OLA#: 033-02

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

Motion (sponsored by Supervisor Daly) requesting the Office of the Legislative Analyst to assess funding for crime labs and DNA testing in comparable cities, identify the current backlog at the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab, and provide recommendations on how to increase capacity and efficiency at the crime lab.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Forensic Biology Section of the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab offers services that routinely implicate guilty individuals and/or exonerate innocent parties from suspicion. Criminalistic case requests, such as DNA typing, for the City and County of San Francisco have increased in recent years. Forensic biology is very labor-intensive and very expensive. Due to a severe staffing shortage, the Forensic Biology Section of the San Francisco Lab is unable to provide an adequate level of service. Specifically, the Lab's criminalists struggle to meet demands of homicide and sexual assault investigations and routinely are unable to investigate cases. Many comparable city crime labs report similar case backlogs and staffing deficiencies, while others, namely San Diego, have managed to eliminate their case backlog entirely.

The Board of Supervisors should consider a variety of options in order to increase staffing for the crime lab. Successful operation of the Forensic Biology Section at full capacity lies squarely in the retention and expansion of the number of highly trained and dedicated permanent DNA Criminalists, according to Martha Blake, Crime Lab Manager, and Cydne Holt, Forensic Biology Section Supervisor. Possibilities for improvement include:

· Employee retention

· SFPD employee reallocation to Forensic Biology Unit

· General laboratory upgrades

· Adoption of "best practices" utilized successfully in the San Diego Crime Lab

BACKGROUND

Overview of San Francisco Crime Lab

The San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab functions to provide evidence testing services for the Police Department and other City and County agencies and departments. The crime lab is divided into three units, including:

· DNA Testing (Biological)

· General Criminalistics (Firearms, Trace Evidence, Questioned Documents)

· Narcotics/Chemical Testing

The types of evidence and materials analyzed include blood and other bodily fluids, firearms, narcotics and other controlled substances, trace evidence collected from crime scenes, and breath alcohol results. Samples stored in the DNA databank include two separate catalogues: one of crime-scene evidence, the other of samples from convicted offenders.

Requests posed to the lab can be simple, such as "Did x bullet come from y gun?" They can also be complex, such as a case in which field evidence technicians extract 65 different samples of blood spattered on a wall. Samples of that complexity take longer to screen.

Investigation of DNA evidence falls into two primary categories: homicide and sexual assault cases where a suspect(s) is named, and homicide and sexual assault cases where a suspect(s) is not named. Advances in technology for DNA typing in recent years have encouraged the investigation of "old" homicide and sexual assault cases. The purpose for reopening investigations is either to exonerate a convicted suspect (often in prison) or to implicate a suspect by matching a DNA "forensic unknown" in a database with a convicted felon. Crime-solving by the latter method is referred to as a Cold Hit.

According to San Francisco Crime Lab sources, the lab receives almost 14,000 new case requests annually, of which in FY 01-02, approximately 200 cases (in addition to 535 cases from accumulated backlog) were for DNA typing. (See Crime Lab backlog section of this report for further details).

Staffing

Crime Lab staffing for 2002 included 18 full-time employees. Among these were one crime lab manager, three senior criminalists, eight criminalists, one forensic document examiner, one senior clerk typist, and four light duty officers. In addition to this staff, there are four criminalists funded by the Cold Hit grant through the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP), a statewide initiative to facilitate examination of cases with no suspect and a sexual component (e.g. samples of semen or blood). The group systematically analyzes only old evidence for "cold hits." As a result, these four professionals will not be salaried when the grant expires in September of 2003.

Currently, the Forensic Biology Section has two permanent DNA Criminalists and one detailed SFPD Inspector/Scientist. This staffing level is severely limited in comparison with other state labs. Furthermore, during the past 10 months, one of the two scientists was on maternity leave and the detailed Inspector/Scientist was temporarily reassigned within SFPD. Therefore, during this period, one scientist provided all of the Forensic Biology and DNA typing services for the City and County of San Francisco. This type of situation could be avoided most simply with an increase in permanent DNA Criminalists.

