have not yet received your completed survey. We hope that
you can complete the survey within the next week. If you have any questions about the survey,
please call our toll-free number, ###-###-####.
[DISPLAY FOR CALLING ROUND 3] Hello, this is
_, calling on behalf of the Bureau
of Justice Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 the Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, also known as CPFFCL. This message is for <<POC name>>.
Our records show that we have not yet received your completed survey. Your participation
helps to ensure the accuracy of the study results and we cannot substitute another laboratory
for yours.
We hope that you can complete the survey by [DATE]. If you like, please call our toll-free
number ###-###-#### and a member of the research team can assist you.
1
2
3

LEFT MESSAGE. END CALL.
SOMEONE PICKED UP. [GO TO QINT11]
UNABLE TO LEAVE MESSAGE. END CALL.

INT06. When would be a better time to call back?
INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO TALK NOW BUT THEY
ARE DRIVING, SAY: I’m sorry, but for your safety we’re not able to continue while you’re
driving (or doing something else that requires your full attention)
IS THIS CALLBACK SET BY THE RESPONDENT OR SOMEONE ELSE?
(INTERVIEWER NOTES: CALLBACK SHOULD ONLY BE SET IF THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED OR
AGREED TO BE CALLED BACK.
CALLBACK DEFINITION:
CALLBACK BY SUBJECT: THE RESPONDENT SELECTED TO COMPLETE THE INTERVIEW
PROVIDED A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE FOR THE APPOINTMENT.
CALLBACK BY OTHER: SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE SELECTED RESPONDENT ASKED FOR US TO
CALLBACK, OR THE SELECTED RESPONDENT DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME TO

BE CALLED BACK.
1
2
3

APPOINTMENT BY SUBJECT [GO TO APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE SCREENS AND THEN QINT28]
APPOINTMENT BY OTHER [GO TO APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE SCREENS AND THEN QINT28]
REFUSED. I will just try again later. [GO TO QINT28]

QINT17.
[PROGRAMMER: IF LABORATORY HAS NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS (Q14=2), DO
NOT ASK. ELSE, ASK OF EACH LABORATORY THAT HAS NOT REFUSED.]
Your laboratory’s participation helps to ensure our study accurately represents data from
crime laboratories across the country. We cannot substitute another laboratory for yours.
Would you please tell me more about your laboratory’s reasons for not participating?
INTERVIEWER: ENTER VERBATIM IN OPEN ENDED BOX FOR CODE 00, THEN CODE THE
RESPONSE
SELECT ALL THAT APPLY:
0 ENTER VERBATIM
1 COMPLETE — LABORATORY CLAIMS THAT SURVEY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED/SENT
2 DUE DATE — CANNOT RESPOND BY DUE DATE
3 LIMITED TIME/RESOURCES — NOT RELATED TO DUE DATE
4 APPLICABILITY — LABORATORY THOUGHT SURVEY DID NOT APPLY TO THEM
5 NO INTEREST – LABORATORY STAFF ARE UNINTERESTED IN THE SURVEY TOPIC OR GOALS
6 NO BENEFIT – LABORATORY RECEIVES NO BENEFIT FROM PARTICIPATION/SURVEY
7 VOLUNTARY – PARTICIPATION IS NOT MANDATED BY LAW
8 SURVEY FATIGUE — LABORATORY RECEIVES TOO MANY SURVEY REQUESTS
9 LACK OF DATA — DATA NOT AVAILABLE DURING SURVEY PERIOD
10 LACK OF DATA — DATA DO NOT EXIST OR ARE NOT MAINTAINED
11 INACCESSIBLE DATA – DATA EXIST, BUT ARE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE
12 POOR QUALITY DATA – DATA EXIST, BUT ARE OF QUESTIONABLE/POOR QUALITY
13 CONFIDENTIALITY – DATA ARE NOT TO BE SHARED OUTSIDE OF LABORATORY/AUTHORITY
14 FEDERAL ROLE – FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LOCAL ISSUES
15 JURISDICTION RULE – JURISDICTION DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
16 OTHER
17 REFUSED TO GIVE REASON FOR DELAY/REFUSAL
QINT18. INTERVIEWER: IF REFUSAL, DO NOT ASK; CODE 05 [NO, will not complete survey]
ELSE: How would you prefer to complete the survey? You have the option to complete it
online or by hard copy.
1 POC has completed web survey or sent hard copy [GO TO QINT28]
2 YES, will complete survey online [GO TO QINT21]
3 YES, will complete a hard copy [GO TO QINT23]
4 YES, will complete a hard copy already received [GO TO QINT27]
5 NO, will not complete survey [GO TO QINT28]
QINT19.
1
2
3

IF QINT14=2: Let me send you the survey again. You have the option to complete it online or
by hard copy. Which do you prefer?
YES, will complete survey online [GO TO QINT21]
YES, will complete a hard copy [GO TO QINT23]
NO, will not complete survey [GO TO QINT18]

QINT20. Do you need me to send the survey link and login information to you again?
1 Yes [GO TO QINT22]
2 No [GO TO QINT28]
QINT21. What is your email address?
[GO TO QINT26]
QINT22. Do you need me to mail you another copy of the survey?
1 Yes [GO TO QINT23]
2 No [GO TO QINT28]
QINT23. Should I use the address we have on file for you or another address?
1 Address on file [GO TO QINT27]
2 Another address [GO TO QINT24]
QINT24. What is that address?
[GO TO QINT27]
QINT25.

We will send a link to the survey and the access code by email. We look forward to receiving
the completed survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice
day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.

QINT26.

We will mail the questionnaire in the next day or two. We look forward to having you compete
the survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.

QINT27.

We look forward to receiving the completed survey. I appreciate you taking the time to speak
with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.

QINT28.

I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me today. Have a nice day.
INTERVIEWER: END CALL.

Attachment 18. Sample call script for nonresponse telephone calls

Sample Call Script for Nonresponse Telephone Calls
[IF CALL RINGS TO A GATEKEEPER]
Hello, this is <<INSERT NAME>> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories. I am following up on a survey invitation that we sent addressed to <<POC
NAME>>. May I speak with <<POC NAME>>?
[IF CALL RINGS TO POC]
Hello, this is <<INSERT NAME>> calling on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
U.S. Department of Justice regarding the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Crime Laboratories.
A few months ago, we sent you a letter and an email message inviting your laboratory to
participate in the survey. We did not hear back from your laboratory and I wanted to follow up
with you to confirm that you received the request.
Have you received our communications?
[IF YES]
[IF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY]
- The Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) was
last conducted in 2014.
- The CPFFCL collects information on administrative issues, budget and
resources, workload, records and evidence retention, training, and quality
assurance.
- BJS will use the data collected through this survey only for research and statistical
purposes. Results—at the national level, not at the individual level—will be
shared with the forensic laboratory community (e.g., the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors), policy makers, and other stakeholders.
- The survey will take approximately 2.5 hours to complete, including gathering
some of the information and numbers you might need to compile.
[OFFER ASSISTANCE TO COMPLETE]
- Is there anything I can do to assist you in completing the survey? A paper version
is available if you would prefer to submit the information by mail.
[
[IF LABORATORY SAYS THEY DO NOT INTEND TO RESPOND]
- Thank you for letting us know. Would you be able to provide responses to just
those questions? I can record your answers now or schedule a time to call you
that would be most convenient. Would you be willing to share with us why you
have chosen not to participate?
[IF NO]
- Let me review the information we have on file for your laboratory. [REVIEW
E- MAIL ADDRESS AND MAILING ADDRESS.]
- What is the POC’s preferred method of contact and offer so I can re-send the
information?

Attachment 19. End-of-Study letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few months regarding the participation of
<<CRIME LAB>> in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL). Your responses are vital to informing the Department of Justice of the needs of
the crime laboratory community and for representing your jurisdiction.
I am writing today to notify you that there are only a couple of weeks remaining to complete the
questionnaire. We must receive your response soon to ensure that the study results accurately reflect the
characteristics and activities of your laboratory. The reliability of the study’s results directly depends on
the participation of all publicly funded crime laboratories. Since CPFFCL is a census, your responses
cannot be replaced.
Please complete the questionnaire by using the following link: [WEB ADDRESS] and entering the
following information:
User Name: «WebUsername»
Password: «PIN»
Alternatively, if you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, we are happy to send you a
hard copy or you may download and print a paper version upon entering your questionnaire access code
on the CPFFCL questionnaire website.
If you have questions about CPFFCL or need to update your contact information (including e-mail
address), please contact the CPFFCL data collection team via phone or e-mail at ###-###-#### or
cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at ######-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 20. End-of-Study email

TO: «TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
SUBJECT: End of Study Notice - Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
Recently, materials related to the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL) were sent to you by mail. This email message is to relay this message to you via
email as well and encourage you to contact us if you have any questions related to the data
collection.
Please reply to this message to confirm that we have reached <<POC>>.
The information contained in the letter that we mailed most recently (on <<DATE>>) is
provided below.
Thank you,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
We have made several attempts to contact you over the past few months regarding the
participation of <<CRIME LAB>> in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). Your responses are vital to informing the
Department of Justice of the needs of crime laboratory community and representing your
jurisdiction.
I am writing today to notify you that there are only a couple of weeks remaining to complete the
questionnaire. We must receive your response soon to ensure that the study results accurately
reflect the characteristics and activities of your laboratory. The reliability of the study’s results
directly depends on the participation of all publicly funded crime laboratories. Since CPFFCL is
a census, your responses cannot be replaced.
Please complete the questionnaire by using the following link: [WEB ADDRESS] and
entering the following information:
User Name: «WebUsername»
Password: «PIN»
Alternatively, if you would prefer to complete the questionnaire on paper, we are happy to send
you a hard copy or you may download and print a paper version upon entering your
questionnaire access code on the CPFFCL questionnaire website.
If you have questions about CPFFCL or need to update your contact information (including e-mail
address), please contact the CPFFCL data collection team via phone or e-mail at ###-###-#### or
cpffcl@rti.org. If you have any general comments about this data collection, please contact me at
###-###-#### or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 21. Thank you letter

«TITLE» «POC NAME»
OR CURRENT LABORATORY DIRECTOR
«CRIME LAB»
«ADDRESS1», «ADDRESS2»
«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP»
Dear «TITLE» «NAME»:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International, I would like to thank
you for your participation in the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
(CPFFCL). I truly appreciate your support in completing this survey. Your participation ensures
that we are a step closer to providing a complete enumeration of the nation’s publicly funded
crime laboratories and that your jurisdiction is represented as the Department of Justice assesses
the needs of the crime laboratory community.
This letter confirms that we have received your survey and are currently processing the data.
RTI will contact you if there are any questions about the answers your laboratory has
submitted. We anticipate all survey responses will be collected by the end of October 2021. A
copy of the report will be available through BJS and the CPFFCL website in 2022.
If you have any general comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-616-1706
or connor.brooks@usdoj.gov. If you have questions about CPFFCL or need to update your
contact information (including email address), please contact RTI’s CPFFCL support team at
###-###-#### or cpffcl@rti.org.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Attachment 22. Letter of Support:
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS, INC.
65 Glen Road, Suite 123, Garner, NC 27529

ASCLD BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Erin P. Forry, President
Boston Police Department
Laura B. Sudkamp,
President-Elect
Kentucky State Police
Division of Forensic Services
Brooke D. Arnone,
Past President
Arizona Department of
Public Safety
Linda C. Jackson, Secretary
Virginia Department of
Forensic Science
Rita C. Dyas, Treasurer
Chandler Police Department
Lisa Burdett
Kansas Bureau of
Investigation
Bruce Houlihan
Orange County Crime
Laboratory
Timothy D. Kupferschmid
NYC Office of Chief Medical
Examiner
Jennifer McNair
Utah Bureau of Forensic
Services
Jennifer D. Naugle
Wisconsin State Crime
Laboratory - Division of
Forensic Sciences
Jeffrey Nye
Michigan State Police
Scott A. O’Neill
New York City Police
Department
Tony Tessarolo
Centre of Forensic Sciences
ASCLD STAFF
John A. Byrd, BG (Retired)
Executive Director
Ramona Robertson
Administrative Assistant

May 1, 2021
Dear Fellow Laboratory Director:
The ASCLD Board of Directors is encouraging you to participate in the 2020 Census
of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). We helped to design and
test the census questionnaire. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), working with
RTI International (RTI), is sending the CPFFCL survey to every laboratory in the
United States to develop a detailed understanding of the U.S. forensic laboratory
community. The statistics will gather information that will help address training,
staffing, quality assurance, and jurisdictional coverage needs. ASCLD requests that
you participate in this important survey effort.
The information produced by the CPFFCL will provide valuable data regarding
staffing, budget, and caseload information that will be directly comparable to the
CPFFCL documents from 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2014. The 2014 CPFFCL found, for
example, that the combined operating budgets for the 409 crime labs in 2014 was
$1.7 billion. The U.S. laboratories serving state jurisdictions accounted for nearly half
($796 million) of the overall budget in 2014. Moreover, the 2014 CPFFCL estimated
that the nation’s laboratories received 3.8 million requests for forensic services,
down from the 4 million requests received in 2009. For more information about the
previous surveys, including the 2014 administration, please see BJS’ CPFFCL
webpage: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=244 .
Your response to the 2020 CPFFCL is critical to obtain national estimates of
personnel, resources, policies, and infrastructure of our community, particularly
in light of the impact of COVID-19 in 2020. Since it is a census, your responses are
necessary. The CPFFCL is the only systematic survey effort of its kind to focus on our
community and directly supports the ASCLD mission of disseminating important
forensic based information, improving information-sharing among crime laboratory
directors, and promoting the highest standards of practice in the field.
We know that you and your staff have many responsibilities and limited time, but
we hope that you will provide the requested information and contribute to this
effort. Your participation will help ensure that the 2020 CPFFCL is a success and
that the results can be used with confidence by the federal government, by policy
makers and budget directors, and by our community.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this important effort.
Sincerely,
Erin P. Forry
ASCLD President

Phone: 919.773.2044 |

Website: www.ascld.org

Attachment 23. Data quality assessment of 2014 CPFFCL

2014 CPFFCL Data Quality Assessment
RTI International performed a data quality assessment of
the 2014 CPFFCL to identify issues relating to the rates of
item nonresponse. The following tables provide the
overall response rates and facility characteristics of the
2014 CPFFCL, as well as the response rate of each
individual question.

2014
n
%
409
88
360
-49
-26
-28
-409 100

Total Response Rate
Respondents
Non-Respondents
New or Opened Labs
Closed or Merged Labs
Facility Type
City, borough, village, or
63 15.4
town
County
87 21.3
State
182 44.5
Federal/National
28
6.8
Missing
49
12
Multi-Lab System
360 100
Yes
176 48.9
No
174 48.3
Different Lab Reporting
7
1.9
Missing
3
0.8
Case Load1
360 100
Small
80 22.2
Medium
159 44.2
Large
79 21.9
Different Lab Reporting
9
2.5
Missing
33
9.2
Case Load Statistics
Minimum Value
0
-25th Percentile Value
1,786
-Median Value
4,589
-Mean Value
10,231
-75th Percentile Value
10,535
-Maximum Value
241,961
-1Case load is broken out into quartiles, where small
is the lower 25th percentile, medium is the 25th75th percentile, and large is the 75th percentile.
2014
n

Digital2

360

100

Yes

18.6

279

77.5

Different Lab Reporting

1.9

Missing

1.9

2Refers

to crime laboratories that responded to the
2014 CPFFCL, not the pilot study of federal and
state digital evidence laboratories.

