“When our findings favor the prosecution, we strive to be the prosecutor’s sharpest sword. When our findings favor the defense, we strive to be the defendant’s strongest shield.”

--Michael F. Sparks, Director

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF

FORENSIC SCIENCES

A white paper by the Forensic Services Team

Pam Barrett (334) 206-6228 pam.barrett@adph.state.al.us

LaVonda Blair (334) 242-9655 lavonda.blair@treasury.alabama.gov

Sherri Davidson (334) 206-2050 sherri.davidson@adph.state.al.us

Pam Harris (334) 242-4225 pam.harris@comptroller.alabama.gov

Cheri Hart (334) 353-0225 cheri.hart@dcnr.alabama.gov

Denise Milledge (334) 206-5259 denise.milledge@adph.state.al.us

Lisa Pelham (334) 240-4433 lisa.pelham@insurance.alabama.gov

Rip Starr (334) 260-2724 trs@adem.state.al.us

Scott Story (334) 271-7764 sss@adem.state.al.us

Introduction

On February 12, 2010, the Forensics Sciences Team of the Certified Public Manager (CPM) II program was assigned the project to answer the question “How could the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences better serve its customers?” The team met with Ms. Holli Baker, Assistant Quality Manager at ADFS, to discuss the challenges that ADFS currently faces in trying to optimize efficiency and quality of operations and at the same time ensure that the agency is meeting the needs of its customers, which include law enforcement agencies, the court system, and attorneys. More specifically, the team was assigned to contact a representative sample of ADFS’s customers, obtain feedback, and design a tool that would help ADFS determine how it can improve the satisfaction of its service users. Furthermore, the team was tasked with developing a white paper that would compile the results of the study and include the suggested strategy for ADFS to better serve its customers. Therefore, based on the task assigned to the team and feedback from Ms. Baker, the team first developed the following mission statement to outline the scope of the project:

We will develop a questionnaire that will quantify the level of customer satisfaction with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) for each discipline and laboratory. Based on the results of the study, we will recommend strategies and tools that may be used by ADFS to identify and possibly improve areas identified as low performers.

History of ADFS

One of the nation's oldest crime laboratory systems was formed in Alabama in 1935. An interesting turn of events, taking place within the State as well as outside the State in the early 1930's, served to stimulate the proper authorities to form the agency. At that time the State Chemist was both Director of the State Department of Agriculture's feed and fertilizer assay laboratory at Auburn and also the Dean of the School of Chemistry, Alabama Polytechnic Institute (later to become Auburn University). He had the legal responsibility to perform chemical analyses of foods and vital organs in cases of human poisoning. No funds, facilities or remuneration were provided him for this purpose. He used the available facilities of the Agricultural Laboratory in Auburn and traveled at his own expense. Needless to say, the services were very limited and, indeed, an extra burden on an official with many duties. http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/

On July 17, 1935, Governor Bibb Graves signed a bill into law forming the State Department of Toxicology. “The agency was charged to cooperate with Coroners in their efforts to determine cause of death in those cases involving foul play and to provide scientific assistance to all law enforcement agencies operating within the State.” http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/

The services of the ADFS cover a wide range of disciplines. They include arson, crime scene investigation, drug chemistry, death investigation, firearms/toolmarks, forensic

biology, and toxicology. The ADFS customers vary as well; not only district attorneys, defense attorneys, and law enforcement, but also the victims and suspects they represent. The outcome of many cases depends on the quantitative and qualitative analyses provided by ADFS.

ADFS has ten separate laboratories throughout the state. Each laboratory works independently under the guidance of the state headquarters and provides services to multiple counties, or statewide, depending on the discipline services it performs. Therefore, clients in one county may work with and submit evidence for evaluation to as many as five different laboratories, depending on the discipline.

