Performance audit, Department of Public Safety Scientific Analysis Bureau

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
September 2000
Report No. 00-12
DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
BUREAU
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee
composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Chairman
Senator Tom Smith, Vice-Chairman
Representative Robert Burns Senator Keith Bee
Representative Ken Cheuvront Senator Herb Guenther
Representative Andy Nichols Senator Darden Hamilton
Representative Barry Wong Senator Pete Rios
Representative Jeff Groscost Senator Brenda Burns
(ex-officio) (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dot Reinhard—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Paula Taylor—Audit Senior
Anita Rifkin—Staff
Heather Payne—Staff
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553 -0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 7, 2000
Members of the Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Colonel Dennis A. Garrett, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Department of Public Safety’s Scientific Analysis Bureau. This report is in response to a
June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance
audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. I am
also transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to
provide a quick summary for your convenience.
This is the second in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Public Safety.
As outlined in its response, the Department agrees with all of the findings and
recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on September 8, 2000.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Public Safety
Scientific Analysis Bureau
(Crime Lab)
Services: The crime lab offers the following services: 1) scientific analyses—criminalists
perform a wide range of scientific techniques on submitted evidence; 2) court testimony—
criminalists testify in court regarding the analysis he/she performed; 3) officer training—
crime lab staff instruct officers in proper identification, collection, and packaging of evidence;
and 4) crime scene assistance—crime lab staff help officers locate latent prints, examine fire
scenes for arson, and gather evidence at clandestine drug lab scenes.
Program Revenue: $8,240,000
(Estimated for Fiscal Year 2000)
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
1998 1999 2000
General Fund Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund Other
Personnel: 113 (Fiscal Year 2000)
Staff by Region
Central (78)
Northern (14) Southern (13) Western (8)
Both the Phoenix and Tucson labs are state owned. The
Flagstaff lab is leased at an annual cost of approximately
$160,000. The Lake Havasu City lab is housed in a city
building at no cost.
Mohave Coconino Navajo Apache
Yavapai
La Paz Gila
Yuma
Pima
Maricopa
Pinal
Cochise
Santa
Cruz
Graham
Greenlee
Lake
Havasu
City
u
uPhoenix
u
Flagstaff
Tucson
u
Facilities: 4
Types of Staff
Criminalists (76)
Lab
Techs (9)
Fingerprint
Examiners (6)
Evidence
Custodians (8)
Administrative
and Others (14)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Equipment: $3 million including: Crime Lab Goals: (Fiscal Year 2000-2001)
1. To improve the Arizona criminal justice
system’s effectiveness and to enhance public
safety by continual improvement in deliver-ing
essential scientific and technical support
services that are provided by the scientific
analysis subprogram.
2. To enhance and expand essential scientific
and technical support services through new
technology, automation, and adequate staff-ing.
3. To enhance scientific analysis subprogram
effectiveness through problem-solving tech-niques
and improve customer contract and
communication efforts.
4. To enhance scientific analysis subprogram
effectiveness through employees’ profes-sional
development.
5. To increase public awareness of the integral
role that scientific analysis plays in the
criminal justice system.
11 Gas-chromatography
mass spectrometers
(GCMS)—used in
identifying controlled
substances. Current
GCMS cost can range
from $78,000 to
$92,000.
6 DNA genetic analyz-ers,
each costing
$55,000 to $67,000.
6 Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectropho-tometers
(FTIR) for
controlled substances
and trace evidence
testing. Each FTIR
can cost from $25,000
to $80,000.
1 Scanning Electron
Microscope-Energy
Dispersive Xray
(SEM-EDX) used in
the analysis of trace
evidence through
magnification. The
unit costs $250,000.
Lab equipment has an approximate five-year life
span.
Adequacy of Performance Measures: The
crime lab’s five goals appear to be aligned with
its mission. Its goals include 10 objective and 12
performance measures. A review of the perform-ance
measures indicates:
Ø In general, most of the performance measures
do not indicate expected outcomes but focus
on inputs and outputs.
Ø The crime lab does not list any performance
measures that identify the quality of its ef-forts.
Quality measures reflect the agency’s
effectiveness in meeting the expectations of
customers and stakeholders, such as cus-tomer
satisfaction or responsiveness level.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Department of Public Safety’s Scientific Analysis
Bureau as part of a Sunset review of the agency. This audit was
conducted pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee and was conducted under the au-thority
vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Stat-utes
§41-2951 et seq. This is the second of several audits of the
Department of Public Safety.
The Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Scientific Analysis Bu-reau
(known as the crime lab) was established to provide assis-tance
to Arizona’s law enforcement community by analyzing
submitted physical evidence related to a crime. The crime lab
provides a variety of services free of charge, including scientific
analyses of evidence, court testimony of scientific results, officer
instruction on proper evidence handling, and officer assistance at
crime scenes. Since 1982, Arizona’s crime lab has been accredited
by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Labora-tory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) and has participated in
the accreditation inspection process for more than 50 laborato-ries,
both nationally and internationally.
The crime lab’s 113 staff serve a total of 277 separate state,
county, municipal, and federal agencies throughout Arizona
from its four locations (Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Phoenix, and
Tucson).
Steps Needed to Expand the
DNA Database Program’s
Crime-Solving Potential
(See pages 9 through 23)
Arizona is just beginning to have a DNA database program that
can help solve crimes. During the past decade, crime labs across
the nation have expanded their role from simply conducting
The crime lab serves 277
separate agencies.
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
DNA analyses of identified suspects to developing databases of
convicted offenders. These databases help law enforcement iden-tify
repeat perpetrators or establish links or patterns among
crimes. Some states are beginning to experience success in
matching DNA profiles to crime-scene evidence and Arizona has
recently experienced its first database matches.
Arizona’s limited success is partially due to a backlog of con-victed
offender samples. For example, fewer than 2,000 (26 per-cent)
of the 7,623 blood samples DPS has received from offenders
convicted of specific crimes have been analyzed with up-to-date
DNA techniques and uploaded to the database. Another 38 per-cent
(2,885 of 7,623) have undergone the initial analysis but are
awaiting necessary quality control reviews before they can be
uploaded to the database. The primary factor contributing to the
crime lab’s significant offender sample backlog is a recent change
in forensic DNA analysis methods. Switching to the new method
required criminalists of all levels to undergo additional training
that temporarily halted the analyses of offender samples. In ad-dition,
the crime lab had to re-analyze about 3,100 samples it had
previously analyzed using the older technique.
Ultimately, the success of the DNA database program is de-pendent
upon analyzing and uploading convicted offender pro-files,
and then comparing unsolved crime-scene evidence against
these profiles. While the crime lab is taking steps to eliminate its
backlog of offender samples, it has performed DNA analysis on
only a few non-suspect crime-scene cases. Specifically, there are
only 45 crime-scene profiles that could be compared to and
matched with the convicted offender profiles.
Although the crime lab realizes the importance of analyzing and
uploading DNA evidence from unsolved crimes, crime lab pol-icy
and practices have traditionally required a suspect to be iden-tified
before DNA analysis will be conducted on any submitted
crime-scene evidence. The National Commission on the Future
of DNA Evidence states that such a practice is a key barrier to the
full and effective use of DNA technology in the criminal justice
system.
Fewer than 2,000 of 7,623
offender samples have been
uploaded to database.
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Crime Lab Needs to Take Additional
Steps to Address Toxicology Backlog
(See pages 25 through 33)
The toxicology unit suffers from a backlog of unanalyzed cases,
with some going unanalyzed for more than 5 months. In Febru-ary,
this unit, which analyzes blood and urine samples for alcohol
and drugs, had 1,189 unanalyzed samples awaiting assignment to
a criminalist for 30 days or more: 633 for alcohol testing and 556
for drug testing. Furthermore, within this backlog, more than 100
alcohol and 300 drug cases had been unassigned for 90 days or
more. Not being able to process samples in a timely manner can
delay prosecutions, since some prosecutors will not charge a sus-pect
until they receive test results. Furthermore, some samples
may deteriorate if stored for long periods of time.
The backlog stems primarily from a large increase in the number
of samples submitted by law enforcement agencies from 1998 to
1999. During this time, alcohol submissions grew by 42 percent,
while drug screen requests grew by 31 percent. Dealing with this
growing workload was made more difficult by turnover among
experienced staff and by equipment limitations. Consequently, the
crime lab has taken some steps to address backlogs, particularly in
blood alcohol testing. For example, it has filled vacancies and pur-chased
two new blood alcohol measurement instruments that
expanded the number of blood alcohol samples that can be proc-essed
at one time from 38 to 50. Although these steps are positive,
they alone will not resolve the backlog.
Therefore, the crime lab needs to take further actions designed to
streamline its procedures and allow criminalists to focus more
time on analytical activities. The crime lab should assess whether
the current lab technician responsibilities can be expanded. Allow-ing
technicians to assist in setting up and repackaging specimens
could allow criminalists to spend more time on more rigorous
analyses. In addition, the crime lab should acquire software to
allow direct transfer of case information from lab instruments to
the crime lab’s automated system. Finally, as a longer-term solu-tion,
the crime lab should study the costs and benefits of expand-ing
blood alcohol testing to both its northern and southern re-gional
crime labs.
From 1998 to 1999, alcohol
submissions grew by 42 per-cent
and drug screen requests
by 31 percent.