Attachment 24. Cognitive Testing Report

September 30, 2020

Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Testing Report

Connor Brooks
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Amanda C. Smith
Kathryn Greenwell
Micaela Asoclese
Peyton Attaway
Caitlin Dean
Devin Oxner
Sarah Norsworthy
Hope Smiley-McDonald
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 0216652
Contract No: 2017-MU-CX-K052

RTI Project Number 0216652

Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Testing Report

September 30, 2020
Prepared for Connor Brooks
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
Amanda C. Smith
Kathryn Greenwell
Micaela Asoclese
Peyton Attaway
Caitlin Dean
Devin Oxner
Sarah Norsworthy
Hope Smiley-McDonald
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Contents

Section

Page

Project Background

Methodology
1.1

Participant Recruitment ............................................................................... 1

1.2

Data Collection Procedures and Protocol ........................................................ 3

Question-Specific Discussion
2.1

Section A—Organization ............................................................................... 4

2.2

Section B—Budget .................................................................................... 11

2.3

Section C—Staffing ................................................................................... 13

2.4

Section D—Workload ................................................................................. 15

2.5

Section E—Outsourcing .............................................................................. 27

2.6

Section F—Quality Assurance...................................................................... 28

Miscellaneous Topics

3.1

Burden .................................................................................................... 33

3.2

Providing Requested Data .......................................................................... 34

3.3

Use of CPFFCL Data ................................................................................... 34

Lessons Learned

4.1

Participant Recruitment and Engagement ..................................................... 35

4.2

Data Collection ......................................................................................... 36

4.3

Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................. 36

Appendices
A:

2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Interview Recruitment Materials
A-1 Cognitive Interview Screener Questions
A-2 ASCLD Email Invitation
A-3 ASCLD Email Reminder
A-4 RTI Email Response to Interested Participants
A-5 Polite Decline Email – Targets already hit
A-6 Scheduling Email
A-7 Confirmation Email
A-8 Thank You Email

CPFFCL Cognitive Interview Protocol

CPFFCL Instrument

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories Cognitive
Testing Informed Consent
D-1 CPFFCL Informed Consent Form for Participants
D-2 CPFFCL Informed Consent form for Interviewers

iii

Tables

Number
1.

Page

Participant Summary by Agency Type, Size, Job Title, and Digital Evidence ............. 3

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Project Background
In 2021, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) plans to conduct the 2019 Census of Publicly
Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) as part of a series that began in 2002 and
was most recently conducted in 2015 (referencing data from 2014). This data collection
provides national statistics on personnel, budgets, workloads, backlogs, and quality
assurance practices of crime laboratories. The goals of the upcoming administration of the
CPFFCL are to (a) continue to collect the same information as previous studies in order to
report on the current state of the field and assess trends and (b) introduce new questions
that provide a more complete picture of the workload of crime laboratories.
In advance of the 2019 CPFFCL, the project team reviewed the 2014 CPFFCL and conducted
a data quality assessment of the 2014 responses to identify questions with high
nonresponse. Questions with high item missingness were identified as candidates for
deletion or revision. The project team also met with an expert panel for 2 days to review the
2014 survey for clarity, to ensure questions are still relevant to the field, and to suggest
new questions that will help address gaps in knowledge. This feedback was compiled,
resulting in the addition, deletion, and revision of questions on the CPFFCL survey.
Given the changes to the survey outlined above, BJS decided to test new and revised items
before beginning the full collection in 2021. The cognitive interview protocol (Appendix B)
was designed to assess the survey instrument for general understanding, question and
response wording, and survey design, all of which will help minimize survey burden and
improve data quality. Cognitive testing also assesses whether the survey changes and
additional questions outlined above are performing as intended. The goal of this effort is to
understand how well the questions work when administered to a subset of the survey’s
target population, identify any potential measurement issues, and make appropriate
revisions to ensure that high-quality data are collected in the CPFFCL.

1. Methodology
1.1

Participant Recruitment

Because of COVID-19 pandemic conditions, and in an effort to reduce burden while being
mindful of possible strain on crime laboratories, an opt-in approach was designed to give
participants a chance to volunteer their time for cognitive interviewing. To ensure that this
recruitment approach yielded a diverse sample, screener questions were administered
(Appendix A-1) to interested laboratories capturing the following characteristics:
(a) laboratory or laboratory system full name, (b) location (city, state), (c) level of
government (i.e., state, county, or municipal government entity), (d) number of full-time
employees, and (e) existence of a digital evidence (DE) section. RTI International, in
collaboration with BJS, identified several facility characteristics that would represent

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

different perspectives, seeking diversity across government entity/jurisdiction, location,
size, and presence of a DE unit in the laboratory. BJS and the project team then developed
preliminary targets for each characteristic that were proportional to data from the 2014
CPFFCL frame.
RTI, on behalf of BJS, then coordinated with the American Society of Crime Laboratory
Directors (ASCLD) to conduct outreach efforts for recruiting volunteers. ASCLD sent the
initial invitation to participate (Appendix A-2), with one follow-up email to target smaller
state laboratories with a DE section (Appendix A-3). In total, 56 candidates reached out to
participate. Of the 56, only three were ineligible to participate because they (1) worked in a
privately funded laboratory; (2) worked in a university system; or (3) were a former
laboratory director, who had been retired for more than 10 years and was no longer working
in the laboratory. Five of the potential participants to whom we responded did not respond
to us; and 28 were politely thanked but declined because targets had already been reached
(Appendix A-5).
An email was returned to each prospective participant to describe the context and goals of
the survey and the interviewing process. RTI coordinated with each potential participant
starting with a confirmation of receipt of their email thanking them for their interest
(Appendix A-4), followed by an email requesting responses to screener questions
(Appendix A-1). Once a candidate was found eligible and agreed to participate in the
interview, RTI emailed a confirmation with the scheduling information for the call
(Appendix A-6), a copy of the informed consent (Appendix D-1), and a copy of the CPFFCL
draft instrument for their review (Appendix C). Thank-you letters were emailed to each
participant who completed an interview (Appendix A-8).
Twenty-three cognitive interviews were completed from August 19 through September 10,
2020. Of the 23 participants interviewed, 10 were laboratory directors, four were section
chiefs, three were laboratory managers, two were quality managers, and one of each of the
following was represented: commanding officer, DNA technical leader, superintendent, and
supervisor. Size distribution ranged from four full-time personnel to 537 full-time personnel,
with six laboratories containing a DE section. State- and county-governed laboratories were
the most represented groups: four municipal/city laboratories were represented, along with
eight county laboratories, 10 state laboratories, and one federal laboratory. Eight
participants were from the West, two from the Northeast, nine from the South, and four
from the Midwest. A selection of participant characteristics is provided in Table 1.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Table 1. Participant Summary by Agency Type, Size, Job Title, and Digital Evidence

Participant

1.2

Job Title

Level of
Supervising
Government

Size
(No. of FullTime Staff)

Digital
Evidence
Unit

191

Crime laboratory manager

County

Commanding officer

Municipal

Laboratory director

County

Laboratory director

County

105

Laboratory system director

State

160

Quality manager

County

Quality manager

County

Forensic laboratory chief

State

DNA technical lead

County

Yes

P10

Laboratory director

County

160

P11

Laboratory director

Federal

Yes

P12

Chief of laboratories

Municipal

200

P13

Laboratory director

State

P14

Laboratory manager

State

P15

Laboratory director

State

P16

Chief

Municipal

180

P17

Laboratory director

State

200

Yes

P18

Supervisor

State

537

Yes

P19

Laboratory director

County

300

P20

Superintendent

State

160

P21

Laboratory director

Municipal

Yes

P22

Laboratory manager

State

150

P23

Cyber operations chief

State

220

Yes

Data Collection Procedures and Protocol

The purpose of cognitive testing was to identify potential issues with instructions, question
wording or response options, and formatting and to make corresponding recommendations
for improvement. Respondent burden was also assessed.
Six cognitive interviewers from RTI conducted interviews from August 19 through
September 10, 2020. Before any interviews were conducted, a training was held with all
interviewers to explain the purpose of the cognitive test, discuss the interview protocol and
all study procedures, and answer any questions interviewers had about the process. All

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

interviewers also participated in one paired mock interview for training purposes before the
start of data collection.
All interviews were conducted via Zoom, through audio only (at the request of the
participant), or video and lasted approximately 1 hour each. Once informed consent was
obtained, interviewers followed a cognitive interview protocol with scripted concurrent and
retrospective probes (Appendix B). Generally, the participants were asked about text clarity,
their ability to provide answers, ease of navigating the instrument (i.e., format), and
recommendations for improving the survey. The interviewers also used spontaneous probes
when needed to clarify participant feedback (e.g., Can you tell me more about that?).
Because the CPFFCL survey in general has performed well in the past, cognitive interviews
focused only on substantially revised or new questions. However, participants were able to
view the full instrument to provide context, which allowed for any potential feedback on
items not being specifically reviewed. Participants were encouraged to share feedback about
any item on the survey, and probes at the end of each section were used to determine
whether they had feedback on any items not specifically probed on in that section.
With the exception of one participant who declined, all interviews were recorded. Each call
consisted of an interviewer and designated note taker capturing participant feedback. The
interview team used a formatted Excel spreadsheet to facilitate notetaking and, later,
analysis of compiled interview data.
The findings from all interviews were used to identify recommendations for potential
revisions to the questionnaire discussed in Section 2.

2. Question-Specific Discussion
This section presents questions for which changes are recommended. Each subsection
begins with a brief summary detailing how questions performed in the section. Questions
that performed consistently and were generally well understood by participants are noted in
the section introduction but are not discussed in detail in the question-specific findings.
Questions for which potential issues were identified in testing are presented for reference,
followed by a discussion of findings and recommendations for that question. In all, 73
questions were cognitively tested (counting all individual items presented together in tables
D2–D12 and nested as a set D13–D17d), 26 of which resulted in recommended changes.

2.1

Section A—Organization

This section contains topics designed to measure a laboratory’s organizational structure. Of
the nine questions in Section A, seven items (i.e., A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9) were
determined by participants to be problematic, whereas two items (i.e. A1, A4) tested well
and thus have no recommendations.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

A2. Which of the following best describes the agency that has administrative oversight of
your laboratory?
 Law enforcement agency (e.g., department or division of public safety)
 Department or division of forensic science
 Government attorney’s office (e.g., district attorney)
 Public health agency (e.g., department or division of public health)
 Other (please specify)
Findings
Most participants generally had no difficulties answering item A2. However, four participants
suggested that a definition of “administrative oversight” would be helpful. As one participant
asked, “Is it referring to a parent agency or a funding source?” One participant reported
confusion with the first and second answer choices, suggesting that “independent” or “nonlaw enforcement” be added to the second answer choice (i.e.,

forensic science).

Department or division of

Recommendations
1. Add a definition of “administrative oversight” to the question. Here is some language
for BJS to consider:
Which of the following best describes the agency that has administrative
oversight of your laboratory? Administrative oversight is defined as a
“parent” agency that has staffing and budgetary oversight over your
laboratory.
2. Add “independent” or “non-law enforcement” to the second answer choice:
Department or division of forensic science (i.e., independent or non-law
enforcement)

A3. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory part of a multi-laboratory system?
A multi-laboratory system is defined as two or more separate laboratory entities that are
overseen by a single organization. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to A5
Findings
Probes were not specifically administered for question A3, but one participant commented
on this question during the section debrief. The participant was not sure how to answer this
question, as their laboratory is technically one laboratory but has multiple facilities in
different physical locations and buildings. That is, there are different physical laboratory
locations for different disciplines, but all locations are under one laboratory.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Recommendations
3. Clarify whether a single laboratory with multiple facilities is considered a “multilaboratory system.” RTI suggests the following text:
As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory part of a multilaboratory system? A multi-laboratory system is defined as two or more
separate laboratory entities that are overseen by a single organization. If
a laboratory includes multiple physical buildings but is considered to be a
single laboratory, please mark “No” as a response.” Mark yes or no.

A5. During 2019, did any of the following types of government agencies submit requests for
forensic services to your individual laboratory? Mark yes or no for each response
a. City, borough, village, or town
b. County or parish
c. State (state-wide or regional)
d. Federal (nationwide or regional)

Yes






Findings
Probes were not specifically administered for question A5, but one participant commented
on this question. The participant was unsure whether tribal affairs would count under
“Federal.”

Recommendation
4. Clarify whether the term “Federal” includes requests related to tribal lands. If not,
BJS might want to consider adding “Tribal Lands” as a separate response
category.

A6. During 2019, did your individual lab facility perform these forensic functions? Mark yes
or no for each listed function and associated sub-categories. Please follow the skip patterns
and mark the appropriate response for the sub-items beneath Toxicology, Trace, Impressions,
Digital and Multimedia Evidence, Latent Prints, Forensic Biology, and Crime Scene categories.
Yes


No


b. Toxicology
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Antemortem BAC Analysis
2. Antemortem Drug Analysis
3. Postmortem Analysis







c. Trace
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:



a. Controlled Substances



CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

1. Chemical Unknown Analysis
2. Explosives Analysis
3. Fire Debris Analysis
4. Fiber Examination
5. Gunshot Residue Testing
6.Hair Examination
7. Paint Analysis
8. Other Trace (please specify) _______________










d. Impressions
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Footwear Analysis
2. Tire Tread Analysis






e. Firearms/Toolmarks



f. Digital & Multimedia Evidence
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Traditional Cellphones (not Smartphones) Analysis
2. Smartphone, Tablet, or Mobile Device Analysis
3. Laptop or Desktop Computer Analysis
4. Thumb and External Drives, CDs, DVDs, or Other Storage Media Analysis
5. GPS and Navigation Systems Analysis
6. Audio Files Analysis
7. Cloud and Server Data (including social media) Analysis
8. Other Analyses of Digital/Multimedia Evidence (please specify) _______












g. Latent Prints
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Print Development Analysis
2. Comparisons Analysis






h. Questioned Documents



i. Forensic Biology
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Casework Analysis
2. Sexual Assault Casework Analysis
3. Convicted Offender DNA Samples Analysis
4. Arrestee DNA Samples Analysis
5. Other DNA Samples (e.g., missing persons) Analysis _______________









j. Crime Scene
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Evidence Collection
2. Reconstruction (e.g., bloodstain pattern analysis)






k. Other (please specify) _______________





CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Findings
Probes were not specifically administered for question A6, but six participants commented
on this question. Although all six participants stated that the instructions were clear, they
suggested revisions to some of the categories. Two of the six participants observed that
“forensic biology” is also commonly known as “databasing.” One participant suggested
adding some examples to the “h. Questioned Documents” section, to clarify what is being
requested, and adding “Forensic Serology” under the “i. Forensic Biology” section. One
participant noted that probabilistic genotyping could be a subcategory worth adding under
“i. Forensic Biology.” One participant suggested adding “AFIS” as another subcategory
under “g. Latent Prints.” Finally, one participant suggested adding “National Integrated
Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN)” as another subcategory under
“e. Firearms/Toolmarks,” or that NIBIN could be added as another category entirely.