Timing of Cases

According to Jim Norris, Forensic Services Division Director at the San Francisco Police Department, a typical case takes about six months to be screened, analyzed, recorded and reported. Though it only takes three to four weeks to perform a test on a sample found at a crime scene, the lab is unable to do the work within this time frame, due to the backlog and staffing deficiency.

Table I. Typical Time to Completion of DNA Typing
With and Without a Case Backlog¹

Theoretically, DNA evidence can be recovered from properly stored items over long periods of time. DNA evidence becomes less valuable over time because the ability to effectively investigate and litigate a case becomes more and more difficult as time passes. Case processing time is also affected by the statute of limitations, ability to locate witnesses and other key pieces of information, the ability of a witness to recall information or locate important materials, etc. Additionally, delays in processing DNA evidence may lead to further crimes by the perpetrator who remains at large or to undue detainment of those who would be cleared using DNA typing.

Crime Lab Funding

The SFPD Crime Lab budget for FY 2001-2002 was comprised of two primary sources: the city's General Fund, and grants. The General Fund budget totaled approximately $1.8 million, and grants totaled approximately $1.3 million (see Table V in the Appendix for more detail of budget breakout).

Due to significant increases in examination requests for DNA casework (including Cold Hit) and narcotics and firearms submissions, the lab has requested an additional $100K for materials and supplies in their 2003-2004 budget request.

The two grants included in the Criminalistics Laboratory budget are detailed below. The Cold Hit grant pays for salaries of four criminalists who are assigned exclusively to analysis of old evidence sexual assault cases. The expiration of this grant in September of 2003 will incur substantial loss of resources to the Lab. The LFLIP grant was a one-time funding allocation to support facility improvements and ensure better evidence security. Modifications, such as an HVAC upgrade, were designed to ready the Lab to apply for accreditation.

Crime Lab Backlog

Definition/Overview of Backlog

Case backlog is defined as requests for service that are not yet assigned to an analyst. According to the US Department of Justice, cases are designated as backlogged based on their classification and waiting period before analysis. More specifically, there is a different standard for sets of unidentified samples versus convicted offender samples. Complete sets of unknown samples are considered backlogged if they are ready for analysis in the laboratory for more than 15 days, and convicted offender samples are considered backlogged if samples are in the lab for more than 10 days.

The primary sources for the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab's backlog are twofold. The Crime Lab struggles with severe and well-documented understaffing compared to other laboratories serving similar population sizes and numbers of case requests. In addition, a shortage of equipment causes delays in case flow since the Lab staff is expected to enter results of forensic analyses into local and national databases with an insufficient number of terminals, according to Crime Lab manager Martha Blake. For example, tracking evidence and performing the required database entry of narcotics and firearms cases with only one computer terminal causes delays when there are six individuals capable of inputting this data.

Cases Received and Current Backlog

TABLE III⁵
Approximate Number of Case Requests Received Annually -
SFPD Criminalistics Laboratory

Sources of Backlog

Intensity of Demands

The San Francisco Crime Lab struggles to meet the ever-increasing demands for forensic analysis, especially since DNA analysis is now considered the new gold standard for criminal investigation. A similar revolution took place with the introduction of AFIS, the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, over two decades ago. As juries, District Attorneys, and the general public become aware of the technological possibilities involved with DNA testing, expectations and demands for analysis of such evidence continue to increase exponentially. Importantly, the Cold Hit program has in two years already identified 14 suspects in San Francisco in cases that were presumed closed. This demonstrated success exacerbates demand, according to crime lab staff.

There is no backlog in controlled substances or controlled documents, primarily because of the simplicity of analysis in comparison with DNA typing. Narcotics and document samples require one simple test, instead of a series of complicated tests required by DNA samples. Also, the District Attorney often demands immediate results from narcotics analysis in order to meet timelines for release and rebooking of prisoners. The DA's office requires this rapid turnaround of evidence analysis.