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background............................ 1
Finding I: Steps Needed to Expand
the DNA Database Program’s
Crime-Solving Potential................................. 9
DNA Databases Can Help
Identify Repeat Offenders
and Solve Crimes .................................................................... 9
Crime Lab Is Addressing Its
Large Offender Backlog
Through Outsourcing ............................................................ 13
Greater Emphasis Needed to
Ensure More Crime-Scene Profiles Are
Available for Database Comparisons ................................ 16
Crime Lab Should Expand Its
Procedures and Assess
Resource Needs for
Operating DNA Program ..................................................... 18
Recommendations.................................................................. 23
Finding II: Crime Lab Needs to Take
Additional Steps to Address
Toxicology Backlog........................................ 25
Toxicology Unit Tests for
Alcohol and Illegal Drugs..................................................... 25
Increased Toxicology Backlog
Affects Lab and Legal Community .................................... 26
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
Page
Finding II: (concl’d)
Several Factors Have Contributed
to the Toxicology Backlog..................................................... 28
Lab Should Examine Other
Steps to Reduce Backlog........................................................ 30
Recommendations.................................................................. 33
Appendices
Appendix A: Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Forensic Science Services
As of July 2000........................................... a-i
Appendix B: Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Convicted Sex Offenders
Subject to DNA Testing
As of July 2000........................................... b-i
Agency Response
Table
Table 1 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1999, and 2000
(Unaudited).......................................................... 7
Table of Contents
vii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concl’d)
Page
Figures
Figure 1 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Regional Statewide Crime
Lab Locations
As of July 2000..................................................... 5
Figure 2 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
DNA Database Program
Matching Known Offenders with
Unsolved Crimes................................................ 11
Figure 3 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Status of Convicted Offender
Samples Submitted for DNA Analysis
As of July 12, 2000............................................... 14
Figure 4 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Status of Alcohol and Drug Cases
Submitted for Analysis
As of February 17, 2000..................................... 27
Figure 5 Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Case Submissions Received
Years Ended December 31, 1998
and 1999 ................................................................ 29
viii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Department of Public Safety’s Scientific Analysis
Bureau as part of a Sunset review of the agency. This audit was
conducted pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted under
the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised
Statutes §41-2951 et seq. This is the second of several audits of the
Department of Public Safety.
Crime Lab Provides a Variety
of Services to Arizona’s
Law Enforcement Community
The Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Scientific Analysis Bu-reau
(known as the crime lab) is part of the Criminal Justice Sup-port
Division, which provides diverse scientific, technical, and
other support services essential to promoting public safety in
Arizona.1 The crime lab was established to provide assistance to
Arizona’s law enforcement community by analyzing submitted
physical evidence related to a crime. As such, the crime lab has
established the following mission statement:
“To assist the Department, the Arizona criminal justice com-munity
and the public in the timely investigation and adjudica-tion
of criminal cases by utilizing state-of-the-art analytic tech-niques;
providing the most accurate scientific analyses of evi-dence
and presenting expert court testimony. To provide for the
storage and appropriate disposition of property and evidence in
the most efficient manner.”
1 The Division also includes the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identifi-cation
System (AZAFIS); Licensing; Telecommunications; Operational
Communications; Permits and Firearms Clearance; and Criminal Infor-mation
Bureau.
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
In meeting the needs of the State’s criminal justice system, the
crime lab performs a variety of services. Among them, crime lab
staff:
n Conduct scientific analyses of submitted evidence—The
crime lab’s experienced forensic scientists (known as crimi-nalists)
perform a wide range of scientific techniques on vari-ous
items submitted as evidence, such as blood, urine, hair
samples, and glass and metal fragments. The types of analy-ses
performed include DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), arson,
and explosive and firearm examination, as well as toxicology
and identification of latent (invisible) fingerprint impressions.
(See Appendix A, page a-i, for a complete description of
analyses performed.) All analytical results undergo various
quality assurance reviews before a final report is issued to the
submitting law enforcement agency.
n Provide expert court
testimony—In addition
to issuing a report con-taining
the scientific re-sults,
the criminalist
who performs the analy-sis
is responsible for
providing objective tes-timony
as to how
he/she arrived at the re-sults.
Therefore, the
criminalist prepares for
court appearances
through pretrial confer-ences
with both prose-cuting
and defense at-torneys,
and periodically
travels and testifies in
municipal, justice, superior, and federal courts throughout
the State.
n Instruct officers on proper evidence handling—Crime lab
personnel instruct investigative officers on the proper identi-fication,
collection, and packaging of evidence, as well as dis-seminate
safety information on the handling of hazardous
evidence (i.e., explosives, biological contaminants). This in-
Crime Labs Seek
Scientific Truth
The fundamental responsibility
of crime laboratories nationwide
is to seek the scientific truth re-garding
evidence submitted for
analysis. Therefore, the forensic
scientist is not interested in
whether his or her results impli-cate
or exonerate a suspect, only
that they are completely thor-ough
and accurate—ultimately, it
is the jury’s task to determine
guilt or innocence.
Source: Arizona Department of Pub-lic
Safety, Annual Overview Report
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2000.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
struction helps improve the quality and selection of evidence
submitted for analysis.
n Assist officers at crime scenes—Officers investigating
crime scenes often encounter situations where the technical
and scientific knowledge of crime lab personnel is required.
For example, crime lab personnel assist at crime scenes by lo-cating
fingerprint evidence, and occasionally examining fire
scenes for arson evidence. Lab personnel also provide aid at
clandestine drug lab scenes (methamphetamine labs) by
identifying contraband drugs and collecting proper samples
for subsequent laboratory analysis.
The DPS crime lab provides its services free of charge to a total of
277 separate entities throughout Arizona, which include state,
county, municipal, and federal agencies.1 While the majority are
law enforcement agencies receiving regular and continued sup-port,
some are state agencies that require occasional specialized
services to meet their statutory responsibility. For example, the
Game and Fish Department may request the crime lab to compare
bullets found in an illegally killed animal to a suspect’s weapon.
During fiscal year 1999-2000, the crime lab’s property and evi-dence
unit received evidence from 37,428 cases, 17,558 from DPS
officers and 19,870 from outside agencies.
Noteworthy Distinctions
and Acknowledgements
The DPS crime lab has achieved certain distinctions in the fo-rensic
science field. According to crime lab officials, some of its
noteworthy acknowledgements are as follows:
n Since 1982, Arizona’s crime lab has been accredited by the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). It was the second
crime lab in the United States to receive this status. To retain
its accreditation, each scientific discipline undergoes com-
1 One agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), pays the crime lab
to process FBI and Indian tribe cases through an intergovernmental
agreement.
The DPS crime lab provides
its services free of charge to a
total of 277 separate entities.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
prehensive inspections every five years. In addition, the
crime lab must maintain an extensive written quality assur-ance
program and requires each of its forensic scientists to
successfully complete a proficiency test from an external
source at least annually.
n DPS laboratory scientists participate in accreditation for
many ASCLD/LAB applicant laboratories. Two DPS labo-ratory
managers were selected to assist in the accreditation
of the FBI laboratory and other laboratory scientists have
been involved in the ASCLD/LAB accreditation inspection
process for more than 50 laboratories, both nationally and
internationally. Further, the crime lab acts as a referee labo-ratory
for the State of Pennsylvania by analyzing and con-firming
the accuracy of submitted blood alcohol specimens.
Organization, Staffing,
and Equipment
For fiscal year 1999-2000, the DPS crime lab was authorized 113
full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, delivering services from four
locations across the State: Northern (14 FTE in Flagstaff); Southern
(13 FTE in Tucson); Western (8 FTE in Lake Havasu City); and
Central (78 FTE in Phoenix). The majority (76) of these positions
are criminalists from entry level to management. In addition, the
crime lab also employs lab technicians, latent print examiners,1
evidence custodians, and administrative and secretarial staff.
The crime lab maintains about $3 million worth of specialized
scientific and technical equipment unique to its operations.
Smaller, lower-cost equipment used throughout the laboratory
includes such items as scales, cameras, and microscopes. The lab
also uses a number of more costly items such as gas chromatog-raphy
mass spectrometry (GCMS) instruments used for testing a
suspect’s blood or urine for drugs and alcohol, genetic analyzers
used in the DNA unit, and a scanning electron microscope used
1 Latent print examiners conduct technical examinations to identify, de-velop,
and preserve latent (invisible) fingerprints.
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
in the analysis of minute (trace) pieces of evidence, such as fibers
or hairs. Some of the larger instruments cost over $120,000 and
can require maintenance contracts costing up to $60,000 per year.
Budget
For fiscal year 1999-2000, the crime lab’s appropriation was an
estimated $8.2 million, with $2.4 million supplied from the Gen-eral
Fund. Nearly $5.0 million came from the Criminal Justice
Enhancement Fund (CJEF) for use in the DNA testing and identi-
Figure 1
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Regional Statewide Crime Lab Locations
As of July 2000
Mohave Coconino Navajo Apache
Yavapai
La Paz Gila
Yuma
Pima
Maricopa
Pinal
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee Lake
Havasu
City
u
u Phoenix
u Flagstaff
Tucson
u
Central Regional Crime Laboratory, Phoenix
Northern Regional Crime Laboratory, Flagstaff
Southern Regional Crime Laboratory, Tucson
Western Regional Crime Laboratory, Lake Havasu City
Santa Cruz
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
fication system, operating support of the drug analysis unit, and
assistance to the DPS crime lab for laboratory services, scientific
equipment, and training.1 Much of the remainder was supple-mented
by intergovernmental agreements with the FBI for
analysis of FBI and Indian cases and funds from Maricopa
County for processing clandestine laboratory scenes (see Table 1,
page 7). A $385,000 item entitled “Aid to organizations” is di-rectly
distributed to the city crime labs in Mesa, Phoenix, Scotts-dale,
and Tucson for enhanced laboratory services, purchase of
equipment, and education and training.2
Audit Scope and
Methodology
This performance audit focuses on two units within the State’s
crime lab, the DNA unit and the toxicology unit. Audit work
was conducted to assess the units’ compliance with statute and
their capabilities to analyze existing evidence samples. Several
methods were used to study the issues addressed in the audit,
including:
n Reviewing laboratory policies and procedures for protocols
and quality assurance; statutes that mandate laboratory func-tions,
requirements for criminalists’ certification and labora-tory
accreditation; and monthly reports to determine the
adequacy of information reported from management;
n Conferring with the national accrediting organization
(ASCLD) to obtain specifics on accreditation requirements;
and consulting with law enforcement officials and county
and city prosecutors to identify concerns and determine satis-faction
with lab services;
1 The Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) consists of monies de-rived
from an assessment imposed on criminal and civil penalties and is
distributed per A.R.S. §41-2401 among various criminal justice agencies.