Overall, nine ADFS laboratories perform drug chemistry testing and assist with crime scene investigations, however, not for the same counties. Four laboratories provide firearms/toolmarks and forensic biology services. Four laboratories also provide death investigation assistance, although only three are the same locations as the firearms/toolmarks and forensic biology services. Two laboratories perform toxicological analysis. Only one laboratory offers fire debris analysis. ADFS no longer provides trace evidence testing. The next few pages consist of an overview of each discipline.

Toxicology

The Toxicology Discipline of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences provides assistance to local, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies in Alabama in death and criminal investigations. This assistance includes laboratory analyses of biological specimens for the presence of drugs and poisons. The findings of these analyses may then be used to establish cause and manner of death or to ascertain or to explain impairment or performance of an individual pursuant to criminal activity.http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/

Breath Alcohol Testing/Implied Consent

Oversight and management of the state’s DUI testing program is the responsibility of the Alabama Department of Forensic Science. The Draeger MKIII Breath Alcohol testing instrument is used to conduct these tests of suspected drives under the influence of alcohol. There are approximately 236 such instruments owned by ADFS that are distributed throughout the State.

“The Chemical Tests for Intoxication Program is supported by the Alabama Training and Equipment Trust Fund”. (http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/). Instrument support, operator training, and instrument services are provided for by this Trust Fund. Over 12,000 operators have been trained to use the Draeger equipment. The laboratory of the Implied Consent Section is located south of Birmingham, Alabama.

Forensic Biology

Forensic Biology is used to collect biological evidence for cases of violent and sex-related crimes. Bodily fluids exchanged during these crimes are sent to the crime laboratory for analysis. With DNA analysis, it is possible to determine “the original donor of the biological evidence.” (http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/)

ADFS is a member and uses the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) system. This system has the capability to maintain, store, and track DNA information on individual’s nationwide. The CODIS system allows the cross-referencing of DNA information to match and link related cases. There are currently 45 states implementing and using the CODIS system. There are three geographic levels of the CODIS system: National DNA Index System (NDIS), State DNA Index System (SDIS), and the Local DNA Index System (LDIS).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains the NDIS. The participating States have one designated location for the SDIS. Alabama’s database is located at the Birmingham Regional Laboratory, and the LDIS is located in Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Mobile Regional Laboratories.

This system has seen great success. By using the CODIS system ADFS was able to identify a perpetrator of an unsolved rape/homicide case that occurred in 1990.

Fire Debris

“Arson must be regarded as a possible, if not probable, cause of every fire investigated. The value of physical evidence depends upon the proper documentation, collection, and preservation of the evidence from the time of its initial discovery to its subsequent examination and analyses.” (http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/) The only laboratory in the State to offer fire debris analysis is the Birmingham Regional Laboratory.

Firearms Identification

Heather HarrelsonBirmingham LaboratoryFirearms Identification

Although "forensic science" has experienced a recent surge of public interest, most of the principles the field was founded upon are not new. This holds especially true for forensic firearms identification. Although firearms identification has made remarkable technological advances, many of the same techniques and instruments which were first implemented over 50 years ago are still in use today.

The primary tool of every forensic firearms examiner, the comparison microscope, has changed little since it was adopted in 1925. This instrument is justifiably considered the

most significant contribution to the field, since without it firearms identification would be impossible. The comparison microscope is actually composed of two individual microscopes connected by an optical bridge. This allows the examiner to view two objects simultaneously with one-half of the field of view magnified by one microscope while the other half is magnified by the second microscope. As a result of this development, identification of fired bullets and cartridge cases became as conclusive as fingerprints.

Identification of fired ammunition to a specific firearm is made possible by distinguishing marks left by the gun on the surface of both the bullet and the cartridge case. These markings fall into two categories: class characteristics and individual characteristics. Class characteristics include general features such as the number of lands and grooves and their width, direction of twist, and bullet diameter. Since many firearms are built to the same specifications, the variation of these characteristics will be nominal from multiple guns of the same make and model. However, the individual characteristics imparted to a bullet or cartridge case are different for every firearm, and make it possible for an examiner to positively identify a round of fired ammunition as coming from a specific gun.