Recommendation
5. Although this question generated feedback from six participants, we do not
recommend changing the questions. With respect to adding “databasing” to the
Forensic Biology sub-question, we know that that term refers to the actual
processing of convicted offender/arrestee samples (as the gerund would
suggest), not to the forensic evidence samples.
We suggest adding “Forensic Serology” and “Probabilistic Genotyping” as subquestions under Forensic Biology to capture data on laboratories performing
these functions. Forensic serology is distinct from DNA analysis, and probabilistic
genotyping is an emerging technology that is being adopted at increasing rates.
Because the other suggestions were from only one participant each, we suggest
not making any additional changes to this set of questions. Four of these “oneoff” suggestions would add subcategories to existing questions and thus would
lengthen the survey and create burden. We understand that BJS would like to
minimize both.
Finally, we could recommend adding examples of what could be included in the
Questioned Documents category, but because there were no other similar
comments, we do not believe that this change is needed.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Findings
Participants did not have issues responding to this question. Nineteen participants stated
that the question and the definition of a Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS) were clear. However, two participants said that they had a “partially deployed”
LIMS—the first participant’s laboratory has a LIMS for its forensic biology unit, but not for
the rest of its disciplines, whereas the other participant explained that their laboratory was
transitioning to a LIMS system in 2019 and 2020. Two participants did not respond to this
question because of time limitations.
Note that throughout the course of interviewing, 21 participants reported that they had a
LIMS, with two additional (noted above) stating that they had “partially deployed” systems.

Recommendations
6. Consider adding two new response options for laboratories with “partially deployed”
LIMS. For example:
As of December 31, 2019, did your individual laboratory have a
Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)? A LIMS is a
computerized system used to manage, compile, or track requests and/or
evidence. Mark one.






Yes, all forensic disciplines are tracked in LIMS
Yes, but only some forensic disciplines are tracked in LIMS
Yes, but my LIMS is currently being upgraded or installed
No → skip to B1

Alternatively, should BJS not wish to incorporate additional response options, the
survey could include instructions as to how those with “partially deployed” LIMS
should respond.

A8. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by request? A request is the submission of
one or more items of physical evidence a forensic discipline from a single criminal
investigation. A request may contain more than one item.
 Yes
 No
Findings
Participants had varying issues with this question. Nine participants thought the question
was clear, whereas 14 participants voiced issues over this question. Seven of these 14
participants said that other terms are often used instead of “request” (i.e., case,
assignment, submission). For example, one participant explained, “A submission request is
an assignment on a case. There could be multiple assignments on a case and those would

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

all count as different requests.” Similarly, seven participants noted that there may be
variability with counting or tracking requests as it is currently defined, especially because a
“submission” can consist of multiple “requests” to different disciplines. To mitigate this
issue, one participant suggested rephrasing “request” as “forensic service request” to avoid
confusion, and another participant suggested rephrasing as “client request.” Three
participants believed that “requests” should be unique to a forensic discipline and should
specify analysis if done by one specific forensic discipline. This issue is tied to the fact that
some laboratories’ LIMS systems have the capacity to track only certain disciplines (i.e.,
some, but not all, disciplines can be tracked, as pointed out previously in A7). Three
participants wanted clarification for the term “workload,” and one participant noted
uncertainty as to what we meant by “track.”

Recommendations
We have known that the term “request” is problematic since the expert panel’s feedback in
2019 and thus, have spent time discussing with BJS what would be best given BJS’
preferences and priorities. We consulted the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for
Forensic Science lexicon to provide guidance on uniform language. Unfortunately, no
standard definitions have been developed. Thus, it will be challenging to develop terms that
have consistent meaning across all laboratories, but RTI suggests the following
recommendations to support more consistency in the data collected.
7. Include introduction prior to A8 as follows:
Questions A8 and A9 ask for information about if and how your individual laboratory
tracks its workload (i.e., the number of service requests submitted and
corresponding items analyzed) in LIMS.
8. If BJS is intent on keeping “request” throughout the survey (i.e., for questions A5,
A7, A8, Section D workload questions, and E2) given comparisons with prior
administrations (for example, on the 2014 CPFFCL instrument, “request” was
referenced 72 times), we suggest introducing a full, revised definition of
“request” prior to this question to mirror the format used in Section D – Workload
as follows:
A request is a submission of one or more items of physical evidence for
analysis by a forensic discipline(s) from a single criminal investigation (i.e.,
case). A request may contain more than one item.
Moreover, we think it would behoove BJS to consider adding a question that asks if
requests (i.e., “submissions”) are tracked as multiple requests/separated out by
discipline, or if the “submission” is tracked as a singular request.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

9. However, given the feedback we have received from the 10-person expert panel and
14 cognitive interview respondents, our stronger, preferred recommendation
would be to remove request from the instrument entirely and instead measure
“items” and “submissions” and use more definitions throughout to ensure more
understanding and consistency.

A9. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by Item? An item is a single piece of
evidence submitted for analysis. There may be multiple items within a submission.
 Yes
 No
Findings
Participants had varying issues with this question. Thirteen participants did not have any
issues with this question and thought it was clear, along with the definition of “item.” Of
those 13 participants, eight stated that they would answer “no” to this question. Ten
participants voiced issues over this question. Four of those suggested specifying whether
subitems in a “kit,” such as sexual assault kits, counted as one item, or specifying whether
only a single piece of evidence counted as one item. Three participants wanted clarification
on “workload.” One of the 10 participants wanted to know what “track” meant.

Recommendations
10. Introduce full, revised definition of “item” prior to this question to mirror format
used in Section D – Workload as follows:
An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis. There may be
multiple items within a request (i.e., submission). For example, multiple pill bags
collected from different locations from the same crime scene.
11. Specify how “sub-items” should be handled. For example, would the sexual assault
kit be an item, or should all items within the kit be counted.

2.2

Section B—Budget

Section B contains four items designed to capture budgetary information. Participants said
that this section was generally not difficult to answer. Our findings identified
recommendations for two items—B1 and B1a. Most respondents, especially those who had
the figures on hand or who readily knew how to compile them (e.g., which staff person to
ask), estimated that this section would take them only a few minutes to answer. Notably,
though, nine respondents stated that they would need to ask another staff member (such as
a financial administrator) about the budget figures.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

B1. What was the total operating budget for your individual laboratory in 2019? Include all
funding received such as fees, grants, and one-time special projects.
$________.00

□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate

Findings
Eleven participants said that the question was straightforward and they would be able to
produce the figure easily and quickly, although it might require them to reference budget
files or contact another staff member, such as a laboratory finance director or system
director. However, twelve participants offered feedback on this item:
Two of these participants said that they would not be able to answer this question at all,
with one suggesting that an “I do not know my budget” checkbox be added.
Four participants inquired whether they should include personnel costs in this budget
question, with one indicating that they would not include their personnel budget unless the
question specifically asked them to do so, because it was easier not to include it.
Two respondents highlighted that question B1 asks that laboratories include grants and
special projects, but noted that grants often are not limited to one calendar or fiscal year.
Therefore, it would be difficult for respondents to parse out grant funding for a fiscal year or
calendar year operating budget. Of the two participants who struggled to account for special
projects and grants in their annual budget, one recommended that grant funds be parsed
out into a separate question from that of the annual budget, or even have budget be
delineated by line item (fees, grants, special projects, personnel costs, restitution, etc.).
One respondent recommended adding additional funding sources, namely asset and capital
forfeiture, with the language that included fees, grants, and special projects in Question B1
because their budget includes those as well.
One respondent noted they would have benefited from a definition of “fee.”
Additionally, two respondents raised a concern that, if asked about these figures for 2019,
they would not know whether to provide fiscal year 2018 (last half of 2018 and first half of
2019) figures or fiscal year 2019 (last half of 2019 and first half of 2020) figures.

Recommendations
12. Provide a parenthetical definition of “fee.”
13. Clarify whether personnel costs should be included in budget reporting.
14. Clarify whether asset and capital forfeiture should be included.
15. Clarify how grants should be reported in budgets.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

16. Consider including a date to frame the budget reporting period. Suggested language
could be as follows:
What was the total operating budget for your individual laboratory for
reporting year 2019? If reporting by fiscal year, please report on the FY year
containing December 31, 2019.
17. In addition to an estimate box, include a “budget is unknown” checkbox.

B1a. Does your total operating budget (your answer to B1) include your entire multi-lab
system?
 Yes
 No
 N/A – Laboratory not part of multi-lab system
Findings
Most participants had no issues with this question. However, two respondents recommended
that the instrument put Question B1a before B1 to clarify whether respondents should
include their multi-laboratory system budget before asking for the total operating budget.
Four participants noted that they appreciated that “N/A” was an option (note that this
response option was added after the first interview participant noticed that there was no
way for them to respond).

Recommendation
18. Move B1a to appear before B1.

2.3

Section C—Staffing

Five measures in Section C were designed to capture information related to staffing in the
laboratory. Two items in this section did not include probes during the cognitive interviewing
process (i.e., C4 and C5) and were not noted as problematic in the section debrief.
Therefore, no recommendations are suggested for those questions. Two additional items
included in the interview (i.e., C2, C3) performed well and no changes are recommended.
Cognitive interview findings suggest that clarification or revision is needed on one item in
this section (C1).

C1. How many full-time employees, part-time employees, and position vacancies in the
following categories did your laboratory have as of December 31, 2019? Report each
employee in only one category, based on primary function. Report employees who normally
work less than 35 hours per week as part-time. If none, enter 0.
Full-time

Part-time

Vacancies

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

a. Managerial
b. Clerical or Administrative
c. Analyst/Examiner
1. In-Training or Entry-Level
2. Intermediate/Senior
d. Crime Scene Technician
f. Technical Support
g. Other
Total (Sum a-g)

Findings
Although all participants stated that they would be able to get the data needed for this
question, nine said that they would have difficulty determining where to put the numbers
for certain positions. Two of the nine stated that their laboratory separates staff into three
levels, rather than the two levels listed under the analyst/examiner category, and that they
were unsure about how they would assign these staff to the two categories provided. One
participant said that they were unsure about where to put their temporary employees or
evidence technicians. Similarly, one participant noted uncertainty as to what should go in
the “technical support” category, asking whether “technical support” was a technician (e.g.,
washes glassware and does not do crime scene or casework). One participant noted that
they did not see a category for supervisors, explaining that in their laboratory the
supervisors are also analysts. One participant suggested adding “scientist” to the
analyst/examiner category. One participant stated that they use the term “full performance”
instead of intermediate/senior in the analyst/examiner category. To mitigate these issues,
participants suggested adding examples in each category to ensure that all respondents
were thinking of the same type of employees. Another participant suggested adding the
number of years of experience for each of the analyst/examiner categories to standardize
the question.

Recommendations
19. Include examples of job titles for each category.
20. Clarify whether “Technical Support” is equivalent to laboratory technician or to
support staff such as information technology services. If it is the latter, we
recommend adding a “Laboratory Technician” category.
21. We also recommend making the categories in C1 and C5 consistent to avoid
confusion.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

2.4

Section D—Workload

Section D contains items designed to measure laboratory workload. There are 37 individual
items in this section, with D3–D12 appearing together in a table and D13–D17d being
presented together in a nested series of items, resulting in six question sets/items. For the
purposes of gathering feedback on the formatting in this section, in addition to content
(e.g., wording clarity), items in the D3–D12 tables were reviewed together. Similarly, items
in the D13–D17d nested series were reviewed together. Because the workload section
contained new items and was heavily revised, this entire section was reviewed during
cognitive testing. All items/item sets in this section include recommendations based on
cognitive testing findings.

Section D: Workload Introduction
Questions D1 through D17 ask for information about your individual laboratory workload. Do
not include requests that your lab sent to another lab for analysis.
•
•
•
•

A request is the submission of one or more items of physical evidence a forensic discipline
from a single criminal investigation. A request may contain more than one item.
An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis. There may be multiple items
within a submission.
A single criminal investigation (i.e., case) may result in more than one request (e.g.
toxicology, and latent prints).
Contact the Help Line if you could not report the totals as specified or if you are unable to
extract data separately for the given categories in questions D3-D17.

Findings
Most participants understood the definitions provided for “requests” and “items,” but there
was some variability in the interpretation of the term “request.” Similar to findings
discussed for question A8, seven participants said that other terms are sometimes used
instead of “request” and suggested providing more clarification in the definition. Three
participants noted that their laboratories call requests “submissions.” One participant
interpreted requests to mean “assignments” and suggested specifying whether requests are
“the number of cases or assignments.” One participant reported that a submission and
request can mean different things for some laboratories. Another asked whether they
needed to provide “broken out requests” or “case requests.” One participant explained that
some people may more commonly use the term “case” instead of “investigation.”
One participant also had questions about the statement "Do not include requests that your
lab sent to another lab for analysis" and wondered whether this exclusion referred to
requests they sent to other laboratories in their system.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Recommendations
22. Note that our strongest recommendation here would be to eliminate the "request"
measure per the reasons specified earlier in Recommendation #9. However, if
BJS opts not to accept that recommendation, we would suggest the following to
mirror Recommendations 7 and 8 as follows (i.e., please see our
recommendation immediately below and Recommendation #23):
A request is a submission of one or more items of physical evidence for
analysis by a forensic discipline(s) from a single criminal investigation (i.e.,
case). A request may contain more than one item. For example, …
An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis. There may be
multiple items within a request (i.e., submission). For example, …
A single criminal investigation (i.e., case) may result in more than one
request (e.g. toxicology, and latent prints).
23. Provide a clarifying statement after the sentence “Do not include requests that your
lab sent to an outside your laboratory system for analysis” in the directions that
would say, “Please include requests sent to other labs in your multi-lab system.”
24. We also recommend displaying the help line information separately from the
definition as to not distract from that important information. We recommend
displaying the help line information as a footer or help button on each page on
the web. On the paper instrument, we recommend displaying it on the
introductory page:

Please contact the Help Line (800-XXX-XXXX; CPFFCLHELP@EMAIL) if you
have any issues with reporting the data as requested.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D1. How many requests and items did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2019
through December 31, 2019? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology
requests/items. Mark if number(s) was(were) estimated. Mark if number of items is unknown.
A. _______ Requests
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of requests is unknown
B. _______ Items
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of items is unknown
Findings
Most participants generally understood this question, but there is some variability in how
requests are tracked across laboratories, and some issues were identified with being able to
provide item counts.
Six participants had similar feedback, noting that requests may be “split out” by discipline
(e.g., different pieces of evidence may go to different units or disciplines), thus generating
“multiple requests” being tracked in their LIMS. Conversely, some laboratories may track
that same request as a single request (i.e., not splitting out) in their LIMS. One participant
put it simply: “Different labs track requests in different ways.” One participant shared that
multiple requests can be generated on the same piece of evidence, and that one piece of
evidence might also be tied to several cases (e.g., one participant stated that a gun may be
tied to five or six cases). Another participant noted that they would be able to provide the
number of requests as counted in their LIMs, but that that number would be much larger
than the “requests for service,” as each “request for service” is broken out and tracked as
several requests in their system. One participant asked if they should provide “broken out”
requests or “case” requests. Another explained, “For one case you can receive three
requests within that case, that can then be broken out into different requests by discipline.”
One participant asked whether they should report “request of item” or “request of case.”
However, despite some variation in how requests are tracked, all participants but one (who
did not have a fully deployed LIMS) expected that they would be able to provide the number
of requests, albeit with varying levels of effort and variations in how those counts are
tracked. One participant said that they would get the number of requests received using
other tracking mechanisms (e.g., spreadsheets) as they also did not have a fully deployed
LIMS.
Fourteen participants reported that they would have issues providing, or be completely
unable to provide, an accurate number of item counts as currently requested in the survey.
All 14 participants explained a similar issue, noting that they would not be able to provide
the number of items received because the number of items in a request is unknown until
the request is processed (e.g., the box or bag containing evidence is opened). Two of these
17

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

participants said that their system counts unopened items as one item, noting they could
provide that count but that it would not be an accurate estimation of the actual number of
items they received.

