Post on 30-May-2020
Sexual Assault ‘Backlog’ Elimination Program in Los Angeles County
Dean M. Gialamas Director, Scientific Services Bureau
NIJ Grantee’s Meeting October 26, 2010
San Diego, CA
Overview
• Historical review of how LA Sheriff came to have a sexual assault kit (SAK) backlog
• How the SAK backlog was addressed • Why backlogs are a ‘false’ metric • Review of statistics from the LA Sheriff SAK
Backlog Project • The next steps for LA Sheriff
LA County Overview • Los Angeles County Overview ▫ 10.9 million residents, 4,000 square miles ▫ 88 cities, with 47 independent city police departments
• Crime Lab provides DNA services to ALL jurisdictions except for one: City of Los Angeles ▫ Full-Service Crime Laboratory
Sheriff’s Department (including Contract Cities) 47 Independent City Police Departments >50 Other Law Enforcement Agencies
▫ ~300 Sworn and Professional Staff ▫ >80,000 evidence submissions each year
A Backlog Emerges …
• Local attention brought issue forward ▫ LAPD SAK development ▫ Several Los Angeles Times articles ▫ Report by Human Rights Watch ▫ Concerns raised by local Rape Treatment Centers
• Resulted in the Sheriff making policy decision that all SAK’s submitted to the lab will be tested
The Inventory Phase
• A total of 6,030 cases were inventoried by hand • This number grew to 6,723 after an additional
693 kits were located after the initial inventory ▫ The total represented every SAK at the lab, our
central property warehouse, and outside agencies combined
• While the inventory was being completed, a database was created and pertinent data was entered and tracked
The Inventory Phase
• Data review was conducted to determine how many SAK’s had already been worked ▫ 1,960 kits were already analyzed ▫ This was 33% of the total inventory
• And that left 4,763 unanalyzed SAK’s ▫ ~70% LA Sheriff cases ▫ ~30% Outside Agency (non-Sheriff) cases
We went from ~25 cases in our existing ‘backlog’ to 6,723 in a matter of days!
The False ‘Metric’ of Backlog • Backlog is a measure of inputs NOT a measure of
efficiency ▫ NIJ Convicted Offender backlog
• Backlog is meaningless when compared to productivity or turnaround time ▫ Orange County example
• Policy makers rely on backlogs (and we fall victim to it as well!) as a measure of success
• Backlogs (i.e., change of inputs) cannot be controlled by the laboratory ▫ They are controlled by the crime rate, client needs, etc. ▫ May be influenced by crime lab policies (e.g., sample
limitations)
The Survey Phase • We decided to triage the cases based on potential
probative value • Designed an audit questionnaire that was sent to
each station / agency • Two week turnaround on the surveys ▫ This proved to be inadequate for agencies and stations
with hundreds of SAK’s • Overall, about 75% of the surveys were completed
and returned ▫ Follow-up was conducted on those who did not
respond
The Survey Phase • When the audit forms were returned, categories
were developed to prioritize the cases for testing ▫ Cat I – Unknown suspect ▫ Cat II – Known suspect ▫ Cat III – DA reject ▫ Cat IV – Adjudicated ▫ Cat V – Incomplete audit returns ▫ Cat VI – Elements of crime not established
The Current Inventory Numbers*
SAK Project Initial Case Inventory LASD % of Total
Number of SAK Cases Inventoried 6,723 100%
Number of Analyzed Cases in Inventory 1,960 29%
Number of Unanalyzed Cases in Inventory 4,763 71%
Audit Return Category Breakdown % of Total
Unknown Suspect (Cat I) 20%
Known Suspect (Cat II) 8%
DA Reject (Cat III) 28%
Adjudicated (Cat IV) 24%
Incomplete Audit Returns (Cat V) 15%
No Crime Committed (Cat VI) 5%
* As of October 1, 2010
The Testing (Outsourcing) Phase • Could not be accomplished in-house with existing
resources • All testing (screening and profiling) was outsourced ▫ Utilized 5 contract private labs
Took time to set up contracts and perform lab audits Started with just 60 kits/month in Jan 2009 Currently sending over 500 kits/month ▫ CA-DOJ assisting with 25 kits/month ▫ Marshall University assisting with NIJ funding for 20
kits/month • Outsourcing is paid for with NIJ Grant Funding,
Local Prop 69 Funding, and Department funds
Some Benefits…
• With every crisis comes opportunity… ▫ Additional funds authorized by the Board of
Supervisors to see that the project is completed ▫ Also requested additional personnel to deal with
~900 new SAK’s annually plus CODIS reviews on outsourcing project 6 additional DNA analysts 1 additional DNA supervisor
Funding Breakdown Funding Source Amount
• NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Grants
• LA County Contribution • Congressional Earmark • Unit Budget • Local Proposition 69 Funds
• $2.8 Million • $2.3 Million
• $1.0 Million • $140,000 • $27,000
Overview of Current Data Test Results to Date From the Public Perspective
• Outsourced 100% of identified untested SAK’s
• Results on 3,541 kits returned • 36% had negative biological
material screen • 64% had positive biological
material screen ▫ 30% qualified for CODIS
upload ▫ 30% failed to meet CODIS
upload requirements ▫ 40% pending data and
CODIS review (of which, 200 are unknown suspect cases)
• Outsourcing costs to date are over $3.1 million (approx. $880/kit on average) ▫ This figure does NOT
include the in-house examiner costs for outsourcing, data review or testimony
• Total number of cold hits: 305 • Total number that lead to
prosecution – 2 ▫ Most hits are either under
investigation or did not result in criminal filings
Looking Back … What Worked What Didn’t Work
• Taking the time to inventory and fully assess the problem
• Using existing performance metrics to project the time involved and staff necessary, including the outsourcing steps and the CODIS reviews
• Having the immediate Chain of Command understand the issues
• HIGHLY dedicated and motivated staff
• We did not have a LIMS system capable of handing this type of dilemma – had to build our own databases “on the fly”
• Did not account for Evidence staff, who were overwhelmed with large numbers of requests
• Convincing the policy makers that this may not be the best strategy ▫ NIJ/CSULA research on the
topic – Dr. Joe Peterson
Looking Forward … • Automation & Technology ▫ Robotics, LIMS
• Batching • New on-line submission forms • Struggling with increased follow-up by investigators
on CODIS hits • Need increased productivity on CODIS reviews ▫ Currently working on emphasis on automated artificial
intelligence mixture interpretation software • The future bottleneck (turn-around time) will be
more dependent on the speed of information flow rather than technology innovation
“The End” Result
• Our goals are all the same: Provide information to the criminal justice system to
hold those who commit crimes accountable and exonerate those who are wrongly accused.
Thank You!
Dean M. Gialamas dmgialam@lasd.org
(323) 260-8502