Individual characteristics can be further classified into impressed or striated marks. Impressed marks are made by a hard surface imprinting its shape into a softer material. These marks include those made by a hammer striking another piece of metal, or a screwdriver driven straight down onto another surface. Striated marks are cause when a hard surface scrapes against a softer surface, such as pry marks made by a crowbar or when the surface of the bullet is forced along the rifling inside a gun barrel. These marks can be present on cartridge cases as well as bullets, and other tools. Comparison of the marks on the evidence with those on the test material can result in a "match", in which the striations on the two objects are synchronized and appear to form a single image.

National Integrated Ballistics Information Network

The National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) was developed by a partnership between the FBI and the ATF. Each agency had its own imaging system with networked search capabilities; however, the FBI's Drugfire system and the ATF's IBIS system were incompatible. The FBI and ATF acknowledged the need for the two competing systems to be interoperable so that an image captured by one system could be analyzed and correlated on the other system. In May of 1997, the NIBIN board was created to unify efforts of developing a national imaging system. After extensive research into the interoperability of Drugfire and IBIS, they decided to pursue the joint development of one system. In December of 1999, the FBI and ATF signed a memorandum of understanding defining their role in the NIBIN program. The FBI will be responsible for providing the communications network and the ATF will be responsible for field operations.

The United States is divided into 16 regions with 222 sites. Alabama, along with

Georgia, constitutes region 12. There are 5 sites in Alabama, 4 within the Department of Forensic Sciences. IBIS is located in the Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile Regional Laboratories. The fifth site is located at the Birmingham Police Department. Through the NIBIN program, Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS) equipment is used to compare firearms related evidence stored in the database.

Scope of Project

On March 12, 2010, Mr. Scott Pilgreen, Assistant State Fire Marshall and CPM II graduate, met with the team to discuss his agency’s relationship with ADFS and also give insight into his CPM II project experience. Later that week, the team met with Katherine Richert, a current CPM II student and director of the ADFS Montgomery Laboratory, and received a tour of her laboratory and gained insight into the problems that typical state forensic laboratories face with funding, training, and personnel issues.Based on the results of the aforementioned meetings, site tours, and introductory research, the team narrowed its scope to focus its research on the following four areas:

� Timeliness and clarity of documents and reports

� Responsiveness of staff at evidence drop off/pick up

� Availability of staff and quality of testimony

� Interest in education outreach & guidance

Next, a questionnaire incorporating these four areas was developed and used to gauge the satisfaction of services provided by ADFS to their customers. Two questionnaires were developed, one specific for the law enforcement and the second for the court system. Our goal was to ensure we had a representative sample of the State as a whole; specifically, 100% coverage of each laboratory and each discipline. Therefore, each team member was responsible for contacting ADFS customers from different areas of the state and additionally, ensures that large municipalities and small rural areas were equally represented.

Results

The team conducted interviews with 52 attorneys and law enforcement throughout the state in rural and urban areas. The interviewees included clients of all ADFS laboratories.

Coverage of Questionnaires by Discipline, Forensic Laboratory Site, and Interviewee Category

Arson Firearms/Toolmarks Atty/DA Law Enf Total Atty/DA Law Enf Total BH 10 42 52 BH 2 6 8Total 10 42 52 HV 1 2 3 MB 4 11 15 MG 3 23 26 Death Investigation Total 10 42 52 Atty/DA Law Enf Total HV 1 6 7 MB 4 11 15 Forensic Biology MM 5 25 30 Atty/DA Law Enf Total Total 10 42 52 BH 2 6 8 HV 1 2 3 MB 4 11 15 Drug Chemistry MG 3 23 26 Atty/DA Law Enf Total Total 10 42 52 AB 0 4 4 BH 1 2 3 DH 1 10 11 Toxicology FL 0 2 2 Atty/DA Law Enf Total HV 1 0 1 BH 3 19 22 JV 0 2 2 MB 7 23 30 MB 4 11 15 Total 10 42 52 MG 2 10 12 TU 1 1 2 Total 10 42 52