Recommendation
25. Split item D1 into two items—one that measures requests received and one that
measures items analyzed—as follows:

D1a. How many requests did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology
requests/items. Mark if number(s) was(were) estimated. Mark if number of items is
unknown.
_______ Requests
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of requests is unknown
D1b. How many items did your laboratory analyze from January 1, 2019 through
December 31, 2019? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology
requests/items. Mark if number(s) was(were) estimated. Mark if number of items is
unknown.
_______ Items
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of items is unknown
D2. As of January 1, 2020, how many backlogged requests and items unreported for 30
days or longer did your laboratory have? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic
biology requests. Mark if number was estimated. Mark if unknown.
A. _______ Requests
B. _______ Items
Findings
Item D2 was discussed in conjunction with item D1. Most participants understood what this
item was asking, but they reiterated concerns with being able to provide the number of
backlogged items as was detailed in D1 findings. Additionally, two participants noticed that
this item did not have the “estimate” and “unknown” boxes that are included with D1 and
noted that they would be helpful. One participant also noted that their backlog time frame is
90 days, not 30, as stated in the question.

Recommendations
26. Similar to the new format recommended in D1a/D1b, revise to two separate items.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

27. To mirror the format used in D1, add “estimate” and “unknown” boxes under new
items D2a (requests) and D2b (items).

D3-D12. The next section asks questions about the number of requests your lab received in
2019. Please answer the following questions for each discipline. Mark if any of the numbers in
D3-D12 were estimated in the checkbox below the table.

□

Mark here if any of the numbers provided in D3-D12 are estimates.

Findings
No issues were identified with the format of the table, with all participants saying that the
table format was easy to follow. However, all participants provided some form of feedback
on these items.
All of the 14 participants who previously reported difficulty providing number of item counts
in D1/D2 reiterated the difficulty with providing these counts by discipline.
Four participants provided additional feedback on the categories and terminology used. One
participant said that they considered the term “forensic biology” to be the same as
“databasing.” One participant noted the term “controlled substances” could also be known
as “drug chemistry.” Similarly, another participant suggested that “controlled substances”
could be “seized drugs.” One participant asked whether alcohol should be included or

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

combined with “toxicology,” noting that they would include alcohol with “toxicology” for
their laboratory, but it was not immediately clear whether they should do so.
Eight participants reported some variation in interpretation, and potential overlap with other
categories, when discussing the “Impressions” category (D6). One participant noted that the
"Impressions” category can overlap with the “Latent Prints” and “Firearms/Toolmarks”
categories. Three of these participants reported that impressions are included, or counted,
with trace. Similarly, another participant said that in their laboratory impressions and
firearms/toolmarks are all done in the same section and the data are tracked together. One
participant stated that impressions could be toolmarks, shoeprints, or tire tracks. Similarly,
another participant suggested including “shoe and tire marks” in D6 to clarify what is being
requested, but also noted, “Shoe and tire is inside of trace.” Another participant noted that
the difference between impressions and latent prints was not clear to them, and asked,
“Does impressions refer to tire tracks or footwear?” This participant also suggested including
examples in parentheses to reduce confusion.
One participant recommended reviewing accreditation testing categories or Organization of
Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science categories to make sure they aligned, but
otherwise noted that laboratories should be familiar with the categories listed.

Recommendations
28. Although several participants noted variation in category terminology, we
recommend leaving the question as is to be consistent with the previous CPFFCL
administrations, because the variation in terminology did not result in an inability
to provide the appropriate data. The feedback received was a preference of
terminology rather than an issue of understanding the question.
29. To address the issues with item reporting, we recommend revising the table as
follows such that column B asks for the number of items analyzed. Switch
columns B and C to help improve flow (i.e., requests received, requests
completed, items analyzed).

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Revised D3–D12 Table

□

D3. Controlled substances
D4. Toxicology
D5. Trace
D6. Impressions
D7. Firearms/Toolmarks
D8. Digital & Multimedia
Evidence
D9. Latent Prints
D10. Questioned Documents
D11. Crime Scene
D12. Forensic Biology
(including forensic biology
casework, sexual assault
casework, and DNA
databasing)

A. Total
number of
new requests
received in
2019

B. Total
number of
requests
completed
in 2019

C. Of the
requests received
in 2019, what
was the total
number of items
analyzed?

N/A
□
□
□
□
□

D. Total
number of all
pending
requests
awaiting
analysis as of
January 1,
2020

E. Number of
pending
requests that
were
unreported
for 30 days
or longer as
of January 1,
2020

N/A

□
□
□
□
□

N/A

Mark here if any of the numbers provided in D3-D12 are estimates.

30. Add an “estimate box” response option to each item on the web survey. It will be
more difficult to include an estimate box in each cell for the paper survey. Thus,
please see suggestion below for the paper response option to mark the estimate
box if any items are estimates. Note that, on the basis of formats in previous
administrations, we are expecting very low paper response for this population.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Findings
Most participants did not have trouble with this set of questions and found no issues with
the format in which items were presented. However, four participants were initially confused
when they got to this set of items. After reading and reviewing the entire nested set, these

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

participants were able to interpret the items as intended. As one of these participants
explained, “The questions aren't confusing, but the flow is confusing. The way this is
separated out, it’s a little confusing where to put numbers. It might be easier in [the] grid
to say ‘forensic biology casework,’ then ‘sexual assault casework’ under it…. There is a lot of
room for confusion with the way it's separated out.”
Three participants had questions about what should be included under sexual assault
casework. One noted that they would be assigned both sexual assault kits and non-sexual
assault kit sex crime work (i.e., special victims’ unit). Another suggested specifying “sexual
assault kits” if that is what BJS is most interested in capturing for the CPFFCL. Another
explained that sexual assault casework would be any case with a sexual assault kit, so they
would run the number of kits submitted, but noted that a case with a kit would not
necessarily be a sexual assault case as homicide cases could also have a sexual assault kit.
On D17, two participants suggested including a definition of “convicted offender,” noting
that there is variability across states.
Finally, participants who noted that they would have difficulty providing item numbers in
D1/D2 and D2–D13 reiterated the issue with providing item counts on this series of
questions.

Recommendations
31. Include clarification on what should be included under “Sexual Assault Casework.”
Because most participants did not have trouble with the format, and those who
did were able to interpret the question once they had context, providing context
before this set of items is recommended. Include instructions before the set of
nested items as follows:
This next section asks you to separate the total number of requests for
Forensic Biology reported in D12 and report counts for each Forensic Biology
subitem (i.e., Forensic Biology Casework; Sexual Assault Casework; and DNA
Databasing, which includes Arrestee Samples and Convicted Offender
Samples) separately. Figures reported in D12–D17d should not be greater
than the total numbers reported for Forensic Biology in D12.
32. To reduce possible confusion, revise D15 to use the same wording as D13:
Can you report your DNA Databasing request workload, including
Arrestee and Convicted Offender samples, separately from the
Forensic Biology totals in D12?
33. Change all questions related to number of items from “How many items were
included…?” to “How many items were analyzed…?”

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

34. Include “estimate” and “unknown” boxes.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D18. How long does your laboratory typically retain digital data after analysis is
completed? Mark one.
 My laboratory does not retain or archive digital evidence  Skip to E1
 Less than 6 months
 6 months to less than 1 year
 1 through less than 3 years
 3 through less than 5 years
 5 through 10 years
 More than 10 years
 Indefinitely
Findings
Eleven participants had trouble defining the term “digital data.” Six of these participants
interpreted it to mean any sort of electronic file they might have (e.g., digitized case
records/evidence, LIMS, or other files stored in a digital format). Of the six DE laboratories,
only one participant was confused at first read but did interpret the item correctly after they
reread it.

Recommendations
35. Revise the term “digital data” to “digital evidence.”
36. Consider providing a parenthetical definition and examples of “digital evidence.”
37. On the web, create logic that skips this item when the response to A6f is No. On the
paper version of the instrument, include option “My laboratory does not collect
digital evidence,” with an instruction to skip to E1 (note that this option was
added to the paper survey after the first cognitive interview).

D19. As of January 1, 2020, how much digital data storage does your individual laboratory
have available? Mark if number was estimated.
_____ Terabytes
Number is estimated
Findings
As noted in D18, there was some misinterpretation of the term “digital data” among nonDE laboratories. Among the six DE laboratories, this item was generally understood, and DE
laboratory participants said that providing data in terabytes would be appropriate. However,
one participant suggested that it may also be beneficial to ask whether laboratories use
cloud storage.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Recommendations
38. Revise the term “digital data” to “digital evidence.”
39. Consider adding a question about cloud storage if that is of interest to BJS.

2.5

Section E—Outsourcing

Section E consists of five items designed to capture data on outsourcing. Overall,
respondents expressed that this section was easy to answer. Two items in this section did
not include probes during the cognitive interviewing process (i.e., E3 and E5) and were not
noted as problematic in the section debrief, and therefore no recommendations are
suggested for those questions. One additional item (i.e., E4) performed well and thus no
changes are recommended. Cognitive interview findings suggest that clarification or revision
is needed for two items in this section (i.e., E1 and E2).

E1. During 2019, did your laboratory outsource the testing of any type of evidence or
samples? Outsourcing refers to contracting or procuring services from an outside vendor to
accomplish laboratory functions. It does not refer to purchasing consumables, materials, or
equipment. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to E5
Findings
Most participants understood this item and had no issues with it. Two participants expressed
that they would appreciate a more comprehensive definition of outsourcing. One participant
said that they did not know whether to include maintaining equipment as a form of
outsourcing. Another participant recommended that the definition be phrased as
"contracting or procuring analytical services from an outside vendor."

Recommendation
40. Consider providing a statement at the start of this section about what to include or
exclude.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

E2. Where did your laboratory send outsourced requests in 2019? Mark yes or no for each
laboratory type.
a. Commercial laboratory
b. Publicly funded laboratory

Yes



No



Findings
Most participants found this item straightforward. However, two participants suggested
changes. One respondent recommended the addition of a third option to include “University
or Academic Institution” because their laboratory outsources to a university, not a
commercial laboratory. Another respondent said that the language “commercial laboratory”
was odd that and perhaps better language for that response option would be “private
laboratory.”

Recommendations
41. Consider adding “university laboratory” as an option.
42. Consider revising the first row to read “Commercial or privately funded laboratory.”

2.6

Section F—Quality Assurance

Thirteen measures in Section F were designed to capture information related to quality
assurance programs and accreditations in crime laboratories. Three items in this section
were not probed during the cognitive interviewing process (i.e., F5, F6, and F7) and were
not otherwise noted by participants as problematic, and therefore no recommendations are
suggested for those questions. Eight items (i.e., F1, F2, F3, F4, F8/F9 presented together,
F11, and F13) are recommended for revision on the basis of cognitive testing findings.

F1. As of December 31, 2019, did your jurisdiction require accreditation?
 Yes
 No
Findings
Most participants had no issue answering this question. One participant said that, because
their laboratory has federal jurisdiction and therefore testifies in different jurisdictions, this
question would be difficult to answer. One participant stated that it would be helpful to have

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

an “unknown” answer choice. All participants had a similar understanding of what
“accreditation” meant.

Recommendation
43. Include an answer option for federal laboratories that might operate in different
jurisdictions.

F2. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory accredited?
 Yes
 No  skip to F5
Findings
Most participants found this question to be easy and straightforward. One participant
expressed concern when answering this question because only their DNA unit was
accredited. They stated that they would probably answer “yes” to this question or call the
help desk to ask for guidance on how to respond. It could be beneficial to have respondents
mark accreditation based on discipline to make sure that all responses are comparable.

Recommendation
44. If BJS is interested in knowing the discipline accreditation breakdown, consider
including a table with all disciplines. Otherwise, revise question to:
As of December 31, 2019, were any disciplines in your laboratory
accredited?

F3. As of December 31, 2019, to which standard is your laboratory accredited? Mark yes or
no for each standard.
a. ISO 17025
b. ISO 17020
c. CALEA
d. Other (please specify) _________

Yes





No





Findings
Most participants had no issues with this question. Four participants suggested adding the
American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT) but also noted it would be eventually no
longer be an accrediting standard. Two participants suggested adding the National
Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) as an accrediting standard. One participant
suggested taking out the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

(CALEA) as an accreditation standard because that is a standard used for law enforcement
evidence rooms.

Recommendations
45. Remove CALEA as an option and add ABFT and NAME as standard options.

F4. Who is (are) your accreditation body(ies)? Mark yes or no for each accreditation body.
a. A2LA
b. AABB
c. ABFT
d. CALEA
e. CAP
f. HHS/SAHMSA
g. IAPE
h. NAME
i. Other (Please specify): ___________________

Yes










No










Findings
Participants generally found this question to be clear. Fifteen participants suggested adding
the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) as the first accreditation body option,
because it is the largest accrediting body in the nation. One participant suggested taking out
the CALEA accreditation option, because that is focused more on law enforcement agencies
than on forensic laboratories. Two additional participants had never heard of the CALEA
accreditation. One participant suggested that AABB should be removed because it applies
only to private laboratories. Similarly, two additional participants were not familiar with
AABB. One participant suggested providing the full names of the accreditation bodies, in
addition to the acronyms, to help people recognize them. Seven participants thought that it
would be helpful to indicate which disciplines are accredited for a laboratory, as not all
disciplines are accredited and sometimes only selected disciplines in a given laboratory are
accredited (i.e., not the entire laboratory). It is important to note that this concern was
echoed by one participant when responding to question F1 and one respondent when
responding to question F2.

Recommendations
46. Include ANAB as the first answer option. Remove CALEA.
47. Spell out accreditation bodies in addition to including acronyms.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

48. If BJS is interested in knowing the discipline accreditation breakdown, consider
including a table with all disciplines.

F8. During 2019, did your laboratory conduct competency testing on its analysts/
examiners? Competency is defined as the evaluation of a person’s knowledge and abilities
before performing independent forensic case work. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to F10
F9. Are your analysts/examiners:
a. Competency tested prior to authorization to complete casework?
b. Competency tested on a designated regular time interval (e.g.,
annually tested)?

Yes



No



Findings
Ten participants had an issue with the use of the term “competency” in F9b, because the
type of testing being described (i.e., on a regular basis) is most commonly referred to as
proficiency testing (which is collected in F6) and not competency testing. Moreover, the
definition provided in F8 conflicts with option F9b (i.e., evaluation of a person’s knowledge
and abilities before performing independent forensic case work).

Recommendation
49. We recommend removing item F9. F9a is effectively asking for the same data
requested in F8 (i.e., Does your laboratory conduct competency testing before
performing/competing casework?). F9b also conflicts with the definition we
provide (i.e., competency testing is testing that occurs before casework).
Moreover, testing that occurs at regular time intervals is more commonly called
“proficiency” testing, which is not what is being measured in this item.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

F11. In 2019, at what level did your laboratory perform technical reviews? A technical
review refers to a qualified second party's evaluation of reports, notes, data, and other
documentation to ensure there is appropriate and sufficient support for the actions, results,
conclusions, opinions, and interpretations. Mark one.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on none of the casework.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on some of the casework.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on all of the casework.
Findings
Most participants understood this item. One participant stated that if a respondent’s
laboratory is ANAB or A2LA accredited, then they must do technical review. Two participants
stated that breaking this question out by discipline would be useful. Eight participants said
that they would answer “My laboratory performed technical reviews on all of the casework,”
even if they outsourced the technical review, because they view the question as asking
about the quality of output, not necessarily about who does the actual technical review. Two
participants said that they would not include technical review that was done through
outsourcing in their response.
Four participants stated that for the “some” answer choice, it would be interesting to include
a place to put the percentage of casework that requires technical review. Similarly, two
participants stated that they thought it would be interesting to know what percentage of
technical review laboratories outsourced technical review and what percentage was done in
house.

