The investigative accountability gap is the breakdown that occurs when crime lab scientists produce forensic evidence, such as a matching DNA "CODIS hit", but there is a failure of investigative action. It is not caused by the underlying science, but rather by a missing link between crime labs and the investigators responsible for acting on that evidence.
As of November 2025, CODIS has produced over 781,492 hits and assisted in more than 758,449 investigations nationwide since its inception in 1990[1]. Those are remarkable numbers, but they only tell part of the story. They don't count the hits that sat unacknowledged and thus unworked[2]. The notifications that went to the wrong person, or to no one. The cases that stalled not because the science failed, but because no one was aware of the new key evidence or who was responsible for moving forward with it.
A system built for discovery, not follow-through
The modern forensic workflow is extraordinary at producing results. Crime labs across the country analyze DNA, ballistics, toxicology, and digital evidence at volumes that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. As of January 2025, California is the largest contributing state of DNA profiles to CODIS, which nationally holds more than 18 million profiles[3].
But the system was not built with the same rigor for what happens after a result is ready for action. The FBI's own guidance acknowledges this directly: once a CODIS hit is provided to law enforcement, neither the FBI nor the local laboratory is typically notified as to the resolution of the investigation[2]. The notification goes out to the last known investigator, and what happens next is largely invisible to the lab. The lack of communication back to crime labs is where accountability breaks down.
The two sides of the gap
The investigative accountability gap manifests differently depending on which side of the lab door you're standing on.
For crime lab scientists and directors, the challenge is administrative overhead. Scientists spend significant time not on conducting analysis, but on administrative tasks: calling investigators to confirm receipt of results, manually tracking which cases have been assigned, and repeatedly requesting status updates so the lab can close its cases. These are tasks that add no scientific value, and in labs already operating under backlog pressure, they compound the problem. In Oregon, wait times for forensic results climbed to eight months as of early 2025, with the state police forensic division ultimately announcing a halt to DNA analysis for all property crime evidence until the backlog is cleared[4]. In Colorado, sexual assault survivors routinely wait 18 months for results[4]. When labs are that backlogged, every hour spent on manual status chasing is an hour not spent on scientific casework.
For investigators and law enforcement leadership, the challenge presents a different managerial problem. Detectives handling large caseloads depend on the lab to share actionable results. But when a notification arrives at an outdated email address, lands in a shared inbox no one actively monitors, or reaches a detective who has since transferred units or left the agency, it doesn't move the case forward. While no one designed this process to fail, there typically is simply no system in place to ensure it did not. The unintended and potentially tragic outcome is that viable cases left unsolved, victims fail to receive any sense of closure, and perpetrators may evade justice only to victimize others.
Why manual notification processes fall short
When the handoff between lab scientists and investigators depends primarily on individual emails and phone calls, the failure modes are predictable.
Staff turnover means that the person who receives a notification may no longer be on the case. A newly assigned detective may not even know the evidence exists, and there is no automatic mechanism to re-route it.
Caseload volume means that even well-intentioned investigators can lose track of incoming lab notifications among the daily volume of communications. Without prioritization tools, every message appears equally urgent.
No escalation means that when notifications go unacknowledged, nothing forces the issue. Lab personnel have no way of knowing the investigator did not see it, and law enforcement supervisors have no visibility into which cases are stalled.
No outcome tracking means the crime lab never learns what happened to their cases. A CODIS hit that was sent to an agency which leads to an arrest may appear identical in the lab's records to one that was never followed up on. There is no feedback loop and therefore no systematic way to improve case outcomes[2].
These are not failures unique to any one agency. They are structural gaps in a workflow designed for a simpler era, before evidence volumes scaled to what they are today and before we became so reliant on electronic communication.
The state picture
The scope of the problem varies by state, but no jurisdiction is immune.