The Lab has difficulty meeting demands of homicide and sexual assault cases where a suspect is named (first priority), and is routinely unable to investigate homicide and sexual assault cases where a suspect is not named. Furthermore, the Lab is often unable to investigate "old" homicide and sexual assault cases, with a named suspect, that are solvable using DNA typing, and is routinely unable to investigate cases other than homicides and sexual assaults (e.g. felon in possession of a firearm, assault, attempted homicide, robbery, and burglary).

The demands upon the Lab are increasing, as it strives to meet discovery requests of the local defense bar, the Public Defender's Office and the District Attorney's Office. For example, the Public Defender's Innocence Project allows for post-conviction DNA typing to exonerate the falsely incarcerated. Time constraints and expectations of the judicial system (e.g. potential release of "no time waiver" defendants due to evidence delays) add more pressure to an accredited lab that tests evidence as part of an investigation for police, and testifies about its results for the DA and court. According to Assistant District Attorney Elliot Beckelman, the trial process is very lab-dependent. "The current backlog has an immediate effect on public safety in San Francisco," Mr. Beckelman said. "It is stunning in terms of public safety, especially given the recidivism of sex crimes. If we can't do an analysis of a sample, we can't issue an arrest warrant on a rapist or child molester, in plain terms. I would say the DNA crime lab is more responsible for making the streets safe than are fifty cops, in terms of identifying people who commit these types of crimes." Mr. Beckelman commended the San Francisco Crime Lab on the quality of its work, adding that it would improve the trial process and conviction rates tremendously if given additional funding.

Finally, without additional staffing, the Lab will lose its entire ability to investigate Cold Hit sexual assault cases when the Cold Hit grant expires in September 2003. The requisite background and skill-set for a trained DNA technician is particular and extensive. Technicians must have completed prior coursework in molecular biology and genetics, and be equipped to deal with the substantial rigor of DNA analysis, which requires far more careful labwork than does traditional serology. The Lab has attempted in the past to cross-train employees to perform DNA analysis, but results were unsuccessful. Criminalists who work in narcotics are most often chemists who lack the necessary biology background to perform DNA analysis. Other criminalists have varying and disparate backgrounds - one document examiner, as an example, holds a degree in botany.⁷

Crime Lab Facility

A building at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard (Building 606) houses the Criminalistics Laboratory and other SFPD operations, such as Special Operations and Security Division. The Lab moved to this location from the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant Street in October of 1999. The facility currently faces several challenges to daily operations, including: basic utilities, phone system, Internet connectivity, information management, and physical space. The following descriptions of infrastructure limitations were provided by San Francisco Crime Lab Manager Martha Blake.

Basic Utilities: The physical location of the building on an abandoned naval shipyard severely hampers the ability of the employees to work effectively. Interruptions in power and water service are frequent. Interruption in power (supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric) disrupts work for obvious reasons and also puts evidence integrity at risk due to unstable freezer temperatures. Power outages occur approximately twice per month. Without a backup generation system (which would run the Lab approximately $100,000), the Lab faces grave consequences in terms of evidence storage, especially with certain evidence stored at low temperatures in freezers. Interruption in water flow causes work to cease due to the nature of scientific analysis with hazardous materials.

Phone System: The phone systems within the building are at maximum usage, with lines already being split for multiple employees. Network connections and other communications systems routinely experience problems.

Internet Connectivity: Category 5 cable for network connections was installed throughout the downstairs floor of building 606 when the laboratory moved in. However, the number and location of the network plugs are not (and never have been) sufficient to handle the current needs of the laboratory. The absence of network connections prevents information exchange and limits the ability of the scientists to efficiently analyze data and report findings. The location of the building also does not allow the building access to Internet connectivity. The laboratory is currently dependent on dialup connections at rates of speed that were modern in the mid-1980s. The current slow connection does not allow for easy information exchange into or out of the building.

