Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-20183 | Page Table of Tables Table 1: Cases per 100,000...

Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-2018

Forensic Science Initiative, College of Business & Economics, West Virginia University

FORESIGHT—Example (US$)

May 2019

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents Table of Tables ................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Figures .................................................................................................................. 5

FORESIGHT Benchmark Data 2017-2018 ........................................................................ 7

FORESIGHT 20/20 ............................................................................................................ 7

FORESIGHT 20/20 Executive Summary ....................................................................... 8

PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 8

Relative Volume & Activity Metrics ................................................................................ 11

Cases per 100,000 Population Served ........................................................................... 11

Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served.......................................... 12

Samples per 100,000 Population Served ...................................................................... 13

Tests per 100,000 Population Served............................................................................ 14

Reports per 100,000 Population Served ........................................................................ 15

Cost Metrics ...................................................................................................................... 16

Cost per Case ................................................................................................................ 16

Cost per Item ................................................................................................................. 17

Cost per Sample ............................................................................................................ 19

Metric Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 22

Market Metrics .................................................................................................................. 22

Average Compensation ................................................................................................. 23

Risk Management Metrics ................................................................................................ 24

Items per Case ............................................................................................................... 24

Samples per Case .......................................................................................................... 25

Tests per Case ............................................................................................................... 26

Samples per Item........................................................................................................... 28

Tests per Item ................................................................................................................ 29

Reports per Item ............................................................................................................ 30

Tests per Sample ........................................................................................................... 31

Reports per Sample ....................................................................................................... 32

Productivity Metrics.......................................................................................................... 33

Cases per FTE ............................................................................................................... 34

Items per FTE ............................................................................................................... 35

Samples per FTE ........................................................................................................... 36

Tests per FTE ................................................................................................................ 37

May 2019

2 | P a g e

Reports per FTE ............................................................................................................ 38

Analytical Process Metrics ............................................................................................... 39

Personnel Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ................................................... 40

Capital Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ....................................................... 41

Consumables Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ............................................. 42

Other Expenses as a proportion of Total Expense ........................................................ 43

Turn-around Time ............................................................................................................. 44

Turn-around Time (Timed in days from last submission of evidence to Report submission) ................................................................................................................... 44

Turn-around Time (Timed in days from first submission of evidence to Report submission) ................................................................................................................... 45

Backlog ............................................................................................................................. 46

Cases Open over 30 Days/Annual Caseload ................................................................. 46

Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness of Forensic Science Services—FORESIGHT 2017-2018 Benchmark Data....................................................................................................... 47

Blood Alcohol Analysis ................................................................................................ 48

Crime Scene Investigation ............................................................................................ 50

Digital Evidence............................................................................................................ 52

DNA Casework Analysis .............................................................................................. 54

DNA Database .............................................................................................................. 56

Document Examination ................................................................................................ 58

Drugs—Controlled Substances ..................................................................................... 60

Explosives Analysis ...................................................................................................... 64

Fingerprint ID ............................................................................................................... 66

Firearms & Ballistics Analysis ..................................................................................... 70

Forensic Pathology........................................................................................................ 72

Marks & Impressions Analysis ..................................................................................... 75

Toxicology Analysis ante mortem ................................................................................ 79

Toxicology Analysis post mortem ................................................................................ 81

Trace Evidence Analysis............................................................................................... 83

FORESIGHT Glossary ..................................................................................................... 85

Definitions: Investigative Areas ....................................................................................... 88

Project FORESIGHT Publications ................................................................................... 90

Forensic Science International: Synergy ........................................................................ 106

May 2019

3 | P a g e

Table of Tables Table 1: Cases per 100,000 Population Served ................................................................ 11 Table 2: Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served ............................... 12 Table 3: Samples Examined per 100,000 Population Served ........................................... 13 Table 4: Tests Performed per 100,000 Population Served ............................................... 14 Table 5: Reports per 100,000 Population Served ............................................................. 15 Table 6: Cost per Case by Investigative Area ................................................................... 16 Table 7: Real* Cost per Case across Time ....................................................................... 17 Table 8: Cost per Item Processed by Investigative Area .................................................. 18 Table 9: Cost per Sample by Investigative Area .............................................................. 19 Table 10: Cost per Test by Investigative Area.................................................................. 20 Table 11: Cost per Report by Investigative Area.............................................................. 21 Table 12: Average Compensation by Investigative Area ................................................. 23 Table 13: Items per Case by Investigative Area ............................................................... 24 Table 14: Samples per Case by Investigative Area .......................................................... 25 Table 15: Tests per Case by Investigative Area................................................................ 26 Table 16: Reports per Case by Investigative Area ............................................................ 27 Table 17: Samples per Item examined internally by Investigative Area .......................... 28 Table 18: Tests per Item examined internally by Investigative Area ............................... 29 Table 19: Reports per Item examined internally by Investigative Area ........................... 30 Table 20: Tests per Sample by Investigative Area ........................................................... 31 Table 21: Reports per Sample by Investigative Area ....................................................... 32 Table 22: Cases per FTE by Investigative Area ............................................................... 34 Table 23: Items examined internally per FTE by Investigative Area ............................... 35 Table 24: Samples per FTE by Investigative Area ........................................................... 36 Table 25: Tests per FTE by Investigative Area ................................................................ 37 Table 26: Reports per FTE by Investigative Area ............................................................ 38 Table 27: Personnel Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ................. 40 Table 28: Capital Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ...................... 41 Table 29: Consumables Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ............ 42 Table 30: Other Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses.......................................... 43 Table 31: Turnaround Time from Last Item Received by Investigative Area .................. 44 Table 32: Turnaround Time from First Item Received by Investigative Area ................. 45 Table 33: Backlog Cases as a Percent of Total Cases by Investigative Area ................... 46 Table 34: Efficient Frontier for Blood & Breath Alcohol Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads ................................................................................ 49 Table 35: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads .................................................................................... 51 Table 36: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 53 Table 37: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 55 Table 38: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 57

May 2019

4 | P a g e

Table 39: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 59 Table 40: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ...................................................................................... 61 Table 41: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 42: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 65 Table 43: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 67 Table 44: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads........................................................................................................................................... 69 Table 45: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 71 Table 46: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 47: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 76 Table 48: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 78 Table 49: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology ante mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 80 Table 50: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology post mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 82 Table 51: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 84

May 2019

5 | P a g e

Table of Figures Figure 1: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol—Cases/FTE v. Cases Processed ............ 48 Figure 3: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4: Efficient Frontier Crime Scene Investigation—Cases/FTE v. Caseload .......... 50 Figure 5: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 6: Efficient Frontier Digital Evidence—Cases/FTE v. Caseload .......................... 52 Figure 7: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8: Efficient Frontier DNA Casework—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ........................... 54 Figure 9: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 10: Efficient Frontier DNA Database—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ........................... 56 Figure 11: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 12: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 58 Figure 13: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed .................................................................................................... 60 Figure 14: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 60 Figure 15: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ............................................................................................................ 62 Figure 16: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 17: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 18 : Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............ 64 Figure 19: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 20: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 66 Figure 21: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed 68 Figure 22: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 68 Figure 23: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 24: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload........................................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 25: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 26: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ... 73 Figure 27: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 28: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload........................................................................................................................................... 75

May 2019

6 | P a g e

Figure 29: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 77 Figure 30: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................ 79 Figure 31: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................ 81 Figure 32: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 83

May 2019

7 | P a g e

FORESIGHT Benchmark Data 2017-2018 Project FORESIGHT is a business-guided self-evaluation of forensic science laboratories across the globe. The participating laboratories represent local, regional, state, and national agencies. Economics, accounting, finance, and forensic faculty provide assistance, guidance, and analysis. Laboratories participating in Project FORESIGHT have developed standardized definitions for metrics to evaluate work processes, linking financial information to work tasks, and functions. Laboratory managers can then assess resource allocations, efficiencies, and value of services—the mission of Project FORESIGHT is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. The benchmark data for the 2017-2018 performance period includes laboratory submissions for a variety of fiscal year definitions. However, all submissions have December 31, 2017 as part of their fiscal year accounting. The majority of submissions follow a July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 convention. Others follow a year that begins as early as January 1, 2017 (ending December 31, 2017) while the other extreme includes laboratories with a fiscal year originating October 1, 2017 and ending September 30, 2018.

Consider the summary statistics for several of the key performance indicators. Because of outliers in several of the investigative areas, the most meaningful comparisons might best be made with respect to median as a representation of “typical” laboratory performance. To lend perspective to the spread of these metrics, each of the quartile metrics are reported along with the specific comparison to the laboratory highlighted in this report. As of this writing, one hundred thirty-nine laboratory systems have contributed data to the project. For most areas of investigation, the submitted data offers a large enough sample to elicit good statistical properties. However, for Digital Evidence, Evidence Screening & Processing, and Forensic Pathology, the number of reporting laboratories in these areas is small and fewer inferences may be drawn from the data. For more information on Project FORESIGHT, visit the Project web site at www.be.wvu.edu/forensic/foresight.htm. Questions regarding this report or other matters pertaining to Project FORESIGHT should be directed to the Principal Investigator Paul Speaker ([email protected]).

FORESIGHT 20/20 The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was successful in securing a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) to assist laboratories in the extraction of data from their Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS),

http://www.be.wvu.edu/forensic/foresight.htm

mailto:[email protected]

May 2019

8 | P a g e

including data for submission to Project FORESIGHT. The executive summary of FORESIGHT 20/20 project follows.

FORESIGHT 20/20 Executive Summary The proliferation of television shows featuring CSI titles has both glamorized and cursed crime laboratories in America as expectations of laboratory performance have dramatically increased the demand for forensic science services. This increase in demand, coupled with laboratory funding cuts from the Great Recession, has created a bottleneck in the justice system as laboratory backlogs have risen, slowing down the entire system. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) recognized this problem and funded a solution via two grants for Project FORESIGHT for the years 2009 through 2015. The Project FORESIGHT team was tasked with studying the forensic science industry and developing business metrics for forensic laboratories that would enable them to gain efficiencies and become more cost effective, thus addressing the bottleneck in the justice system. While Project FORESIGHT has had a pronounced effect on the participating laboratories, less than 20% of U.S. laboratories submit data to the project. The main reason for the lack of participation has been the difficulty in extracting the necessary data on laboratory casework and coupling that information with laboratory expenditures and personnel detail, which come from separate information management systems. This proposal seeks funding to overcome this participation hurdle through the creation of software that provides the interface between the testing and casework information maintained in a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and the separate financial and personnel systems. This software will be developed under ASCLD’s leadership to connect the NIJ’s FORESIGHT measurement standards with laboratories nationwide to permit broader forensic science industry perspectives and to enhance the business metrics available to individual laboratory directors for daily decision-making. Organizing software development through the four major LIMS providers offers a permanent software solution to all crime laboratories for access to business metrics and does so at no cost to the individual laboratories. For laboratories participating in FORESIGHT, these business metrics have permitted dramatic increases in efficiency and saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Extending participation fivefold is expected to have similarly magnified gains. Once initiated across the leading LIMS providers, this offers a permanent, broad-based system for monitoring performance of the individual laboratory and details on the performance across all forensic science.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) is a nonprofit professional society of crime laboratory directors and forensic science managers dedicated to

May 2019

9 | P a g e

providing excellence in forensic science through leadership and innovation. The purpose of the organization is to foster professional interests, assist the development of laboratory management principles and techniques; acquire, preserve and disseminate forensic based information; maintain and improve communications among crime laboratory directors; and to promote, encourage and maintain the highest standards of practice in the field. With this mandate, ASCLD proposed to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation an investment to dramatically increase the efficiency and effectiveness of crime laboratories nationwide through the creation of financial intelligence software. With ever increasing demands for services and shrinking budgets, a crime laboratory must have a thorough understanding of their operations from a business perspective and a means to compare that performance to the standards of the “forensic science industry.” The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has led efforts to improve laboratory business practices through the creation of Project FORESIGHT. Project FORESIGHT is a performance benchmarking model that enables crime laboratories to perform an internal business assessment and external comparison by standardizing terminology and performance metrics across local, state, and federal laboratories. The FORESIGHT Project began as a funding award from the National Institute of Justice to the West Virginia University Forensic Science Initiative to develop a system that would enable laboratories to understand and assess the relationship between their casework, personnel, and budgetary expenditures. Forensic laboratory managers use these functions to assess resource allocations, human capital development, drive efficiencies, and evaluate the value of services—the mission is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. FORESIGHT is intended to support significant and enduring systematic reforms in accountability and decision-making in public forensic laboratories. Participation in FORESIGHT is free, voluntary, and open to forensic science laboratories worldwide. FORESIGHT has led to significant improvement at the individual laboratory level and for the forensic industry. Evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of a crime laboratory was virtually impossible without a common industry language and corresponding performance benchmarks. Individual annual reports to contributing laboratories detail the laboratory’s metrics with emphasis on productivity, risk management, analytical process, and economic market forces. These annual evaluations are equivalent to a consultant’s report, highlighting performance over time and across the industry. Even though participation is costless, less than 20% of U.S. laboratories enroll in the project. This low participation is not a comment on value of the project; rather a product of the difficulty of data extraction from multiple computer systems. Casework data is extracted from the LIMS, while personnel data and expenditures are extracted from one or more computer systems of the laboratory’s parent organization (generally, a policing organization). To bridge the firewalls protecting the data in each system, laboratory management must manually extract data from these multiple systems to report their performance to project FORESIGHT. For many laboratories, the

