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