LIMS: The SFPD Laboratory does not currently use a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), a system employed by modern laboratories to record data, exchange information and report findings. The SFPD thus must rely on traditional, slow methods of generating data and reports.

Physical Space: Inadequate dedicated office space has forced the Laboratory to erect temporary cubicles within laboratory space and other unconventional and inconvenient "band-aids." Building 606 consists of two floors, with the entire Laboratory (office space and Lab facilities) on the first floor and other operations on the top floor. The DNA portion of the lab occupies 3,500 square feet of the Lab's total 13,000 square feet. As there is no designated administrative or office space, desks and computer terminals share space with laboratory equipment. According to Forensic Biology Section Supervisor Cydne Holt, reorganizing the Lab to accommodate dedicated office space, with perhaps a 25 percent space increase, would create a safer and more efficient environment. Furthermore, better utilization of "dead space" at Building 606 would better serve SFPD, according to Crime Lab Director Martha Blake.

Backlogs are a National Problem

Crime lab backlogs and budget crunches are pervasive throughout the U.S. Across the nation, frustrated forensic scientists are grappling with swelling backlogs of genetic evidence because they lack the money to buy needed equipment or hire and train new staff members. The National Institute of Justice now estimates that there are more than 350,000 DNA samples nationwide from rape and homicide cases pending analysis. The FBI alone has a backlog of about 1,000 cases. In response, the Bush administration recently announced (March 2003) a proposal to eliminate crime lab backlogs by asking Congress for $1 billion over the next five years to expand DNA testing and improve the technology. The money would also be used to expand the number of convicted criminals whose DNA could become part of a national FBI database. As yet, this proposed budget has not been approved by Congress, and it is unclear how it will be allocated, or whether California crime labs would receive additional grants.

Comparable Cities

The exercise of drawing comparisons between San Francisco and other city crime labs is not straightforward. While attempts have been made by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) to maintain some degree of uniformity or standardization of counting practices at crime labs, the efforts were ultimately abandoned. As such, laboratories have vastly different methods for recording and counting case requests and work completed. This fact must be taken into account when comparing San Francisco's Lab with that of other cities. In a 2001 survey of DNA crime laboratories published by the Department of Justice, US laboratories reported a mean forensic lab budget of $3,091,000 for FY 2000-01. The maximum reported was $13 million. Of 110 laboratories surveyed, full-time staffs ranged from one employee to 60 employees for FY 2000-01.

The Oakland Police Department Crime Lab sustains a backlog in latent print, firearms, and Forensic Biology (DNA analysis). There is no backlog in drug cases.

In 2002, the lab received 5,792 drug cases, of which 3,247 required analysis. The lab only analyzes cases that are going to be charged, or those cases that support a charge. This differs from San Francisco's practice of testing all cases. Turnaround for drugs is reportedly 24 hours, according to crime lab director Mary Gibbons.

The lab received 1,390 latent print samples in 2002 across three categories. Of these 1,390 samples, a total of 660 cases were backlogged by the end of 2002 as follows:

· Named comparison sustained a backlog of 35 requests by the end of 2002

· Computer entry sustained a backlog of 300 cases by the end of 2002

· Latent print processing (chemical/dusting methods) sustained a backlog of 325 cases by the end of 2002.

The backlog in major criminalistics by the end of 2002 was 545 cases (running backlog). Out of 232 requests received during the year, 144 requests were analyzed and reported.

The cumulative backlog for traditional DNA cases by the end of 2002 was 183 cases. Of 52 traditional case requests in 2002, the lab completed 40 cases. Oakland's Crime Lab reports traditional DNA cases and Cold Hit cases separately. The Lab has received a total of 443 Cold Hit requests since 2000, with sustained backlog by the end of 2002 totaling 193 Cold Hit cases. These numbers were reported by Oakland crime lab director Mary Gibbons.