May 2019

10 | P a g e

cost in time and resources is deemed too high to participate. NIJ recognizes this burden and their Forensic Science Technology Working Group Operation Requirements highlight the need for increased IT knowledge and software for management to improve productivity. FORESIGHT has led to a macro view of the provision of forensic science services. The common measurements have permitted a review of fundamental economic hypotheses and the delivery of crime laboratory services for economic regions. The results have shown that individual laboratories are highly efficient in the provision of services, but rarely cost effective because of the reliance on political jurisdictions, rather than economic markets, for the provision of services. Although many laboratories have adopted this program to guide their operations, a major obstacle for implementation has been the “hands on” time required by laboratory staff to manually gather and input the required data. This data is composed of both laboratory and financial metrics, each of which is stored in separate locations or in systems that do not communicate. This then requires significant time dedicated to downloading this information and transferring it to the FORESIGHT program. The FORESIGHT program is not integrated with any of the existing vendor LIMS systems. As the LIMS systems have evolved, their capabilities have advanced to allow a more detailed monitoring of evidence samples as they move through the laboratory system. The crime laboratory user can detect problems and/or issues with samples before a report is issued and provides for a greater transparency to the criminal justice system as to the analysis history and quality assurance of that item of evidence. The development of such freeware then permits simple extraction and submission of FORESIGHT data. That allows 100% participation for all U.S. laboratories. Such a census, rather than the current voluntary sample, will benefit both the new participants as well as those laboratories currently in the program as a more complete picture of the forensic industry emerges. With the combination of casework, expenditures, and personnel data in a single database, the freeware will also permit easier reporting for federal grant purposes. For laboratory leadership, the freeware also permits the construction of a manager’s data dashboard with up-to-the-minute productivity metrics. The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors is requesting funding to support the development of freeware software, FORESIGHT 20/20, enabling the seamless data collection of core business metrics from Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) commonly employed by laboratories. Once implemented into the major LIMS providers, this legacy program requires no expenditures for individual laboratories beyond the normal updating of their LIMS.

May 2019

11 | P a g e

Relative Volume & Activity Metrics The use of the forensic crime laboratory differs across jurisdictions. The FBI’s uniform crime reporting (UCR) offers some indication of the volume of crime. FORESIGHT offers additional indication of the role of the forensic crime laboratory in the processing of evidence for the population served by the laboratory.

Cases per 100,000 Population Served A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 1: Cases per 100,000 Population Served

Area of Investigation 25th percentile Median 75th

percentile Blood Alcohol 28.54 72.59 113.16 Crime Scene Investigation 24.59 347.47 747.03 Digital evidence 3.12 6.66 70.59 DNA Casework 70.59 109.42 154.27 DNA Database 140.04 187.34 311.10 Document Examination 1.32 2.11 22.44 Drugs - Controlled Substances 146.85 266.05 510.55 Evidence Screening & Processing 22.14 31.28 56.16 Explosives 0.07 0.26 0.97 Fingerprints 42.30 86.76 250.90 Fire analysis 2.80 3.41 4.64 Firearms and Ballistics 17.37 26.84 91.15 Forensic Pathology 51.66 51.66 51.66 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 2.81 4.78 10.39 Marks and Impressions 0.32 0.47 0.64 Serology/Biology 23.78 69.33 74.16 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 41.69 56.09 125.05 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 44.44 49.67 71.49 Trace Evidence 1.33 2.62 3.52

May 2019

12 | P a g e

Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas.

Table 2: Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served


percentile

Blood Alcohol 33.53 78.14 197.14 Crime Scene Investigation 73.92 73.92 73.92 Digital evidence 11.79 19.25 192.63 DNA Casework 179.27 235.99 359.68 DNA Database 126.43 175.16 307.49 Document Examination 5.24 11.19 13.67 Drugs - Controlled Substances 312.39 629.07 757.11 Evidence Screening & Processing 10.91 10.91 10.91 Explosives 0.07 0.18 0.32 Fingerprints 194.73 499.16 822.38 Fire analysis 5.95 8.80 11.09 Firearms and Ballistics 58.90 125.28 204.78 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 3.25 5.40 24.56 Marks and Impressions 0.42 1.01 1.63 Serology/Biology 58.13 124.28 260.33 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 43.43 64.53 191.52 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 65.49 68.17 84.46 Trace Evidence 3.89 6.74 7.49

May 2019

13 | P a g e

Samples per 100,000 Population Served A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result.

Table 3: Samples Examined per 100,000 Population Served

Area of Investigation 25th

percentile Median 75th percentile

Blood Alcohol 29.30 78.14 158.86 Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework 357.46 469.86 643.75 DNA Database 156.18 250.28 343.08 Document Examination 12.47 13.74 14.47 Drugs - Controlled Substances 629.31 792.78 886.55 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 1.09 1.49 8.24 Fingerprints 231.59 525.70 743.97 Fire analysis 6.98 12.38 16.71 Firearms and Ballistics 68.76 130.18 239.89 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 5.02 7.92 24.88 Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology 50.05 354.89 377.91 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 43.18 62.14 137.80 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 66.98 88.20 125.94 Trace Evidence 6.33 13.39 20.47

May 2019

14 | P a g e

Tests per 100,000 Population Served A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews.

Table 4: Tests Performed per 100,000 Population Served


percentile

Blood Alcohol 99.00 161.89 582.99 Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework 908.70 1,510.66 2,214.78 DNA Database 139.92 468.87 910.28 Document Examination 9.46 10.89 12.32 Drugs - Controlled Substances 1,108.76 1,280.47 2,034.11 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 2.06 3.18 19.13 Fingerprints 617.92 980.29 2,873.57 Fire analysis 11.28 24.73 25.69 Firearms and Ballistics 93.57 193.95 418.97 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 4.58 6.47 14.03 Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology 200.22 336.92 354.89 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 120.39 232.33 468.54 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 183.19 205.96 294.45 Trace Evidence 28.43 35.38 100.42

May 2019

15 | P a g e

Reports per 100,000 Population Served A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so.

Table 5: Reports per 100,000 Population Served


percentile

Blood Alcohol 31.96 75.85 132.97 Crime Scene Investigation 60.54 116.22 1,278.23 Digital evidence 3.86 6.35 33.56 DNA Casework 63.77 92.97 129.14 DNA Database 9.72 35.98 98.08 Document Examination 0.74 1.41 1.78 Drugs - Controlled Substances 140.63 272.61 561.35 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 0.03 0.08 0.13 Fingerprints 32.03 88.67 263.93 Fire analysis 2.43 3.28 4.08 Firearms and Ballistics 15.49 29.01 99.15 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 2.51 2.92 9.27 Marks and Impressions 0.34 0.53 0.54 Serology/Biology 34.78 59.76 71.00 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 40.47 46.49 111.56 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 48.62 50.52 51.69 Trace Evidence 1.10 2.15 2.79

May 2019

16 | P a g e

Cost Metrics

Cost per Case The cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 6: Cost per Case by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $95 $141 $229 Crime Scene Investigation $789 $1,568 $3,467 Digital evidence $2,515 $4,300 $7,968 DNA Casework $1,040 $1,253 $1,975 DNA Database $39 $57 $86 Document Examination $3,210 $4,633 $5,389 Drugs - Controlled Substances $230 $346 $400 Evidence Screening & Processing $510 $635 $855 Explosives $12,848 $17,457 $20,122 Fingerprints $499 $786 $1,206 Fire analysis $1,397 $2,107 $2,925 Firearms and Ballistics $1,218 $1,799 $2,939 Forensic Pathology $1,717 $1,717 $1,718 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $2,141 $3,067 $4,103 Marks and Impressions $5,584 $6,706 $8,754 Serology/Biology $791 $912 $1,797 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $629 $851 $1,128 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $753 $865 $1,201 Trace Evidence $2,417 $4,404 $6,055

Project FORESIGHT submissions have increased annually. Although laboratory participation is voluntary, the summary statistics have been relatively consistent across

May 2019

17 | P a g e

time, particularly for areas of investigation that have large numbers of submissions. For those areas with fewer observations, there has been a fair amount of fluctuation, indicative of the smaller sample and the voluntary nature of the submissions. To illustrate the time series behaviour of the median performance, the following table provides a comparison of the cost/case over time after correcting for inflation. These measures are termed “real cost/case” where real refers to inflation-adjusted measures. Prior year’s metrics have been converted to 2017-2018 prices.

Table 7: Real* Cost per Case across Time

Area of Investigation 2012 - 2013

2013 - 2014

2014 - 2015

2015 - 2016

2016 - 2017

2017 - 2018

Blood Alcohol $147 $160 $156 $177 $181 $141 Crime Scene Investigation $6,517 $2,363 $3,988 $5,705 $3,877 $1,568 Digital evidence $8,314 $2,942 $3,261 $4,565 $12,233 $4,300 DNA Casework $2,461 $1,908 $2,188 $1,912 $1,925 $1,253 DNA Database $80 $103 $85 $106 $105 $57 Document Examination $8,343 $3,330 $4,758 $4,942 $7,156 $4,633 Drugs - Controlled Substances $338 $396 $382 $447 $502 $346 Evidence Screening & Processing $2,044 $659 $1,390 $1,687 $1,913 $635 Explosives $17,412 $8,885 $13,927 $17,100 $16,405 $17,457 Fingerprints $651 $708 $955 $991 $903 $786 Fire analysis $1,688 $2,652 $2,203 $2,654 $2,775 $2,107 Firearms and Ballistics $893 $1,439 $2,423 $2,512 $1,920 $1,799 Forensic Pathology $2,737 $2,522 $2,429 $2,879 $4,663 $1,717 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $2,788 $2,106 $2,957 $3,304 $3,610 $3,067 Marks and Impressions $11,633 $3,787 $7,929 $8,940 $7,951 $6,706 Serology/Biology $2,694 $833 $1,929 $2,119 $1,998 $912 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $619 $591 $680 $818 $752 $851 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $795 $1,035 $807 $971 $922 $865 Trace Evidence $4,948 $6,021 $4,509 $5,208 $4,935 $4,404

*2017-2018= 100

Cost per Item Differences in case detail and differences in case complexity across laboratories (and across time) suggest that other relative cost measures may offer more meaningful comparison. FORESIGHT data collection includes measures for items, samples, and tests in each investigative area.

May 2019

18 | P a g e

An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses.

Table 8: Cost per Item Processed by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $102 $149 $199 Crime Scene Investigation $232 $440 $732 Digital evidence $708 $1,334 $4,215 DNA Casework $363 $414 $706 DNA Database $41 $55 $85 Document Examination $811 $1,171 $1,538 Drugs - Controlled Substances $136 $194 $222 Evidence Screening & Processing $156 $289 $570 Explosives $4,175 $4,541 $5,468 Fingerprints $233 $362 $521 Fire analysis $546 $805 $1,196 Firearms and Ballistics $471 $804 $1,091 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $1,190 $1,511 $2,041 Marks and Impressions $1,967 $2,461 $3,164 Serology/Biology $215 $275 $505 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $563 $710 $963 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $361 $415 $548 Trace Evidence $37 $63 $83

May 2019

19 | P a g e

Cost per Sample A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. The sample offers a consistently applied metric across laboratories and suggests an average cost measure that is intuitively comparable in cross sectional commentary.

Table 9: Cost per Sample by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $102 $132 $180 Crime Scene Investigation $143 $268 $710 Digital evidence $1,050 $1,758 $4,490 DNA Casework $223 $263 $407 DNA Database $41 $53 $81 Document Examination $485 $717 $1,055 Drugs - Controlled Substances $89 $118 $138 Evidence Screening & Processing $365 $365 $365 Explosives $1,328 $1,675 $2,442 Fingerprints $149 $230 $342 Fire analysis $254 $366 $547 Firearms and Ballistics $306 $469 $647 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $585 $760 $1,038 Marks and Impressions $592 $784 $966 Serology/Biology $48 $65 $108 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $306 $339 $544 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $203 $231 $319 Trace Evidence $22 $33 $46

May 2019

20 | P a g e

Cost per Test

A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses.

Table 10: Cost per Test by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $52 $80 $140 Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence $32 $182 $708 DNA Casework $53 $67 $98 DNA Database $36 $52 $78 Document Examination $129 $280 $1,123 Drugs - Controlled Substances $45 $54 $63 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives $300 $396 $627 Fingerprints $70 $101 $143 Fire analysis $166 $242 $336 Firearms and Ballistics $247 $392 $532 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $414 $496 $684 Marks and Impressions $446 $556 $766 Serology/Biology $40 $56 $87 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $84 $109 $147 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $75 $87 $115 Trace Evidence $11 $16 $21

May 2019

21 | P a g e

Cost per Report

A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses.

