Forensic Science Should Help Lead Investigations, Not Trail Them: The Case for Private Lab CODIS Upload Access
Written by Mike Cariola, President & CEO, Bode Technology, and Co-Founder of FCJA
The latest census on publicly funded labs shows almost 50% of labs utilize outsourcing, the majority of which is for DNA [1]. Data from Project Foresight shows that from 2017 to 2023, backlogs increased by 13% and turnaround times in DNA increased by 88% [2]. During this same time, private laboratories led the way in dramatically reducing backlogs of sexual assault cases around the country, including large efforts in North Carolina, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, San Diego and Utah. With over 20 years of data and hundreds of thousands of criminal cases worked, it is clear that outsourcing is an essential pillar of the forensic DNA network. Yet, despite our technological advancements, we are still operating under a regulatory model that creates avoidable bottlenecks, delays justice and leaves viable leads on the table.
A recently introduced bill in Congress aims to change this by granting qualified, accredited private labs the ability to upload DNA profiles directly to CODIS. As a member of the Forensic Criminal Justice Alliance (FCJA), I believe this critical modernization effort for our industry will reduce turnaround times, increase capacity and, ultimately, solve more cases.
This article demonstrates that the current model is broken and why private lab CODIS upload access is a critical need.
Technology Mirroring: A Barrier to Innovation and Efficiency
CODIS is an amazing tool, allowing NDIS-participating labs to speak a common language (STR core loci) and obtain investigative leads across jurisdictions. The NDIS Procedures manual very clearly lays out the ways NDIS participating labs can achieve CODIS-eligible profiles (i.e. approved STR kits, approved platforms, etc). Each NDIS participating lab is then free to choose how to achieve that end goal.
Conversely, the existing public lab oversight model for private labs requires that the private lab must mirror the procedures of the NDIS lab from where the case originates. The concept is fundamentally flawed, overly prescriptive, and limiting in the ability to apply the best technologies available for each case. To be more specific, if we receive four sexual assault cases from four different jurisdictions, we are often required to use four different STR kits to reach the exact same end result. This has profound negative operational impacts.
The Workflow Burden: To upgrade a piece of software (like STRmix) or change a thermalcycler model, a private lab will have to conduct 4x the validations to satisfy different jurisdictional requirements. This results in higher costs to the submitting agency and the federal government (if federally funded).
Potential Quality Concerns: When analysts are forced to toggle between sporadic, jurisdiction-specific workflows rather than mastering a consistent, optimized process, it increases the risk of errors. This is a concept that any process engineer would recognize as problematic.
With CODIS access, private labs would follow established NDIS Procedures, under agency contractual oversight, while maintaining the autonomy to use the most effective, validated path to a DNA profile.
Choosing the Best Technology for the Case
The current model often prevents private labs from using the best tools available for difficult evidence. Here are a few examples and the estimated number of cases affected by each:
Probabilistic Genotyping (PG): Recent data shows roughly 40% of the labs we work with do not allow the use of PG. This directly results in fewer CODIS-eligible profiles from complex mixtures. This affects thousands of cases annually.
Highly Degraded Samples: Technologies like Minifiler or PowerPlex 35GY and other upcoming 8-dye chemistries are far superior for compromised evidence, rootless hairs or degraded bone, yet they are rarely utilized due to the difficulty of public-lab validation and upload. This affects hundreds of cases annually.
Mitochondrial DNA & Missing Persons: With only a handful of public labs online for mtDNA (estimated at less than 10), the options for entering data into CODIS for missing persons cases are severely hampered. This affects thousands of cases annually.
How Outsourcing Impacts Public Lab Efficiency: 100% Technical Review
Oversight is vital, but 100% technical review of vendor data by public labs is a solution that has become its own problem. It creates a massive administrative burden on public lab directors and staff, and delays the entry of profiles, sometimes for over a year after the work is completed (publicly available examples can be provided upon request).
Private labs must already meet rigorous FBI Quality Assurance Standards and, if passed, the bill would require private labs to meet the FBI’s CODIS access requirements as well. This bill maintains those high standards while streamlining the data-sharing process.
Public laboratories that contract with private labs also enter into contractual agreements, allowing them to determine how to best utilize the capabilities of the private labs while also performing their contractual oversight responsibilities. True oversight can be achieved more effectively through blind QC, audits, and subset reviews, allowing investigative leads to be generated in days rather than months.
Why Now?
For me, the tipping point was when the Washington, D.C. laboratory unfortunately lost its accreditation in 2021. When a lab loses accreditation, it loses access to CODIS and the ability to perform casework. Nobody can fill the void this creates except private labs and from 2021-2023, private labs were utilized extensively to conduct DNA testing on criminal casework. However, private labs could not assist with vital CODIS uploads, resulting in CODIS entries dropping by 91% and CODIS hits falling by 61% while crime in the District was spiking. By 2023, over 1,200 cases had been processed but not entered into CODIS [3]. With private lab CODIS access, this situation could have been largely prevented.
We saw a similar situation recently in Colorado, where a backlog of 1,300 sexual assault kits quickly developed. The Common Sense Institute conducted an analysis on the cost of delayed DNA testing [4], stating that clearing a backlog of 1,300 kits could prevent over 1,000 future sexual assaults and save the economy hundreds of millions of dollars. Critically, they noted that the longer the authorities waited, the larger the costs and the smaller the savings. The state ultimately elected to utilize private labs to work through the backlog expeditiously. However, inevitably, this unexpected influx of cases requiring technical review by the already burdened public lab resulted in a reduction in their own casework capacity (thereby increasing their internal backlog).
The above examples are in no way criticisms of public labs. They are real life examples of the challenges faced by all forensic DNA labs and the added public safety consequences of private labs not having CODIS upload access.
The Bottom Line
There are risks to any major change. Increased competition, slippery slope concerns and the costs of CODIS compliance are real considerations. But the risk of maintaining the status quo is higher. We cannot continue to let administrative bottlenecks stand between a DNA profile and a break in a case.
Streamlining this process could help public labs maximize limited resources, reduce duplicative efforts, and direct more time and funding toward additional testing, case support, and investigative priorities. Most importantly, it would help prevent investigative delays and reduce opportunities for recidivism by violent offenders.
Forensic science has the potential to lead and expedite investigations. It’s time we have the legislative framework to match.
Articles cited:
[1] https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/publicly-funded-forensic-crime-laboratories-2020
[2] https://thecfso.org/presentations/2026/02/2026-aafs-presentation/
[3] D.C. Council. (2024, January 29). FY23 Oversight Pre-Hearing Questions – Department of Forensic Sciences. https://dccouncil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/DFS-FY23-Oversight-Pre-Hearing-Questions_1.29.24.pdf
This article was originally posted on LinkedIn on April 23, 2026.