Oakland's crime lab director attributes the current backlog to staffing and funding deficiencies. The lab employs 20 technical staff (including the crime lab director) and one non-technical office clerk. Five employees (two latent print examiners, one DNA analyst, and two DNA technicians) are funded exclusively by grant money. Full-time positions in the Biology Program (DNA testing and screening of bodily fluids) total eight, although one position is currently vacant and one individual is currently in training. Recently, the department asked for additional funds from Oakland's General Fund. Their budget runs in two-year cycles. The director asked that the lab's general budget allocation be increased from approximately $1.6 million to between $2.2 and $2.4 million. This allocation would offset reductions in other grant money. According to the crime lab director, the budget increase would accommodate permanent funding for at least two of the three professionals currently employed under the Cold Hit grant.

The Los Angeles Criminalistics Laboratory is one of two divisions under the LAPD's Scientific Investigation Division (the other is the Technical Laboratory). While many crime labs group these two divisions together, Los Angeles separates the handling and analysis of latent prints, photography, polygraphs, documents, and electronics into a separate unit, under the Technical Laboratory.

The LAPD Crime Lab outsources casework frequently, on an as-needed basis. At present, the Lab outsources approximately 80 percent of their DNA profiling, according to assistant laboratory director Greg Matheson. Currently, the Lab does not have the resources to do DNA profiling on all of their cases. Their Criminalists screen cases for biological evidence, and subsequently send the samples to a private lab for analysis. According to Mr. Matheson, the cost of DNA profiling has been determined to be between $700 and $800 per sample.

The LAPD Crime Lab does not maintain statistics of annual case backlog, but does keep track of case requests on a weekly basis. According to Mr. Matheson, backlog for DNA analysis cases at the end of 2002 was 726. This number can be added to a total DNA analysis request tally of 1,223 cases for DNA evaluation in FY 2002, bringing the total number of requests to 1,949. Crime Lab sources attribute the source of backlog to insufficient staff to meet the ongoing need.

The LAPD Crime Lab reports a staff that is continually "in flux," but numbers to date indicate a DNA unit of 24 individuals. This number includes: one supervising criminalist, eighteen criminalists (three are funded by the State's Cold Hit grant), four laboratory technicians, and one student professional worker. All criminalists in this division are trained as field evidence technicians as well as DNA analysts. Mr. Matheson noted that the three criminalists funded by the Cold Hit grant will continue to work as full-time employees after the grant expires. In the city of Los Angeles, once a grant is approved, the city takes responsibility to fund the full-time positions made available by the grant when the grant expires. For this reason, grant proposals are scrutinized and require long periods of deliberation before approval.

Almost all funding for the LAPD Crime Lab is through the Police Department's budget, which totaled $1.3 billion in 2002. LAPD sources estimate that funding for the two Scientific Investigation divisions (Technical Lab and Criminalistics Lab) is approximately $12 million, with approximately $6 million of that amount allocated to the Criminalistics Laboratory. Sources reported that a detailed crime lab budget is "next to impossible" to quantify, as funding for various divisions of LAPD is not clearly delineated in the Department's budget. In addition, the department has a small account called the Narcotics Analysis Trust Fund, which is used for training and limited equipment acquisition.

The San Diego Crime Lab is a benchmark of success. The lab has sustained no backlog for one year. The lab's staff of 13 professionals serves a population of about 1.3 million, offering the community a one-to-one hundred thousand ratio that few other labs are able to boast.