Table 11: Cost per Report by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $81 $107 $188 Crime Scene Investigation $897 $2,057 $4,296 Digital evidence $1,158 $3,904 $7,073 DNA Casework $648 $1,118 $1,548 DNA Database $37 $56 $86 Document Examination $2,783 $4,382 $5,220 Drugs - Controlled Substances $126 $281 $394 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives $9,519 $12,682 $21,205 Fingerprints $347 $702 $998 Fire analysis $718 $1,791 $2,865 Firearms and Ballistics $779 $1,337 $2,686 Forensic Pathology $1,706 $1,716 $1,727 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $1,280 $2,862 $4,113 Marks and Impressions $3,595 $7,034 $9,420 Serology/Biology $224 $884 $1,352 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $210 $687 $992 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $568 $860 $1,212 Trace Evidence $1,364 $3,547 $6,047

May 2019

22 | P a g e

Metric Interpretation The various unit cost metrics may be interpreted using the technique highlighted in The Decomposition of Return on Investment for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 96-102. Consider the Cost/Case metric which may be decomposed into:

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

= 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴 𝐼𝐼𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐼𝐼

𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐼𝐼 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

From the decomposition expression for the Cost/Case, an increase in the numerator components, Average Compensation or Testing (or Sampling) Intensity, will increase the cost per case. Similarly, a decrease in denominator component will increase the cost per case. This may occur from either a drop in productivity, as measured by cases processed per FTE, or from an increase in capital investment for future productivity but financed via a drop in personnel expenses relative to total expenses.

Although the metric breakdown illustrated above offers a decomposition of the Cost/Case metric, a similar procedure may be applied to other cost metrics. Likewise, the Testing Intensity metric may be replaced by a Sampling Intensity metric (e.g., Samples/Case) or similar decomposition which offers the most meaning to the individual laboratory.

Market Metrics

A substantial portion of the cost to the laboratory comes through personal services budget for salary and benefits. (The section below on Analytical Process Metrics highlights the percentage of total costs attributable to personnel expenditures.) Laboratories across the globe and across a particular country face very different labor markets and cost of living conditions. As such, accounting for the salary and benefit pressures in each market is beyond the direct control of the individual laboratory and is subject to the market forces in a laboratory’s political jurisdiction.

It may be helpful for a laboratory to replace their specific average compensation with that of the reported sample median to gain insight into how they compare to other laboratories once market forces have been neutralized.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19409040902800260


May 2019

23 | P a g e

Average Compensation Note that compensation includes all personnel expenditures. This includes wages, salary, and benefits operating staff, support staff, and administrative staff. Centrally assigned compensation is apportioned to each investigative area according to the percentage of full-time equivalent employees assigned to a particular investigative area. Note that values reported in this table and other tables with budgetary metrics have been converted to the currency of the reporting laboratory using the exchange rate for December 31 of the measured year as reported at www.xe.com.

Table 12: Average Compensation by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol $59,832 $75,527 $85,915 Crime Scene Investigation $88,211 $104,901 $118,748 Digital evidence $100,055 $109,747 $117,136 DNA Casework $104,554 $118,648 $126,583 DNA Database $84,363 $97,938 $111,963 Document Examination $101,501 $108,847 $119,234 Drugs - Controlled Substances $91,287 $103,478 $108,656 Evidence Screening & Processing $79,171 $84,852 $89,923 Explosives $100,569 $103,040 $107,908 Fingerprints $89,676 $96,068 $103,810 Fire analysis $101,062 $105,279 $110,082 Firearms and Ballistics $100,481 $105,532 $110,541 Forensic Pathology $463,080 $469,299 $475,518 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $91,590 $97,935 $104,276 Marks and Impressions $94,682 $102,616 $114,228 Serology/Biology $91,158 $98,857 $103,995 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $94,799 $99,657 $103,376 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $94,234 $100,634 $108,662 Trace Evidence $93,017 $99,252 $107,063

http://www.xe.com/

May 2019

24 | P a g e

Risk Management Metrics There are a variety of metrics that may be used in the decomposition of average cost to suggest quality and/or risk. Three of these metrics follow to highlight the level of testing, sampling, and items examined internally per case.

Items per Case An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 13: Items per Case by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 1.01 1.04 1.11 Crime Scene Investigation 2.88 4.72 6.86 Digital evidence 1.67 2.69 4.30 DNA Casework 2.79 2.97 3.12 DNA Database 1.00 1.00 1.01 Document Examination 3.01 4.11 4.90 Drugs - Controlled Substances 1.66 1.76 1.86 Evidence Screening & Processing 1.50 2.43 3.34 Explosives 3.26 3.74 4.24 Fingerprints 2.14 2.22 2.28 Fire analysis 2.45 2.52 2.56 Firearms and Ballistics 2.59 2.77 2.85 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 2.00 2.07 2.19 Marks and Impressions 2.66 2.75 2.93 Serology/Biology 3.64 3.73 3.77 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 1.16 1.19 1.23 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 2.17 2.22 2.27 Trace Evidence 75.53 78.04 81.32

May 2019

25 | P a g e

Samples per Case A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 14: Samples per Case by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 1.02 1.07 1.22 Crime Scene Investigation 3.47 7.76 12.62 Digital evidence 1.81 3.91 5.90 DNA Casework 4.42 4.90 5.08 DNA Database 1.00 1.00 1.02 Document Examination 4.61 6.45 8.80 Drugs - Controlled Substances 2.71 2.96 3.10 Evidence Screening & Processing 2.36 2.36 2.36 Explosives 8.43 9.83 11.14 Fingerprints 3.64 3.72 3.80 Fire analysis 5.54 5.77 6.16 Firearms and Ballistics 4.50 4.68 4.92 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 3.91 4.05 4.17 Marks and Impressions 8.62 8.87 9.18 Serology/Biology 16.86 17.50 17.75 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 1.07 1.10 2.03 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 3.86 3.96 4.06 Trace Evidence 130.20 135.50 144.84

May 2019

26 | P a g e

Tests per Case A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 15: Tests per Case by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 1.72 1.89 1.96 Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence 7.24 16.87 92.61 DNA Casework 19.12 20.83 21.88 DNA Database 1.00 1.00 1.04 Document Examination 6.05 17.22 32.11 Drugs - Controlled Substances 6.25 6.58 6.81 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 30.93 42.07 50.11 Fingerprints 8.20 8.59 8.82 Fire analysis 8.44 8.97 9.42 Firearms and Ballistics 5.46 5.70 5.90 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 6.11 6.32 6.57 Marks and Impressions 11.64 12.58 13.38 Serology/Biology 19.64 20.03 20.54 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 7.74 7.91 8.05 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 10.25 10.56 10.96 Trace Evidence 261.92 272.17 285.30

May 2019

27 | P a g e

Reports per Case A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas.

Table 16: Reports per Case by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 0.91 0.98 1.00 Crime Scene Investigation 0.97 1.00 1.00 Digital evidence 0.94 1.03 1.12 DNA Casework 0.95 1.00 1.03 DNA Database 0.97 1.00 1.03 Document Examination 0.93 0.98 1.02 Drugs - Controlled Substances 0.95 0.97 1.00 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 0.80 0.95 1.03 Fingerprints 0.92 0.95 0.99 Fire analysis 0.91 0.94 1.00 Firearms and Ballistics 0.95 0.99 1.04 Forensic Pathology 1.00 1.00 1.01 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 0.92 0.95 0.96 Marks and Impressions 0.89 0.92 0.96 Serology/Biology 0.95 0.97 0.98 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 0.96 0.98 1.01 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 0.94 0.96 0.98 Trace Evidence 0.81 0.85 0.92

May 2019

28 | P a g e

Samples per Item A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas.

Table 17: Samples per Item examined internally by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 1.01 1.03 1.08 Crime Scene Investigation 1.15 2.43 3.43 Digital evidence 1.02 1.90 3.89 DNA Casework 1.53 1.62 1.73 DNA Database 1.00 1.00 1.00 Document Examination 1.24 1.56 2.31 Drugs - Controlled Substances 1.45 1.65 1.74 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 2.10 2.60 3.24 Fingerprints 1.61 1.68 1.75 Fire analysis 2.21 2.32 2.44 Firearms and Ballistics 1.61 1.75 1.84 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 1.81 1.95 2.03 Marks and Impressions 3.00 3.25 3.39 Serology/Biology 4.47 4.68 4.79 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 1.00 1.00 1.69 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 1.71 1.79 1.84 Trace Evidence 1.62 1.73 1.91

May 2019

29 | P a g e

Tests per Item A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas.

Table 18: Tests per Item examined internally by Investigative Area



May 2019

30 | P a g e

Reports per Item A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas.

Table 19: Reports per Item examined internally by Investigative Area



May 2019

31 | P a g e

Tests per Sample

A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result.

Table 20: Tests per Sample by Investigative Area



May 2019

32 | P a g e

Reports per Sample A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result.

Table 21: Reports per Sample by Investigative Area



May 2019

33 | P a g e

Productivity Metrics

Return to the decomposition measure for the cost/case. The denominator terms have the opposite effect on average cost. That is, as labor productivity or the labor expense ratio increase, average costs will fall. This confirms that, as a representative scientist is able to process more cases per year, then the effect will be a decrease in the average cost as fixed expenditures are averaged over a higher volume of processed cases. Similarly, if a greater portion of the budget is devoted to personnel expenditures (as opposed to capital investment) ceteris paribus, more cases will be processed for the same expenditure at the opportunity cost of delaying investment in capital equipment for future returns.

The next five tables contain the LabRAT summary statistics for alternative personnel productivity ratio measures.

May 2019

34 | P a g e

Cases per FTE

This measure is simply the number of Cases completed for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area.

Table 22: Cases per FTE by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 383 640 1,281 Crime Scene Investigation 52 79 126 Digital evidence 20 30 46 DNA Casework 76 110 137 DNA Database 2,132 3,353 4,224 Document Examination 22 25 34 Drugs - Controlled Substances 307 365 512 Evidence Screening & Processing 144 169 182 Explosives 5 7 9 Fingerprints 104 152 216 Fire analysis 42 59 86 Firearms and Ballistics 49 62 108 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 29 39 54 Marks and Impressions 12 17 22 Serology/Biology 59 115 146 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 132 169 209 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 115 148 171 Trace Evidence 22 29 41

May 2019

35 | P a g e

Items per FTE

This measure is the number of Items examined internally for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area.

Table 23: Items examined internally per FTE by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 379 618 1,229 Crime Scene Investigation 196 314 434 Digital evidence 41 99 211 DNA Casework 245 357 422 DNA Database 2,407 3,435 4,293 Document Examination 75 107 158 Drugs - Controlled Substances 568 652 886 Evidence Screening & Processing 222 400 608 Explosives 21 26 29 Fingerprints 239 331 478 Fire analysis 103 153 231 Firearms and Ballistics 131 164 285 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 62 75 105 Marks and Impressions 32 48 62 Serology/Biology 214 403 556 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 154 203 243 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 265 306 362 Trace Evidence 1,620 1,992 3,042

May 2019

36 | P a g e

Samples per FTE

This measure is the number of samples from Items examined internally for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area.

Table 24: Samples per FTE by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 484 655 1,227 Crime Scene Investigation 286 590 958 Digital evidence 42 76 148 DNA Casework 395 554 662 DNA Database 2,691 3,591 4,297 Document Examination 125 169 255 Drugs - Controlled Substances 900 1,022 1,349 Evidence Screening & Processing 420 420 420 Explosives 48 63 94 Fingerprints 371 540 772 Fire analysis 237 338 467 Firearms and Ballistics 224 283 456 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 119 154 206 Marks and Impressions 107 147 197 Serology/Biology 895 1,607 2,511 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 221 425 436 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 454 568 636 Trace Evidence 2,910 3,656 5,207

May 2019

37 | P a g e

Tests per FTE

This measure is the number of tests performed on samples for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area.

Table 25: Tests per FTE by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 735 1,161 2,408 Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence 239 800 5,388 DNA Casework 1,703 2,335 2,749 DNA Database 2,724 3,688 4,326 Document Examination 130 431 878 Drugs - Controlled Substances 2,027 2,287 2,889 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 188 286 428 Fingerprints 901 1,222 1,705 Fire analysis 377 513 715 Firearms and Ballistics 271 343 563 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 187 222 298 Marks and Impressions 146 217 273 Serology/Biology 1,173 1,937 2,772 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 1,004 1,280 1,570 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 1,250 1,544 1,704 Trace Evidence 5,914 7,940 10,275

May 2019

38 | P a g e

Reports per FTE

This measure is the number of reports filed per full-time equivalent (FTE) employees (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area.

Table 26: Reports per FTE by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 381 672 1,276 Crime Scene Investigation 48 69 99 Digital evidence 20 35 53 DNA Casework 85 113 138 DNA Database 2,075 3,228 4,288 Document Examination 21 26 32 Drugs - Controlled Substances 307 357 480 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 4 7 9 Fingerprints 95 140 191 Fire analysis 41 55 83 Firearms and Ballistics 48 62 100 Forensic Pathology 298 303 309 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 27 36 50 Marks and Impressions 10 15 20 Serology/Biology 57 105 140 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 124 170 202 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 112 139 163 Trace Evidence 19 23 37

May 2019

39 | P a g e

Analytical Process Metrics The next decomposition measure, Personnel Expense/Total Expense, serves as a proxy for the level of analytical technology chosen. This measure has a significant negative correlation with Capital Expense/Total Expense and serves as simpler decomposition term for the return on investment.