2 These funds represent the crime lab assessment fund, a 2.3 percent ex-penditure
of CJEF monies, which is directly allocated to political subdivi-sions
that operate crime labs.
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance 1
Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1999, and 2000
(Unaudited)
1998 1999 2000
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimated)
Revenues:
Appropriations:
State General Fund $2,244,900 $2,743,000 $2,428,700
Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund 2 3,338,700 3,522,100 4,975,300
Intergovernmental 954,639 1,630,401 3 790,700
Charges for services 41,452 64,624 45,000
Other 11,512       300
Total revenues 6,591,203 7,960,125 8,240,000
Expenditures:
Personal services 4,341,839 4,756,651 5,116,000
Employee related 838,226 944,153 1,116,100
Professional and outside services 122,328 53,251 55,200
Travel, in-state 23,481 27,151 20,000
Travel, out-of-state 30,316 40,077 9,800
Aid to organizations 4 252,500 260,100 385,100
Other operating 764,300 987,665 1,165,500
Equipment 613,238 606,360 472,500
Total expenditures 6,986,228 7,675,408 8,340,200
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (395,025) 284,717 (100,200)
Reversions to the State General Fund 4,839 65,057 1,100
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures
and reversions to the State General Fund (399,864) 219,660 (101,300)
Fund balance (deficit), beginning of year 397,935 (1,929) 217,731
Fund balance (deficit), end of year $ (1,929) $ 217,731 $ 116,431
1 The Department calculated the program’s revenues and expenditures by allocating revenues and expenditures recorded in the De-partment’s
Joint Account. The Joint Account is a commingled account primarily funded from State General Fund appropriations and
other appropriated monies, such as Criminal Justice Enhancement monies.
2 Consists of fines and forfeits deposited in the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund and appropriated to the Department. Amounts
presented do not include monies appropriated but unspent at year-end that are retained by the Department and are subject to legisla-tive
appropriation in future years. In 2000 the Department received additional monies to purchase equipment for the crime lab sys-tem,
update its DNA analysis technology, support local labs, and provide other personal services and operating costs.
3 The Department was awarded several new federal contracts that created additional revenue in 1999. Only one of these new contracts
continued into 2000.
4 Consists of monies passed through the Department to local crime laboratories in accordance with A.R.S. §41-2415.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of financial information provided by the Department of Public Safety.
Introduction and Background
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Observing laboratory procedures, training sessions for new
staff, and criminalist court testimony to become familiar with
analytical methods and length of time needed for lab activi-ties;
and
n Interviewing officials from 11 other states and 4 city crime
labs within Arizona to obtain information about best prac-tices
for analyses of evidence and backlogs.1
This report presents findings and recommendations in two areas:
n The need for the crime lab to take additional steps to advance
its crime-solving capabilities through the use of its DNA da-tabase;
and
n The need for the crime lab to take additional steps to address
its backlog of alcohol and drug evidence samples.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government audit-ing
standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Direc-tor
and staff of the Arizona Department of Public Safety for their
cooperation and assistance during the audit.
1 Auditors contacted crime labs in California (northern and central), Flor-ida,
Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Pennsyl-vania,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington. They also communicated with
city crime labs in Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tucson. The states con-tacted
were considered role models in the industry according to crimi-nalists
in both the city labs and the DPS crime lab.
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I STEPS NEEDED TO EXPAND THE
DNA DATABASE PROGRAM’S
CRIME-SOLVING POTENTIAL
Arizona is just beginning to have a DNA database program that
can help solve crimes. Such database programs allow law en-forcement
personnel to match crime-scene evidence against a
database containing DNA profiles of people who have already
been convicted of specific crimes. In the crime lab’s program,
however, fewer than 2,000 of the 7,623 submitted blood samples
from convicted offenders have been analyzed with up-to-date
techniques and uploaded to the database. Even if all submitted
offender samples were uploaded to the database, the database
contains few crime-scene evidence profiles for comparison to
offender profiles on file. The crime lab is taking steps to reduce
the backlog of unanalyzed offender samples, but it needs to ex-pand
its efforts at analyzing non-suspect crime-scene evidence to
ensure the database meets its potential as a crime-solving tool.
DNA Databases Can Help
Identify Repeat Offenders
and Solve Crimes
Since 1990, crime labs across the nation have expanded their use
of DNA analysis by establishing databases to store DNA profiles
of convicted offenders and help solve crimes. Some states are
beginning to experience success in solving crimes by matching
crime-scene evidence to profiles of convicted offenders. Ari-zona’s
program, which began in 1993, is also just beginning to
realize its crime-solving capability.
Crime labs have expanded from analyzing individual samples to
building databases—During the past decade, crime labs across
the nation have expanded their role from simply conducting
DNA analyses of identified suspects to developing databases of
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
convicted offenders that can help law enforcement identify re-peat
perpetrators or establish links or patterns among crimes.1
Prior to the development of the DNA database, forensic DNA
analysis was used primarily in cases where a known suspect’s
DNA could be compared to crime-scene evidence. In 1990, how-ever,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began developing
a local, state, and national database that could aid law enforce-ment
officials in identifying repeat offenders. As Figure 2 (see
page 11) shows, such databases are compiled by first analyzing
blood samples from convicted offenders and entering them into
the DNA database. If forensic evidence is available from a crime
scene, it can then be analyzed and compared with the offender
profiles in the database to determine if a match exists. A database
match can either link two unsolved crime-scene cases or link an
unsolved case to a convicted offender.
Since 1989, all 50 states have passed laws requiring persons con-victed
of certain crimes to submit a sample for unique DNA pro-filing.
Most states collect samples from only certain types of of-fenders,
such as those convicted of homicide or sex crimes, while
at least five collect samples from all convicted felons (Alabama,
New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming).
Some states’ programs are yielding results—Some states are be-ginning
to experience success in matching DNA profiles to
crime-scene evidence. For example, Virginia, a state that collects
samples from all convicted felons, receives about 1,500 convicted
offender samples per month and reported 75 matches in their
database during 1999. Similarly, Florida, a state that collects
samples from individuals convicted of sexual offenses, murder,
assault, or robbery, receives an average of 667 convicted offender
samples per month and has had over 200 matches since 1992,
with some of these matches either linking or solving multiple
crimes. Eventually, all states’ databases will be linked, allowing
searches across the nation.
1 DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a molecule found in chromosomes
within the nucleus of each cell in the human body that carries the body’s
genetic information. It is generally accepted that, except for identical
twins, the DNA found in each individual is unique.
A few states collect samples
from all convicted felons.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Law enforcement agencies submit
evidence from crime scenes in
which there is no suspect.
County probation departments and
state and county incarceration fa-cilities
submit blood samples from
convicted offenders.
Crime lab analyzes blood
samples and records DNA
profile of convicted offender
into database.
Crime lab analyzes crime-scene
evidence and records
DNA profile of unknown
perpetrators into database.
DNA Database
Profiles are searched against
one another to identify repeat
offenders or establish links
among crimes.
Known Offenders Unsolved Crimes
Figure 2
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
DNA Database Program
Matching Known Offenders with Unsolved Crimes
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information provided by the crime lab.
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Arizona’s program has just recently experienced its first data-base
matches—Arizona’s program, which has been in place
since 1993, is just beginning to experience its first database activ-ity.
Arizona’s first database match occurred in December 1999,
when an Arizona crime-scene case was linked to an unsolved
crime in California. So far during 2000, Arizona’s database has
had four additional matches: in May the database made a link
between two Arizona crime-scene cases, and in June, three sepa-rate
Arizona crime-scene cases were matched to convicted of-fenders
from California, Kentucky, and Wyoming.1
Arizona’s offender database is currently limited to certain sex
offenses, such as sexual assault or child molestation (see Appen-dix
B, page b-i, for offenses subject to DNA testing). However,
during the 44th Legislature’s Second Regular Session, the Legisla-ture
broadened the DNA testing statute to include additional
offenses, such as homicide and burglary.2 Statute requires county
probation departments and state and county incarceration facili-ties
to secure blood samples from those specific offenders and
submit them to DPS for analysis. DPS currently receives ap-proximately
64 samples per month from convicted sex offenders.
The crime lab has assigned three criminalists to perform DNA
profiling on these convicted offender samples. In addition, the
lab also employs 12 other DNA criminalists statewide who pri-marily
analyze evidence from crime scenes in which there is an
identified suspect.
1 In addition to crime-scene evidence analyzed by DPS, the State’s four
city-operated labs (Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tucson) may each
submit DNA profiles of crime-scene evidence to be uploaded to DPS’ da-tabase
in hopes of locating a suspect and solving a crime.
2 Laws 2000, Chapter 373, expanded DNA testing to include, in addition
to certain sex offenders, those individuals convicted of homicide and
burglary in the first and second degree, effective January 1, 2001. In addi-tion,
effective January 1, 2002, the testing will be expanded to also in-clude
crimes involving the discharge, use, or threatening exhibition of a
deadly weapon or the intention or the knowing infliction of serious
physical injury.
Arizona’s program has had
five database matches.
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Crime Lab Is Addressing
Its Large Offender Backlog
Through Outsourcing
To be effective, a database program should be able to collect,
analyze, and upload convicted offenders’ blood samples on a
timely basis. In Arizona’s program, however, only about one-fourth
of all blood samples received from offenders are currently
in the database. The primary factor contributing to the crime
lab’s significant backlog is a recent change in DNA analysis tech-niques.