Crime Lab supervisor Patrick O'Donnell attributes the lab's success to an effective method of managing cases. The first tactic for success involves a system of constant communication aided by the proximity in location of the crime laboratory and the investigative units they serve, such as sex crimes and homicide. This allows the DNA Laboratory supervisor Mr. O'Donnell to constantly negotiate the number and extent of the cases worked on. Another successful tactic has been development of a more automated "batched" process of case work. Analysts handle about five cases at a time, and are more specialized in their expertise. The traditional method of analysts working cases start to finish is difficult to make efficient when laboratories are faced with large numbers of cases needing analysis. As such, specialization with an assembly-line-like method is more efficient. Cases take approximately six to eight weeks to complete the DNA analysis of the probative samples, issue a written report, and make an entry into the CODIS database.

Funding is primarily provided by the city budget of $6.47 million (FY 01-02), though two criminalists are salaried through a "suspect-less" (Cold Hit) grant of $985,000. As this grant will expire in January of 2005, the department is trying to urge the city to provide funding to make these criminalists permanent employees. The crime lab also receives an LFLIP grant of $2.985 million (FY 01-02).

TABLE IV
Comparative Personnel Numbers and Budget in California DNA Laboratories,
Relative to Caseload

CURRENT LAW and/or PRACTICE

Convicted Offender Databases

The use of DNA has become pivotal in the U.S. justice system. It has freed 10 wrongly convicted murderers from death row, exonerated 100 other convicts of lesser crimes and helped prosecutors clear thousands of cases that might have gone unsolved. The FBI computer system that compares DNA from unsolved state and federal crimes with samples drawn from convicts has identified nearly 5,500 matches in the 10 years it has operated, according to the National Institute of Justice.

DNA samples are collected and stored in two major catalogues: one of crime-scene evidence, the other of samples from convicted offenders. Crime scene evidence for which there is no suspect can be entered into a database as a "forensic unknown." Advances in DNA typing techniques now offer the possibility of matching these "unknowns" with previously convicted offenders in local, state-wide, and national databases.

CODIS, LDIS, SDIS, and NDIS

Convicted offender databases were designed to fight crime based on the recidivistic nature of many crimes. Historical evidence repeatedly demonstrates the fact that convicted individuals are likely to have committed similar crimes in the past. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) was created to take advantage of this finding, by connecting forensic DNA labs at local, state, and national levels through a computer network with the ability to share data. Databases at the local (Local DNA Index System), state (State DNA Index System), and national (National DNA Index System) levels are collaborating with this method of fighting crime.

Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Based on successes with nationwide Cold Hit programs, many states have enacted legislation to require DNA testing of convicted felons and entry into the CODIS data bank. Currently, 23 states require that all convicted felons provide a DNA sample upon conviction. These states, such as Virginia, have much higher "hit rates" (i.e. matches of DNA evidence to profiles of convicted offenders in DNA databases) than those states that require more limited categories of offenders to provide samples, according to the Department of Justice (2003). For example, Virginia has a convicted offender database that now contains over 189,000 DNA profiles, and the state averaged 37 hits per month in 2002. Though California law does not require samples for all convicted offenders, many forensic sources predict that the state will move in that direction in the next three years. In 2002, Governor Davis approved additions to the list of offenses for which DNA samples are taken for inclusion in the Department of Justice data bank to include burglary, robbery, arson and carjacking.

Legislators have shown some hesitancy in escalating legislation for minor offenses. However, some states are considering performing DNA testing for arrestees and also for common misdemeanors, such as sex-related crimes (e.g. solicitation of prostitution), violence-related crimes, such as 4^th degree assault (second lowest level of assault), stalking, harassment, destruction of property.

Fourth Amendment Issues

DNA testing of convicted felons and possible other categories of criminals raises concerns in light of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. Arguably, required collection and storage of a DNA sample falls under the auspices of Fourth Amendment security. Civil libertarians and other groups are opposed to forced DNA collection for this reason. Legislators and criminologists refer to the proven track record of CODIS with Cold Hits. In addition, criminology sources report that if a suspect is exonerated based on DNA or other evidence, the individual's DNA sample will be removed from the data bank.

