The November 2017 release of the Council of Economic Advisers' White House report on the opioid crisis suggests that prior consideration of expenses severely underestimated the economic costs of the opioid crisis. When corrected for these losses, the annual cost from the opioid crisis leapt nearly 600%. The cost to the criminal justice system was estimated at $8 Billion of which $270 million is borne by crime laboratories. However, laboratory budgets have not grown at a rate capable of meeting this increased demand for forensic science services. The hidden costs of the opioid crisis borne by the forensic crime laboratories comes as funds are diverted in the laboratory to meet the increased demands for services in drug chemistry and toxicology. Dramatic increases in turnaround times across other areas of investigation continue to grow as the crisis accelerates.

Scientists should not play a role in investigations nor should investigators play a role in the scientific analyses. One way to bridge the relationship between the forensic scientist and the police investigator is through an Intelligence Analyst (IA) who is part of the forensic services operation. The IA offers the ability to walk between the role of scientist and law enforcement, receiving data after completion of scientific analyses and translating the information into actionable intelligence. The additional bridging and translating services represent a paradigm shift with increased emphasis on investigative contributions from forensic analysis. Forensic intelligence incorporates forensic data early in an investigation in a holistic case approach that incorporates possible datasets and information that could be relevant to the investigation. We present a brief review of the value added when an IA provides the bridge between the forensic laboratory and police investigators to enhance the use of forensic evidence.

The economic problem for the forensic laboratory is a problem faced in all arenas; limited resources are available to address seemingly unlimited desires. This is as true for entities in the public sector as it is for any private concern. To assist decision-makers in the allocation of those scarce resources, we synthesize existing research on the benefits of additions to the DNA Database and the potential benefits from diverting resources to analysis of the backlog of sexual assault kits. We offer some guidance for the optimum use of limited resources, through the measurement of the return on investment (ROI) at the jurisdictional level (i.e., that is, the net benefits to society relative to the investment itself). These net benefits include those to survivors from a resolution to their assaults, the benefits to others from the prevention of repeated assaults from serial rapists, and the prevention of societal costs external to those directly victimized. Those external costs extend from the effects on friends and family to expenses for preventive measures to anyone aware of sexual assaults. Such metrics surrounding ROI will assist the public sector in the optimal allocation of scarce resources to the justice system by providing a measures of the marginal social welfare improvement from alternative allocations of these scarce resources in light of objectives of public sector entities. The analysis demonstrates that the societal return on investment from the testing of all sexual assault kits ranges from 9,874% to 64,529%, depending on the volume of activity for the laboratory conducting the analysis. There are extreme economies of scale in effect that are suggestive of some policy alternatives.

Undertaking programs for process improvement, such as Lean Six Sigma, permit a laboratory to do more with their limited resources. The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) embraced a Lean Six Sigma change process that led to dramatic increases in capacity, while simultaneously reducing turnaround time (TAT) to a fraction of their historical experience. As other laboratories adopt similar process improvement programs, will those laboratories also experience similar results with higher productivity across the laboratory and reduced turnaround time in every area of scientific investigation? We demonstrate that similar success may be expected with a laboratory's current caseload, but the degree of improvement is related to the size of the political jurisdiction, crime rates, and the resulting caseload; and the degree of inefficiencies at the start of the process improvement program. An understanding of the economic forces at play enables laboratory management to better forecast outcomes and plan for the eventualities. Using data from Project FORESIGHT 2015–2016, tables are provided that permit laboratories to match their caseload within each area of investigation to the forensic laboratory standard for efficiency at that caseload.

There are a variety of models for the delivery of forensic science analysis in service to the justice system. In answer to the question as to whether there is a ‘best’ option for the delivery of forensic science services, New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) has been offered as a model which demonstrates a comparative advantage over the delivery of forensic services in more traditional models. The support for that assertion rests in the ability of the ESR to react at the speed of business and avoid bureaucratic drag found too often in the public sector. This efficiency argument addresses one dimension of the search for ‘best’ delivery. The second dimension involves the discovery of the optimal scale of operation to take efficiency and turn it into cost effectiveness.