Although the crime lab is taking steps to help reduce this
backlog, it will need to consider more actions, such as outsourc-ing
more work, to resolve the backlog.
Only one-fourth of submitted offender samples are currently
available for database searches—While the success of the State’s
database is dependent on matching non-suspect crime-scene
cases against profiles of convicted offenders contained in the da-tabase,
crime lab records show that the database contains only
one-fourth of the offender samples it has received. As of July
2000, the crime lab had received 7,623 blood samples from con-victed
sex offenders, yet only 26 percent (1,993 of 7,623) had been
analyzed using current methods and uploaded to the State’s
DNA database. The remaining three-fourths of the samples are
at various stages in the process, but are unavailable for compari-son
to crime-scene profiles. As shown in Figure 3 (see page 14),
38 percent have undergone the initial analysis but are awaiting
necessary quality control reviews before they can be uploaded to
the database; 6 percent have just recently been assigned for
analysis; and 30 percent have not yet been assigned for analysis.
Research indicates that prompt analysis is important for all of-fenders,
whether under community supervision, soon to be re-leased
from incarceration, or just recently convicted, because
many are repeat offenders and can be linked to unsolved crimes.
For example, one study determined that for every rape convic-tion,
an offender has committed an average of 5.2 unsolved
rapes.1 In addition, the chance of convicted persons committing
1 Groth, Nicholas, Robert Longo, and J. Bradley McFadin. Undetected
Recividism Among Rapists and Child Molesters. Crime and Delinquency,
July 1982.
Prompt analysis is impor-tant
for all offenders,
whether incarcerated or in
the community.
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Figure 3
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Status of Convicted Offender Samples
Submitted for DNA Analysis
As of July 12, 2000
Currently in Database-26%
(1,993)
Unassigned-30%
(2,259)
Analyzed, Awaiting
Review-38%
(2,885)
Undergoing Analysis-6%
(486)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of crime lab data on 7,623 convicted
sex offender samples it has received.
other crimes has been shown to be highest in the first 18 months
after release. Even those offenders recently convicted and sen-tenced
to lengthy prison terms could be responsible for other
unsolved crimes.
Change in methods required additional training and need to re-analyze
samples—The lab’s ability to analyze and upload of-fender
profiles has been impacted by changes in DNA methods.
Up until 1998, most labs were analyzing their convicted offender
samples using a method known as RFLP (restriction fragment
length polymorphism). With the intent of improving analysis
and providing a more consistent method by which to match pro-files
nationally, crime labs began converting to the STR (short
tandem repeats) method of analysis. STR offers great promise for
The new DNA method pro-duces
faster, better results.
Finding I
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
forensic analysis since it produces results faster (2-3 weeks, as
compared to 6-8 weeks with RFLP), requires a smaller-sized
sample for analysis (as small as a pinhead), and provides a
greater degree of certainty as far as positively identifying or ex-cluding
an individual as the perpetrator.
Switching to the STR format required criminalists of all levels to
undergo months of additional training that temporarily halted
the analyses of offender samples. Futher, because the switch to
the STR format essentially made RFLP and any profiles analyzed
in this format obsolete, Arizona’s crime lab was required to re-analyze
about 3,100 samples it had previously analyzed in the
RFLP format.
Crime lab should expand its offender sample outsourcing and
ensure timely technical reviews—In order to eliminate its back-log
of convicted offender samples more quickly, the crime lab
should consider expanding its use of outsourcing. Using vacancy
savings, the DNA unit recently contracted with a private lab to
outsource approximately 2,500 of its backlogged offender sam-ples.
While the private lab will conduct the majority of work in-volved,
DPS will continue to perform at least 25 percent of the
work. For example, DPS will prepare samples for transfer to the
private lab, conduct necessary reviews of analysis results, per-form
reanalysis of 5 percent for quality control, and upload com-pleted
DNA profiles to the State’s DNA database.
It cost DPS nearly $100,000 to outsource approximately 2,500
offender samples (at $38.75 per sample). The samples were pro-vided
to the contract lab in late April, returned as of late June
2000, and are awaiting the necessary reviews before the crime lab
can upload them to the DNA database. DPS indicates that it will
take approximately two months before these samples can be
added to the database. Given the size of the remaining backlog
(approximately 2,250 samples), the crime lab should consider
expanding its use of outsourcing to include all remaining back-logged
offender samples as well as devising a system for expe-diting
the review of any contracted samples.
Recent outsourcing of ap-proximately
2,500 samples
cost nearly $100,000.
Finding I
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Greater Emphasis Needed
to Ensure More Crime-Scene
Profiles Are Available for
Database Comparisons
While the crime lab is taking steps to ensure convicted offender
samples are analyzed and uploaded, there remains a serious lack
of non-suspect crime-scene cases available for database compari-sons.
Currently, the database contains only a few unsolved cases
that can be compared, and possibly matched, to offender pro-files.
Several factors contribute to this lack of non-suspect pro-files,
including a crime lab policy requiring a suspect to be identi-fied
before DNA analysis will be performed, and the crime lab’s
need to place greater emphasis on cases with a set court date or
identified suspect.
Having few non-suspect crime-scene profiles available severely
limits the DNA program’s success—Because the DNA database
contains only a few non-suspect crime-scene profiles, Arizona’s
database program has limited capacity for success. The crime lab
reports that as of July 2000 the database contains profiles from
only 45 unsolved crimes.1 The National Commission on the Fu-ture
of DNA Evidence states that the limited use of DNA in non-suspect
cases is a key barrier to the full and effective use of DNA
technology in the criminal justice system (January 2000 report).2
1 In addition to the unsolved crime profiles, the State’s DNA database
contains approximately 140 profiles from cases where an identified sus-pect
matched crime-scene evidence. The crime lab often retains the per-petrator’s
profile in the database for use as an investigative aid in other
cases. If the identified suspect is later convicted, the crime lab will re-move
the suspect’s profile once a convicted offender sample is received,
analyzed, and uploaded to the offender portion of the database. Addi-tionally,
the crime lab reports that about 50 profiles previously analyzed
in the older method (RFLP format) could be analyzed using the newer
method (STR format) and uploaded.
2 In 1997, United States Attorney General Janet Reno directed the National
Institute of Justice to establish and administer the National Commission
on the Future of DNA Evidence for the purpose of maximizing the value
of forensic DNA evidence in the criminal justice system. The Hon.
Ronald Reinstein, Associate Presiding Judge of Superior Court in Ari-zona,
is among the 21 prominent professionals appointed to the Com-mission.
Database contains profiles
from only 45 unsolved crimes.
Finding I
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Consequently, as demonstrated by Arizona’s recent matches
involving non-suspect crime-scene evidence, the analysis of such
non-suspect evidence is crucial to the success of the DNA pro-gram.
Several factors contribute to the lack of non-suspect crime-scene
profiles—Although the crime lab realizes the importance of ana-lyzing
and uploading DNA evidence from unsolved crimes, a
few key factors have kept it from doing so.
n Crime lab policy gives priority to cases with a known
suspect—Crime lab policy and practices have traditionally
required a suspect to be identified before DNA analysis will be
conducted on any submitted crime-scene evidence. When law
enforcement agencies submit crime-scene evidence from cases
with no known suspects, the crime lab typically limits its work
to conducting a preliminary analysis that determines if there is
biological evidence (i.e., semen, saliva, or blood) that could
identify the perpetrator. Despite the fact that this evidence
could ultimately be used for database comparisons, the crime
lab requires the county prosecutor to submit a request for
DNA analysis before DPS will conduct further analyses and
develop a DNA profile. The lab indicates that it established
this procedure to help prioritize its workload, since it considers
its number one priority to be those cases with a set trial date or
with suspects under investigation. As a result, prosecutors
usually do not submit requests until they have a suspect or an
upcoming court date.
n Original DNA mandate did not provide funding for non-suspect
case analysis—According to crime lab manage-ment,
the DNA unit has been unable to analyze more non-suspect
cases because throughout the database program’s
history it has not received funding specifically for this pur-pose.
Although the original DNA mandate provided funding
for three criminalists to perform analysis on submitted of-fender
samples, it did not provide specific funding for DPS to
conduct DNA analysis on non-suspect cases. As a result, the
crime lab has not assigned any specific criminalist the re-sponsibility
of analyzing non-suspect cases. Consequently,
the lab reports that it assigns these non-suspect cases for
DNA analysis only as the DNA unit’s workload allows.
The crime lab considers its
top priority cases with a
known suspect.
Finding I
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Crime lab has never assessed funding needs for analyz-ing
non-suspect cases—While the crime lab attributes its
low number of analyzed non-suspect cases to inadequate
funding, it has never developed a request for additional
funding to more fully implement its DNA program, citing
other funding needs as having taken priority when making
its budget requests.
The actual number of unsolved cases statewide that contain
crime-scene evidence capable of producing the perpetrator’s
DNA profile is largely unknown. However, the DPS crime lab
estimates that it has performed preliminary analyses on as many
as 400 unsolved crimes, and determined that in most cases fur-ther
analyses could produce a DNA profile suitable for the data-base.
Nonetheless, the crime lab has not performed further
analyses to produce these DNA profiles.
Other states are also experiencing a shortage of crime-scene
samples being available for DNA comparison. The National
Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence has determined
that a vast number of law enforcement officers throughout the
country lack the education and resources to use the database
system effectively. Specifically:
“Many departments [crime labs] continue a policy that requires
the identification of a suspect before approval for DNA analysis
is granted. While that policy was appropriate prior to the advent
of CODIS [DNA databases], the database system makes that
policy illogical. If the criminal justice system is to truly realize
the advantages of the database, it should be effectively accessed
in the investigative stage. That requires that law enforcement be
educated about the database and given the appropriate resources
to have DNA testing performed in non-suspect cases.”