CONCLUSION

The San Francisco Criminalistics Laboratory is nearing the end of its Cold Hit grant agreement with the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP). Since October 2000, this grant funded four positions to work exclusively on cases with no suspect. These positions are set to expire on September 30, 2003.

The city trained highly qualified individuals on the temporary grant under the state's budget. Loss of work force at the crime lab would be disastrous, according to San Francisco crime lab director Martha Blake. The Board of Supervisors may want to consider making provisions for six DNA Criminalists, in part by conversion of the four OCJP employees from grant-funded to permanent class 8260 positions. This would give the Lab a total staff of nine criminalists. Please refer to the Appendix for projected budgeting detail (according to Crime Lab sources).

The Legislative Analyst believes that retention of the OCJP-funded DNA Criminalists will produce an immediate increase in solving new and backlogged cases. This capability is critical as DNA typing actually solves cases that are not approachable using traditional investigative measures and also provides post-conviction relief. Thus, improvements in staffing will positively influence resolution of violent crime and will contribute to maintenance of a well-balanced criminal justice system in San Francisco.

An additional consideration would be the reallocation of other SFPD employees to work as Laboratory Technicians in the Forensic Biology unit. Currently, criminalists spend about one quarter of their time performing tasks that could be performed by a "non-technical" person with minimal training. Employing a light-duty or retired officer in this capacity should be considered.

The Legislative Analyst believes that the Board of Supervisors should not consider outsourcing backlogged cases to private labs. While this practice has been useful in Los Angeles for the phase of analysis after samples for suspect-less cases have been discovered and screened, the prospect is not reasonable for the San Francisco Lab, according to Forensic Biology Section Supervisor Cydne Holt. Discovery and screening are the most time-intensive and demanding processes of DNA analysis, and must be performed in-house. Furthermore, each case requiring DNA typing contains an average of 20 samples, and as many as 100 samples for a homicide case. This would create an enormous expense to outsource. The practice of outsourcing samples to private labs exists to serve rural counties that analyze less than 100 samples per year and possess no expertise for DNA analysis. This practice is not designed to serve accredited city and county labs with DNA expertise, such as San Francisco. Private labs would not prioritize San Francisco, and would create a number of redundancies for the San Francisco Lab staff, including the review of data, verification of the use of certain criteria, etc. Private labs charge for travel time, testimony, and consulting fees, incurring greater expense than for performing analysis in-house. According to Assistant District Attorney Elliot Beckelman, private labs incur excessive costs to the city, and do not often perform up to the standard of high quality set by the San Francisco Crime Lab.

The Legislative Analyst further believes that the San Francisco crime lab could benefit from considering practices that have been successful at the San Diego crime lab. Such practices include close communication between the district attorney, SFPD detectives, and the crime lab. San Diego has achieved effective communication through physical proximity of these departments. Further, San Diego has demonstrated success through their "batched" method of assigning, screening and analyzing cases, giving analysts five cases to work on simultaneously. The Legislative Analyst, in agreement with San Diego's crime lab director (who has previously evaluated the SF crime lab), believes that the San Francisco crime lab could achieve this objective after an increase in staff.

Improvements in the laboratory facility such as basic utilities, phone system, internet connectivity, and an installation of a Laboratory Information Management System, would also greatly increase the laboratory's ability to contribute to the successful resolution of investigations, and would also increase the workflow of the laboratory. An upgrade of Internet connectivity, in conjunction with an information management system, would greatly increase the laboratory's ability to communicate with the department on a more efficient basis, and would greatly increase the laboratory's ability to contribute to the successful resolution of investigations. The Board of Supervisors may want to consider upgrading the facilities infrastructure to better accommodate the growing demands for forensic science in San Francisco.

The solution that will expand San Francisco's DNA typing capacity is 1) to retain the highly trained and dedicated DNA Criminalists already in the facility, 2) to hire additional Criminalists, 3) consider adopting some of the best practices exhibited by the San Diego crime lab, and 4) consider facility upgrades.