Below, the cost structure is detailed with a breakdown of expenses in capital, labor, consumables, versus other costs. Investigative areas that are highly automated, such as evidenced by the DNA database processing line, should show a lower Personnel Expense/Total Expense.

May 2019

40 | P a g e

Personnel Expense as a proportion of Total Expense Note that compensation includes all personnel expenditures. This includes wages, salary, and benefits operating staff, support staff, and administrative staff. Centrally assigned compensation is apportioned to each investigative area according to the percentage of full-time equivalent employees assigned to a particular investigative area.

Table 27: Personnel Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 67.50% 78.64% 83.23% Crime Scene Investigation 70.14% 83.01% 92.55% Digital evidence 65.74% 71.18% 78.12% DNA Casework 67.58% 75.04% 81.74% DNA Database 47.54% 53.89% 63.16% Document Examination 84.03% 89.24% 94.42% Drugs - Controlled Substances 78.59% 83.02% 86.01% Evidence Screening & Processing 67.25% 79.11% 83.54% Explosives 81.27% 86.15% 92.78% Fingerprints 82.86% 84.61% 85.76% Fire analysis 82.68% 85.08% 86.01% Firearms and Ballistics 73.63% 77.51% 81.05% Forensic Pathology 90.17% 90.17% 90.17% Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 81.75% 84.55% 87.86% Marks and Impressions 89.17% 91.39% 91.68% Serology/Biology 86.65% 88.01% 90.11% Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 64.99% 69.34% 73.18% Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 68.57% 75.16% 80.43% Trace Evidence 78.03% 82.43% 84.73%

May 2019

41 | P a g e

Capital Expense as a proportion of Total Expense Capital expenditures reference those purchases by the laboratory for assets whose use extends across time periods. Since depreciation classifications place laboratory equipment into a five-year depreciation class, the capital expenditures over a five-year period are averaged in the determination of this portion of a laboratory’s expenditures.

Table 28: Capital Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area



May 2019

42 | P a g e

Consumables Expense as a proportion of Total Expense This category includes a variety of variable cost components including chemicals, reagents, consumables, and gases. Table 29: Consumables Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative

Area



May 2019

43 | P a g e

Other Expenses as a proportion of Total Expense This category includes all other cost components not accounted for above in personnel, capital, and consumables expenses.

Table 30: Other Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses



May 2019

44 | P a g e

Turn-around Time Note that turn-around time is offered in two forms. The first is a measure that begins when the last item of evidence in an investigative area has been submitted to the laboratory. The second measure begins the turn-around time count with the submission of the first piece of evidence in an investigative area. Because most laboratories only record one or the other of these measures, there is some seeming inconsistency which is attributed to the limited sample. The metric has been slightly altered from previous years to correspond to recommendations from Project FORESIGHT participants. The change in the metric reflects the time from each request for analysis to issuance of a report. As such, a case in one investigative area may have multiple turn-around times that correspond to separate requests.

Turn-around Time (Timed in days from last submission of evidence to Report submission) Table 31: Turnaround Time from Last Item Received by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 16 20 28 Crime Scene Investigation 18 172 378 Digital evidence 55 79 133 DNA Casework 63 79 129 DNA Database 22 58 163 Document Examination 26 40 58 Drugs - Controlled Substances 36 63 75 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 64 88 111 Fingerprints 28 53 71 Fire analysis 23 64 106 Firearms and Ballistics 32 48 87 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 34 49 73 Marks and Impressions 60 68 92 Serology/Biology 30 41 61 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 63 68 72 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 39 58 86 Trace Evidence 40 157 366

May 2019

45 | P a g e

Turn-around Time (Timed in days from first submission of evidence to Report submission) Table 32: Turnaround Time from First Item Received by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 19 23 32 Crime Scene Investigation 16 34 305 Digital evidence 97 136 200 DNA Casework 88 116 150 DNA Database 35 49 60 Document Examination 42 55 71 Drugs - Controlled Substances 47 65 85 Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 61 93 148 Fingerprints 43 62 84 Fire analysis 46 102 133 Firearms and Ballistics 43 64 92 Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 45 75 105 Marks and Impressions 60 81 116 Serology/Biology 39 56 77 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 41 55 67 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 45 68 84 Trace Evidence 138 200 346

May 2019

46 | P a g e

Backlog Another area of concern involves the increased demand for laboratory services and the level of backlog. For data collection purposes, the definition of backlog has been defined as open cases at the end of the fiscal year that have been open for more than thirty days. As a relative comparative measure, the ratio of open cases to total cases for the year is presented in the following table.

Cases Open over 30 Days/Annual Caseload Table 33: Backlog Cases as a Percent of Total Cases by Investigative Area


percentile Blood Alcohol 6% 9% 12% Crime Scene Investigation 29% 31% 33% Digital evidence 70% 82% 89% DNA Casework 34% 59% 76% DNA Database 49% 72% 82% Document Examination 65% 73% 84% Drugs - Controlled Substances 28% 51% 65% Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives 50% 78% 100% Fingerprints 44% 56% 65% Fire analysis 51% 68% 80% Firearms and Ballistics 51% 66% 78% Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) 33% 66% 83% Marks and Impressions 50% 69% 83% Serology/Biology 23% 51% 65% Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) 50% 59% 69% Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) 35% 60% 69% Trace Evidence 79% 89% 93%

May 2019

47 | P a g e

Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness of Forensic Science Services—FORESIGHT 2017-2018 Benchmark Data The summary statistics offer a one-dimensional view of performance. In this section, that view is expanded through a consideration of cost effectiveness and efficiency. Economic theory indicates that any industry, including forensic science laboratories, will have average costs (Cost/Case) that decline as caseload is increased until reaching a point of perfect economies of scale. Thereafter, diseconomies of scale will be realized and average costs will rise as caseload increases. This behavior is exemplified via U-shaped average cost curves.

For each investigative area, the industry average total cost curve has been estimated by a series of non-linear regressions. When a laboratory performs on or near the curve, it is an indication of efficiency for the corresponding caseload. For an efficient performance that is near the bottom of the U-shaped curve, the laboratory exhibits cost effective performance as it approaches perfect economies of scale.

Each of the average cost curves is illustrated with a corresponding table of values for the cost/case for various caseloads. Also note that productivity in the form of Cases/FTE versus the corresponding caseload exhibits an inverted curve as compared to the average cost. Research to-date suggests that the level of productivity for any caseload is the most critical component in the DuPont breakdown to explain efficiency in the laboratory. That is, a laboratory which exemplifies high productivity for their caseload is likely to be operating near peak efficient average cost for that level of casework.

In addition to this cross–sectional comparison, it is recommended that participants track their average cost and productivity for all past FORESIGHT submissions in real terms. The term “real” indicates that costs have been adjusted for inflation and converted to the most recent year’s price index.

May 2019

48 | P a g e

Blood Alcohol Analysis Figure 1: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol Analysis—Average Total Cost

v. Cases Processed

Figure 2: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol—Cases/FTE v. Cases Processed

Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

49 | P a g e

Table 34: Efficient Frontier for Blood & Breath Alcohol Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads

Cases Efficient Cost/Case

Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient

Cost/Case Cases/

FTE 125 $335.93 162 2,750 $156.70 698 150 $325.36 177 3,000 $151.65 727 200 $308.68 202 3,250 $147.01 756 250 $295.74 225 3,500 $142.71 782 300 $285.17 245 3,750 $138.71 808 350 $276.23 263 4,000 $134.97 833 400 $268.49 281 4,250 $131.46 858 450 $261.66 297 4,500 $128.14 881 500 $255.55 312 4,750 $125.01 904 600 $244.98 340 5,000 $122.03 926 700 $236.04 366 6,000 $111.46 1,010 800 $228.30 389 7,000 $102.52 1,086 900 $221.47 412 8,000 $94.78 1,157

1,000 $215.36 433 9,000 $87.95 1,223 1,100 $209.83 453 10,000 $81.84 1,285 1,200 $204.78 472 11,000 $76.31 1,345 1,300 $200.14 490 12,000 $71.27 1,401 1,400 $195.85 507 13,000 $66.63 1,455 1,500 $191.85 524 14,000 $62.33 1,507 1,750 $182.91 564 15,000 $58.33 1,557 2,000 $175.16 601 16,000 $54.59 1,605 2,250 $168.33 635 17,000 $51.07 1,652 2,500 $162.22 667 18,000 $47.76 1,697

May 2019

50 | P a g e

Crime Scene Investigation

Figure 3: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 4: Efficient Frontier Crime Scene Investigation—Cases/FTE v.

Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

51 | P a g e

Table 35: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Efficient

Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE 12 $9,777 21 500 $1,589 76 15 $8,769 23 600 $1,454 81 25 $6,837 27 700 $1,348 85 35 $5,804 31 800 $1,263 89 45 $5,135 34 900 $1,193 93 55 $4,656 36 1,000 $1,133 96 65 $4,292 38 1,100 $1,082 99 75 $4,003 40 1,200 $1,037 102 85 $3,767 42 1,300 $997 105 95 $3,568 43 1,400 $962 108

105 $3,398 45 1,500 $930 110 115 $3,251 46 1,750 $863 116 125 $3,121 47 2,000 $809 122 150 $2,856 50 2,250 $763 127 175 $2,649 53 2,500 $725 131 200 $2,483 56 2,750 $692 135 225 $2,344 58 3,000 $664 140 250 $2,227 60 3,250 $638 143 275 $2,126 62 3,500 $616 147 300 $2,038 64 3,750 $595 151 350 $1,890 67 4,000 $577 154 400 $1,771 70 5,000 $517 166 450 $1,672 73 6,000 $473 177

May 2019

52 | P a g e

Digital Evidence

Figure 5: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 6: Efficient Frontier Digital Evidence—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

53 | P a g e

Table 36: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

15 $15,579 12 225 $4,151 35 20 $13,537 13 250 $3,943 36 25 $12,139 14 275 $3,763 37 30 $11,105 15 300 $3,607 39 35 $10,300 16 325 $3,468 40 40 $9,649 17 350 $3,345 41 45 $9,110 18 375 $3,234 42 50 $8,653 19 400 $3,134 44 60 $7,916 20 425 $3,043 45 70 $7,342 22 450 $2,959 46 80 $6,878 23 475 $2,882 47 90 $6,494 24 500 $2,810 48

100 $6,168 25 525 $2,744 49 110 $5,887 26 550 $2,683 50 120 $5,643 27 575 $2,625 50 130 $5,426 28 600 $2,571 51 140 $5,233 29 625 $2,520 52 150 $5,060 29 650 $2,472 53 160 $4,903 30 675 $2,427 54 170 $4,760 31 700 $2,384 55 180 $4,629 32 750 $2,305 56 190 $4,508 32 800 $2,234 58 200 $4,397 33 850 $2,169 59

May 2019

54 | P a g e

DNA Casework Analysis

Figure 7: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 8: Efficient Frontier DNA Casework—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

55 | P a g e

Table 37: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

125 $3,309 50 2,500 $1,225 118 150 $3,115 53 2,750 $1,187 121 175 $2,960 55 3,000 $1,153 124 200 $2,832 58 3,250 $1,123 127 250 $2,630 61 3,500 $1,095 129 300 $2,475 65 4,000 $1,048 134 350 $2,352 67 4,500 $1,008 139 400 $2,250 70 5,000 $973 143 450 $2,164 72 5,500 $943 147 500 $2,089 75 6,000 $916 151 600 $1,967 79 6,500 $892 154 700 $1,869 82 7,000 $870 158 800 $1,788 85 7,500 $851 161 900 $1,719 88 8,000 $833 164

1,000 $1,660 91 9,000 $801 169 1,100 $1,608 93 10,000 $773 174 1,200 $1,563 96 11,000 $749 179 1,300 $1,522 98 12,000 $728 183 1,400 $1,485 100 13,000 $709 188 1,500 $1,451 102 14,000 $692 192 1,750 $1,379 106 15,000 $676 195 2,000 $1,319 110 16,000 $662 199 2,250 $1,268 114 17,000 $648 203

May 2019

56 | P a g e

DNA Database

Figure 9: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 10: Efficient Frontier DNA Database—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

$900.00

$1,000.00

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

57 | P a g e

Table 38: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

125 $785 217 16,000 $62 2,845 250 $546 313 17,000 $60 2,938 500 $380 453 19,500 $56 3,160 750 $307 561 22,000 $52 3,369

1,000 $264 654 24,500 $50 3,566 1,500 $214 811 27,000 $47 3,755 2,000 $184 944 29,500 $45 3,936 2,500 $164 1,063 32,000 $43 4,109 3,000 $149 1,171 34,500 $41 4,277 3,500 $137 1,271 37,000 $40 4,438 4,000 $128 1,364 39,500 $39 4,595 4,500 $120 1,452 42,000 $37 4,747 5,000 $114 1,535 44,500 $36 4,895 6,000 $103 1,691 47,000 $35 5,039 7,000 $95 1,835 49,500 $34 5,179 8,000 $89 1,970 52,000 $33 5,316 9,000 $84 2,097 54,500 $33 5,450