Recommendations
50. Clarify whether technical reviews that are outsourced, as well as internal technical
reviews, should be considered when responding to this question.
51. If BJS is interested in collecting quantitative data on technical reviews, consider
adding options for laboratories to specify what percentage of their work is
reviewed and how that percentage breaks down between outsourced and internal
reviews.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

F13. As of December 31, 2019, did your analysts have access to the following safety and
wellness resources? Mark yes, directly; yes, through an external agency; or no for each
resource.

a. Behavior/Stress Management
b. Employee Assistance Programs
c. Mental Health Debrief
d. Proactive Resiliency Programs
e. Web-based resources
f. Other resources:
________________________________

Yes, directly

Yes, through an
external agency








Findings
Three participants suggested including some definitions or examples for the programs listed,
especially proactive resiliency programs, which four participants admitted to not knowing, or
having to search on the internet for, what they meant. Two participants discussed how
there was major overlap in the programs and how web-based resources could apply to all
categories. All participants had a similar understanding of what “access” meant in this
question. One participant suggested including cloud or app-based resources.

Recommendation
52. Include examples of specific programs in the answer choices.

3. Miscellaneous Topics
3.1

Burden

Overall, respondents expressed that the survey was straightforward and easy to follow. Nine
respondents gave estimates in the 2- to 4-hour range to complete the survey. Six
respondents said it would take them an hour or less to complete the survey. Two
participants provided qualitative responses—one participant said that they could complete it
“pretty quickly,” and the other estimated “a couple of weeks.” Three participants were
uncertain about the time it would take, noting that they would have to work with others.
Two participants were not asked this probe because of time constraints.
One potential reason for the variability in response time is the amount of time that
respondents said they would need to wait to get data back from their colleagues (e.g.,
budget staff, the staff in charge of LIMS queries). There was consensus among respondents
that completing this survey would be a group effort for their laboratory; 11 respondents
said that they would ask their staff to address sections outside of their scope (e.g., budget).

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

3.2

Providing Requested Data

Throughout the survey at various points, and during the debrief, participants were asked to
share what their process for obtaining data would entail. As noted in A7, 21 participants
said that they would compile data using their LIMS (for requests/items) and other internal
documentation (for staffing, budget, etc.) As previously noted, two participants said that
their laboratories have a partially deployed LIMS system; the first participant’s laboratory
has a LIMS in its forensic biology unit but not for the rest of its disciplines, whereas the
other participant’s laboratory was transitioning to a LIMS system in 2019 and 2020. When
asked specifically about their ability to provide 2019 data, participants reported similar
feedback. Seventeen participants stated that it would be easy to pull 2019 data and would
take the same amount of time as pulling 2020 data, especially with a LIMS. One participant
suggested that the beginning of the survey should include instructions explaining why 2019
data are being captured instead of 2020 data (i.e., because COVID-19 may have affected
caseloads in 2020). Two participants conveyed issues with how reporting might appear; one
respondent noted that if they pulled from their fiscal year, they would include some 2020
data. Another respondent noted that if a portion of data started mid-quarter but was not
finished, it could appear as a backlog. Two respondents reported challenges and difficulties
working with/providing 2019 data; one stated that it would be difficult to pull the data, and
it would take longer, especially for staffing data, and the other respondent reported that it
would be difficult to pull data from a specific date, such as December 31, 2019. Four
respondents did not respond to this probe because of time constraints.
53. RTI recommends including instructions or clarifications at the beginning of the
survey to explain why 2019 data are requested (i.e., to avoid skewed 2020 data).

3.3

Use of CPFFCL Data

Participants reported varied uses of CPFFCL data. Five participants responded that they
would use CPFFCL data for comparison purposes. These participants noted various
applications for the data, including using them to justify their budget and further funding, to
compare backlogs, to compare the size and staffing needs of their laboratories, and to
compare employee engagement. Two additional participants said that they do not currently
use the data but may do so in the future, but they did not say how they might potentially
use the data. One participant stated that, until the interview, they did not know the CPFFCL
existed, and they have thus never used the data. Four participants noted that the CPFFCL
data could be useful, but they currently or will use Project FORESIGHT data instead.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

54. BJS, this is a very relevant point generally, but also in light of the ongoing COVID19 pandemic. As we have documented over the last few monthly progress
reports, many crime laboratories across the country have been affected by
COVID-19 in different ways. Through the National Forensic Laboratory
Information System project and our other work with the community, we know
that some laboratories have completely shut down or are partially operational,
while others are incredibly busy because they are assisting with testing.
Laboratories, like many other business sectors, may change the way they operate
moving forward. Based on our understanding of speaking with laboratory
directors and staff over the years, court testimony is a time-consuming task.
Video testimony could be a real game-changer for laboratories in terms of
technology they use. The CPFFCL is a great opportunity to get a handle on how
many laboratories were set up for video testimony during 2019 (pre-pandemic).
We could even include a question about its use in 2020 and ask if the pandemic
prompted its new or increased use. We could use our last remaining interview to
vet these questions, or any other COVID-19 measure BJS might want to include
(e.g., general question about their operational status during 2020, general
estimate of their 2020 caseload). Adding 2-3 questions along these lines could be
incredibly helpful, relevant, and timely for this community.
Finally, one participant stated that their laboratory is not currently using CPFFCL data and
will not in the future. Nine participants were not asked this probe because of time
constraints.

4. Lessons Learned
After the close of data collection, the cognitive interviewing team debriefed, and each team
member was asked to provide feedback on what worked and what could potentially be
improved in future cognitive testing collections. The following sections summarize
recommendations, based on the project team’s debriefing discussion, for future cognitive
testing data collections. Note that these items will be included in the final technical report to
BJS at the close of this project.

4.1
•

Participant Recruitment and Engagement
As outlined in Section 1.1, Participant Recruitment, because of COVID-19 an opt-in
recruitment approach was taken to lessen the burden on potential participants. To
facilitate this approach, RTI solicited the assistance of ASCLD. This approach resulted
in a highly engaged group of potential participants reaching out to volunteer. This
experience suggests that future studies may consider partnering with reputable
organizations to help facilitate recruitment efforts.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

•

Cognitive interview participants were supportive of CPFFCL, and multiple participants
expressed gratitude for being a part of fielding the survey. This response indicates
that this population is very engaged and eager to assist BJS in collecting the best
possible crime laboratory data.

4.2
•

Data Collection
The team used Zoom to conduct virtual cognitive interviews. We found the “virtual
interview” approach to be highly successful, and it had advantages over telephoneonly interviews. Unlike a phone, Zoom allows the interviewer to share the instrument
on screen and walk through it with the participant in real time. It is also easier for
notetakers to follow along and accurately capture participant feedback. The virtual
qualitative interviewing approach using Zoom technology has been found to be a
satisfactory qualitative data collection method, particularly when subjects are
geographically dispersed. 1,2

4.3
•

Analysis and Reporting
Throughout the data collection period, the RTI team met each week to discuss
progress (i.e., interviews completed/scheduled), any issues encountered, and any
high-level themes and findings that were being observed. This meeting served
multiple purposes: it kept the team informed of progress, it allowed us to quickly
address any issues that arose, and it provided a foundation for analyzing data. The
team also met after the close of data collection for a longer debrief to discuss
preliminary findings and themes, which helped to focus the analysis process.

1 Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom
videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and
participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406919874596
2 Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding qualitative research
interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. Qualitative Report, 25, 1292–1301.

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A:
2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Cognitive Interview
Recruitment Materials
A-1:
A-2:
A-3:
A-4:
A-5:
A-6:
A-7:
A-8:

Cognitive Interview Screener Questions
ASCLD Email Invitation
ASCLD Email Reminder
RTI Email Response to Interested Participants
Polite Decline Email – Targets already hit
Scheduling Email
Confirmation Email
Thank You Email

A-1

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-1
Cognitive Interview Screener Questions

A-2

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-2
ASCLD Email Invitation

Email Subject: Invitation to Participate in Important Crime Laboratory Study
Dear Colleagues,
We hope that you, your families and loved ones, and your staff are healthy and safe through these
unprecedented times. We know that you are facing a lot of ever-evolving needs as the pandemic continues
to impact personal and professional life.
For those who are feeling very challenged by the times and are unable to do anything beyond what
you are currently doing, please accept our hope that things improve for you, continue to do your
important work, and read no further.
For those who have more time on their hands, we write to ask for volunteers to participate in an
important study regarding our forensic laboratory community.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is preparing to conduct the fifth
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) in 2019. This survey was last
conducted in 2014 and is designed to gather data on current services offered by publicly funded crime
laboratories and the challenges you face.
With input from subject matter experts and crime laboratory stakeholders, BJS and RTI international,
BJS’s data collection agent for this survey, have developed a new questionnaire and we are asking for
your help to refine the instrument. The perspectives you share will give us the information we need to
refine the CPFFCL instrument to reduce burden while producing meaningful, relevant, and timely
statistics to serve the crime laboratory community.
If you are interested in participating, please contact RTI using the contact information below. The
research effort would involve participating in a 60-minute telephone interview with RTI’s staff. RTI will
email you the survey the day of the interview. During the interview, you and the RTI staff member will
review the questionnaire together to discuss the clarity, meaning, and your understanding of the questions
and answer categories. You will not be asked to complete the survey. BJS is merely testing to see if the
questions and answer categories make sense, and if it would be possible for you to answer the questions.
They are also interested in how long the survey would take. The feedback you provide will be carefully
considered by BJS and used to improve the survey.
If you are interested in participating, please contact Kathryn Greenwell (kgreenwell@rti.org) at RTI
International and provide her with your name, best telephone number, and laboratory name. She will
be in touch with you within two business days. If you have questions or comments about the project in
general, you can also contact Connor Brooks (connor.brooks@usdoj.gov; 202-514-8633) at BJS.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important study. Please stay safe.
Sincerely,
Brooke Arnone Erin Forry
ASCLD President ASCLD President-Elect

A-3

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-3
ASCLD Email Reminder

NOTE: The following message would be inserted as a forward from the original message (see
Appendix B-1) to the ASCLD crime laboratory director distribution list two weeks after the
initial message was sent if more cognitive interviews are needed.
Email Subject: FWD: Invitation to Participate in Important Crime Laboratory Study
Dear Colleagues:
We hope that you and your staff are healthy and safe.
As a follow up to our message below, and on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we would like to
thank those who have contacted RTI International (RTI) to participate in the Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories cognitive interviews.
RTI is still seeking volunteers from laboratories with fewer than 25 full-time personnel, those
operated by state governments, and/or that process and analyze digital evidence. Thus, if your
laboratory fits into one of these categories, and you are able and willing to donate an hour of your time to
this effort, please contact please contact Kathryn Greenwell (kgreenwell@rti.org) at RTI International.
She will have a few eligibility questions to ask you so that RTI can ensure that they have a diverse sample
of respondents.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important study. Please stay safe.
Sincerely,
Brooke Arnone
ASCLD President
Erin Forry
ASCLD President-Elect

B-4

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-4
RTI Email Response to Interested Participants

RTI Response to potential participants
Hello [NAME],
Thank you for your response to the recent American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD)
initiation to participate in the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) cognitive
interviews.
As the ASCLD message conveyed, this survey was last conducted in 2014. We would like to enlist
your help to revise the questionnaire. We have developed a new questionnaire based on input from
leaders in the field. We would like you to participate in an interview with the new version of the survey
and share your feedback on it. This will help us ensure that this year’s data collection is successful in
gathering data that is helpful both to BJS and to your offices and jurisdictions.
If you agree that you would like to participate in these interviews, I first need to confirm a few questions
about your laboratory to determine your laboratory’s eligibility for these interviews. If eligible, we would
then ask you take part in an-hour long interview with my colleagues. I would then schedule an interview
with you over the phone to walk through the questionnaire, which would involve asking you the survey
questions and then asking for your feedback on those questions.

Please answer/confirm the following questions:

1. Laboratory/Laboratory System Full Name:
2. Location (City, State):
3. Is your laboratory governed by a Federal/State/County/Municipal government entity? (Yes/No
and which one)
4. About how many full-time personnel does your laboratory/laboratory system have? (Estimate is
fine)
5. Does your laboratory have a digital evidence section? (Yes/No)

Thank you so much for your willingness to help and I look forward to receiving your responses!
Please let me know if you have any immediate questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Kathryn
Kathryn Greenwell
Project Manager
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
RTI International

A-5

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-5
Polite Decline Email – Targets already hit

Hello [NAME],
Thank you so much for your response.
Given the description of your laboratory’s characteristics, below, we unfortunately already have good
representation of laboratories and/or laboratory systems that resemble what you have confirmed with
me. If needs should change, though, or if we are in need of additional participants, we will reach back
out to you. We really appreciate your interest in helping us improve the survey, and the time that you
have spent corresponding about it.
Apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and again, thank you so much!
Kathryn
Kathryn Greenwell
Project Manager
Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
RTI International

B-6

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-6
Scheduling Email

Dear [NAME]
Thank you for your response! Based on what you have confirmed and the characteristics of your
laboratory, you are eligible to participate in the cognitive interviews. May we move forward with
scheduling your interview? If so, please let us know what date/time would be the most
convenient for you.
Interviews will last approximately 1 hour and will be conducted via Zoom. A link and a call-in
line will be provided once your interview is scheduled.
Thank you again for your consideration and time.
Best,
Kathryn Greenwell

A-7

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-7
Confirmation Email

Dear [NAME],
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime
Laboratories (CPFFCL) Cognitive Interview. We have scheduled your interview on
[MM/DD/YYYY at 00:00 am/pm] with [INTERVIEWER NAME].
The interview will be conducted via Zoom. To join the meeting, please click on the link below:
[INTERVIEWER PERSONAL MEETING LINK]
I am also attaching two documents for your review. The first document is a copy of the Census
of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories questionnaire. The attached survey instrument
is being provided to you only for reference ahead of your scheduled interview session. You do
not need to complete the survey, but please feel free to review it before your scheduled interview
to gather any preliminary thoughts or comments you would like to share with us. The second
document provides more information about the study, your rights as a participant, and the
measures we are taking to keep the feedback you share during your interview private.
If you have any questions about the interview process or attached documents, or if you need to
reschedule for any reason, you can contact me at [EMAIL].
Best,
Kathryn Greenwell

B-8

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix A-8
Thank You Email

Dear [NAME]:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and RTI International, thank you for participating in
the interviews to test the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ draft instrument for the Census of Publicly Funded
Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL) on DATE. We know that you are very busy with your important
work and are thus honored that you so generously offered your time and expertise to assist us.
The perspectives you shared along with that of the other subject matter experts and crime laboratory
stakeholders we interviewed, have given us the information we need to refine the CPFFCL instrument in
a way that will reduce burden while producing meaningful, relevant, and timely statistics to serve the
crime laboratory community.
For your invaluable insight, time, and expertise, we extend our deepest appreciation.
Should you have any questions about CPFFCL or have further thoughts to share, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Gratefully yours,

Connor Brooks
BJS CPFFCL
Program Manager
202-514-8633
Connor.Brooks@us
doj.gov

Hope SmileyMcDonald
CPFFCL Principal
Investigator
919-485-5743
smiley@rti.org

Amanda Smith
CPFFCL Survey
Methodologist
919-541-6249
acsmith@rti.org

INTERVIEWER
NAME
CPFFCL Survey
Interviewer
XXX-XXX-XXXX

A-9

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix B:
CPFFCL Cognitive Interview Protocol

B-1

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Cognitive Interview Protocol
Participant Number______
Date of Interview ______________
Interviewer______________
[ASK PARTICIPANT IF THEY WERE ABLE TO REVIEW THE INFORMED CONSENT SENT TO THEM
PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW, AND IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. CONFIRM THAT THE
PARTICIPANTS CONSENTS TO INTERVIEW AND RECORDING. THEN READ (OR PARAPHRASE)
THE FOLLOWING TO THE PARTICIPANT]:
On behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the project team at RTI, thank you again for participating
in the testing of the 2019 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories. We’re talking today
because we want to see how well people understand these questions and how they might answer them.
This interview is voluntary; you can skip any question or stop the interview at any point. The answers you
provide will not be shared outside the RTI/BJS team.
During this process, you and I will go through the survey items together to so that I can understand how
you would answer them. I will ask that you read each certain questions aloud. Please tell me anything that
comes to mind as you read the question. You do not need to provide specific answers or numbers
at this point. For those questions for which you would need to do additional research, please tell me
whether you would be able to answer the question and, if so, how long it would take to get the answer.
However, please let me know if you would not be able to provide exact numbers when we are
actually collecting these data next year.
After reviewing a question, I may stop you and ask how you came up with your answer, or what
specifically you were thinking about. These questions will help me understand your thought process when
answering, which will help us determine if any changes need to be made to the question.
There are no right or wrong answers to the questions I ask. Our goal is to make sure that the questions
make sense and that people like yourself can answer them and follow the questionnaire instructions
easily. You can help us by pointing out anything you find confusing or unclear. If something doesn't make
sense, please tell let me know. Or, if you're not sure about your response, please tell me that too.
Do you have any questions? [ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS]
Ok, let’s begin. First, I have a few general questions about you.

