Copyright 2008 by Crime Lab Report.  All rights reserved.  This report contains opinions expressed by CRIME LAB REPORT, which is an independent organization.  These opinions may not necessarily represent those of our sponsors or other organizations affiliated with CRIME LAB REPORT and its editors.  While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and contextual honesty, all opinions should be corroborated with independent research before being construed as factual.  Crime Lab Report will quickly correct and/or retract any information demonstrated to be erroneous.  We welcome opposing viewpoints and will publish responses from our readers, which may be edited for economy and clarity.

d
*     *     *     *     *
Look to staff existing crime labs before
building new ones

March 14, 2008 by Crime Lab Report

Click here for printer friendly version of this commentary (PDF) and the listing of our sources.

For those who have worked in the forensic science profession for any length of time, case backlogs have become sort of a way of life. Except in rare instances, most publicly funded crime laboratories historically have suffered from low budgets, inadequate staffing, or a combination of the two. In 2002, an extensive study of 351 laboratories found that these labs ended the year with over 500,000 requests backlogged, which was an increase of more than 70% from the start of the year. It was estimated that it would take an additional 1900 additional full-time employees to permit crime labs to complete analyses for their customers in 30 days. Since the analysis of evidence is often pivotal to the successful investigation and prosecution of a criminal case, speedy turnaround of casework has always been a matter of public safety.

The advent of federal funds permitted many labs to outsource forensic services, mostly related to DNA testing. Many of these cases related to the processing of convicted offender samples for inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Due to the success of this program, some labs began to seek or receive additional funding to outsource other types of forensic evidence. While this has certainly helped, it has not been enough. 

The post 9/11 economic slump also had an affect of crime laboratories nationwide. Decreased revenue collections led to mandated cuts in budgets, including crime labs. Most laboratories spend the vast majority of their budgets on salaries for their staff, so many labs were forced to hold job vacancies open to satisfy requirements to reduce spending. Coupled with an increasing awareness of the value of forensic evidence due to the proliferation of television shows that glorified the forensic profession, caseloads continued to rise and backlogs grew. 

A group of concerned individuals, led by best-selling author Jan Burke, organized The Crime Lab Project. According to the group’s website, www.crimelabproject.com, they “were concerned about the gap between the public's beliefs about the current state of forensic science and the reality faced by the many under-funded, understaffed labs and coroners' offices throughout the country…and the lack of support given to labs as a matter that has a growing negative impact on law enforcement, justice, and national security.” 

The bottom line is that average citizens are not concerned about forensic science until they, or someone they love, become the victim of a crime. As a result, crime laboratories do not receive the public attention and support that they deserve.  This negligence results in low staffing, low salaries, outdated equipment, and eventually, high backlogs. 

Some criminal justice officials are quick to construe these backlogs as being unfixable and therefore a reason to consider starting their own crime labs.  Their hope is simply that forensic results can be received in a more timely fashion so as to be useful.  Who can blame them?  When law enforcement agencies are forced to wait for the analysis of evidence, suspects are more likely to languish in local jails waiting for trial, which comes at an increased cost.  In other instances, suspects who are considered a flight risk are released on bond simply because there is no place to house them.  

In addition to longer waits for forensic testing, agencies must also cope with the increasingly sharp political axes that have forced many labs to drastically cut back on services to keep from falling even further behind.  This could mean the restriction of DNA analyses to “more serious” crimes such as sexual assaults and homicides, while limiting drug analysis requests to just one item.  Even worse, it often means cuts in funding to provide travel and registration for scientists’ continuing education.  Expertise comes at a cost, and too often it is taken for granted when funding is scarce. 

Given these immense challenges, it’s easy to see why any jurisdiction would be thrilled to have it’s own crime laboratory. 

In one state, the idea of the legislature helping to fund a regional crime lab has created much debate. Minnesota counties Anoka, Wright and Sherburne came forward with a $6 million dollar proposal to establish a regional crime lab. The Anoka lab would utilize staff working under the auspices of the sheriff’s office for fingerprint comparison, drug and toxicology analysis, as well as DNA and trace evidence testing. The three counties would share in the operating costs.