10,000 $79 2,217 57,000 $32 5,581 11,000 $75 2,332 59,500 $31 5,710 12,000 $72 2,442 62,000 $30 5,836 13,000 $69 2,548 64,500 $30 5,960 14,000 $66 2,651 67,000 $29 6,081 15,000 $64 2,749 69,500 $29 6,200

May 2019

58 | P a g e

Document Examination

Figure 11: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 12: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

59 | P a g e

Table 39: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

8 $9,918 11 175 $3,864 31 10 $9,264 12 200 $3,710 32 12 $8,762 13 225 $3,579 33 14 $8,359 14 250 $3,465 34 16 $8,025 14 275 $3,366 35 18 $7,741 15 300 $3,278 36 20 $7,496 15 400 $3,002 40 25 $7,002 16 500 $2,804 43 30 $6,623 17 600 $2,652 45 35 $6,318 18 700 $2,530 48 40 $6,066 19 800 $2,429 50 45 $5,851 20 900 $2,343 52 50 $5,666 20 1,000 $2,269 53 60 $5,359 22 1,100 $2,204 55 70 $5,112 23 1,200 $2,146 57 80 $4,908 24 1,300 $2,094 58 90 $4,735 25 1,400 $2,047 59

100 $4,585 26 1,500 $2,005 61 110 $4,453 26 1,600 $1,965 62 120 $4,336 27 1,800 $1,896 64 130 $4,232 28 1,900 $1,865 65 140 $4,137 28 2,100 $1,809 68 150 $4,051 29 2,300 $1,759 70

May 2019

60 | P a g e

Drugs—Controlled Substances

Figure 13: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 14: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

61 | P a g e

Table 40: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

500 $457 239 6,500 $293 398 750 $426 259 7,000 $290 404

1,000 $406 274 7,500 $286 409 1,250 $390 287 8,000 $283 414 1,500 $378 297 8,500 $280 419 1,750 $368 306 9,000 $277 424 2,000 $360 315 9,500 $275 429 2,250 $353 322 10,000 $272 433 2,500 $346 329 10,500 $270 437 2,750 $341 335 11,000 $268 442 3,000 $335 341 11,500 $266 445 3,250 $331 347 12,500 $262 453 3,500 $327 352 13,500 $259 460 3,750 $323 357 14,500 $255 466 4,000 $319 361 15,500 $253 473 4,250 $316 366 16,500 $250 479 4,500 $313 370 17,500 $247 484 4,750 $310 374 18,500 $245 490 5,000 $307 378 19,500 $243 495 5,250 $305 381 20,500 $241 500 5,500 $302 385 21,500 $239 504 5,750 $300 388 22,500 $237 509 6,000 $298 391 23,500 $235 513

May 2019

62 | P a g e

Evidence Screening & Processing

Figure 15: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 16: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

63 | P a g e

Table 41: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

200 $1,132 133 775 $604 173 225 $1,072 136 800 $595 174 250 $1,021 139 825 $587 175 275 $977 142 850 $579 176 300 $938 144 900 $563 178 325 $904 146 950 $549 180 350 $873 148 1,000 $537 181 375 $846 150 1,100 $513 185 400 $821 152 1,200 $493 188 425 $798 154 1,300 $475 191 450 $777 156 1,400 $459 194 475 $758 157 1,500 $445 196 500 $740 159 1,600 $431 199 525 $723 160 1,800 $408 203 550 $708 162 2,000 $389 207 575 $694 163 2,200 $372 211 600 $680 164 2,400 $357 215 625 $667 166 2,600 $344 218 650 $655 167 2,800 $333 221 675 $644 168 3,000 $322 224 700 $633 169 3,200 $313 227 725 $623 171 3,400 $304 230 750 $613 172 3,600 $296 232

May 2019

64 | P a g e

Explosives Analysis Figure 17: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Average Total Cost v.

Cases Processed

Figure 18 : Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v.

Caseload


$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0 10 20 30 40 50

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

65 | P a g e

Table 42: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

1 $52,386 2.04 24 $12,145 9.96 2 $38,086 2.88 25 $11,919 10.16 3 $31,606 3.52 26 $11,706 10.36 4 $27,689 4.07 27 $11,504 10.56 5 $24,988 4.55 28 $11,314 10.76 6 $22,978 4.98 29 $11,132 10.95 7 $21,405 5.38 30 $10,960 11.13 8 $20,130 5.75 31 $10,796 11.32 9 $19,068 6.10 32 $10,640 11.50

10 $18,166 6.43 33 $10,490 11.68 11 $17,387 6.74 34 $10,347 11.85 12 $16,705 7.04 35 $10,210 12.02 13 $16,101 7.33 36 $10,079 12.19 14 $15,562 7.61 37 $9,952 12.36 15 $15,076 7.87 38 $9,831 12.53 16 $14,635 8.13 39 $9,714 12.69 17 $14,232 8.38 40 $9,602 12.85 18 $13,863 8.63 41 $9,493 13.01 19 $13,522 8.86 42 $9,389 13.17 20 $13,207 9.09 43 $9,288 13.33 21 $12,914 9.32 44 $9,190 13.48 22 $12,641 9.53 45 $9,095 13.63 23 $12,385 9.75 46 $9,004 13.78

May 2019

66 | P a g e

Fingerprint ID

Figure 19: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification—Average Total

Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 20: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

67 | P a g e

Table 43: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

100 $2,238 52.68 1,300 $817 142.67 125 $2,050 57.45 1,400 $794 146.83 150 $1,909 61.67 1,500 $772 150.82 175 $1,796 65.47 1,750 $727 160.13 200 $1,705 68.96 2,000 $690 168.65 225 $1,627 72.19 2,250 $659 176.55 250 $1,561 75.20 2,500 $632 183.92 275 $1,504 78.04 2,750 $609 190.86 300 $1,454 80.72 3,000 $588 197.42 350 $1,368 85.70 3,500 $554 209.60 400 $1,298 90.26 4,000 $525 220.75 450 $1,240 94.49 5,000 $481 240.74 500 $1,189 98.44 6,000 $448 258.41 550 $1,146 102.15 7,000 $422 274.35 600 $1,107 105.66 8,000 $400 288.95 650 $1,073 109.00 9,000 $382 302.48 700 $1,042 112.18 10,000 $367 315.11 750 $1,014 115.22 11,000 $353 327.00 800 $989 118.15 12,000 $341 338.24 900 $944 123.68 13,000 $331 348.92

1,000 $906 128.85 14,000 $321 359.11 1,100 $872 133.71 15,000 $313 368.86 1,200 $843 138.30 16,000 $305 378.22

May 2019

68 | P a g e

Fire Analysis

Figure 21: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases

Processed

Figure 22: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v.

Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 100 200 300 400 500

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

69 | P a g e

Table 44: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

10 $5,423 25.23 56 $2,504 51.18 12 $4,997 27.19 58 $2,465 51.92 14 $4,663 28.96 60 $2,427 52.65 16 $4,392 30.60 65 $2,342 54.41 18 $4,166 32.11 70 $2,265 56.09 20 $3,973 33.53 75 $2,196 57.70 22 $3,807 34.87 80 $2,133 59.25 24 $3,661 36.14 85 $2,076 60.75 26 $3,532 37.35 90 $2,024 62.19 28 $3,417 38.50 95 $1,975 63.59 30 $3,313 39.61 100 $1,930 64.94 32 $3,218 40.67 110 $1,849 67.53 34 $3,132 41.70 120 $1,779 69.99 36 $3,052 42.69 130 $1,716 72.33 38 $2,979 43.65 140 $1,660 74.56 40 $2,912 44.58 150 $1,609 76.71 42 $2,849 45.48 175 $1,502 81.72 44 $2,790 46.36 200 $1,414 86.32 46 $2,735 47.21 250 $1,280 94.61 48 $2,683 48.04 300 $1,179 101.96 50 $2,634 48.85 350 $1,100 108.63 52 $2,588 49.65 400 $1,036 114.75 54 $2,545 50.42 450 $983 120.44

May 2019

70 | P a g e

Firearms & Ballistics Analysis

Figure 23: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 24: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Cases/FTE

v. Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

71 | P a g e

Table 45: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

25 $9,402 13.77 885 $1,342 96.45 50 $6,441 20.11 985 $1,266 102.25 75 $5,162 25.08 1,085 $1,201 107.79 85 $4,821 26.86 1,185 $1,144 113.11

110 $4,188 30.91 1,285 $1,095 118.22 135 $3,745 34.57 1,385 $1,051 123.15 160 $3,414 37.93 1,485 $1,012 127.93 185 $3,153 41.06 1,585 $976 132.56 210 $2,943 44.00 1,685 $944 137.06 235 $2,767 46.78 1,935 $876 147.81 260 $2,619 49.43 2,185 $819 157.94 310 $2,379 54.41 2,435 $772 167.56 360 $2,193 59.04 2,685 $732 176.74 410 $2,042 63.38 2,935 $698 185.53 460 $1,918 67.49 3,185 $667 194.00 510 $1,813 71.40 3,285 $656 197.30 560 $1,723 75.14 3,785 $607 213.16 610 $1,644 78.73 4,285 $567 228.09 660 $1,575 82.18 4,785 $534 242.25 710 $1,514 85.53 5,285 $506 255.75 760 $1,458 88.76 6,285 $460 281.11 810 $1,408 91.90 7,285 $425 304.70 860 $1,363 94.95 8,285 $396 326.86

May 2019

72 | P a g e

Forensic Pathology There is insufficient data to estimate the average total cost curve for this area of investigation.

May 2019

73 | P a g e

Gunshot Residue

Figure 25: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis--Average Total

Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 26: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

74 | P a g e

Table 46: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Efficient

Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

2 $15,342 9.35 80 $2,858 42.35 4 $11,188 12.42 90 $2,709 44.44 6 $9,301 14.66 100 $2,582 46.40 8 $8,159 16.49 110 $2,472 48.25

10 $7,370 18.07 120 $2,376 50.00 12 $6,783 19.47 130 $2,291 51.67 14 $6,323 20.74 140 $2,215 53.26 16 $5,949 21.91 150 $2,146 54.79 18 $5,639 22.99 160 $2,084 56.26 20 $5,374 24.00 170 $2,027 57.67 22 $5,146 24.96 195 $1,904 61.00 24 $4,946 25.86 220 $1,803 64.09 26 $4,769 26.73 270 $1,642 69.70 28 $4,611 27.55 320 $1,520 74.73 30 $4,468 28.34 370 $1,423 79.30 35 $4,165 30.19 420 $1,343 83.53 40 $3,919 31.88 470 $1,276 87.47 45 $3,714 33.46 520 $1,218 91.17 50 $3,540 34.93 570 $1,168 94.66 55 $3,390 36.33 620 $1,124 97.98 60 $3,258 37.64 720 $1,050 104.17 65 $3,141 38.90 820 $990 109.86 70 $3,037 40.10 920 $939 115.17

May 2019

75 | P a g e

Marks & Impressions Analysis

Figure 27: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis--Average

Total Cost v. Cases Processed

Figure 28: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

76 | P a g e

Table 47: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

2 $24,105 4.59 25 $5,875 19.95 3 $19,217 5.82 26 $5,747 20.41 4 $16,362 6.88 27 $5,627 20.86 5 $14,444 7.83 28 $5,514 21.31 6 $13,044 8.70 29 $5,407 21.75 7 $11,967 9.52 30 $5,305 22.18 8 $11,107 10.29 31 $5,209 22.61 9 $10,399 11.02 33 $5,030 23.45

10 $9,804 11.71 35 $4,867 24.26 11 $9,295 12.38 37 $4,718 25.06 12 $8,854 13.02 39 $4,582 25.84 13 $8,467 13.64 41 $4,455 26.60 14 $8,123 14.24 43 $4,338 27.35 15 $7,816 14.83 45 $4,229 28.08 16 $7,539 15.39 47 $4,128 28.80 17 $7,288 15.94 49 $4,033 29.50 18 $7,059 16.48 51 $3,944 30.20 19 $6,848 17.01 53 $3,860 30.88 20 $6,655 17.52 55 $3,781 31.55 21 $6,476 18.03 57 $3,706 32.22 22 $6,310 18.52 59 $3,635 32.87 23 $6,155 19.01 61 $3,568 33.51 24 $6,010 19.48 63 $3,504 34.15