Probe1. What is your job title?
Probe2. How long have you been in this position?
Probe3. (If needed) How long have you been at your agency?
[LET THE PARTIICPANT KNOW THAT YOU’D LIKE TO SHARE THE INSTRUEMENT ON THE
SCREEN. IF THEY ARE CALL IN/AUDIO ONLY CONFIRM IF THEY CAN VIEW THEIR SCREEN
AND/OR IF THEY HAVE THE COPY WE SENT TO THEM TO REFERENCE. BEGIN SCREEN SHARE TO
DISPLAY THE INSTRUMENT IF USING SCREENSHARE.]

B-2

Section A: Organization

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

A1. What type of government operates this lab facility? Mark one.
 City, borough, village, or town
 County or parish
 State
 Federal
A2. Which of the following best describes the agency that has administrative oversight of your laboratory?
 Law enforcement agency (e.g., department or division of public safety)
 Department or division of forensic science
 Government attorney’s office (e.g., district attorney)
 Public health agency (e.g., department or division of public health)
 Other (please specify)
Probe1. Is this question clear or is there anything about it that you found confusing?
Probe2. Should this item be select all? That is, can laboratory have multiple administrative oversight agencies?
Probe3. [If needed] Is there anything missing from this list? Or is there anything on this list that you think should be
removed?
A3. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory part of a multi-laboratory system? A multi-laboratory system is
defined as two or more separate laboratory entities that are overseen by a single organization. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to A5
A4. As of December 31, 2019, how many individual laboratories were in your multi-lab system? Include your
own laboratory in this total.
____________ laboratories
A5. During 2019, did any of the following types of government agencies submit requests for forensic services to your
individual laboratory? Mark yes or no for each response.
a. City, borough, village, or town
b. County or parish
c. State (state-wide or regional)
d. Federal (nationwide or regional)

Yes No









B-3

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

[INTERVIEWER: INSTRUCT THE PARTCIPANT THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO READ EACH ITEM BELOW ALOUD. HAVE
THEM REVIEW, AND THEN ASK PROBES.]
A6. During 2019, did your individual lab facility perform these forensic functions? Mark yes or no for each listed
function and associated sub-categories. Please follow the skip patterns and mark the appropriate response for the subitems beneath Toxicology, Trace, Impressions, Digital and Multimedia Evidence, Latent Prints, Forensic Biology, and
Crime Scene categories.
Yes


No


b. Toxicology
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Antemortem BAC Analysis
2. Antemortem Drug Analysis
3. Postmortem Analysis







c. Trace
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Chemical Unknown Analysis
2. Explosives Analysis
3. Fire Debris Analysis
4. Fiber Examination
5. Gunshot Residue Testing
6.Hair Examination
7. Paint Analysis
8. Other Trace (please specify) _______________












d. Impressions
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Footwear Analysis
2. Tire Tread Analysis






e. Firearms/Toolmarks












g. Latent Prints
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Print Development Analysis
2. Comparisons Analysis



a. Controlled Substances

B-4






CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

h. Questioned Documents









j. Crime Scene
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Evidence Collection
2. Reconstruction (e.g., bloodstain pattern analysis)






k. Other (please specify) _______________





Probe1. Are all of the categories in A6 clear, or are there any that are confusing?
Probe2. After responding to the lettered items with subcategories (e.g., b, c, d), was it clear where to go next?
A7. As of December 31, 2019, did your individual laboratory have a Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS)? A LIMS is a computerized system used to manage, compile, or track requests and/or evidence. Mark one.
 Yes
 No → skip to B1
A8. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by Request? A request is the submission of one or more items
of physical evidence a forensic discipline from a single criminal investigation. A request may contain more than
one item.
 Yes
 No
A9. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by Item? An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for
analysis. There may be multiple items within a submission.
 Yes
 No
Probe1. Does the use of term “request” make sense and seem appropriate in this context? If no, is there a different term
that you think we should be using?
Probe2. Does the use of the term “item” make sense and seem appropriate in this context? If no, is there a different term
that you think we should be using?
Section Wrap-Up
Probe1. Were there any items in this section that we haven’t already discussed that you would like to?
Probe2. Overall, how easy or difficult would it be to respond to the items in this section?

B-5

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section B: Budget
B1. What was the total operating budget for your individual laboratory in 2019? Include all funding received such as
fees, grants, and one-time special projects.
$________.00

□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate

B1a. Does your total operating budget (your answer to B1) include your entire multi-lab system?
 Yes
 No
 N/A – Laboratory not part of multi-lab system
B1b. Are you reporting your budget data for your fiscal year or calendar year?
 Calendar year → skip to B2
 Fiscal year
B1c.If your reported budget (B1) covers your fiscal year, what are the start and end dates of your fiscal year?
___ __ ____ to ___ __ ____
MM DD YYYY
MM DD YYYY
Probe1. How easy or difficult will it be for you to come up with the figure in B1?
Probe2. [If B1b not answered] What time frame are you thinking about in B1? Fiscal year? calendar year?
Probe3. [If B1c= Fiscal Year and participant did not already provide response] When does your fiscal year begin and end?
Probe4. Would you be able to answer these questions for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020 or
early 2021?
B2. During 2019, did your individual lab receive funding from any of the following sources? Mark yes or no for each
funding source.
a. Asset Forfeitures
b. Donations
c. Fees
d. Grants - Federal
e. Grants - State
f. Partnerships
g. Private Foundations
h. Task Force Funding (Federal and State)

Yes









No









Section Wrap-Up
Probe1. Were there any items in this section that we haven’t already discussed that you
would like to?
Probe2. Overall, how easy or difficult would it be to respond to the items in this section?

B-6

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section C: Staffing
[INTERVIEWER: REMIND PARTICIPANT HERE, AND PERIODICALLY, THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO PROVIDE EXACT
COUNTS ON THE CALL]
C1. How many full-time employees, part-time employees, and position vacancies in the following categories did your
laboratory have as of December 31, 2019? Report each employee in only one category, based on primary function.
Report employees who normally work less than 35 hours per week as part-time. If none, enter 0.
a. Managerial
b. Clerical or Administrative
c. Analyst/Examiner
1. In-Training or Entry-Level
2. Intermediate/Senior
d. Crime Scene Technician
f. Technical Support
g. Other
Total (Sum a-g)

Full-time

Part-time

Vacancies

Probe1. How easy or difficult would it be to obtain these numbers?
Probe1a. [If needed] What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe1b. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe2. Are there any personnel categories for which you would have trouble providing staff numbers? If so, which ones?
Probe3. Are there any scenarios here where you would not know where to put an employee (i.e., fits in multiple
categories, missing category)?
Probe4.Is there a difference between “in training” and “entry-level”? If so, what?
Probe4a. Is there a more appropriate way to differentiate between those in training and entry level?
Probe5. Is “other” important here? If yes, what type of employee might you put there?
Probe6. Do you think it matters for reporting purposes if the vacancies are full-time or part-time? Why/why not?
Probe7. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in late 2020 or early
2021?
C2. As of December 31, 2019, how many personnel did you have in the following categories? If none, enter 0.
A. ________Consultants/Contractors
B. ________Interns
Probe1. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe1a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe3. Would you have trouble providing numbers for either of these personnel categories? If so, which ones?
Probe3a. Would an estimate box be helpful here?
Probe4.Should this question be combined with previous question such that the consultants/contractors and interns each
have their own column?
Probe5. Do you think this information is important to know on a national scale?
Probe6. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020?

B-7

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

C3. How many hires and separations of key personnel occurred in 2019? Key personnel are defined: Managerial;
Clerical or Administrative; all levels of Analyst/Examiner; Crime Scene Technician; and Technical Support. Mark if number
was estimated.
A. ______ Hires
B. ______ Separations

□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate

Probe1. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe1a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe3. Is the estimate box helpful here?
Probe4. Do you think this information is important to know on a national scale?
Probe5. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020 or early
2021?
C4. As of December 31, 2019, how many of full-time analysts/examiners (as specified in C1, part c) in your individual
laboratory were certified by one or more of the entities listed below? If none were certified, enter ‘0’.
______ Full-time analysts/examiners
List of Selected Certification Entities:
American Board of Criminalistics
American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
American Board of Forensic Odontology
American Board of Forensic Toxicology
American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators
American Board of Forensic Anthropology
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists
International Association for Identification (not including 10-print certification)
Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board
Forensic Toxicologist Certification Board
Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners
Board of Forensic Document Examiners
International Institute of Forensic Engineering Sciences

C5. As of December 31, 2019 what were the minimum and maximum full-time annual
salaries for the following positions? Exclude benefits and overtime when reporting annual salaries. If
position does not exist, mark N/A.
a. Director
b. Supervisor
c. Analyst/Examiner
(Intermediate/Senior)
d. Analyst/Examiner
(Entry-level/In-training)
e. Technical support (e.g., lab tech,
support personnel)

$
$

Minimum

Maximum

.00
.00

$
$

.00
.00

.00

N/A
□
□
□
□
□

Section Wrap-Up
Probe1. Were there any items in this section that we haven’t already discussed that you would like to?
Probe2. Overall, how easy or difficult would it be to respond to the items in this section?
B-8

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section D: Workload
Questions D1 through D17 ask for information about your individual laboratory workload. Do not include requests that
your lab sent to another lab for analysis.
• A request is the submission of one or more items of physical evidence a forensic discipline from a single criminal
investigation. A request may contain more than one item.
• An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis. There may be multiple items within a submission.
• A single criminal investigation (i.e., case) may result in more than one request (e.g. toxicology, and latent prints).
• Contact the Help Line if you could not report the totals as specified or if you are unable to extract data separately for
the given categories in questions D3-D17.
D1. How many requests and items did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019?
Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology requests/items.
Mark if number(s) was(were) estimated. Mark if number of items is unknown.
C. _______ Requests
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of requests is unknown
D. _______ Items
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of items is unknown
Probe1: Are the instructions at the top of the page clear, or is there anything about them that is confusing?
Probe2. What do you think we mean by the word “request” in this question?
Probe3. What do you think we mean by the word “item” in this question?
Probe4. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe4A. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe6. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020 or early
2021?

B-9

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D2. As of January 1, 2020, how many backlogged requests and items unreported for 30 days or longer did your
laboratory have? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology requests. Mark if number was estimated.
Mark if unknown.
C. _______ Requests
D. _______ Items
[INTERVIEWER: INSTRUCT THE PARTCIPANT THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO READ THE LIST OF ITEMS ALOUD - YOU DO
NOT NEED TO READ THE FOLLOWING LIST ALOUD, BUT I’D LIKE YOU TO REVIEW THIS GRID OF ITEMS.]
The next section asks questions about the number of requests your lab received in 2019. Please answer the following
questions for each discipline. Mark if any of the numbers in D3-D12 were estimated in the checkbox below the table.
A. Total
number of
new requests
received in
2019

D3. Controlled substances
D4. Toxicology
D5. Trace
D6. Impressions
D7. Firearms/Toolmarks
D8. Digital & Multimedia
Evidence
D9. Latent Prints
D10. Questioned
Documents
D11. Crime Scene
D12. Forensic Biology
(including forensic
biology casework,
sexual assault
casework and DNA
Databasing)
□

B. Of the
requests received
in 2019, what
was the total
number of items
included?

C. Total
number of
requests
completed in
2019

N/A
□
□
□
□
□

D. Total
number of all
pending
requests
awaiting
analysis as of
January 1,
2020

E. Number of
pending
requests that
were
unreported
for 30 days
or longer as
of January 1,
2020

N/A

□
□
□
□
□

N/A

Mark here if any of the numbers provided in D3-D12 are estimates.

Probe1. Does the word “requests” make sense and seem appropriate for each of these categories. If no, which ones?
Probe2. Does the word “item” make sense and seem appropriate for each of these categories? If no, which ones?
Probe 3. What are your thoughts on the format of this question? Is the table format easy or difficult to follow? Do you
have any suggestions for other ways to display these questions?
Probe4. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe4a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe5. Are any of the numbers easier or more difficult to obtain compared to the others?
Probe6. Are there any categories that you would add or remove from this question series?
Probe7. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020 or early
2021?
B-10

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

[INTERVIEWER: REMIND PARTICIPANT THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE THESE FIGURES DURING
THE INTERVIEW. WE ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH IF THE QUESITONS ARE CLEAR, IF THE FORMAT IS EASY TO
FOLLOW, IF WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE DATA REQUESTED, AND WHAT COMPILING THAT DATA WOULD
ENTAIL]
FORENSIC BIOLOGY CASEWORK
D13. Can you report your workload on Forensic Biology Casework, including sexual assault casework, separately from
the forensic biology totals in D12?
 Yes
 No → skip to D15
 N/A, my individual lab facility does not perform Forensic Biology Casework → skip to D15
D13a. Of the new requests for Forensic Biology analysis (D12),
how many were requests for Forensic Biology Casework?

_______________Requests

D13b. How many ITEMS were included in the
requests for Forensic Biology Casework (D13a)?

_______________Items

D13c. How many requests for Forensic Biology Casework were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D13d. How many requests for Forensic Biology Casework were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020

_______________Backlogged Requests

SEXUAL ASSAULT CASEWORK
D14. Can you report your workload on Sexual Assault Casework, separately from the Forensic Biology Casework
totals in D13?
 Yes
 No → skip to D15
 N/A, my individual lab facility does not perform Sexual Assault Casework → skip to D15
D14a. Of the new requests for Forensic Biology Casework (D13a),
how many were for Sexual Assault Casework?

_______________Requests

D14b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Sexual Assault Casework (D14a)?

_______________Items

D14c. How many requests for Sexual Assault Casework were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D14d. How many requests for Sexual Assault Casework were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Backlogged Requests

Probe1. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe1a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe2. Are any of the numbers easier or more difficult to obtain compared to the others?
Probe3. Would you be able to answer these questions for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in the fall 2020?

B-11

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

DNA DATABASE SAMPLES
D15. Can you report your DNA Databasing request workload, including Arrestee and Convicted Offender samples?
 Yes
 No → skip to D18
 N/A, my individual lab facility does not perform DNA Databasing → skip to D18
D15a. Of the new requests for Forensic Biology analysis (D12),
how many were requests for DNA Databasing?