California has invested more than any other state in forensic infrastructure. Its CHOP program (the CODIS Hit Outcome Project) was designed to track what happens to a DNA hit after it leaves the lab, creating accountability from evidence discovery all the way to case disposition[5]. Real world use is not consistent across participating agencies, especially relating to reporting of investigative and adjudicative outcomes[10]. The CHOP system is now dated technology that includes workflow and user constraints that make it challenging for end-users.
Texas has made significant commitments to sexual assault kit (SAK) testing and tracking, and its efforts to eliminate backlogs have produced real results[6]. But tracking kit location is not the same as tracking investigative response to results.
Florida operates its Track-Kit system through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, giving survivors visibility into their kit's testing status and disposition. This is meaningful progress, but survivor-facing tracking and investigator-facing accountability are not the same system, and the distinction matters[7].
Oregon's labs have publicly documented wait times that stretched to eight months, with the state police forensic division announcing in early 2025 that it had halted DNA analysis for all property crime evidence in response to the backlog of untested SAKs caused by staffing shortages and rising volumes[4]. When labs are that backlogged, the accountability gap doesn't just widen; it carries legal consequences as cases age toward statute of limitations thresholds.
Maine, like Texas and Florida, has taken the step of establishing a mandatory tracking framework for sexual assault kits that allows victims to view the location and status of their kit through analysis in a crime lab[8]. While certainly helpful for victims, this tracking methodology still does not address the issue of investigative accountability within labs as well as law enforcement agencies.
Pennsylvania enacted SAK tracking legislation in 2024[9]. Like many state frameworks, it focuses primarily on the kit's physical journey rather than on what happens once results are ready and, ideally, shared with law enforcement. Yet again, this is a meaningful but incomplete solution.
What investigative accountability actually looks like
The investigative accountability gap is not closed by tracking a kit's location. It is closed by ensuring that when forensic evidence is ready, the right investigator is made aware and there is a defined course of action, with timely escalation when the path forward stalls.
In practice, this means:
- Automated notification that identifies the current investigator at the time results are issued, not the one who initiated the request months or years ago
- Escalation protocols that trigger a supervisor's review when a notification goes unacknowledged within a defined timeframe
- Bidirectional communication, so investigators can update the lab on case status and lab personnel can close the loop on evidence outcomes
- Audit trails that give supervisors and administrators visibility into where cases stand and where they have stalled
This is not a hypothetical model. California began to close the gap with CHOP. The question for most of the country is when, not whether, to complete the job by building out a fully integrated evidence notification protocol.
The cost of the status quo
Every day the gap remains open, it produces measurable consequences. Cases that should be closed or solved remain open, consuming investigative resources indefinitely. Suspects who might be identified through DNA remain unaccounted for, and victims are left waiting for justice. Even worse, those perpetrators left free will victimize others by committing crimes that could have been prevented.
There are institutional costs too. Labs operating without the ability to quantify their case outcomes cannot demonstrate the investigative value of their work, which matters greatly for grant applications, budget cycles, and legislative policy. Police investigators handling cases without awareness of newly developed evidence work less efficiently. This is due to misguided investigative priorities developed without key information that is critical to successful case outcomes. Leadership and managers within law enforcement are not able to effectively allocate resources to what they cannot see.
The technology to close this gap exists today, and the workflow is not complicated. What it requires is a deliberate decision to build accountability into the transfer of key information between scientists and investigators, rather than leaving it to chance.
The investigative accountability gap is a solvable problem. It just has to be treated as one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the investigative accountability gap? The investigative accountability gap occurs between the time new forensic evidence, such as a CODIS DNA hit, is developed and when an investigator becomes aware of it and takes action. It is caused by inefficient, outdated manual notification processes, the absence of escalation protocols, and the lack of case outcome data sharing between law enforcement agencies and the crime labs which serve them.
Why do CODIS hits go unworked? CODIS hits can go unworked for several reasons: notification sent to an outdated contact, investigator turnover or reassignment, competing caseload priorities, no supervisor visibility into which results have been acknowledged, and no automatic escalation when a notification is not acted on. The FBI notes that once a hit is provided to law enforcement, neither the FBI nor the local crime lab is typically informed of how the investigation is resolved[2].