May 2019

77 | P a g e

Serology/Biology

Figure 29: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis--Average Total

Cost v. Caseload

Figure 30: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

78 | P a g e

Table 48: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis—Efficient

Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

200 $2,311 42.59 1,201 $1,575 86.00 225 $2,221 44.61 1,202 $1,574 86.03 250 $2,143 46.49 1,203 $1,574 86.06 275 $2,075 48.26 1,204 $1,573 86.09 300 $2,002 49.93 1,205 $1,573 86.12 325 $1,989 51.52 1,206 $1,572 86.14 350 $1,976 53.04 1,207 $1,572 86.17 375 $1,963 54.50 1,209 $1,571 86.23 400 $1,951 55.89 1,211 $1,570 86.28 450 $1,925 58.53 1,213 $1,569 86.34 500 $1,900 61.00 1,215 $1,569 86.40 550 $1,875 63.32 1,217 $1,568 86.45 600 $1,851 65.52 1,219 $1,567 86.51 650 $1,827 67.61 1,221 $1,566 86.56 700 $1,802 69.60 1,223 $1,565 86.62 750 $1,779 71.51 1,225 $1,564 86.67 800 $1,755 73.34 1,227 $1,563 86.73 850 $1,732 75.11 1,229 $1,563 86.79 900 $1,709 76.81 1,231 $1,562 86.84 950 $1,686 78.45 1,233 $1,561 86.90

1,000 $1,663 80.05 1,235 $1,560 86.95 1,100 $1,619 83.09 1,237 $1,559 87.01 1,200 $1,575 85.98 1,239 $1,558 87.06

May 2019

79 | P a g e

Toxicology Analysis ante mortem

Figure 31: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem—Average Total Cost v. Caseload

Figure 32: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem —Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

80 | P a g e

Table 49: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology ante mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

350 $1,738 93 1,000 $993 148 375 $1,676 96 1,100 $944 154 400 $1,619 99 1,200 $901 160 425 $1,567 101 1,300 $864 166 450 $1,520 104 1,400 $830 172 475 $1,477 107 1,500 $800 177 500 $1,437 109 1,600 $773 182 525 $1,400 111 1,700 $749 187 550 $1,366 114 1,800 $726 192 575 $1,334 116 1,900 $705 196 600 $1,304 118 2,000 $686 201 625 $1,276 120 2,250 $645 212 650 $1,250 122 2,500 $609 222 675 $1,225 124 3,000 $553 240 700 $1,201 126 3,500 $509 257 725 $1,179 128 4,000 $474 273 750 $1,158 130 4,500 $446 287 775 $1,138 132 5,000 $421 301 800 $1,119 134 5,500 $400 314 825 $1,101 136 6,500 $366 338 850 $1,083 138 7,500 $339 360 875 $1,067 140 8,500 $317 380 900 $1,051 141 9,500 $299 399

May 2019

81 | P a g e

Toxicology Analysis post mortem

Figure 33: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem—

Average Total Cost v. Caseload

Figure 34: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem —Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

82 | P a g e

Table 50: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology post mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

200 $1,550 79.48 1,400 $862 162.48 225 $1,531 82.57 1,500 $825 167.19 250 $1,512 84.97 1,600 $792 171.56 275 $1,493 87.38 1,700 $761 175.60 300 $1,475 89.79 1,800 $734 179.29 325 $1,457 92.20 1,900 $710 182.64 350 $1,439 94.61 2,000 $690 185.66 375 $1,421 97.01 2,100 $672 188.33 400 $1,403 99.42 2,200 $658 190.67 450 $1,369 104.24 2,300 $646 192.66 500 $1,335 109.05 2,400 $638 194.32 550 $1,302 113.87 2,500 $633 195.64 600 $1,270 118.68 2,600 $632 196.62 650 $1,238 123.50 2,800 $638 197.55 700 $1,208 128.32 3,000 $656 197.13 750 $1,178 133.13 3,200 $688 195.36 800 $1,149 137.95 3,400 $732 192.22 900 $1,093 147.58 3,600 $789 187.73 950 $1,066 152.39 3,800 $858 181.88

1,050 $1,015 162.03 4,050 $963 172.67 1,100 $991 166.84 4,300 $1,088 161.32 1,200 $945 176.47 4,550 $1,232 147.86 1,300 $902 186.10 4,800 $1,397 132.28

May 2019

83 | P a g e

Trace Evidence Analysis

Figure 35: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Caseload

Figure 36: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Cost

/Cas

e

Cases Processed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Case

s/FT

E

Cases Processed

May 2019

84 | P a g e

Table 51: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads



Cost/Case Cases/

FTE

5 $14,277 13.67 120 $3,902 36.09 10 $10,456 14.87 130 $3,616 37.54 15 $8,715 16.04 140 $3,348 38.90 20 $7,763 17.20 150 $3,097 40.18 25 $7,527 18.34 160 $2,865 41.39 30 $7,296 19.45 170 $2,651 42.51 35 $7,069 20.55 180 $2,455 43.55 40 $6,846 21.62 190 $2,277 44.51 45 $6,628 22.68 200 $2,117 45.39 50 $6,415 23.71 210 $1,976 46.19 55 $6,206 24.73 220 $1,852 46.91 60 $6,002 25.72 230 $1,747 47.55 65 $5,802 26.70 250 $1,590 48.58 70 $5,606 27.65 270 $1,506 49.29 75 $5,416 28.59 295 $1,503 49.72 80 $5,229 29.50 320 $1,612 49.65 85 $5,048 30.40 345 $1,835 49.08 90 $4,871 31.27 370 $2,172 48.00 95 $4,698 32.13 395 $2,621 46.41

100 $4,530 32.96 420 $3,183 44.32 105 $4,366 33.77 445 $3,859 41.73 110 $4,207 34.57 470 $4,648 38.63 115 $4,052 35.34 495 $5,550 35.03

May 2019

85 | P a g e

FORESIGHT Glossary

assistant / analyst

An individual carrying out general casework examinations or analytical tests under the instruction of a Reporting Scientist or Reporting Analyst and who is able to provide information to assist with the interpretation of the tests.

backlog Open cases that are older than 30 days. case - institute case

A request from a crime lab "customer" that includes forensic investigations in one or more investigative areas.

case - area case A request for examination in one forensic investigation area. An area case is a subset of an institute case.

Case – as reported in the LabRat form

Cases reported in LabRat are “area cases”

casework All laboratory activities involved in examination of cases.

casework time Total FTE´s for operational personnel in an investigation area (in hours) subtracted by the hours of R&D and, E&T and support and service given to external partners.

crime Perceived violation of the law that initiates a case investigation.

direct salary Compensation paid to employees, including salary, overtime, vacation salary, bonuses, etc.

facility expense Sum of rents, cleaning and garbage collection, security, energy, water, communication, ICT infrastructure and facility maintenance.

floor area Total of all floor area including office, laboratory and other. full-time equivalent (FTE)

The work input of a full-time employee working for one full year.

full-time researcher

A forensic scientist whose primary responsibility is research and who is not taking part in casework.

investigation area Area limited by item type and methods as they are listed in the ”definitions of investigative areas tab.

investment expense

Purchases of equipment, instruments, etc. with a lifetime longer than one year (alternatively capital expenses).

item A single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note: one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas.

laboratory area Floor area used for forensic investigation, including sample and consumable storage rooms.

non-reporting manager

An individual whose primary responsibilities are in managing and administering a laboratory or a unit thereof and who is not taking part in casework.

May 2019

86 | P a g e

office area Floor area of offices (square feet).

operational personnel

Personnel in operational units providing casework, research and development (R & D), education and training (E & T) and external support services. Non-reporting unit heads are included.

other floor area Floor area of space not belonging to laboratories or offices, i.e. corridors, lunch corners, meeting rooms, etc. (square feet).

personnel expense

Sum of direct salaries, social expenses (employer contribution to FICA, Medicare, Workers Comp, and Unemployment Comp), retirement (employer contribution only towards pensions, 401K plans, etc.), personnel development and training (internal or external delivery, including travel), and occupational health service expenses (employer contribution only).

report A formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so.

reporting analyst

An analyst responsible in non-complicated cases (e.g. simple drugs analysis) for performing the examination of the items submitted, interpreting the analysis results, writing the analysis report and, if necessary, providing factual evidence for the court.

reporting scientist

The forensic scientist responsible in a particular case for performing or directing the examination of the items submitted, interpreting the findings, writing the report and providing evidence of fact and opinion for the court.

representation expense

The costs for hosting guests: lunches, dinners, coffees offered by the lab, and giveaway to guests or during visits abroad, etc.

sample An item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reportable result.

scientist in training

An individual with no reporting rights being trained to become a reporting scientist.

support personnel

Forensic laboratory staff providing various internal support services. Management and administration personnel not belonging to the operational units are included.

test

An analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews.

May 2019

87 | P a g e

Turn-around time

The number of days from a request for examination in an investigative area until issuance of a report. (Note that an area case may have multiple requests and each new request has a separate turn-around time.)

workload Total time spent on all work related to job, including overtime.

May 2019

88 | P a g e

Definitions: Investigative Areas

Blood Alcohol The analysis of blood or breath samples to detect the presence of and quantify the amount of alcohol.

Crime Scene Investigation The collection, analysis, and processing of locations for evidence relating to a criminal incident.

Digital evidence - Audio & Video The analysis of multimedia audio, video, and still image materials, such as surveillance recordings and video enhancement.

DNA Casework Analysis of biological evidence for DNA in criminal cases.

DNA Database Analysis and entry of DNA samples from individuals for database purposes.

Document Examination The analysis of legal, counterfeit, and questioned documents, excluding handwriting analysis.

Drugs - Controlled Substances The analysis of solid dosage licit and illicit drugs, including pre-cursor materials.

Evidence Screening & Processing The detection, collection, and processing of physical evidence in the laboratory for potential additional analysis.

Explosives The analysis of energetic materials in pre- and post-blast incidents.

Fingerprint Identification The development and analysis of friction ridge patterns.

Fire analysis The analysis of materials from suspicious fires to include ignitable liquid residue analysis.

Firearms and Ballistics The analysis of firearms and ammunition, to include distance determinations, shooting reconstructions, NIBIN, and toolmarks.

Forensic Pathology Forensic pathology is a branch of medicine that deals with the determination of the cause and manner of death in cases in which death occurred under suspicious or unknown circumstances.

Gun Shot Residue (GSR) The analysis of primer residues from discharged firearms (not distance determinations).

Marks and Impressions The analysis of physical patterns received and retained through the interaction of objects of

May 2019

89 | P a g e

various hardness, including shoeprints and tire tracks.

Serology/Biology The detection, collection, and non-DNA analysis of biological fluids.

Toxicology, ante-mortem Toxicology involves the chemical analysis of body fluids and tissues to determine if a drug or poison is present in a living individual, to separately measure blood alcohol analysis (BAC). Toxicologists are then able to determine how much and what effect, if any, the substance might have had on the person.

Toxicology, post-mortem Toxicology involves the chemical analysis of body fluids and tissues to determine if a drug or poison is present in a deceased individual, to separately measure blood alcohol analysis (BAC). Toxicologists are then able to determine how much and what effect, if any, the substance might have had on the person.

Trace Evidence The analysis of materials that, because of their size or texture, transfer from one location to another and persist there for some period of time. Microscopy, either directly or as an adjunct to another instrument, is involved.

May 2019

90 | P a g e

Project FORESIGHT Publications

FORESIGHT: A Business Approach to Improving Forensic Science Services, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Max M. Houck, Richard A. Riley, Paul J. Speaker, & Tom S. Witt, pages 85-95

Abstract: Managers of scientific laboratories see themselves as scientists first and managers second; consequently, they tend to devalue the managerial aspects of their jobs. Forensic laboratory managers are no different, but the stakes may be much higher given the importance of quality science to the criminal justice system. The need for training and support in forensic laboratory management has been recognized for many years, but little has been done to transition the tools of business to the forensic laboratory environment. FORESIGHT is a business-guided self-evaluation of forensic science laboratories across North America. The participating laboratories represent local, regional, state, and national agencies. Economics, accounting, finance, and forensic faculty provide assistance, guidance, and analysis. The process involves standardizing definitions for metrics to evaluate work processes, linking financial information to work tasks, and functions. Laboratory managers can then assess resource allocations, efficiencies, and value of services—the mission is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. A project of this magnitude for forensic laboratories has not been carried out anywhere.

Key Performance Indicators and Managerial Analysis for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 1, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 32-42

Abstract: Forensic laboratories generate a great deal of data from casework activities across investigative areas, personnel and budget allocations, and corresponding expenditures. This paper investigates ways in which laboratories can make data-driven managerial decisions through the regular extraction of key performance indicators from commonly available data sources. A laboratory's performance indicators can then be compared to peer laboratory performance to search for best practices, determine in-house trends, manage scarce resources, and provide quantitative support for the justification of additional resources.

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/1/2


http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufpm20?open=1#vol_1


May 2019

91 | P a g e

The Decomposition of Return on Investment for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 96-102

Abstract: For forensic laboratories, a detailed understanding of return on investment (ROI) is necessary for routine assessment, consideration of new legislative alternatives, and cost-benefit analysis for decision making. Converting performance data to ratio measures provides useful comparisons between an individual laboratory and the standards for excellence for the industry; these measures also permit an evaluation across time. Unfortunately, these same ROI measures are subject to abuse when overemphasis on a single measure leads to unintended consequences. In this paper, the ROI measure is broken down into various parts that can be tracked on a regular basis to reveal how a laboratory achieves its results. The tradeoffs between return and risk, efficiency, analytical process, and market conditions are outlined. The end product is a series of easily monitored metrics that a laboratory director may examine on a regular basis for continuous improvement.