Crime Lab Should Expand Its Procedures
and Assess Resource Needs for
Operating DNA Program
To ensure Arizona’s DNA database can serve as an effective
crime-solving tool, the crime lab needs to develop a strategic plan,
expand its policies and procedures, and determine resource needs
for effectively managing the DNA database program.
Actual number of unsolved
crimes suitable for analysis is
unknown.
Finding I
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Develop a strategic plan specific to the DNA program’s unique
operations—As a first step in further developing its database pro-gram,
which consists of analyzing both convicted offender sam-ples
as well as non-suspect crime-scene evidence, the crime lab
should establish a strategic plan specific to its database program.
As part of this strategic plan, the crime lab should define the data-base
program’s mission and goals, as well as establish key objec-tives
and performance measures. While the crime lab has a gen-eral
strategic plan for its more traditional forensic analyses, it is
important that it develop a plan that can address some of the da-tabase
program’s more unique activities, such as performing
DNA analysis on crime-scene evidence prior to the identification
of a suspect. In addition, establishing the database program’s
goals and performance measures could assist DPS in assessing
whether the program is improving in analyzing and uploading
both convicted offender and non-suspect crime-scene evidence
profiles; assisting in solving criminal cases; and maximizing its
available resources. Moreover, the plan’s specific goals, objectives,
and performance measures should also address time frames for
analyzing both convicted offender samples and non-suspect
crime-scene evidence; projected workloads for each area; and the
frequency of database searches.
Expand its procedures to improve the DNA program’s operation
and management—Acting within its statutory authority, the crime
lab should expand its existing procedures to improve the DNA
program’s operation and management. Although A.R.S. §41-2418
directs the crime lab to establish procedures for the implementa-tion
of the State’s DNA testing legislation, the crime lab’s current
procedures primarily address the lab’s processing of submitted
offender samples and uploading completed analyses to the State’s
database.
While the DPS crime lab does not have statutory authority to col-lect
offender samples or enforce the submission of non-suspect
crime-scene evidence, the crime lab can serve to facilitate im-proved
coordination among those agencies involved in and af-fected
by the DNA database program. Therefore, to improve the
operation and management of the State’s DNA database program,
the DPS crime lab should expand its current procedures. These
expanded procedures should minimally focus on:
Strategic plan should em-phasize
activities unique to
DNA program.
Finding I
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Identifying non-suspect crime-scene evidence appropri-ate
for analysis—The crime lab should develop procedures
for periodically assessing the amount of non-suspect crime-scene
evidence available for database comparison. The crime
lab reports that it meets with various police departments
around the State as often as twice per year to educate the law
enforcement community regarding the DNA database’s value
as a crime-solving tool. However, DPS acknowledges it has
not assessed to what degree police departments are retaining
non-suspect crime-scene evidence appropriate for analysis.
Furthermore, according to crime lab management, while the
law enforcement community desires more non-suspect sam-ple
analysis, it is aware of DPS’ resource limitations. Therefore,
DPS should establish guidelines for determining what non-suspect
case evidence it will analyze and for prioritizing its
analysis of non-suspect cases, as police departments may
submit evidence from both recent and older cases.
n Coordinating submission of offender samples—The
crime lab should establish procedures for improving the coor-dination
among those agencies responsible for submitting of-fender
samples. While statute does not assign any one entity
the oversight role of ensuring that those statutorily required
samples are submitted for analysis, DPS does serve as Ari-zona’s
database administrator and central repository for all
collected offender samples. Although the number of offender
samples owed to the DPS crime lab is unknown, the National
Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that in
June 2000 over 1 million convicted offender samples nationally
were owed to crime labs but had not been collected.
Additionally, statute directs DPS to not secure a blood sample
if one has previously been submitted; however, crime lab re-cords
confirm that it has received a minimum of 400 duplicate
samples. Auditors found that many submitted samples are
missing identifying information—such as the offender’s social
security number, birth date, complete name, or state identifica-tion
number—which is needed to confirm whether a sample
has already been submitted.
Although DPS does not have the statutory authority for col-lecting
offender samples, it can take steps to help ensure
that samples are submitted with accurate and complete
The crime lab should peri-odically
assess how many
unsolved cases could be
analyzed.
Crime lab can improve its
coordinating role.
Finding I
21
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
identifying information, and provide followup to submit-ting
agencies when incomplete information is submitted.
To help prevent duplicate samples, DPS should also de-velop
a procedure to provide to the submitting agencies
regular access to those offenders from whom the crime lab
has already received a sample.
n Revising its prioritization of offender sample analysis—
Because of the significant backlog of convicted sex offender
samples, the crime lab devised a system for prioritizing its
work based on an offender’s risk of recidivism. Many con-victed
sex offenders are required to register with the DPS sex
offender notification unit, whereby, just prior to release, an of-fender’s
recidivism risk is assessed and each offender is as-signed
a risk assessment level. The crime lab uses this risk
level to help prioritize its workload on the backlog. However,
beginning January 1, 2001, the crime lab will begin to receive
samples from offenders convicted of crimes other than sex of-fenses,
namely burglary and homicide. Therefore, the crime
lab should revise its current prioritization model to take into
account all the various offense types subject to DNA testing.
Develop strategies for maximizing its current resources and de-termining
future funding needs—In conjunction with enhancing its
policies and procedures, the crime lab needs to develop a strategy
for addressing its backlog of offender samples while expanding its
analysis of non-suspect crime-scene evidence. Additionally, as the
DNA testing statute was recently expanded to include offenses
such as homicide and burglary, the crime lab will need to assess
how this expansion will ultimately affect its future resource needs.
Specifically, the crime lab should:
n Capitalize on opportunities to outsource its convicted
offender samples—While the crime lab has recently out-sourced
approximately 2,500 of its backlogged offender sam-ples
using vacancy savings, it should seek other opportuni-ties
to outsource more of its offender samples. Other states, as
well as the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evi-dence,
recognize the value in contracting out offender sam-ples
as a means of allowing state crime labs to concentrate
their existing resources on non-suspect crime-scene cases.
The crime lab recently applied for a National Institute of Jus-tice
grant that, if awarded, will allow the lab to outsource an
To the extent possible, the
crime lab should outsource
its offender samples.
Finding I
22
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
additional 5,200 offender samples. This would allow the lab
to outsource not only its remaining backlog of approximately
2,250 samples, but also as many as 2,950 offender samples it
receives in the future. Currently, the crime lab receives an av-erage
of 64 offender samples a month requiring analysis.
However, in response to the recent expansion of the State’s
DNA testing statute, the Department of Corrections estimates
that it may submit as many as 6,000 samples to DPS for
analysis within the first few months of next year. Therefore,
in order to manage its analysis of offender samples, the crime
lab should seek other opportunities to expand its use of out-sourcing,
such as continuing to use vacancy savings or seek-ing
new funding sources.
n Dedicate criminalists specifically to non-suspect case
analysis—To ensure non-suspect cases are regularly ana-lyzed
and uploaded to the DNA database, the crime lab
should immediately dedicate specific DNA unit criminalists
the responsibility of analyzing non-suspect crime-scene evi-dence.
Newly added positions to this unit (fiscal year 2000)
and the use of outsourcing should make some criminalist po-sitions
available for non-suspect case analysis. Specifically,
with the addition of new positions, the crime lab will have 5
criminalists available for processing offender samples. Al-though
DPS must complete some work even when outsourc-ing,
if it continues to outsource, some of these criminalists
should be available to work solely on non-suspect crime-scene
evidence.
n Determine the DNA program’s future funding needs by
performing regular assessments—The crime lab needs to
assess what additional resources may be necessary to ensure
that both offender samples and non-suspect evidence is ana-lyzed
and uploaded to the database in a timely manner. As
the DNA program continues to expand, and areas not previ-ously
addressed by the crime lab are emphasized, the crime
lab needs to assess the adequacy of current resources and de-termine
if the need for more resources exists. If so, the crime
lab should actively pursue those needs through its budget
requests.
Ultimately, more cases
could be solved if the lab
increases its emphasis on
non-suspect case analysis.
Finding I
23
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. The crime lab should develop a strategic plan specific to the DNA
database program’s operations, addressing its analysis of both con-victed
offender samples as well as non-suspect crime-scene evi-dence.
At a minimum, this plan should define the DNA database
program’s mission and goals, and establish key objectives and per-formance
measures for determining the program’s efficiency and
effectiveness.
2. To improve the operation and management of its DNA database
program, the crime lab should expand its current procedures.
These expanded procedures should minimally focus on:
a. Periodically assessing the amount of non-suspect crime-scene
evidence available for database comparison;
b. Determining what non-suspect crime-scene evidence the crime
lab will analyze and upload to the DNA database;
c. Prioritizing its analysis of non-suspect crime-scene evidence;
and
d. Improving coordination with agencies responsible for submit-ting
convicted offender samples to ensure submitting agencies
are aware of the importance of submitting all samples and that
they are submitted with accurate and complete identifying in-formation.
3. The crime lab should continue in its efforts to reduce and prioritize
its convicted offender backlog. Specifically, the crime lab should:
a. Seek opportunities to increase its outsourcing of offender sam-ples
to enable the DNA unit to concentrate on analyzing more
non-suspect crime-scene evidence;
b. Develop effective procedures for ensuring that technical re-views
are completed as quickly as possible; and
c. Revise current prioritization practices in consideration of pre-sent
and future offenses subject to DNA testing.
4. The crime lab should dedicate one or more criminalists to the spe-cific
responsibility of analyzing non-suspect crime-scene cases.
5. In conjunction with developing procedures and reducing its of-fender
sample backlog, the crime lab needs to regularly assess
whether it has resources to effectively implement the DNA data-base
program, and develop a request for additional staff and
equipment if necessary.