_______________Requests

D15b. How many ITEMS were included in the
requests for DNA Databasing (D15a)?

_______________Items

D15c. How many requests for DNA Databasing were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D15d. How many requests for DNA Databasing were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020

_______________Backlogged Requests

ARRESTEE SAMPLES
D16. Can you report your Arrestee Sample Databasing workload, separately from the DNA Databasing totals in D15?
 Yes
 No → skip to D17
 N/A, my individual lab facility did not perform Arrestee Samples Databasing → skip to D17
D16a. Of the new requests for DNA Databasing (D15a),
how many were for Arrestee Samples?

_______________Requests

D16b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Arrestee Samples (D16a)?

_______________Items

D16c. How many requests for Arrestee Sample processing were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D16d. How many requests for Arrestee Sample processing were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Backlogged Requests

CONVICTED OFFENDER SAMPLES
D17. Can you report your Convicted Offender Sample Databasing workload, separately from the DNA Databasing
totals in D15?
 Yes
 No → skip to D18
 N/A, my individual lab facility did not perform Convicted Offender Samples Databasing → skip to D18
D17a.
themany
new requests for DNA
Databasing
(D15a),
D17d.Of
How
Convicted
Offender
Sample processing
how
were for Convicted
Offender
Samples?
weremany
UNREPORTED
FOR 30 DAYS
OR MORE
as of January 1, 2020? _______________Requests
_______________Backlogged Requests
D17b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Convicted Offender Samples (D16a)?

_______________Items

D17c. How many requests for Convicted Offender Sample processing
were PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?
_______________Pending Requests

B-12

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Probe1. What would be involved in obtaining these numbers for your office?
Probe1a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get these numbers?
Probe1b. Are any of the numbers easier or more difficult to obtain compared to the others?
Probe2. Would you be able to answer these questions for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in
the fall 2020?
[INTERVIEWER: SCROLL BACK UP AND DISPLAY SERIES ABOVE AND ASK THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THE
ENTIRE SECTION D13-D17]
Probe 3. What are your thoughts on the format of this series of questions? Is it easy or difficult to
follow?
Probe4. Compared to the last grid of items in D2 [show previous grid D3-D12], do you think this format
is easier or more difficult to follow?
Probe5. Was it easy or difficult to follow and break out reporting for forensic biology sub items, and their
sub items in this entire series of questions (all of the items ?
D18. How long does your laboratory typically retain digital data after analysis is completed? Mark one.
 My laboratory does not retain or archive digital evidence  Skip to E1
 Less than 6 months
 6 months to less than 1 year
 1 through less than 3 years
 3 through less than 5 years
 5 through 10 years
 More than 10 years
 Indefinitely
Probe1. What does the term “digital data” mean to you?
Probe2. [If response does not = option 1] Do these response categories seem appropriate
and make sense? Or are there other time frames, or ways of reporting this information, that
would be more appropriate?

D19. As of January 1, 2020, how much digital data storage does your individual laboratory have
available? Mark if number was estimated.
_____ Terabytes
□ Number is estimated
Probe1. What does “digital data storage” mean to you?
Probe2. What would be an appropriate format (decimal format, number of digits) and unit
(terabyte/gigabyte) for a response for this question)?

Probe3. What would be involved in obtaining this number for your office?
Probe3a. [If needed] How long do you think it would take to get this number?

Section Wrap-Up
Probe1. Were there any items in this section that we haven’t already discussed that you would like to?
Probe2. Overall, how easy or difficult would it be to respond to the items in this section?
B-13

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section E: Outsourcing
E1. During 2019, did your laboratory outsource the testing of any type of evidence or samples?
Outsourcing refers to contracting or procuring services from an outside vendor to accomplish laboratory
functions. It does not refer to purchasing consumables, materials, or equipment. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to E5
E2. Where did your laboratory send outsourced requests in 2019? Mark yes or no for each
laboratory type.
a. Commercial laboratory
b. Publicly funded laboratory

Yes



No



Probe1. Are these questions clear, or is there anything about them that is confusing?
E3. During 2019, did your laboratory outsource analysis of any of the following types of
evidence or samples? Mark yes, no, or N/A if your laboratory does not perform this function.
a. Controlled Substances
b. Toxicology
c. Trace
d. Impressions
e. Firearms/Toolmarks
f. Digital and Multimedia Evidence
g. Latent Prints
h. Questioned Documents
i. Crime Scene
j. Forensic Biology
1. Casework
2. Sexual Assault Casework
3. Convicted Offender Samples
4. Arrestee DNA Samples
k. Other (please specify) ______________

Yes
















No
















N/A
















E4. What were your total outsourcing costs in 2019? Outsourcing refers to contracting or
procuring services from an outside vendor to accomplish laboratory functions. It does not refer to
purchasing consumables, materials, or equipment.
$________.00
□ Please check box if "Don’t know”
□ Please check box if “Do not outsource”

C-14

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Probe1. Do you think that the definition that we are using here for outsourcing is appropriate and
clear, or is there anything about it that is unclear?
Probe1a. Are there any situations for outsourcing that this definition would not cover?
Probe2. Do you think this item is appropriate for this section, or would it be easier under the budget
section?
Probe3. How easy or difficult will it be for you to come up with this number?
Probe4. Would an estimate box be helpful here?
Probe5. Would you be able to answer this question for 2019, even if the survey was being fielded in
the fall 2020?
E5. In 2019, did your laboratory bring personnel (e.g., consultants or contractors) in to assist with
completing forensic analyses?
 Yes
 No
Section Wrap-Up
Probe1. Were there any items in this section that we haven’t already discussed that you would like to?
Probe2. Overall, how easy or difficult would it be to respond to the items in this section?

Section F: Quality Assurance
F1. As of December 31, 2019, did your jurisdiction require accreditation?
 Yes
 No
Probe1. What do you think we mean by “accreditation” in this question?

F2. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory accredited?
 Yes
 No  skip to F5
F3. As of December 31, 2019, to which standard is your laboratory accredited? Mark yes or no
for each standard.
a. ISO 17025
b. ISO 17020
c. CALEA
d. Other (please specify) _________

Yes





No





Probe1. Are there additional accrediting standards that you would add to this question?
Probe2. Is this question clear, or is there anything about it that is confusing or unclear?
B-15

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Yes










No










Probe1. Are there any accrediting bodies that you would add or remove from this question? If so, which
ones?
Probe2. Are these accrediting bodies listed in a way that makes sense, or is there anything about the way
they are listed that is confusing?
Probe3. Are you familiar with these accrediting bodies? If not, which ones?
Probe4. Is there a reason to indicate which disciplines are accredited for a laboratory? [If needed – Do
you think this item needs to be broken out by discipline?]
F5. During 2019, did your laboratory have resources dedicated primarily to research? Research is
experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, the revision of accepted methods, or
practical application of such new or revised methods or technologies. Resources may include dollars,
work-hours, supplies, or other funding dedicated specifically to supporting research.
 Yes
 No
F6. During 2019, did your laboratory conduct proficiency testing? Proficiency testing is defined as the
evaluation of a participant’s performance against pre-established criteria by mean of inter-laboratory
comparison. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to F8
F7. During 2019, which of the following proficiency tests did your laboratory perform
internally and externally? Mark yes or no for each proficiency test.
a. Blind: analyst/examiner is not told which case is for testing
b. Declared: analyst/examiner is told when he/she is being tested
c. Random case reanalysis: random selection of
analyst/examiner’s prior case work for reanalysis by another
analyst/examiner
d. Round Robin/Challenge Testing
C-16

Yes




No






CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

e. Other proficiency testing (please specify)
_____________________________________________________



F8. During 2019, did your laboratory conduct competency testing on its analysts/examiners?
Competency is defined as the evaluation of a person’s knowledge and abilities before performing
independent forensic case work. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to F10
F9. Are your analysts/examiners:
a. Competency tested prior to authorization to complete
casework?
b. Competency tested on a designated regular time interval (e.g.,
annually tested)?

Yes


No




Probe1. Do you think that the definition of competency that we are using here is appropriate and clear,
or is there anything about it that is confusing?
Probe2. How easy or difficult would it be to answer these questions?
Probe3. Are there any additional categories that need to be added to F9?
F10. In 2019, did your laboratory have a written code of ethics? Mark one.
 Yes, our laboratory adopted an existing code of ethics
 Yes, our laboratory created own code of ethics
 No
F11. In 2019, at what level did your laboratory perform technical reviews? A technical review refers to
a qualified second party's evaluation of reports, notes, data, and other documentation to ensure there is
appropriate and sufficient support for the actions, results, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations.
Mark one.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on none of the casework.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on some of the casework.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on all of the casework.
Probe1.What does “technical reviews” mean to you?
Probe2. Do the “none, some, all” response options make sense given the way that your laboratory
operates? If no, what options would be more appropriate?
Probe3. In your opinion, would ‘some’ account for technical reviews completed through outsourcing? Or
would or could it also account for internal reviews?

B-17

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

F12. As of December 31, 2019, did your laboratory have the following? Mark yes or no for each item.
a. Standard Operating Procedures
b. Management Systems Documents (e.g., policy and objective
statements)
c. Performance Verification Checks
d. Structured Training Program

Yes



No






Probe1. How easy or difficult would it be to answer this question?
Probe2. Do you think this information is important to know on a national scale?
Probe3. Are there any other items that would be important to include here?
F13. As of December 31, 2019, did your analysts have access to the following safety and wellness
resources? Mark yes, directly; yes, through an external agency; or no for each resource.
Yes,
directly
a. Behavior/Stress Management
b. Employee Assistance Programs
c. Mental Health Debrief
d. Proactive Resiliency Programs
e. Web-based resources
f. Other resources: ________________________________








Yes, through
an external
agency







No







Probe1. What does “access” to these resources mean to you?
Probe2. What does “behavior and stress management” resources mean to you?
Probe3. What does a “mental health debrief” mean to you?
Probe4. What does a “proactive resiliency program” mean to you?
Probe5. Are there any safety and wellness resources that should be included but are not on the list?

Section G: Feedback & Submission
G1. Please write any comments you would like to share with the Bureau of Justice Statistics about (a)
your survey responses, (b) the survey content or format, (c) the manner of administration of the survey,
or (d) any other applicable information.
Cognitive Interview Wrap up
Probe1. Thinking about the survey as a whole, were there any parts or questions that were confusing or
unclear that we haven’t already discussed?
Probe2. How long do you think it would take to respond to this survey?

C-18

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Probe3. Would you need to work with others to respond to these questions (i.e., would this be a “group
effort”?)
Probe 4. Do you think it would be feasible to respond given the current work environment due to Covid19? Please explain.
Probe 5. Could you think of any issues that might make completing difficult once you return to a normal
work schedule?
Probe 6. How easy is it to pull 2-year-old data? (For context, we might have to launch data collection in
early 2021. If we have to launch in early 2021, it would may make more sense to collect 2020 data, but
we don’t want data that is skewed from the norm because of COVID-19 slowdowns, decreases in
workload, different levels of operations, etc. So our aim is to still collect 2019 data, which would be 2
years old by the time we launch).
Probe 7. How does your lab, or how might your lab, use data collected from the census? Are there any
ways you currently utilize census data?

B-19

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix C:
CPFFCL Instrument

C-1

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Thank you for participating in the testing of the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ draft instrument for the
forthcoming Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (2020). Your effort will ensure that
our instrument is easily understood, is capturing the desired data, and is relevant to the work you and offices
like yours are doing in the field of forensics.
The attached survey instrument is being provided to you only for reference ahead of your scheduled
interview session with a member of the RTI team. Please do not complete this survey and return it. At this
point, we are interested to know how you interpret the questions and would go about answering them. We
are not collecting the actual answers at this time.
Please feel free to review the survey before your scheduled interview to gather any thoughts or comments
you would like to share with us. If you have any questions about the process please, feel free to contact me
at Connor.Brooks@usdoj.gov or 202-514-8633, or a member of the RTI data collection team at 919-5416249.
Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
Connor Brooks
CPFFCL Program Manager
Bureau of Justice Statistics

C-2

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section A: Organization
A1. What type of government operates this lab facility? Mark one.
 City, borough, village, or town
 County or parish
 State
 Federal
A2. Which of the following best describes the agency that has administrative oversight of your laboratory?
 Law enforcement agency (e.g., department or division of public safety)
 Department or division of forensic science
 Government attorney’s office (e.g., district attorney)
 Public health agency (e.g., department or division of public health)
 Other (please specify)
A3. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory part of a multi-laboratory system? A multi-laboratory system is
defined as two or more separate laboratory entities that are overseen by a single organization. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to A5
A4. As of December 31, 2019, how many individual laboratories were in your multi-lab system? Include your
own laboratory in this total.
____________ laboratories
A5. During 2019, did any of the following types of government agencies submit requests for forensic services to your
individual laboratory? Mark yes or no for each response.
a. City, borough, village, or town
b. County or parish
c. State (state-wide or regional)
d. Federal (nationwide or regional)

Yes No









A6. During 2019, did your individual lab facility perform these forensic functions? Mark yes or no for each listed
function and associated sub-categories. Please follow the skip patterns and mark the appropriate response for the subitems beneath Toxicology, Trace, Impressions, Digital and Multimedia Evidence, Latent Prints, Forensic Biology, and
Crime Scene categories.
Yes


No


b. Toxicology
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Antemortem BAC Analysis
2. Antemortem Drug Analysis
3. Postmortem Analysis







c. Trace



a. Controlled Substances



C-3

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Chemical Unknown Analysis
2. Explosives Analysis
3. Fire Debris Analysis
4. Fiber Examination
5. Gunshot Residue Testing
6.Hair Examination
7. Paint Analysis
8. Other Trace (please specify) _______________












d. Impressions
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Footwear Analysis
2. Tire Tread Analysis






e. Firearms/Toolmarks












g. Latent Prints
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Print Development Analysis
2. Comparisons Analysis






h. Questioned Documents









j. Crime Scene
If YES, mark all specific functions that apply:
1. Evidence Collection
2. Reconstruction (e.g., bloodstain pattern analysis)



C-4






CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

k. Other (please specify) _______________



A7. As of December 31, 2019, did your individual laboratory have a Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS)? A LIMS is a computerized system used to manage, compile, or track requests and/or evidence. Mark one.
 Yes
 No → skip to B1
A8. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by Request? A request is the submission of one or more items
of physical evidence a forensic discipline from a single criminal investigation. A request may contain more than
one item.
 Yes
 No
A9. Does your LIMS allow you to track workload by Item? An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for
analysis. There may be multiple items within a submission.
 Yes
 No

C-5

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section B: Budget

B1. What was the total operating budget for your individual laboratory in 2019? Include all funding received such as
fees, grants, and one-time special projects.
$________.00

□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate

B1a. Does your total operating budget (your answer to B1) include your entire multi-lab system?
 Yes
 No
 N/A – Laboratory is not part of a multi-lab system
B1b. Are you reporting your budget data for your fiscal year or calendar year?
 Calendar year → skip to B2
 Fiscal year
B1c.If your reported budget (B1) covers your fiscal year, what are the start and end dates of your fiscal year?
___ __ ____ to ___ __ ____
MM DD YYYY
MM DD YYYY
B2. During 2019, did your individual lab receive funding from any of the following sources? Mark yes or no for each
funding source.
a. Asset Forfeitures
b. Donations
c. Fees
d. Grants - Federal
e. Grants - State
f. Partnerships
g. Private Foundations
h. Task Force Funding (Federal and State)