Benchmarking and Budgeting Techniques for Improved Forensic Laboratory Management, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 4, 2010, Paul J. Speaker & A. Scott Fleming, pages 199-208

Abstract: Forensic laboratories are not immune from downturns in the worldwide economy. Recession and economic slowdowns, when coupled with the public's heightened sense of the capabilities of forensic science, put stress on the effectiveness of forensic laboratories. The resources available to forensic laboratories are limited, and managers are under greater pressure to improve efficiency and effectiveness. To this end, the use of internal and external financial and accounting metrics to plan, control, evaluate, and communicate performance is examined. Using data from the QUADRUPOL and FORESIGHT studies, we illustrate the use of external benchmarking through a calculation of laboratory return on investment and the internal development and use of a budget to enhance laboratory performance in light of limited resources.





May 2019

92 | P a g e

Forensic Science Staffing: Creating a Working Formula, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, Joyce Thompson Heames & Jon Timothy Heames, pages 5-10

Abstract: The key issue facing forensic labs is "the classic economic problem—how to allocate limited resources with increasing demand for services, while maintaining high quality standards" (Speaker 2009). Employees are the biggest expense and most valuable resource that forensic labs possess, thus the question arises as to how to maximize human resource functions to best allocate resources through personnel. As the search is on to look for better practices to improve the operations as well as technical expertise of labs, human capital management is crucial to that objective. The purpose of this article is to process map some of the staffing issues facing forensic science labs, whether public or private, and to identify metrics from the FORESIGHT study (Houck et al. 2009) that might help lab directors create a working formula to better manage staffing (e.g., recruiting and selection) issues.

Managing Performance in the Forensic Sciences: Expectations in Light of Limited Budgets, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, Hilton Kobus, Max Houck, Paul J. Speaker & Richard Riley, pages 36-43

Abstract: For forensic service providers worldwide, the demand for high-quality services greatly outpaces available resources to meet those requests. The gap between the demand for services and the resource-restricted supply of those services has implications for managing performance: the effectiveness and efficiency of forensic science. The effectiveness of forensic science is directly related to the quality of the scientific analysis and the timeliness with which that analysis is provided, while efficiency is associated with attempts to minimize costs without negatively impacting quality. An inevitable result of the demand and supply gap is a backlog that results in downstream effects on timeliness, service, and quality. One important strategy to respond to the demand-supply imbalance is continual process improvement. Collaborative benchmarking as a basis for process improvement is another approach. This paper discusses the disjunction between perceived and actual value for forensic services and the rationale for providers to evaluate, improve, and re-tool their processes toward continual improvement given limited resources.




May 2019

93 | P a g e

Strategic Management of Forensic Laboratory Resources: From Project FORESIGHT Metrics to the Development of Action Plans, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 4, 2011, Jonathan Newman, David Dawley, & Paul J. Speaker, pages 164-174

Abstract: The project FORESIGHT stated objectives begin with the development of metrics applicable to the activity of forensic science laboratories. These metrics enable a laboratory to assess how they fit within the forensic science industry and offer a glance at the levels of performance that they might be able to achieve. FORESIGHT's mission goes on to state the intent for laboratories to use those measurements to "preserve what works, and change what does not" (Houck et al. 2009, p. 85). This paper addresses the strategic implications of those additional aspects of the FORESIGHT mandate with a view of the strategic planning process for a forensic science laboratory. The keys to the development of an ongoing strategic planning and execution process are outlined, and then the actions of one laboratory, Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences, are examined to demonstrate the move from metrics to action. While there cannot yet be made a claim of "best practices," this Canadian example offers some guidance to "better practices" in the quest for continual improvement in the provision of forensic science services.

The Power of Information, Forensic Magazine April 10, 2012, Tom S. Witt & Paul J. Speaker

Abstract: When it comes to cost, the Foresight model was designed to overlook nothing. When we talk about the cost of doing something, we look at everything from equipment, telecommunications, heating, lighting, facility rent … everything. If a participant doesn't have access to the data, we can estimate those costs from other labs in our studies. We come up with an all-inclusive figure that tells participants what it costs to process a case. This leads to informed decisions. Take trace evidence cases, for example. You might find that processing one trace evidence case costs the same as processing two, three, or even four traditional DNA cases. While trace evidence is wonderful and powerful, if DNA alone will get you where you need to be, this cost factor will heavily affect your decision-making process. Foresight is not about cutting where it matters. It's about using resources wisely so that labs can do more and enhance the services they provide. Once you know the key metrics, you can make informed decisions.



http://www.forensicmag.com/article/power-information?page=0,3

May 2019

94 | P a g e

Is Privatization Inevitable for Forensic Science Laboratories?, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, William McAndrew, pages 42-52

Abstract: Given the recent global recession, many national governments have been forced to implement austerity measures, and the forensic science industry has not been immune from such changes. Proposals to privatize some or all aspects of forensic science services have been bantered about for decades, but the recent economic climate has brought this idea back to the forefront of public debates. Although privatization has been shown to have many benefits in the provision of other goods and services, the idea of privatizing forensic services has been harshly criticized by scholars and practitioners. This paper explores some of those criticisms through the lens of economics, and arguments are offered regarding why market approaches in forensic science may be more successful than might have originally been imagined under certain conditions. On the other hand, recognition of those economic forces and reaction by forensic laboratories to address inefficiencies may provide the effective delivery of forensic services that forestalls privatization efforts.

The Balanced Scorecard: Sustainable Performance Assessment for Forensic Laboratories, Science and Justice Volume 52, 2012, Max Houck, Paul J. Speaker, Richard Riley, & A. Scott Fleming, pages 209-216.

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of the balanced scorecard into the laboratory management environment. The balanced scorecard is a performance measurement matrix designed to capture financial and non-financial metrics that provide insight into the critical success factors for an organization, effectively aligning organization strategy to key performance objectives. The scorecard helps organizational leaders by providing balance from two perspectives. First, it ensures an appropriate mix of performance metrics from across the organization to achieve operational excellence; thereby the balanced scorecard ensures that no single or limited group of metrics dominates the assessment process, possibly leading to long-term inferior performance. Second, the balanced scorecard helps leaders offset short term performance pressures by giving recognition and weight to long-term laboratory needs that, if not properly addressed, might jeopardize future laboratory performance.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19409044.2012.720641

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030612000718

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030612000718

May 2019

95 | P a g e

Efficiency and the Cost Effective Delivery of Forensic Science Services: In-Sourcing, Out-Sourcing, and Privatization, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 2, Chris Maguire, Max Houck, Robin Williams, & Paul J. Speaker, pages 62-69

Abstract: Given the recent global recession, many national governments have been forced to implement austerity measures, and the forensic science industry has not been immune from such changes. Proposals to privatize some or all aspects of forensic science services have been bantered about for decades, but the recent economic climate has brought this idea back to the forefront of public debates. Although privatization has been shown to have many benefits in the provision of other goods and services, the idea of privatizing forensic services has been harshly criticized by scholars and practitioners. This paper explores some of those criticisms through the lens of economics, and arguments are offered regarding why market approaches in forensic science may be more successful than might have originally been imagined under certain conditions. On the other hand, recognition of those economic forces and reaction by forensic laboratories to address inefficiencies may provide the effective delivery of forensic services that forestalls privatization efforts.

Enhancing Employee Outcomes in Crime Labs: Test of a Model, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, David Dawley.

Abstract: This paper developed and tested a model identifying determinants of employee turnover intentions and desirable performance behaviors, including helping others and engaging in knowledge sharing. Data collected from 798 employees at ten FORESIGHT laboratories suggest that job satisfaction and embeddedness are the primary antecedents of turnover intentions and knowledge sharing, and that embeddedness is a stronger predictor variable of both outcomes. Embeddedness is driven by the employees' understanding of the lab's strategic vision. Moreover, job satisfaction and embeddedness are positively associated with helping behavior. Finally, we identified job autonomy as a primary determinant of job satisfaction. We discuss practical implications of these findings for managers.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19409044.2012.734546

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19409044.2012.734546

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/current

May 2019

96 | P a g e

Forensic Science Service Provider Models: Data-Driven Support for Better Delivery Options, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume 45, Issue 2, 2013, Paul J. Speaker.

Abstract: There are a variety of models for the delivery of forensic science analysis in service to the justice system. In answer to the question as to whether there is a ‘best’ option for the delivery of forensic science services, New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) has been offered as a model which demonstrates a comparative advantage over the delivery of forensic services in more traditional models. The support for that assertion rests in the ability of the ESR to react at the speed of business and avoid bureaucratic drag found too often in the public sector. This efficiency argument addresses one dimension of the search for ‘best’ delivery. The second dimension involves the discovery of the optimal scale of operation to take efficiency and turn it into cost effectiveness.

Improving the Effectiveness of Forensic Service: Using the Foresight Project as a Platform for Quality, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume XIX, Max M. Houck, Jay W. Henry, and Paul J. Speaker, February 2013, p.21.

Abstract: Forensic service providers are—in essence—non-profit, production-oriented organizations staffed largely by knowledge workers. Forensic scientists as knowledge workers take evidence and data and convert them into knowledge in the form of reports and testimony. They specialize in these transactions and, therefore, simplify them for the benefit of the criminal justice system; the investigators or attorneys do not need to find numerous individuals to conduct the specific examinations required for a case. As long as the costs of providing these services externally do not exceed the costs of their internal provision, for example, by a government forensic laboratory, then the organization can prosper. If the government laboratory costs are greater than the cost of finding private laboratories to provide services, then the organization may be reevaluated. Comparatively, non-profit and for-profit organizations are similar in some ways (money is an input for both) yet different (money, in the form of profits, is an output only for the private sector). Non-profits must therefore measure success in other ways, such as “low cost” or “cost effective.” Forensic service providers and their parent organizations use terms such as “cost-effective” vaguely without reference to other disciplines which use these as well-defined technical terms in evaluative phrases or formulae. Despite the great concern and administrative angst over forensic service

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tajf20/current


http://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ProceedingsWashingtonDC2013.pdf


May 2019

97 | P a g e

providers’ “performance” and “capacity,” these metrics go undefined as industry standards.

Determinants of Turnover Intentions, Helping, and Knowledge Sharing in Crime Laboratories, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume XIX, David Dawley, February 2013, p.230.

Abstract: Forensic scientists are knowledge workers and are a laboratory’s single greatest enduring expense. Therefore, it is imperative for forensic managers to find ways to retain employees, share knowledge, and create a cohesive, coherent team perspective. Based on a discussion with a group of FORESIGHT forensic laboratory directors in 2011, four major areas of research interest were identified: (1) reducing employee turnover; (2) increasing employees’ helping behaviors with colleagues; (3) knowledge sharing among employees; and, (4) creating and disseminating a strategic vision to all employees.

Are Forensic Science Services Club Goods? An Analysis of the Optimal Forensic Science Service Delivery Model, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, William P. McAndrew, pages 151 – 158.

Abstract: Forensic science has been described as a public good by practitioners, legal professionals, and scholars, many of whom were suggesting that forensic science is simply something good for the public. It would indeed be difficult to argue otherwise. In an economic sense, the concept of a public good is defined differently from this colloquial meaning, however, leading to confusion in discussions between forensic scientists and business consultants concerning how to evaluate laboratory performance and ultimately consider strategic change from an economic or efficiency perspective. This article discusses what economists mean by a public or private good, with an application using the forensic science industry. Forensic science is likely neither a purely public or purely private good, but rather a club good that contains a degree of both the public and private. When calculated, the degree of publicness of this club good will aid in determining the appropriate institutional framework from which to provide forensic science services, as well as its optimal jurisdiction size and production level.



http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19409044.2013.806608#.UrMktmRDvFk

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19409044.2013.806608#.UrMktmRDvFk

May 2019

98 | P a g e

The Effects of Politics on Job Satisfaction in Crime Lab Employees, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, David Dawley & Timothy P. Munyun, pages 159 – 164.

Abstract: This study examined the effects of crime lab workers’ perceptions of intra-lab politics on job satisfaction. In addition to finding that political behavior reduces employee job satisfaction, the study also identified ways in which crime lab managers can mitigate the negative effects of political behavior, increasing employee job satisfaction when political behavior is high within a given unit. Data collected from 874 employees at twelve FORESIGHT laboratories suggest that increasing crime lab worker job autonomy, job efficiency, strategic vision, and task significance are especially effective interventions that increase job satisfaction when political behavior is high. We discuss practical implications of these findings for crime lab managers. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how perceived political behavior affects the job satisfaction, or morale, of crime lab workers. The study was motivated by several interactions we had with forensic crime lab managers at the 2013 American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) meeting. In ASCLD human resources and FORESIGHT meetings, we received consistent inquiries concerning the potential role of organizational politics as a detrimental factor on employee attitudes. These conversations highlight the unfortunate ubiquity of political behavior at work, including work in crime labs. Organizational politics often create disharmony among employees and can negatively affect employee job satisfaction and other attitudes (Breaux et al. 2009; Ferris et al. 1996). Thus, we sought to explore how political behavior affects the job satisfaction of crime lab employees, and potential managerial strategies that could be useful in mitigating for this potential negative effect.