24
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
25
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II CRIME LAB NEEDS TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ADDRESS
TOXICOLOGY BACKLOG
The crime lab needs to take further action to address a substantial
backlog of work in the toxicology unit. This unit, which analyzes
blood and urine samples for alcohol and drugs, had a backlog of
nearly 1,200 samples in February, with some going unanalyzed
for more than 5 months. Not being able to process samples in a
timely manner can delay prosecutions, allow drug sample com-ponents
to deteriorate, and disrupt the flow of work. The backlog
stems primarily from a large increase in the number of samples
submitted by law enforcement agencies and has been exacerbated
by staff turnover and equipment limitations. The crime lab has
taken steps to hire and train new staff and has added some new
equipment. Although these steps are positive, they alone will not
resolve the backlog. Several other steps, most of them involving
ways to operate more efficiently, should be considered.
Toxicology Unit Tests for
Alcohol and Illegal Drugs
The toxicology unit’s principal task is to measure alcohol levels
and identify the presence of illegal drugs in suspects’ blood or
urine samples. Additionally, the unit sometimes analyzes blood or
urine to identify other substances, such as glue or paint fumes.
Approximately 90 percent of the unit’s work is directly connected
to driving under the influence (DUI) cases, where a police officer
making an arrest believes that either alcohol and/or drugs may
have contributed to a suspect’s impaired motor functions. The
remaining toxicology casework stems from a variety of other
crimes such as burglaries, homicides, and sexual assaults.
Law enforcement officers submit a suspect’s urine or blood sam-ple
for either alcohol or drug testing, or both. For alcohol testing,
the criminalist measures the alcohol quantity and, depending on
the amount detected, may conduct additional analyses to identify
Approximately 90 percent of
toxicology’s work is related to
DUI cases.
Finding II
26
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The drug testing process
seeks to detect the pres-ence
of a drug rather
than its quantity.
whether illegal drugs are also present.1 The drug testing process
seeks to detect the “presence” of a drug rather than its quantity.
The criminalist first performs a drug screen to identify the pres-ence
of any of six drug categories (marijuana, cocaine, ampheta-mines,
opiates, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines). If the screen-ing
shows positive results for any of these categories, separate
analyses must be performed to confirm the presence of each
identified drug. This separate analysis is more rigorous and en-sures
that the first drug screen did not contain any false positive
results (i.e., indicate that a drug is present when in fact it is not).
The central crime lab performs all drug screening and confirma-tion
tests submitted statewide, whereas both the central and
western crime labs perform alcohol quantity tests.
Increased Toxicology Backlog
Affects Lab and Legal Community
The toxicology unit suffers from a backlog of unanalyzed cases.
In February, it had nearly 1,200 alcohol or drug testing cases
awaiting analysis for more than 30 days. This backlog impacts
the unit’s service level and hinders the law enforcement com-munity’s
ability to resolve criminal cases in a timely manner.
Toxicology unit experiencing large backlog—The crime lab de-fines
its backlog as any case that has been awaiting assignment to
a criminalist for 30 days or more. As of February 17, 2000, the
crime lab’s toxicology unit had 1,189 such cases—633 for alcohol
testing and 556 for drug testing. Within this backlog, some cases
go unaddressed for months. For example, more than 100 alcohol
and 300 drug cases had been unassigned for 90 days or more (see
Figure 4, page 27). On that date, the toxicology unit’s 8 criminal-ists
were actively working on 473 alcohol and drug cases and
had another 723 that were awaiting assignment but were less
than 30 days old.
1 State law has established an amount of 0.10 alcohol concentration as the
legal limit at which a driver is considered impaired. If the lab determines
the alcohol level to be 0.12 or higher, generally no drug analyses are per-formed
unless the case is a fatality, homicide, or sexual assault. Further-more,
crime lab policy requires drug testing when the alcohol level is less
than 0.12 or upon an officer’s request.
Finding II
27
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Figure 4
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Status of Alcohol and Drug Cases Submitted for Analysis
As of February 17, 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
Alcohol Drugs
Currently Assigned Unassigned 0-29 Days
Unassigned 30-59 Days Unassigned 60-89 Days
Unassigned 90+ Days
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the central regional crime lab’s Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) computer data as of February 17, 2000.
Backlogs can impact crime lab and law enforcement commu-nity—
Although stakeholders such as city crime lab directors,
city and county prosecutors, and chiefs of police praised the
quality of the crime lab’s work, they pointed out that lack of
timeliness can cause problems. Interviews with crime lab staff
and a review of articles discussing backlogs at other labs raised
similar concerns. Backlogs can result in:
n Delayed case resolution—Untimely results can impact
timely case resolution. Some prosecutors will not charge a
suspect until they receive test results. As a result, a case may
need to be delayed or even dismissed. Other problems in-clude
loss of contact with witnesses, and officers’ loss of
memory regarding case details.
n Sample deterioration and storage problems—Some sam-ples
(particularly urine samples) have a tendency to deterio-rate
if stored for long periods of time, which can impact drug
testing and produce false negative results (i.e., indicate that a
drug is not present when in fact it was). While literature con-curs
that drugs can deteriorate over time, the time frame in
Finding II
28
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
which this happens can differ according to the individual
drug. However, criminalists and city lab staff agree that cer-tain
drugs may lose stability when samples are stored for an
extensive time, possibly decreasing the likelihood of detec-tion.
In addition, having more than four months’ worth of
samples awaiting analysis can also create storage problems.
n Strain on staff and productivity—Backlogs can create stress
for lab staff because staff realize the impact of untimely ser-vice.
Therefore, in an attempt to be responsive to law en-forcement
concerns, the crime lab places emphasis on proc-essing
upcoming court cases using a priority system. How-ever,
this can lead to workflow interruption because of con-tinual
phone calls from those awaiting analysis results and
when cases are changed to “rush” status because a court date
is approaching.
Several Factors Have Contributed
to the Toxicology Backlog
The backlog in toxicology cases results from several factors. Per-haps
most important, the number of alcohol and drug cases re-quiring
analysis has risen substantially from 1998 to 1999. Deal-ing
with this growing workload was made more difficult by
turnover among experienced staff and by equipment limitations.
The crime lab has taken some steps to address backlogs, particu-larly
in blood alcohol testing, by filling vacancies and purchasing
some additional equipment.
Workload grew substantially between 1998 and 1999—Over
the past calendar year, the number of cases submitted annually
has risen for both drug and alcohol cases. As shown in Figure 5
(see page 29), alcohol submissions grew by 42 percent (from
3,130 to 4,448), while drug screen requests grew by 31 percent
(from 2,574 to 3,370). The crime lab attributes the rise in evidence
submissions primarily to increased DUI enforcement and the
Over the past year, both alcohol
and drug cases have grown
considerably.
Finding II
29
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
result of some police departments changing from breath alcohol
testing methods to blood alcohol tests.1
Staffing and equipment limitations affected toxicology unit’s
ability to respond—During the past year, the toxicology unit lost
three experienced staff members (from a total of eight) when
they transferred to other crime lab units. During the fall of 1999,
the crime lab began to address this problem by filling vacancies
and training new hires to perform alcohol analysis. Although the
unit has had some success in hiring new criminalists, new hires
must go through an extensive training process, including practic-ing
on enough samples to pass proficiency tests and receiving
certification from the Department of Health Services. This train-ing
period may take up to three months and also impacts the
1 Some law enforcement agencies indicated that they are switching to
blood alcohol testing methods from breath testing methods to avoid the
current legal challenges facing the Intoxilyzer (breath testing system).
Figure 5
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Case Submissions Received
Years Ended December 31, 1998 and 1999
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Alcohol Drugs
1998 1999
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the central regional crime lab’s
report of “Toxicology Requests Per Month” for years ended De-cember
31, 1998 and 1999.
3,130
4,448
2,574
3,370
Finding II
30
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
workload of experienced criminalists who provide both class-room
and on-the-job training for new staff.
The toxicology unit’s ability to respond to its increasing work-load
was also limited by equipment capacity. However, by De-cember
1999, the unit acquired two new blood alcohol meas-urement
instruments, expanding the number of blood alcohol
samples that can be processed at one time from 38 to 50.
Lab Should Examine Other
Steps to Reduce Backlog
The crime lab should consider some additional steps to address
its backlog. Five possible steps were identified, ranging from
streamlining procedures to finding ways to focus more of crimi-nalists’
time on analytical activities. Some steps will, however,
require additional funding to implement.
n Using support staff to improve criminalists’ productiv-ity—
The crime lab should consider using lab technicians to in-crease
the unit’s productivity in both the alcohol and drug ar-eas.
Lab technicians currently conduct only non-analysis tasks
such as purchasing supplies, maintaining the vehicle fleet, and
removing biohazardous waste materials. Lab technicians do
not, however, provide direct support to the criminalists during
the analysis process, such as assisting in preparing the sam-ples,
repackaging specimens for return to the property and
evidence unit, or performing initial drug screens.
To increase productivity, technicians could work along side
criminalists to assist in such tasks. Although the crime lab
raised concerns that this could affect their accreditation, an of-ficial
from ASCLD/LAB (the agency that accredits crime labs)
stated that many labs commonly use technicians to perform
analysis and that this practice is acceptable if the technicians
are properly trained and tested. Therefore, the crime lab
should assess whether the current lab technician responsibili-ties
can be revised or expanded to include such activities.
While the lab may determine additional technicians would be
needed to complete such tasks, the advantage would be that
the lab could stretch its available personnel dollars since tech-nicians
have lower salaries than criminalists.
Finding II
31
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Streamlining data entry procedures—In the near future,
the crime lab should be able to reduce repetitive data entry.