What is the CHOP model? Launched in 2009 as a pilot program by the California Department of Justice, the CODIS Hit Outcome Project seeks to track the investigation and outcome of cold case DNA hits[5]. However, CHOP operates without statutory mandate, as information is provided voluntarily by participating agencies which leads to incomplete and skewered data. CHOP also faces challenges due to its outdated interface, reliance on stale data, and redundant manual entry requirements. While flawed, CHOP deserves recognition for its attempt to solve the problem of dropped or incomplete investigations following cold case hits.
How does an evidence notification system close the accountability gap? An evidence notification system automates the communication between crime labs and law enforcement. When new evidence is available, the correct investigator is notified automatically. If the notification goes unacknowledged within a defined interval, the system escalates to a supervisor. Whether the case advances or stalls is tracked and visible to lab directors and agency leadership, closing the feedback loop that ad hoc processes leave open.
Does SAKI grant funding cover evidence notification technology? In many cases, yes. Evidence notification systems that support the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases can qualify under SAKI and related Coverdell grant programs. [Link to: How to Use SAKI and Coverdell Grant Funding for Evidence Notification Technology]
What states are most exposed to investigative accountability gaps? States without mandatory investigative outcome tracking, including those whose sexual assault kit-related legislation focuses on survivor-facing SAK tracking, rather than investigator accountability, carry the most risk. States currently selecting technology to comply with new mandates face a particularly consequential decision: the system they choose will determine whether the accountability gap is actually closed or simply given a different name.
Forensic Tracker is an Evidence Notification System that automates the connection between crime labs and law enforcement investigators. To learn how Forensic Tracker addresses the investigative accountability gap in your jurisdiction, schedule a consultation.
Sources
- [1] Federal Bureau of Investigation. "CODIS-NDIS Statistics." Updated November 2025. https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints/codis/codis-ndis-statistics ↩
- [2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. "CODIS and NDIS Fact Sheet." https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/dna-fingerprint-act-of-2005-expungement-policy/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet ↩
- [3] California Working Group on Support for Survivors of Sexual Assault. "Final Report." April 2025. https://victims.ca.gov/uploads/2025/04/WorkingGroup_2025Report.pdf ↩
- [4] Chas Sisk, "Colorado's crime lab has been in crisis. Here's how another state fixed theirs." CPR News / Colorado Capitol News Alliance. May 20, 2025. https://www.cpr.org/2025/05/20/colorado-connecticut-dna-evidence-backlog-turnaround/ See also: Colorado Newsline. "Forensic crime labs are buckling as new technology increases demand." July 22, 2025. https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/07/22/forensic-crime-labs-buckling/ ↩
- [5] National Institute of Justice. "Law Enforcement Response to Cold Case Hits." https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/forensic-dna-education-law-enforcement-decisionmakers/best-practices-handling-cold-hits/law-enforcement-response-cold-case-hits ↩
- [6] Texas Department of Public Safety. "Sexual Assault Evidence Tracking Program." https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/crime-laboratory/sexual-assault-evidence-tracking-program ↩
- [7] Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "Sexual Assault Kit Tracking." https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/forensics/sexual-assault-kit-project ↩
- [8] Maine State Legislature. "HP0100, LD 142, item 1, An Act to Establish a Statewide Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Kit Tracking System." https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/bills_128th/billtexts/HP010001.asp ↩
- [9] Pennsylvania Senate Republican Caucus. "Langerholc Bill Creating Rape Kit Tracking System Signed into Law." 2024. https://www.pasenategop.com/news/langerholc-bill-creating-rape-kit-tracking-system-signed-into-law/ ↩
- [10] California Legislator. "Follow up — Sexual Assault Kit Evidence Kits." 2018. https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2018-501/introduction.html ↩