Carla Walker Act Authorizes $10M Annually for Advanced DNA Testing to Solve Cold Cases and Identify Remains

The new Carla Walker Act is setting up a dedicated federal funding stream to bring cutting-edge DNA technology into cold case investigations and efforts to identify human remains. Essentially, it authorizes $10 million every year from 2024 through 2028 for competitive grants aimed at helping state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies use advanced forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) techniques.

This isn't about funding standard DNA tests. This money is specifically for cases where the usual Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search came up empty, focusing on using whole genome sequencing—a super detailed DNA test—that is compatible with genealogy databases used by law enforcement. The goal is to generate new leads in tough criminal cases or finally put a name to unidentified victims, particularly those believed to be homicide victims.

The Forensic Tech Upgrade: Two Grants, One Goal

The Act establishes two distinct grant programs, both overseen by the Attorney General. The first grant stream, authorized at $5 million annually, is strictly for the cost of the advanced DNA analysis itself (Section 3062). If a law enforcement agency or prosecutor’s office gets this money, they must use it to pay for the actual forensic genetic genealogical analysis, either by doing it themselves or outsourcing it to an accredited public or private lab. Importantly, this money cannot be used for things like hiring staff, general training, or buying everyday equipment. It’s laser-focused on the testing.

The second grant stream, also authorized at $5 million annually, is for buying the specialized equipment (Section 3063). This is for publicly funded, accredited forensic labs, or medical examiner/coroner offices that want to bring this advanced testing capability in-house. They can use this money for purchasing the necessary high-tech gear, supplies, and chemicals, plus cover the costs of validating the new testing methods to ensure they hold up in court.

Accountability is Baked In

If you’re a taxpayer, the bill tries to make sure this $10 million a year is spent wisely. Any agency receiving these funds faces serious reporting requirements (Section 3065). They have to tell the Attorney General exactly how the money was spent, how many cases were tested using FGG, and, crucially, the results. Did the testing lead to identifying a victim or a perpetrator, or was it a dead end? They also have to track the turnaround time for the tests.

The Attorney General is required to audit these recipients, looking at their books and records to ensure compliance with the rules, especially regarding the control of sensitive DNA samples and data. If funds are misused, the Attorney General must follow standard federal procedures for suspending or banning the organization from future grants. This means the labs getting the funds have to treat this money and data with extreme care.

The Fine Print on Outsourcing and Standards

One detail worth noting is the rule for private labs that get contracts under this grant (Section 3062). If a government agency outsources the work to a private lab, that lab must legally promise to seek accreditation within two years of starting the work. While this pushes private labs toward higher standards, it does mean that potentially less-vetted labs could be handling sensitive forensic work for up to two years while they are seeking accreditation, rather than having it already.

Additionally, all work done under these grants must align with the Department of Justice’s policy on forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis. This is a critical provision that aims to standardize how this powerful, but sensitive, technology is used nationwide, ensuring that data privacy and ethical guidelines are followed, regardless of where the testing is done.

Finally, the Attorney General must report back to Congress within two years (SEC. 3). This report will detail how the new grant program is working and provide recommendations on how much more money will be needed in the future to fully implement this technology across public crime labs, along with any necessary regulations to govern its use.