While the crime lab’s new automated laboratory information
management system (LIMS) is designed to allow the down-loading
of information directly from lab equipment, the
system currently does not have this capability. Instead, re-sults
already recorded in the lab equipment must be re-entered
into the LIMS computer. The crime lab indicates that
data transfer software will be available toward the end of the
year at no cost.
n Monitoring the technical review process to ensure timely
final reports—The crime lab should improve its monitoring
of the required technical review process to ensure that final re-ports
are disseminated as quickly as possible. A technical re-view
involves another criminalist reviewing the test results be-fore
the final report is sent to the requesting agency. Although
it takes between 2 to 4 hours to review a batch of 50 test results
(depending upon the type of analyses performed), auditors
noted that the number of toxicology cases awaiting review in-creased
from 88 in February to more than 600 in July. This siz-able
increase could result in unnecessary delays if not man-aged
well.
Currently, the lab allows criminalists to informally dis-tribute
the cases needing technical reviews. Because of
this, the crime lab does not have adequate management
information on the technical review process readily
available, such as how long the process takes. Therefore,
the lab should improve its monitoring of the technical re-view
process in the short term by developing a system
for tracking technical reviews, such as attaching a track-ing
sheet to each batch of results. The crime lab could
compile and analyze these sheets to help assess how long
technical reviews take, whether the review workload is
being reasonably shared among criminalists, and
whether any changes to the process are needed. Eventu-ally,
the lab should consider incorporating this informa-tion
into its case management (LIMS) system.
n Expanding blood alcohol testing services to all regional
crime labs—As a longer-term solution, the crime lab should
consider expanding blood alcohol testing to both its northern
Finding II
32
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
and southern regional crime labs. The central regional crime
lab currently performs the State’s drug testing and the major-ity
of blood alcohol testing. This centralized approach can
contribute to added time for court appearances, because
criminalists who analyze these specimens must periodically
travel across the State to testify. In addition, while local law
enforcement officers submit evidence samples to the regional
lab in their area, these samples are often transferred to the
central lab for analysis. This shipping of samples to and from
regional labs can also result in increased analysis time.
Such an expansion would require additional funding. Based
on crime lab estimates, expanding blood alcohol testing to its
northern and southern regional crime labs would result in in-creased
staff (3 criminalists) and equipment costing a mini-mum
of $306,000. This amount might be even higher, be-cause
it does not include providing for any additional space,
which is a consideration because the northern lab has already
reached its space capacity. Therefore, before any expansion
were to take place, its costs and benefits would need to be
analyzed more extensively.
n Enhance its action plan for reducing backlogs—To im-prove
its ability to address current and future backlog con-cerns,
the crime lab should expand its written action plan
specific to its toxicology area. While the toxicology unit’s
plan contains the number of backlogged cases and a discus-sion
of steps it is taking to reduce this backlog, it does not
identify how many cases individual criminalists can process
or provide an updated time frame for when the backlog can
be eliminated. In fact, the unit’s current projected date for
eliminating its backlog is January 1999. The crime lab ex-plains
that it currently projects these time frames and dates
only informally and on an infrequent basis. Therefore, the
crime lab should incorporate some additional items into its
written action plan, such as performance goals that identify
the number of cases the unit projects can be processed per
month for each criminalist in the alcohol and drug analysis
areas. In addition, the crime lab should formalize these pro-jections
as well as monitor and update them monthly. Fur-thermore,
to facilitate the development of its plan, the lab
should consider its entire workload, not just the cases the
lab considers to be backlogged.
Finding II
33
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. To increase the toxicology unit’s productivity, the crime lab
should formally assess whether lab technician responsibilities
can be expanded to include providing direct support to the
criminalist during the analysis process.
2. The crime lab should acquire software and related pro-gramming
to allow direct transfer of case information from
lab instruments to the crime lab’s automated system.
3. To help ensure that the toxicology unit’s final reports are dis-seminated
as quickly as possible, the crime lab should de-velop
a system for tracking how quickly reviews are com-pleted.
4. The crime lab should formally analyze the cost benefit of ex-panding
blood alcohol testing to the northern and southern
regional crime labs.
5. The crime lab should enhance its written action plan for the
toxicology unit by incorporating such items as the projected
number of cases each criminalist can process per month as
well as revising its projected dates for when backlogs can be
eliminated in both the alcohol and drug areas.
34
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendices
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Appendix A
a-i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix A
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Forensic Science Services
As of July 2000
Laboratory
Specialty
Major Services
Provided
Arson and
explosives
Ø Analyzes fire and explosive residues and debris to detect flammable liquids or
explosives.
Breath alcohol Ø Trains officers in the use of breath testing instruments and quality assurance
procedures; and
Ø Calibrates, maintains, and repairs breath testing instruments.
Controlled
substances
Ø Analyzes materials and substances for presence of illegal drugs, such as mari-juana
or narcotics; and
Ø Assists police investigating labs manufacturing clandestine drugs such as meth-amphetamine.
DNA Ø Analyzes blood, other bodily fluids, and tissues to create DNA profiles of con-victed
offenders and unknown suspects; and
Ø Maintains the Combined DNA Identification System (CODIS), an automated
database which contains DNA information on convicted sex offenders and se-lected
unsolved crimes.
Firearms and
toolmarks
Ø Matches and identifies evidence items such as firearms, bullet cartridges, tool-marks
and tire tracks; and
Ø Restores serial numbers on crime scene evidence.
Latent prints Ø Develops latent (invisible) print impressions from surfaces such as metal, glass,
and other objects;
Ø Examines latent impressions such as fingerprints or palmprints to compare to
suspect impressions; and
Ø Searches crime scene latents against a computerized database (AZAFIS) when
there are no suspect prints for comparison.
Photography Ø Processes film and reproduces slides or negatives from a crime scene; and
Ø Assists with crime scene photography for major felonies.
Questioned
documents
Ø Examines and authenticates documents, such as wills, checks, and letters for
genuineness, authorship, age or origin.
Toxicology Ø Identifies alcohol concentration in blood;
Ø Identifies drug presence in blood, urine; and
Ø Identifies inhalants and intoxicants in blood and urine.
Trace analysis Ø Examines, compares, and identifies hair, fibers, paint, glass and other articles
from crime scenes and vehicle lamp filaments from traffic accidents.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Department of Public Safety crime lab system Overview and An-nual
Report, August 10, 1999.
a-ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Appendix B
b-i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix B
Department of Public Safety
Crime Lab
Convicted Sex Offenders Subject to DNA Testing
As of July 2000
A.R.S. Offense Description Conviction
13-1403 Public sexual indecency; public sexual inde-cency
to a minor under age 15.
Public indecency—Class 1
misdemeanor;
Public indecency to a minor—
Class 5 felony.
13-1404 Sexual abuse of persons 15 years or more;
any person under age 15 years if contact
involves only the female breast.
Sexual abuse—Class 5 felony;
Sexual abuse of person under
age 15—Class 3 felony.
13-1405 Sexual conduct with a minor under age 15
or at least age 15.
Sexual conduct with a person
under age 15—Class 2 felony;
Sexual conduct with person at
least age 15—Class 6 felony;
Sexual conduct with person at
least age 15, if offender is par-ent,
stepparent, adoptive par-ent,
legal guardian—Class 2
felony.
13-1406 Sexual assault. Class 2 felony. Repeat offend-ers
receive varied sentence
terms.
13-1410 Molesting a child. Class 2 felony.
13-1411 Crime against nature. Class 3 misdemeanor.
13-1412 Lewd and lascivious acts. Class 3 misdemeanor.
13-1417 Continuous (3 or more acts) sexual abuse of
a child.
Class 2 felony.
13-3608 Incest. Class 4 felony.
13-3821;
13-3822;
13-3824
Violating registration requirements for sex
offender community notification.
Class 4 felony.
Source: Arizona Revised Statutes §31-281.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD. P.O. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005-6638 (602) P-23 - 2000
JANE DEE HULL
GOVERNOR
August 24, 2000
Ms. Debra K. Davenport, CPA
Auditor General, State of Arizona
Office of the Auditor General 2910
N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
DENNIS A. GARRM
DIRECTOR
Enclosed is the Department's written response to the Auditor General's revised preliminary report
draft of the performance audit of the Department of Public Safety's Scientific Analysis Bureau.
Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions.
Dennis A. Garrett, Colonel
Director
dkr
Enclosures: Response Disk
~
AGENCY RESPONSE
INTRODUCTION
The DPS Crime Laboratory has been
a leader in DNA analysis since the
late 1980's when it was one of five
crime laboratories in conjunction
with the FBI to develop the initial
DNA analysis techniques imple-mented
in the United States.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety, Scientific Analysis
Bureau (Crime Laboratory), values the use of audits and inspec-tions
to create a culture of continual improvement. By using these
and other techniques, the DPS Crime Laboratory has developed a
national and international reputation for scientific excellence.
Therefore, continuing in this tradition, the Scientific Analysis
Bureau wishes to thank the Auditor General and staff for their
recommendations and suggestions for improvement.
Because, ultimately, all functions the DPS Crime Laboratory per-forms
must withstand the scrutiny of the Arizona Criminal Justice
System and be accepted in court, the Department believes the
discussion included in the Audit Report under “Noteworthy
Distinctions and Acknowledgments” is extremely important for
inclusion in a document of this type. The Department would fur-ther
provide the following information regarding the crime lab-oratory’s
scientific excellence. The DPS Crime Laboratory:
n was one of five crime laboratories in conjunction with the FBI
to develop the initial DNA analysis techniques implemented
in the United States in the late 1980's;
n was one of 12 laboratories in conjunction with the FBI to
develop and validate the new STR - DNA analysis protocol
now in use nationwide;
n has been a pilot site for the development of the national DNA
database system CODIS (Combined DNA Index System)
since the project was initiated by the FBI;
n is one of approximately six crime laboratories nationwide to
determine the level of cannabis (marijuana) present in a blood
sample and use physiological models to determine an
approximate time-of-use in relation to impairment;
n is a member of the national Scientific Working Group on Fire-arms
Examinations to set national standards in this forensic
discipline;
n is a member of the national Scientific Working Group on
Material Analysis Techniques to set national standards for
trace evidence analysis; and
n has had numerous pieces of evidence sent to private labora-tories
for reanalysis by defense attorneys during its 31 years of
existence, and never have the original DPS scientific con-clusions
been refuted.