C-6

Yes









No









CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section C: Staffing
C1. How many full-time employees, part-time employees, and position vacancies in the following categories did your
laboratory have as of December 31, 2019? Report each employee in only one category, based on primary function.
Report employees who normally work less than 35 hours per week as part-time. If none, enter 0.
a. Managerial
b. Clerical or Administrative
c. Analyst/Examiner
1. In-Training or Entry-Level
2. Intermediate/Senior
d. Crime Scene Technician
f. Technical Support
g. Other
Total (Sum a-g)

Full-time

Part-time

Vacancies

C2. As of December 31, 2019, how many personnel did you have in the following categories? If none, enter 0.
C. ________Consultants/Contractors
D. ________Interns
C3. How many hires and separations of key personnel occurred in 2019? Key personnel are defined: Managerial;
Clerical or Administrative; all levels of Analyst/Examiner; Crime Scene Technician; and Technical Support. Mark if number
was estimated.
C. ______ Hires
D. ______ Separations

□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate
□ Please mark here if this figure is an estimate

C4. As of December 31, 2019, how many of full-time analysts/examiners (as specified in C1, part c) in your individual
laboratory were certified by one or more of the entities listed below? If none were certified, enter ‘0’.
______ Full-time analysts/examiners
List of Selected Certification Entities:
American Board of Criminalistics
American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
American Board of Forensic Odontology
American Board of Forensic Toxicology
American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators
American Board of Forensic Anthropology
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists
International Association for Identification (not including 10-print certification)
Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board
Forensic Toxicologist Certification Board
Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners
Board of Forensic Document Examiners
International Institute of Forensic Engineering Sciences

C-7

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

C-8

$
$

Minimum

Maximum

.00
.00

$
$

.00
.00

.00

N/A
□
□
□
□
□

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section D: Workload
Questions D1 through D17 ask for information about your individual laboratory workload. Do not include requests that
your lab sent to another lab for analysis.
• A request is the submission of one or more items of physical evidence a forensic discipline from a single criminal
investigation. A request may contain more than one item.
• An item is a single piece of evidence submitted for analysis. There may be multiple items within a submission.
• A single criminal investigation (i.e., case) may result in more than one request (e.g. toxicology, and latent prints).
• Contact the Help Line if you could not report the totals as specified or if you are unable to extract data separately for
the given categories in questions D3-D17.
D1. How many requests and items did your laboratory receive from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019?
Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology requests/items.
Mark if number(s) was(were) estimated. Mark if number of items is unknown.
E. _______ Requests
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of requests is unknown
F. _______ Items
□ Number provided is an estimate
□ Number of items is unknown
D2. As of January 1, 2020, how many backlogged requests and items unreported for 30 days or longer did your
laboratory have? Include convicted offender and arrestee forensic biology requests. Mark if number was estimated.
Mark if unknown.
E. _______ Requests
F. _______ Items
The next section asks questions about the number of requests your lab received in 2019. Please answer the following
questions for each discipline. Mark if any of the numbers in D3-D12 were estimated in the checkbox below the table.
A. Total
number of
new requests
received in
2019

D3. Controlled
substances
D4. Toxicology
D5. Trace
D6. Impressions
D7. Firearms/Toolmarks
D8. Digital & Multimedia
Evidence
D9. Latent Prints

N/A

B. Of the
requests received
in 2019, what
was the total
number of items
included?

C. Total
number of
requests
completed in
2019

D. Total
number of all
pending
requests
awaiting
analysis as of
January 1,
2020

E. Number of
pending
requests that
were unreported
for 30 days or
longer as of
January 1, 2020

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
C-9

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D10. Questioned
Documents
D11. Crime Scene
D12. Forensic
Biology (including
forensic biology
casework, sexual
assault casework
and DNA
Databasing)
□

□
□
□

N/A

Mark here if any of the numbers provided in D3-D12 are estimates.
FORENSIC BIOLOGY CASEWORK

D13. Can you report your workload on Forensic Biology Casework, including sexual assault casework, separately from
the forensic biology totals in D12?
 Yes
 No → skip to D15
 N/A, my individual lab facility does not perform Forensic Biology Casework → skip to D15
D13a. Of the new requests for Forensic Biology analysis (D12),
how many were requests for Forensic Biology Casework?

_______________Requests

D13b. How many ITEMS were included in the
requests for Forensic Biology Casework (D13a)?

_______________Items

D13c. How many requests for Forensic Biology Casework were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D13d. How many requests for Forensic Biology Casework were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020

_______________Backlogged Requests

_______________Requests

D14b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Sexual Assault Casework (D14a)?

_______________Items

D14c. How many requests for Sexual Assault Casework were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

C-10

D14d. How many requests for Sexual Assault Casework were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020?

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

_______________Backlogged Requests

_______________Requests

D15b. How many ITEMS were included in the
requests for DNA Databasing (D15a)?

_______________Items

D15c. How many requests for DNA Databasing were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D15d. How many requests for DNA Databasing were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020

_______________Backlogged Requests

_______________Requests

D16b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Arrestee Samples (D16a)?

_______________Items

D16c. How many requests for Arrestee Sample processing were
PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Pending Requests

D16d. How many requests for Arrestee Sample processing were
UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020?

_______________Backlogged Requests

_______________Requests

C-11

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D17b. How many ITEMS were included in
the requests for Convicted Offender Samples (D16a)?

_______________Items

D17c. How many requests for Convicted Offender Sample processing
were PENDING OR AWAITING ANALYSIS as of January 1, 2020?
_______________Pending Requests
D17d. How many requests for Convicted Offender Sample processing
were UNREPORTED FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE as of January 1, 2020? _______________Backlogged Requests

C-12

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

D18. How long does your laboratory typically retain digital data after analysis is completed? Mark one.
 My laboratory does not retain or archive digital evidence → skip to E1
 Less than 6 months
 6 months to less than 1 year
 1 through less than 3 years
 3 through less than 5 years
 5 through 10 years
 More than 10 years
 Indefinitely
D19. As of January 1, 2020, how much digital data storage does your individual laboratory have available?
Mark if number was estimated.
_____ Terabytes
□ Number is estimated

C-13

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Section E: Outsourcing
E1. During 2019, did your laboratory outsource the testing of any type of evidence or samples? Outsourcing
refers to contracting or procuring services from an outside vendor to accomplish laboratory functions. It does not
refer to purchasing consumables, materials, or equipment. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to E5
E2. Where did your laboratory send outsourced requests in 2019? Mark yes or no for each laboratory
type.
a. Commercial laboratory
b. Publicly funded laboratory

Yes



No



E3. During 2019, did your laboratory outsource analysis of any of the following types of evidence or
samples? Mark yes, no, or N/A if your laboratory does not perform this function.
a. Controlled Substances
b. Toxicology
c. Trace
d. Impressions
e. Firearms/Toolmarks
f. Digital and Multimedia Evidence
g. Latent Prints
h. Questioned Documents
i. Crime Scene
j. Forensic Biology
1. Casework
2. Sexual Assault Casework
3. Convicted Offender Samples
4. Arrestee DNA Samples
k. Other (please specify) ______________

Yes
















No
















N/A
















E4. What were your laboratory’s total outsourcing costs in 2019? Outsourcing refers to contracting or
procuring services from an outside vendor to accomplish laboratory functions. It does not refer to
purchasing consumables, materials, or equipment.
$________.00
□ Please check box if "Don’t know”
□ Please check box if “Do not outsource”

C-14

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

E5. In 2019, did your laboratory bring personnel (e.g., consultants or contractors) in to assist with completing
forensic analyses?
 Yes
 No

Section F: Quality Assurance
F1. As of December 31, 2019, did your jurisdiction require accreditation?
 Yes
 No
F2. As of December 31, 2019, was your laboratory accredited?
 Yes
 No  skip to F5
F3. As of December 31, 2019, to which standard is your laboratory accredited? Mark yes or no for each
standard.
a. ISO 17025
b. ISO 17020
c. CALEA
d. Other (please specify) _________

Yes





No





Yes










No










F5. During 2019, did your laboratory have resources dedicated primarily to research? Research is
experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, the revision of accepted methods, or
practical application of such new or revised methods or technologies. Resources may include dollars, work-hours,
supplies, or other funding dedicated specifically to supporting research.
 Yes
 No

C-15

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

F6. During 2019, did your laboratory conduct proficiency testing? Proficiency testing is defined as the
evaluation of a participant’s performance against pre-established criteria by mean of inter-laboratory
comparison. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to F8
F7. During 2019, which of the following proficiency tests did your laboratory perform internally and
externally? Mark yes or no for each proficiency test.
a. Blind: analyst/examiner is not told which case is for testing
b. Declared: analyst/examiner is told when he/she is being tested
c. Random case reanalysis: random selection of
analyst/examiner’s prior case work for reanalysis by another
analyst/examiner
d. Round Robin/Challenge Testing
e. Other proficiency testing (please specify)
_____________________________________________________

Yes




No







F8. During 2019, did your laboratory conduct competency testing on its analysts/examiners? Competency is
defined as the evaluation of a person’s knowledge and abilities before performing independent forensic case
work. Mark yes or no.
 Yes
 No → skip to F10
F9. Are your analysts/examiners:
a. Competency tested prior to authorization to complete
casework?
b. Competency tested on a designated regular time interval (e.g.,
annually tested)?

Yes


No




F10. In 2019, did your laboratory have a written code of ethics? Mark one.
 Yes, our laboratory adopted an existing code of ethics
 Yes, our laboratory created own code of ethics
 No
F11. In 2019, at what level did your laboratory perform technical reviews? A technical review refers to a
qualified second party's evaluation of reports, notes, data, and other documentation to ensure there is
appropriate and sufficient support for the actions, results, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations. Mark one.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on none of the casework.

C-16

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

 My laboratory performed technical reviews on some of the casework.
 My laboratory performed technical reviews on all of the casework.
F12. As of December 31, 2019, did your laboratory have the following? Mark yes or no for each item.
Yes
No


a. Written Standard Operating Procedures


b. Management Systems Documents (e.g., policy and objective
statements)


c. Performance Verification Checks


d. Structured Training Program
F13. As of December 31, 2019, did your analysts have access to the following safety and wellness resources?
Mark yes, directly; yes, through an external agency; or no for each resource.
Yes,
Yes, through
No
directly
an external
agency



a. Behavior/Stress Management



b. Employee Assistance Programs



c. Mental Health Debrief



d. Proactive Resiliency Programs



e. Web-based resources



f. Other resources: ________________________________

C-17

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix D:
2019 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Testing Informed Consent
D-1:
D-2:

CPFFCL Informed Consent Form for Participants
CPFFCL Informed Consent Form for Interviewers

D-1

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix D-1
CPFFCL Informed Consent Form for Participants

D-2

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Testing Informed Consent

What is the purpose of the interview? The interview is part of a research study that is being conducted by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The purpose of the interview is to receive feedback on the 2019 Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL).
What will happen during the testing? The interview will take approximately 60 minutes. You will be asked to
read through the CPFFCL survey as if you were completing it on your own. During the survey I will stop you and
ask you some questions about the survey and whether the questions make sense and are easy to answer. The
interview will also involve audio recording your comments for later analysis. The audio recording will only be
heard by authorized project staff and your name will never be used. You can choose not to be audio recorded.
Why was I chosen? You were chosen because you responded to a message from the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors message, your laboratory or laboratory system was eligible to participate in this effort, and
because you are a forensic crime laboratory stakeholder. Participants represent the types of people who will take
part in the 2019 CPFFCL Survey.
Are there risks? There is no expected risk to participating in this study. Any information that is learned during
this discussion will not be shared with anyone outside the CPFFCL project staff.
Are there benefits? There are no expected direct benefits to you for participating in this study.
What will I get for participating? By participating you will make an important contribution to the understanding
of the nation’s forensic crime laboratory system.
Do I have to participate? Participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. You can stop the interview at any
time. You can also refuse to answer any question on any form.
Will this be kept private? Participants’ names and other identifying information will not be used in any report
or publication. Everything we learn will be kept private by BJS and RTI to the fullest extent of the law. Only
project team members from RTI and BJS will be allowed access to this information or observe any of the
interviews. You can choose not to be audio recorded or observed.
Whom do I call if I have questions? If you have any questions about the study, you can call the project director,
Jeri Ropero-Miller. Her number is 919-485-5685. If you have any questions about your rights in taking part in
this study, you can call RTI's Office of Research Protection at 1-866-214-2043 (this is a toll-free call).
By participating in this interview, you consent to BJS and RTI using your answers to inform the survey. You are
also acknowledging receipt of this consent form. If there is any part of this form that is not clear to you, be sure to
ask about it before you consent.

D-3

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Appendix D-2
CPFFCL Informed Consent form for Interviewers

D-4

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories
Cognitive Testing Informed Consent

What is the purpose of the interview? The interview is part of a research study that is being conducted by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The purpose of the interview is to receive feedback on the 2019 Census of
Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL).
What will happen during the testing? The interview will take approximately 120 minutes. You will be asked
to complete the CPFFCL. During the survey I will stop you and ask you some questions about the survey and
whether the questions make sense and are easy to answer. The interview will also involve audio recording your
comments for later analysis. The audio recording will only be heard by authorized project staff and your name
will never be used. You can choose not to be audio recorded.
Why was I chosen? You were chosen because you responded to a message from the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors message, your laboratory or laboratory system was eligible to participate in this effort, and
because you are a forensic crime laboratory stakeholder. Participants represent the types of people who will take
part in the 2019 CPFFCL Survey.
Are there risks? There is no expected risk to participating in this study. Any information that is learned during
this discussion will not be shared with anyone outside the CPFFCL project staff.
Are there benefits? There are no expected direct benefits to you for participating in this study.
What will I get for participating? By participating you will make an important contribution to the understanding
of the nation’s forensic crime laboratory system.
Do I have to participate? Participation in this interview is entirely voluntary. You can stop the interview at any
time. You can also refuse to answer any question on any form.
Will this be kept private? Participants’ names and other identifying information will not be used in any report
or publication. Everything we learn will be kept private by BJS and RTI to the fullest extent of the law. Only
project team members from RTI and BJS will be allowed access to this information or observe any of the
interviews. You can choose not to be audio recorded or observed.
Whom do I call if I have questions? If you have any questions about the study, you can call the project director,
Jeri Ropero-Miller. Her number is 919-485-5685. If you have any questions about your rights in taking part in
this study, you can call RTI's Office of Research Protection at 1-866-214-2043 (this is a toll-free call).
By participating in this interview, you consent to BJS and RTI using your answers to inform the survey. You are
also acknowledging receipt of this consent form. If there is any part of this form that is not clear to you, be sure to
ask about it before you consent.
Do you have any questions?
Do we have permission to continue with the interview?
 Yes
 No

D-5

CPFFCL Cognitive Testing Report

Do we have your permission to audio record this discussion?
 Yes
 No
IF OBSERVER: Do you agree to have an observer sit in on this interview?
 Yes
 No
I certify that the nature, purpose, and privacy policy associated with participating in this research have been
explained to the participant and the participant has given their consent to participate in this cognitive interview.
Decisions whether or not to record or allow observers were the decisions of the participant.
Signature of Interviewer

D-6

Date

</pre><Table class="table"><tr><Td>File Type</td><td>application/pdf</td></tr><tr><Td>Author</td><td>Smiley-McDonald, Hope</td></tr><tr><Td>File Modified</td><td>2021-03-23</td></tr><tr><Td>File Created</td><td>2021-02-05</td></tr></table></div></div></div><hr>
© 2024 OMB.report | <a href="/privacy_policy.php" rel="nofollow">Privacy Policy</a>