OPTIONS

· Hire additional permanent 8260 Criminalists

· Consider infrastructure upgrades to enhance Crime Lab working environment

· Consider creating personnel support positions (i.e. Quality Assurance Manager, Network Administrator)

RECOMMENDATIONS

· Make provisions to convert the four OCJP employees from grant-funded to permanent positions

· Consider reallocation of SFPD human resources from other units to Forensic Biology unit for tasks such as data entry

· Consider physical space upgrade, better utilization of "dead space"

APPENDIX

TABLE V. San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab Budget for FY 2001-2002¹⁵

PERSONNEL: (approximate amounts; assumes full staffing levels)

LABORATORY SUPPLIES:

MAINTENANCE BUDGET:

Service contracts, cleaning and servicing all $ 174,000

equipment (electronic balances, DNA equipment,

GC/MS, UV, FTIR, SEM/EDX, microscopes, etc.)

CONTRACTUAL: $ 53,000

(Hazardous waste disposal, narcotics destruction,

Gunshot residue testing, DNA testing, labcoats, etc.)

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

$ 23,500

Sub-Total: General Fund $1,800,900

GRANTS:

1 Includes analysis time from request date through issuance of Report of Laboratory Examination to requesting agency (Source: Martha Blake, Crime Lab Manager, Cydne Holt, Forensic Biology Section Supervisor)

2 Ibid

3 Local Forensic Laboratory Improvement Program, California Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning; includes facility improvements, training and equipment as required to further qualify the Laboratory for accreditation by ASCLD-LAB (American Society of Crime Lab Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board).

4 California Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning; includes equipment, operating expenses and four DNA Criminalists to examine suspectless sexual assault and homicide case evidence and enter DNA data into the National and State DNA database (CODIS)

5 Martha Blake, Crime Lab Manager; Cydne Holt, Forensic Biology Section Supervisor

6 Numbers of "Requests Received" represent submitted Requests for Laboratory Examination (SFPD form 64) and do not represent the number of actual exhibits examined. Please see the examples below:

· Example 1: A typical Controlled Substances case involves approximately three exhibits. Therefore, the actual number of items tested for 13,000 annual requests is approximately 40,000.

· Example 2: A typical Questioned Documents case involves numerous exhibits, often fifty or more. Therefore, the actual number of items tested for 85 annual requests is approximately 4,300.

· Example 3: A typical Forensic Biology case involves several evidence specimens, often twenty or more. Therefore, the actual number of items tested for 200 annual requests is approximately 4,000.

· Example 4: A typical firearms case involves examination of approximately four firearms and numerous cartridge casings and/or bullets. Therefore, the actual number of items tested for 500 annual requests is more than 5,000.

7 This section was subsequently revised on May 2, 2003

8 Case requests per year includes accumulated backlog and cold hit cases; Number of personnel includes professionals working in DNA analysis

9 Two permanent Criminalists and one temporarily-assigned SFPD Inspector; does not include the four COLD HIT grant-funded positions that expire September 2003

10 Includes 183 cumulative traditional backlogged cases by end of 2002, 193 cumulative Cold Hit backlogged cases by end of 2002, and 40 completed cases by end of 2002

11 Does not include Cold Hit funded employees, 1 analyst in training, and 1 vacant (frozen) position

12 Does not include three grant-funded criminalists; does not include supervising criminalist and four laboratory technicians

13 Source: estimations from LAPD assistant laboratory director, based on $12 million budget for two Scientific Investigation divisions

14 Does not include two grant funded criminalists, nor does it include supervising criminalist

15 Martha Blake, Crime Lab Manager; Cydne Holt, Forensic Biology Section Supervisor

16 Source: Martha Blake, Crime Lab Manager; Cydne Holt, Forensic Biology Section Supervisor; Table details the budget for Department's three permanent DNA criminalists, plus the addition of six new criminalsits, four of which can be converted from the OCJP Cold Hit grant.