The Carla Walker Act would add a new Part PP to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, creating a federal grant program focused on improving state and local forensic activities. It defines key terms such as “forensic analysis” and “forensic laboratory,” and authorizes competitive grants to eligible entities like States, tribal or local law enforcement agencies, prosecutor’s offices with forensic lab capability, medical examiners, and coroners.
The Act also directs the Attorney General to fund DNA analysis projects that use technology capable of analyzing at least 100,000 genetic markers and that can interface with multiple genealogical databases used by law enforcement.
The grants are risk-managed; funds may be used to analyze samples when traditional CODIS leads fail, outsource work to accredited facilities, and must comply with the Department of Justice’s interim policy on forensic genealogical DNA analysis. The legislation provides a $5 million annual appropriation for 2025–2029, imposes a 10 percent administrative-cost limit, and requires annual reporting on grant activity and outcomes.
It also creates separate grant programs to purchase equipment enabling forensic genetic genealogy analysis and to deploy related technologies, all subject to regulations and audits. The bill ends with a Congress-facing reporting requirement to assess how gene genealogical methods should be integrated into publicly funded laboratories and what regulatory steps are needed.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a grant program (Part PP) to fund state/local forensic activities, including DNA analysis using genome-wide sequencing and genealogical databases, with defined eligible recipients and allowable uses.
Who It Affects
States, tribal/local law enforcement, prosecutors with labs, medical examiners, coroners, and accredited forensic laboratories (public and NGO) that perform or outsource DNA analysis.
Why It Matters
Creates a dedicated funding stream for advanced forensic DNA capabilities and genealogical searching, signaling a shift toward investigator-assisted genealogical methods while embedding DOJ policy and oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Carla Walker Act proposes adding a dedicated grant program to boost forensic DNA work across state and local levels. It starts by defining what counts as forensic analysis and what qualifies as a forensic laboratory, so grants circulate only to eligible entities such as States, tribal or local law enforcement with labs, prosecutor’s offices that have forensic capabilities, medical examiners, and coroners.
The core grant program targets DNA analysis technology capable of handling at least 100,000 genetic markers and interoperability with multiple genealogical databases that agencies are allowed to use in investigations.
Recipients would be able to use grant funds to perform DNA analyses on samples where a CODIS-led investigation has stalled, or on unidentified human remains where investigators believe genealogical methods could help. They may outsource work to accredited publicly funded labs, accredited nongovernmental labs, or other nongovernmental labs that commit to pursuing accreditation within two years of a request for analysis.
The bill also requires that activities be consistent with the Department of Justice’s interim policy on forensic genealogical DNA analysis, including rules about communication between CODIS labs and vendor facilities.In addition to grants for DNA analysis, the bill authorizes separate funds to purchase equipment that enables forensic genetic genealogy. The overall authorization caps annual appropriations at $5 million per year from 2025 through 2029, with up to 10 percent retained for administrative costs.
Recipients must submit annual reports detailing funding amounts, testing activities, outsourcing arrangements, and identification outcomes. Finally, the Attorney General would report to Congress within two years on grant awards, best practices for implementing genealogical DNA technologies, and regulatory needs for public laboratories.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates Part PP—Grants to Improve Forensic Activities to fund DNA analysis and genealogical methods.
Eligible entities include States, tribal/local agencies, prosecutors’ offices with labs, medical examiners, and coroners.
Grants may support whole genome sequencing to analyze at least 100,000 genetic markers and integration with multiple genealogical databases.
There is a $5 million annual appropriation (2025–2029) with a 10% admin-cost limit and strict reporting requirements.
A separate 3063 grant funds equipment to deploy forensic genetic genealogy; 3064–3065 establish governance, audits, and annual reporting.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
Adds a definitions section clarifying what constitutes ‘forensic analysis’ (expert examinations or tests performed on physical evidence, including DNA, to connect evidence to a crime) and ‘forensic laboratory’ (an accredited or pursuing-accreditation facility that conducts forensic analysis and maintains proper chain of custody.
Grants—Eligibility and Scope
Authorizes competitive grants to eligible entities (States; tribal/local law enforcement; prosecutor offices with a forensic lab; medical examiner; coroner) to use technology used in a forensic laboratory to conduct whole genome sequencing and to analyze at least 100,000 genetic markers. Grants must support generating investigative leads by interfacing with multiple genealogical databases and may involve outsourcing to accredited labs or NGOs that commit to accreditation within two years.
Equipment Grants for Genealogical DNA
Authorizes grants to publicly funded and accredited labs, medical examiner, and coroner offices to purchase equipment enabling forensic genetic genealogy analyses aimed at generating investigative leads for criminal investigations or unidentified remains.
Administration and Accountability
Empowers the Attorney General to issue guidelines, supervise grant administration, require record-keeping for audits, allow access for audits, and ensure compliance with federal regulations (including misconduct and debarment rules). Up to 10 percent of funds may cover administrative costs; outside parties may be engaged under defined policies.
Reporting Requirements
Mandates annual reporting by grant recipients within one year of award, detailing funding, number and type of tests, outsourcing arrangements, and outcomes (including identifications and time-to-result). In addition, the Attorney General must provide a congressionally focused report within two years on awards, gene genealogy implementation, and regulatory needs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- States and local governments gain resources to upgrade DNA capabilities and expand investigative tools.
- Prosecutors’ offices with forensic laboratories expand capacity for DNA testing and case resolution.
- Medical examiners and coroners acquire tools to test remains and potentially identify victims.
- Accredited public and NGO forensic laboratories gain access to funded testing work and collaboration opportunities.
- Families of identified victims or unidentified remains benefit from faster leads and potential identifications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recipients must implement compliance and reporting obligations that require administrative and operational resources.
- Public and NGO labs may incur accreditation and equipment costs to meet grant conditions.
- Non-government labs that want to participate may face upfront costs to achieve accreditation within two years.
- Local jurisdictions may experience administrative overhead and governance requirements in grant management.
- Taxpayers bear the cost of the federal appropriation supporting the grants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Should federal funds be dedicated to accelerating forensic genetic genealogy capabilities, given legitimate privacy and civil liberties concerns, while ensuring strict oversight, accreditation, and transparency to prevent misuse or overreach?
The bill promises a significant upgrade to forensic DNA capabilities by tying funding to genealogical DNA technologies already in use in federal practice. The central tension is balancing rapid investigative capability with privacy, civil liberties, and governance concerns inherent in forensic genealogy, especially given outsourcing to non-government labs and the reliance on databases that may raise privacy questions.
The framework relies on a 2019 DOJ interim policy; if policy changes or gaps emerge as technology evolves, the grants could become misaligned with best practices or privacy safeguards. The administrative and reporting requirements are robust, but implementation will hinge on the adequacy of accreditation processes and the ability of laboratories to comply without diverting funds from traditional forensic work.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.