When Brian Gestring took over oversight of New York State’s Accredited Forensic Labs, one of the first things he realized was how bad crime laboratory backlogs were across the state. In some cases, critical evidence like firearms remained untested for years.
After touring all the labs and seeing their operations firsthand, he understood that the problems were caused by many factors that were not always the same between the different labs. He also saw that even when one lab found a successful solution, it wasn’t shared and no one else benefited from it.
The Growing Forensic Backlog Problem in the U.S.
In a twist of irony, backlogs are a direct result of improvements to forensic methods. In the old days, forensic evidence was mainly used in court to associate suspects with crimes. Now increases in sensitivity and the use of databases have turned forensic evidence into a critical tool in identifying a suspect. As a result, law enforcement is submitting more evidence on big cases and expanding the type of cases they collect evidence on to include crimes like burglaries. While the volume of evidence is dramatically increasing, the capacity of the labs often remains unchanged.
Why Most Backlog Reduction Efforts Fail
Gestring cites several reasons that previous efforts to address crime lab backlogs have failed. First is the instinct to find a quick and easy fix. Money is often obtained to get overtime, and these surges can work in the short term, but since capacity isn’t increased, the burned-out staff either start making mistakes or start taking more time off. Either causes the backlog cycle to repeat itself.
Another reason that Gestring cites is the crime lab managers. Supervisors and managers are usually selected based on their previous work as good scientists, but good scientists don’t always make good managers and there is little continuing education for them to develop these critical skills.
Lastly, Gestring highlights how knowledge silos prevent forensic labs from learning what works and sharing those strategies with other labs.
Gestring’s Plan to Develop the First Statewide Backlog Reduction Program
Gestring addressed these problems head on. Within months, he assembled a panel of experts from around the country and brought them together to meet with the New York Lab Directors for two days, sharing their success stories and highlighting strategies that didn’t work, and explaining why.
For example, many lab delays are caused by poor communication with their customers. Gestring described how creating a customer working group was critical. Labs needed to identify points of contact with all the customers submitting evidence and work with them to prioritize what testing needs to be done to answer their questions. More often than you would imagine, law enforcement agencies request examinations that would not further their investigations. The labs don’t question the requests and waste time doing analysis that won’t help the investigation
In meeting with all the New York lab directors, Gestring also discovered that the data that the state had been collecting for years to assess backlog was worthless. Every lab was defining key terms differently so the data couldn’t be used to see if one lab’s strategy was better than another.
The meeting was only the first step. From that point forward, Gestring met with the group regularly discussing successful strategies and getting everyone on the same page for how to collect the data to evaluate success.
A Nationwide Model
What Gestring had done in New York had never been done before and people were paying attention. He presented a workshop on Strategies for Effective Backlog Reduction at the national meeting of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors and hosted a webinar series for lab directors across the country on backlogs. He personally gave presentations on Taking the First Steps Toward Backlog Reduction, The backlog paradox, Doing more with less, and Developing a Statewide Approach to Crime Laboratory Backlog Reduction over the 4 months of the webinar series. He also wrote an article for the crime laboratory director’s Executive Education Digest on Coordinating a Statewide Approach to Crime Laboratory Backlog Reduction.
Real-World Impact on Justice and Public Safety
Sustainable backlog reduction goes far beyond lab efficiency. Faster turnaround times mean investigators receive results while cases are still active. Prosecutors can move forward sooner. Defense attorneys gain earlier access to evidence that may support their clients.
Gestring has testified for both the prosecution and the defense, giving him a rare neutral perspective. Backlogs do not just delay convictions, they delay exonerations. When evidence is stuck in a queue, truth itself is delayed. National data highlights the seriousness of the issue. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that many public crime labs operate at or beyond capacity, with large backlogs affecting DNA and other forensic disciplines.
Gestring has described this as part of a broader “invisible crisis” in forensic services, a theme he explores through his research and public education work, including his educational videos featured in his portfolio.
What Other Agencies Can Learn from Gestring’s Approach
While no two forensic systems are identical, several core lessons from Gestring’s model apply broadly.
Communication is key. Labs must maintain regular communication with their customers to ensure that the testing they are doing is necessary and appropriately prioritized.
Breakdown the Information Silos. There needs to be better communication among forensic providers to share successful strategies and identify ones that lead to future problems. Labs work best when they share data, resources, and performance metrics instead of operating in silos.
Data-driven decision making. The only way to truly measure success is through reliable data. There needs to be consistent definitions and regular reporting of data.
Coordination over competition Without consistent benchmarks and transparent reporting, it is impossible to know whether backlog strategies are working.
Brian Gestring’s Broader Mission for Forensic Reform
Backlog reduction is only one part of Gestring’s larger reform agenda. Through his consulting work, he advises agencies on forensic operations, performs forensic casework, and works on initiatives to increase the quality and reliability of modern forensic testing.
He is also deeply involved in education. As a former professor and forensic program director, he focuses on closing the gap between academic training and real-world forensic practice. Through public speaking, training programs, and his Fixing Forensics educational series, Gestring works to make forensic science more accessible and transparent. His goal is not just faster labs, but a more trustworthy forensic system.
Conclusion: A Path Forward for Forensic Science
Forensic laboratory backlogs are a systemic problem with real consequences for justice and public safety. Short-term funding and temporary staffing may help, but they do not address the structural causes of delay.
Brian Gestring’s work shows that sustainable backlog reduction requires a continued focus and long-term system design. By treating backlog reduction as a continuous responsibility rather than a crisis response, agencies can build forensic systems that are both faster and more reliable.
For those who want to understand how forensic systems really work and how they can be improved, Gestring continues this work publicly through his Fixing Forensics educational platform and professional resources available on his website. His model offers a practical blueprint for how forensic science can move forward.