RESPONSE TO
FINDING 1:
DNA DATABASE
The DPS Scientific Analysis Bureau
is committed to the importance and
power of DNA analysis to solve
violent crimes; exonerate unjustly
accused defendants; remove violent
criminals from society; and resolve
cases for victims and their families.
INTRODUCTION
The DPS Scientific Analysis Bureau is committed to the impor-tance
and power of DNA analysis to solve violent crimes; exon-erate
unjustly accused defendants; remove violent criminals from
society; and resolve cases for victims and their families. This
commitment is demonstrated by the laboratory’s involvement in
DNA from the beginning of DNA implementation in the United
States as outlined in the “Response” introduction.
Therefore, the DPS Crime Laboratory has participated in an evol-ving
DNA technology which has changed and grown con-siderably.
Part of this growth or maturing process has been the
CODIS system, which is just now moving from its beta testing to
full national implementation in the Year 2000.
During this time, the DPS Crime Laboratory has worked diligently
to apply its limited DNA resources to active cases where suspects
can be implicated or exonerated, and to position itself so that the
CODIS DNA database can become a valuable tool in solving
crimes. However, the DPS Crime Laboratory joins the majority of
states who have not had the resources to process a large number of
non-suspect cases for comparison to the database of convicted
offenders.
Even under these conditions, the DPS CODIS system has pro-duced
five “hits,” which for the number of convicted offender
samples received (approximately 768 per year) is the same “hit”
ratio as Virginia (with 75 hits per 18,000 convicted offender
samples per year). Virginia is reported in the audit document as a
state having success with its database.
Recommendation 1: The crime lab should develop a strategic
plan specific to the DNA database program’s operations, address-ing
its analysis of both convicted offender samples as well
as non-suspect crime scene evidence. At a minimum, this plan
should define the DNA database program’s mission and goals,
and establish key objectives and performance measures for deter-mining
the program’s efficiency and effectiveness.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented.
The DPS Crime Lab has received on
August 23, 2000, approval for a
federal grant of $201,250 to
outsource an additional 5,000 con-victed
offender samples.
Recommendation 2: To improve the operation and management
of its DNA database program, the crime lab should expand its
current procedures. These expanded procedures should minimally
focus on:
a. Periodically assessing the amount of non-suspect crime
scene evidence available for database comparison;
b. Determining what non-suspect crime scene evidence the
crime lab will analyze and upload to the DNA database;
c. Prioritizing its analysis of non-suspect crime scene evi-dence;
and
d. Improving coordination with agencies responsible for sub-mitting
convicted offender samples to ensure submitting
agencies are aware of the importance of submitting all
samples and that they are submitted with accurate and
complete identifying information.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. This may require an
administrative position to accomplish and if this is determined to
be the case, it will be included in new DNA program Budget
Requests currently being developed.
Recommendation 3: The crime lab should continue in its efforts
to reduce and prioritize its convicted offender backlog. Specif-ically,
the crime lab should:
a. Seek opportunities to increase it’s outsourcing of offender
samples to enable the DNA unit to concentrate on ana-lyzing
more non-suspect crime scene evidence;
b. Develop effective procedures of ensuring that technical
reviews are completed as quickly as possible; and
c. Revise current prioritization practices in consideration of
present and future offenses subject to DNA testing.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. The DPS Crime Lab
has just received on August 23, 2000, approval for a federal grant
of $201,250 to outsource an additional 5,000 convicted offender
samples.
Recommendation 4: The crime lab should dedicate one or more
criminalists to the specific responsibility of analyzing non-suspect
crime scene cases.
Efforts are currently underway by
the DPS Crime Lab, a judge, county
attorneys, and a Governor’s Office
representative to assess DNA
database needs statewide and
recommend funding requirements.
RESPONSE TO
FINDING 2:
TOXICOLOGY
BACKLOG
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented within the constraints
of court requirements and active cases. The Scientific Analysis
Bureau is actively seeking opportunities to outsource convicted
offender samples, enabling DNA analysts to be assigned to non-suspect
cases on a rotating basis. However, if outsourcing does
not continue due to lack of funds, etc., then DNA analysts may
have to be reassigned from non-suspect cases to active cases set
for court.
Recommendation 5: In conjunction with developing procedures
and reducing its offender sample backlog, the crime lab needs to
regularly assess whether it has resources to effectively implement
the DNA database program, and develop a request for additional
staff and equipment if necessary.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. DPS Scientific
Analysis Bureau management is currently meeting with a group of
prosecutors, a judge, a member of the Governor’s staff, and local
crime lab administrators to assess funding requirements for non-suspect
cases and an expansion of the convicted offender
database. This project is anticipated to result in new legislation to
increase resources for the entire DNA database needs with
specific emphasis on non-suspect cases.
INTRODUCTION
The DPS Scientific Analysis Bureau places the highest priority on
speedy delivery of laboratory results of unquestionable accuracy.
Because of the sudden surge in new toxicology submissions over
the last year, backlogs of blood alcohols and drug screens have
grown, impacting turnaround times.
The Auditor General’s Report depicts this significant increase and
efforts to combat the backlogs. In addition, it should be noted that
the DPS Crime Laboratory has successfully applied for and
received a Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Grant
to hire an additional toxicologist. This, along with a vacant posi-tion
moved to the toxicology unit, will add two additional staff.
The DPS Crime Lab, as of August
28, 2000, will bring on board two
experienced toxicologists to assist
with backlog reduction.
And finally, through a careful hiring process, the laboratory was
able to hire two experienced toxicologists to fill these positions
beginning August 28, 2000, and they will begin reducing the
backlogs almost immediately.
Also, beginning in July 2000, the Scientific Analysis Bureau has
directed new fiscal year overtime funds toward impacting and
reducing backlogs. Therefore, as of August 16, 2000, the backlog
of blood alcohols had dropped by over 440 cases. (The auditors
noted in their report that cases awaiting review had grown to 600
cases in July, which is a result of this important overtime
program.)
Recommendation 1: To increase the toxicology unit’s produc-tivity,
the crime lab should formally assess whether lab technician
responsibilities can be expanded to include providing direct
support to the criminalist during the analysis process.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. It should be noted
that any direct support by lab technicians, as a result of this
assessment, would then take the technicians away from their
normal duties. This would mean that these normal duties would
have to be assumed by criminalists, or budget authority would
have to be received to hire more technicians.
Recommendation 2: The crime lab should acquire software and
related programming to allow direct transfer of case information
from lab instruments to the crime lab’s automated system.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. The new Laboratory
Information and Management System software revision scheduled
for release prior to December 31, 2000, has the appropriate
features to accomplish this direct transfer of case information.
Recommendation 3: To help ensure that the toxicology unit’s final
reports are disseminated as quickly as possible, the crime
lab should develop a system for tracking how quickly reviews are
completed.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. In actuality, this
recommendation has already been implemented. A tracking sheet
is in use and the LIMS system provides turnaround time statistics.
The FY 2002 and FY 2003 Budget
Request includes personnel and
equipment to perform blood alcohol
analysis at the Tucson and Flagstaff
Regional Crime Laboratories.
Recommendation 4: The crime lab should formally analyze the
cost benefit of expanding blood alcohol testing to the northern and
southern regional crime labs.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. The cost/benefit
analysis of regionalizing blood alcohol analysis has already begun.
The FY 2002 and FY 2003 Budget Request includes personnel
and equipment to perform blood alcohol analysis at the Southern
Regional Crime Laboratory, Tucson, and the Northern Regional
Crime Laboratory, Flagstaff.
Recommendation 5: The crime lab should enhance its written
action plan for the toxicology unit by incorporating such items as
the projected number of cases each criminalist can process per
month, as well as revising its projected dates for when backlogs
can be eliminated in both the alcohol and drug areas.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
audit recommendation will be implemented. Case processing
capabilities for toxicologists have been well established and mon-itored
at the crime laboratory for years. With the new personnel
hired August 28, 2000, new projections of backlog elimination
can be calculated.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
99-13 Board of Psychologist Examiners
99-14 Arizona Council for the Hearing
Impaired
99-15 Arizona Board of Dental Examiners
99-16 Department of Building and
Fire Safety
99-17 Department of Health Services’
Tobacco Education and Prevention
Program
99-18 Department of Health Services—
Bureau of Epidemiology and
Disease Control Services
99-19 Department of Health Services—
Sunset Factors
99-20 Arizona State Board of Accountancy
99-21 Department of Environmental
Quality—Aquifer Protection Permit
Program, Water Quality Assurance
Revolving Fund Program, and
Underground Storage Tank Program
99-22 Arizona Department of Transportation
A+B Bidding
00-1 Healthy Families Program
00-2 Behavioral Health Services—
Interagency Coordination of Services
00-3 Arizona’s Family Literacy Program
00-4 Family Builders Pilot Program
00-5 Department of Agriculture—
Licensing Functions
00-6 Board of Medical Student Loans
00-7 Department of Public Safety—
Aviation Section
00-8 Department of Agriculture—
Animal Disease, Ownership and
Welfare Protection Program
00-9 Arizona Naturopathic Physicians
Board of Medical Examiners
00-10 Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality Assurance
Program and Non-Food Product
Quality Assurance Program
00-11 Arizona Office of Tourism
Future Performance Audit Reports
Department of Agriculture—Pest Exclusion and
Management Program
Department of Agriculture—Commodity Development and
Promotion Program
Department of Agriculture—State Agricultural Laboratory
Department of Agriculture—Sunset Factors
Arizona State Boxing Commission