Frank Dolejsi, the director of the state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) laboratory, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune “I don't fault them for wanting to start the lab, but what I've always presented to them is if they're going to do it, do it right.” Dolejsi cautioned that even with proper funding, you still have to purchase equipment, hire qualified individuals and train them. In addition, the laboratory must go through a rigorous accreditation process.

Legislators also expressed skepticism about the proposal after East Central Minnesota Post Review reporter T. W. Budig cited concerns raised by Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner about independence from law enforcement. Gaertner said that “the credibility forensic evidence has for jurors relates to the degree of independence forensic scientists are perceived to operate under.” Other individuals, such as the House Public Safety Finance Committee Chairman Michael Paymar, declared that he would not support the project because he feared that funding it could result in a wave of similar requests from other areas of the state.

Minnesota House Capital Investment Chairwoman Alice Hausman added another twist to the problem: adding independent regional crime labs had the potential for creating competition between labs for hiring scientists which could drive up salaries.

In Nashville, Tennessee, Police Chief Ronal Serpas has been pushing city leaders for a full-service crime lab for a number of years. The city currently operates a non-accredited laboratory that offers latent print and firearm identification services. Serpas cites the Christmas Eve burglary at the Davidson County Election Commission as proof that a city operated DNA lab would help police solve more crimes.  

In the January 25^th issue of the Metro Nashville Police Department Newsline, Chief Serpas commended the work of his officers in solving the case, which involved the theft of laptop computers with the personal information of more than 300,000 registered voters. The evidence used to identify the suspect was DNA. Ironically, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) Crime Lab, located in Nashville, provided the report which led to the arrest on January 15, just three weeks after the crime occurred. The chief, however, pointed out that the police had to obtain a letter from the district attorney to have the evidence tested by the TBI. 

TBI spokeswoman Kristin Helm acknowledged that their backlogs have been drastically reduced. “We’ve added some positions, some staffing, some more forensic techs, forensic scientists. It has helped to keep that turn around for eight weeks fairly consistent over the last six to seven months,” Helm told reporter WSMV-TV reporter Marc Stewart.  

Chief Serpas believes that he can get a DNA lab setup for between $750,000 and $1 million; he estimates it will cost $250,000 annually to keep it running. Serpas also has his eye on the federal grant money that is currently being offered as part of the President’s DNA Initiative. The city recently approved funds to relocate the lab from its current location in an old auto body repair shop.  

Crime Lab Report obtained a copy of the 26 page report issued by the Matrix Consulting Group in 2004 following their independent assessment of the police department’s request for a full service crime lab. Matrix Consulting did not recommend that the laboratory be funded for three main reasons: 

1.    The current TBI service levels were high and are provided free of charge.

2.     It would take several years for a new lab to earn accreditation.

3.   It was estimated that the project would require capital expenditures of $3 million and annual operating expense of $900,000.  

Downstate in Cleveland, officials recently closed a sheriff’s department crime lab after it was discovered that its operation was not cost effective. Bradley County Sheriff’s Captain Steve Lawson told the Cleveland Daily Banner that “it’s not right to continue the lab at a cost to the people of Bradley County.” Lawson estimated the cost to the county would be between $40,000 and $50,000 annually, even after factoring in the fees generated from fines assessed to help defray the costs. County officials wound up transferring the lab equipment to the TBI’s Knoxville laboratory. 

Are more crime labs the answer? Crime Lab Report believes we need to increase the number of forensic scientists in the United States before we start talking about the need for more crime laboratories. Many states already have well-established laboratories and laboratory-systems that provide a full array of services to the criminal justice community. Before cities, counties, or regions take on the enormous challenge of creating their own laboratories, we’d like to suggest an alternative: they might be better off simply funding new positions in existing state laboratories. In exchange, these new hires can be assigned to process the evidence of the contributing jurisdiction’s cases. When the backlog from that jurisdiction is eliminated, the staff can be temporarily redirected to work cases from other areas. It’s a win-win situation.

continued on the right

Subscribe to our free monthly report!
If you've received this report from a friend or colleague, you can subscribe now.  Information about our subscribers is kept private.

Please click here to contact CRIME LAB REPORT.  Our office hours are 5PM - 9PM Monday through Friday (CT).