Expanding Budgets via Strategic Use of Leasing, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, William P. McAndrew & Paul J. Speaker, pages 169 - 179.

Abstract: An examination of the budgets of forensic laboratories reveals an unused or underused tool at the disposal of forensic laboratories. Equipment leasing offers an opportunity for a unilateral increase in the purchasing power of existing laboratory budgets and an immediate response to austerity measures. Rather than react to budget tightening with reductions in force, shared furloughs, or the forfeiture of unfilled positions, a laboratory director can forestall such measures and even see an effective increase in disposable income through a planned use of operating leases. If a public

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2013.826306

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/current

May 2019

99 | P a g e

laboratory makes an equipment purchase, the cost to the laboratory will be the full list price from the equipment supplier. However, when a private laboratory makes the same equipment purchase, it pays the supplier the full list price, but is able to deduct the expense from its income when it calculates its corporate income tax and ends up with a final expense, net of taxes, that is considerably less than the cost to the public laboratory. Leasing offers the opportunity for a private entity to purchase equipment and pass on some of the tax savings to the public laboratory through an operating lease. In this manuscript the leasing gains are explained and accompanied by a detailed example to illustrate the potential magnitudes of the gains. In this example, a representative laboratory is shown to experience nearly a twenty-five percent gain from the lease compared to the expense of a direct purchase

Developing New Business Models for Forensic Laboratories, Chapter 13 in Forensic Science and the Administration of Justice, Kevin J. Strom & Matthew J. Hickman editors, Max M. Houck & Paul J. Speaker, April 2014.

Abstract: Forensic service providers inhabit a unique, central place in the criminal justice system. Stakeholders in the forensic enterprise abound, from law enforcement to attorneys to the courts and even the public they all serve. The public orientation of these services and stakeholders necessitates forensic managers rely on providing sound performance at a reasonable cost. Certainly, the laboratory's jurisdiction will judge them on criteria such as accuracy, timeliness, and cost. Too much emphasis on quantitative outcomes, however, can create an imbalance that ignores longer-term issues, such as quality and value. Thus, efficiency, the extent to which time and effort are used to produce the desired outcome, can be mistaken for effectiveness, the attainment of that desired outcome, but they are intimately connected.

http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book240380?course=Course6&sortBy=defaultPubDate%20desc&fs=1

May 2019

100 | P a g e

A Novel Approach to Forensic Molecular Biology Education and Training: It’s Impact on the Criminal Justice System, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 47 (2), 182 – 193, 2015, Khalid M. Lodhi, Robert L. Grier, and Paul J. Speaker.

Abstract: The managers of crime laboratories face significant hurdles when preparing new hires to become productive members of the laboratory. New hires require six months of training/experience in the crime laboratory before becoming a productive member of the Biology (DNA) section. To address this deficiency in forensic DNA education, a novel forensic education curriculum was developed and tested for three consecutive years in the forensic science program at Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC. The curriculum used a CTS proficiency kit which is the same kit used to validate the proficiency of forensic scientists in crime laboratories in the US. A cost benefit analysis suggests that training students in a classroom instead of in a crime laboratory provides both direct savings to the laboratory and significant societal savings as more DNA profiles are entered into the database. The societal benefit from the combined reduction in the amount of training in a crime laboratory and increasing the number of DNA database profiles entered into a database suggests a societal saving of $8.28 million for each of these months of reduced training.

A Review of Forensic Science Management Literature, Forensic Science Review 27, Max M. Houck, William P McAndrew & B. Daview, 2015, 53-68.

Abstract: The science in forensic science has received increased scrutiny in recent years, but interest in how forensic science is managed is a relatively new line of research. This paper summarizes the literature in forensic science management generally from 2009 to 2013, with some recent additions, to provide an overview of the growth of topics, results, and improvements in the management of forensic services in the public and private sectors. This review covers only the last three years or so and a version of this paper was originally produced for the 2013 Interpol Forensic Science Managers Symposium and is available at interpol.int.



http://www.forensicsciencereview.com/content.htm

May 2019

101 | P a g e

Financial Management of Forensic Science Laboratories: Lessons from Project FORESIGHT 2011-2012, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 6(1-2), Paul J Speaker, 2015.

Abstract: Critical to the decision-making within an individual forensic science laboratory is an understanding of their efficiency and effectiveness. The NIJ-funded project, FORESIGHT, applies financial management techniques to avowed public sector goals and offers a common starting point for the comparison of individual forensic laboratories to the established standards in the industry through a review of financial ratios. Such ratios adjust for size differences and allow insight into several aspects of the operation including evaluation of efficiency, quality, risk, market nuances, and return on investment. This study offers insight into the financial performance, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of forensic science laboratories. Using data from the National Institute of Justice’s Project FORESIGHT for 2011-2012, a variety of benchmark performance data is presented with analytical insight into the nature of that performance. The tabular and graphic presentations offer some insight into the current status of the forensic science industry in general and provide a basis by which individual laboratories may begin to assess their own performance with respect to both analytical efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Forensic Laboratory Financial Management, ASCLD Crime Lab Minute, Paul J. Speaker, July 2015. Abstract: The National Institute of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs has supported laboratories for the last several years with analysis of performance via Project FORESIGHT. Project FORESIGHT has collected data from the 2006 fiscal year, growing from a handful of laboratories to over 100 participating laboratories in the most recently completed fiscal year. There is no cost to participants, and all forensic laboratories are invited to join the program. In return for data submissions, each laboratory receives a customized report comparing their performance in each forensic investigative area to the industry standards obtained from the project.

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/5/3-4#.VRWNK010zcs

http://www.ascld.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Metrics-to-Help-Guide-Laboratory-Management.pdf

May 2019

102 | P a g e

Project FORESIGHT and Return on Investment: Forensic Science Laboratories and Public Health Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 8(1-2), Paul J Speaker, 2017.

Abstract: Project FORESIGHT developed business guided metrics for use by forensic science laboratories. Since the introduction of the project nearly a decade ago, much has been learned about the efficiency and effectiveness of the forensic laboratory industry and laboratory management has been forewarned and forearmed as they develop strategic initiatives to deal with the economic problem of limited resources available for a seemingly unlimited demand for services. The success of forensic science laboratories in the application of best practices has not gone unnoticed. Public health laboratories face similar problems and the laboratories in that industry have joined forces through the Association of Public Health Laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to follow the guidance of Project FORESIGHT and develop business metrics to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this public sector service. In this paper, the project development process is highlight towards an expanded set of outcomes that offers insight into efficiency and effectiveness and connects that performance to societal outcomes through development of return on investment metrics for the industry.

National versus Local Production: Finding the Balance between Fiscal Federalism and Economies of Scale, Public Finance Review, pages 1-23, William P. McAndrew, 2017.

Abstract: Public finance and public choice economists have contrasting views on the determinants of public sector size. This article makes a unique contribution to this literature by exploring an integer count of output, rather than the commonly used dollar approximation of output, using data that are homogeneous across the levels of

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/IvmzpvzZKYA4zJy2BHHk/full

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/IvmzpvzZKYA4zJy2BHHk/full

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142117692874

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142117692874

May 2019

103 | P a g e

government, where a unit of observation is not a governing body, but rather a service provider. Specifically, this article explores the counteracting effects of fiscal federalism and economies of scale using data from the National Institute of Justice with an application of data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. I determine that provision of forensic science services at the national level rather than local level does not lead to higher relative cost, and national production may be relatively more efficient. In general, however, neither locally nor nationally operated laboratories are operating at an efficient scale, a potential argument for privatization, insourcing, or outsourcing.

Process Improvement and the Efficient Frontier: Forecasting the Limits to Strategic Change across Crime Laboratory Areas of Investigation, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal 8 (3-4), 109-127, Paul J Speaker, 2017.

Abstract: Undertaking programs for process improvement, such as Lean Six Sigma, permit a laboratory to do more with their limited resources. The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) embraced a Lean Six Sigma change process that led to dramatic increases in capacity, while simultaneously reducing turnaround time (TAT) to a fraction of their historical experience. As other laboratories adopt similar process improvement programs, will those laboratories also experience similar results with higher productivity across the laboratory and reduced turnaround time in every area of scientific investigation? We demonstrate that similar success may be expected with a laboratory's current caseload, but the degree of improvement is related to the size of the political jurisdiction, crime rates, and the resulting caseload; and the degree of inefficiencies at the start of the process improvement program. An understanding of the economic forces at play enables laboratory management to better forecast outcomes and plan for the eventualities. Using data from Project FORESIGHT 2015–2016, tables are provided that permit laboratories to match their caseload within each area of investigation to the forensic laboratory standard for efficiency at that caseload.

https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/current

https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufpm20/current

May 2019

104 | P a g e

Strategic leadership through performance management: FORESIGHT as PerformanceStat, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1-11, Max M Houck, 2017.

Abstract: Unlike the private sector, no single overarching metric exists to evaluate public sector performance. Without concepts such as profit, it can be difficult for government agencies to be accountable to stakeholders. Unless organizations have a

clear strategy that holds performance to account, the organization can become pathological and never truly succeed. Momentum has been building towards evidence-based evaluations and management in government, inspired by the use of evidence-based decision-making, made popular by Michael Lewis' book Moneyball. This article presents a platform for adopting the forensic version of 'moneyball', the FORESIGHT Project, as a strategic tool to set metrics as goals, develop ways to achieve them, and improve the performance of public forensic service providers.

The jurisdictional return on investment from processing the backlog of untested sexual assault kits, Forensic Science International: Synergy, 18-23, Paul J Speaker, 2019. Abstract: The economic problem for the forensic laboratory is a problem faced in all arenas; limited resources are available to address seemingly unlimited desires. This is as true for entities in the public sector as it is for any private concern. To assist decision-makers in the allocation of those scarce resources, we synthesize existing research on the benefits of additions to the DNA Database and the potential benefits from diverting resources to analysis of the backlog of sexual assault kits. We offer some guidance for the optimum use of limited resources, through the measurement of the return on investment (ROI) at the jurisdictional level (i.e., that is, the net benefits to society relative to the investment itself). These net benefits include those to survivors from a resolution to their assaults, the benefits to others from the prevention of repeated

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tajf20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tajf20

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2589871X19300567?token=8AE8F3B72D154E759FDC520CB60182B5954CA02FB67F21EEC0CCB6E5B7C128E954399350BB7C365D68BC45E5C6F1D4D7

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2589871X19300567?token=8AE8F3B72D154E759FDC520CB60182B5954CA02FB67F21EEC0CCB6E5B7C128E954399350BB7C365D68BC45E5C6F1D4D7

May 2019

105 | P a g e

assaults from serial rapists, and the prevention of societal costs external to those directly victimized. Those external costs extend from the effects on friends and family to expenses for preventive measures to anyone aware of sexual assaults. Such metrics surrounding ROI will assist the public sector in the optimal allocation of scarce resources to the justice system by providing a measures of the marginal social welfare improvement from alternative allocations of these scarce resources in light of objectives of public sector entities. The analysis demonstrates that the societal return on investment from the testing of all sexual assault kits ranges from 9,874% to 64,529%, depending on the volume of activity for the laboratory conducting the analysis. There are extreme economies of scale in effect that are suggestive of some policy alternatives.

May 2019

106 | P a g e

Forensic Science International: Synergy An international journal dedicated to the forensic sciences and its cross-disciplinary effects on the administration of justice. Editor-in-Chief: M. Houck

Forensic Science International: Synergy is a Gold Open Access journal which welcomes significant, insightful, and innovative original research with the aim of advancing and supporting

forensic science while exceeding its expectations for excellence. By being freely available to anyone, we seek to promote and support open discourse across diverse areas of interest, avocation, and geography. Papers are invited from all forensic sciences and influencing disciplines, including but not limited to the humanities, life sciences, social sciences, and the law. Cross-disciplinary collaboration promotes innovative approaches, encourages systems-level perspectives, and seeds the literature with insightful opportunities. Because the good management of science can be as important as the science itself, the journal welcomes articles on issues related to forensic science policy and management. Management, human resources, economic studies, policy implications of new methods or technology, and any other work intended to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and operations of forensic science laboratories as well as to the education and training of forensic scientists. In addition, the journal welcomes manuscripts on the governmental and institutional policies that affect the practice and management of forensic science. Our goal is to publish quality work quickly so that information and results that have the potential to affect the public or a criminal justice system can be distributed, discussed, and incorporated into future research or applications. We will consider the following types of manuscripts: • Original research • Review articles • Case reports

• Opinion pieces • Policy papers • Practitioner notes

Forensic science is central to modern criminal justice systems. It supports investigations, demonstrates associations between people, places, and things involved in criminal activity, and exonerates the innocent. Forensic services are sciences integral to a just society governed through rule of law, it is unarguably a public good and should be accessible to anyone. Transparency is key to good science, rational governance, and equitable justice.

Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-20183 | Page Table of Tables Table 1: Cases per 100,000...

Documents

Transcript of Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-20183 | Page Table of Tables Table 1: Cases per 100,000...