The questionnaires included sections assessing customer service, timeliness of reports, the reports, and desired training opportunities. The interviews for the attorneys and the law enforcement personnel varied slightly in the customer service section. The results of the questionnaires are as follows:

Customer Service/Responsiveness

Of the 10 attorneys interviewed regarding ADFS staff: � 90% (9 of 10) report staff are well-prepared for court � 80% (8 of 10) report staff are easy for prosecutors to understand � 80% (8 of 10) report staff are easy for jurors to understand � 80% (8 of 10) report staff are available to testify within a reasonable time frame � 70% (7 of 10) report staff are available for pre-testimony meeting/run-through � 50% (5 of 10) report staff are easy for the defense to understand � 50% (5 of 10) report staff are comprehensive on the stand � 50% (5 of 10) report staff use visual aids appropriately on the stand

Of the 40 law enforcement personnel who responded to the questions pertaining to the responsive of ADFS staff during the intake process:

� 87.5% (35 of 40) report staff are professional� 67.5% (27 of 40) report staff are courteous � 37.5% (15 of 40) report staff are informative � 35 % (14 of 40) characterize the intake process as fast � 25 % (10 of 40) characterize the intake process as smooth � 15% (6 of 40) characterize the intake process as time consuming � 10 % (4 of 40) characterize the intake process as logical � 2.5% (15 of 40) characterize the intake process as frustrating

Timeliness of Reports

The timeliness of reports was not subcategorized by discipline. Therefore, the results vary as some may have been answering while thinking of a DNA report, while others a drug chemistry test result, etc... Of the 48 interviewees responding to the timeliness of reports, the perception was as follows:

� 18.8% (9 of 48) estimate <30 days � 33.3% (16 of 48) estimate 30–60 days � 25% (12 of 48) estimate 60-90 days � 22.9% (11 of 48) estimate >90 days

Of the 49 responding to whether the timeliness is better, worse, or the same: � 53% (26 of 49) = Better � 38.8% (19 of 49) = Same � 8.2% (4 of 49) = Worse

Contents of Reports

Of the 47 respondents who answered whether the reports are easy to understand: � 76.6% (36 of 47) report them to be easy or somewhat easy � 8.5% (4 of 47) report them to be somewhat difficult (No one reported them to be

difficult)� 14.8% were neutral

Education opportunities

92.3% (48 of 52) request additional training opportunities in drug chemistry, toxicology, arson, death investigation, DNA, and crime scene evidence. (see attached listing or details)71.2% (37 of 52) felt online reference materials would be helpful in the same categorizes as mentioned for education.

Solutions/Benefits

Challenges Solution BenefitsNo formal feedbackprocess

Develop and conduct web-based surveys

Offers ADFS a formalized feedback system. Increases communication between ADFS and its service users

InconsistenciesbetweenLaboratories

Agency-wide communication for purpose of disseminating procedural changes and other information

Accessibility and continuity of information throughout agency

Increases accurate and consistent handling of forensic data

Limited Training Offer training by Laboratory Region

Offer online training

Provides greater accessibility, increases knowledge and understanding to service users

No online reference guides

Provide online resource materials, such as quick reference Q & A and terminology guides.

Provides service users resource materials/guides at a glance to assist with forensics related duties

Body Pick-up for Autopsies

Increase General Fund appropriations to ADFS for autopsies

Preservation of forensic evidence

Of the challenges observed during our visits to Alabama Department of Forensics and discussions with ADFS personnel, formalized feedback is the most practical method to analyze, recommend change for, and to implement effective processes. The project team developed a questionnaire as a tool to obtain feedback from service users. Those service users included: district attorneys, defense attorneys, municipal police departments, and county sheriff offices. The questionnaire focused on areas introduced by ADFS as points of interest; including ADFS staff intake, testimony in court, timeliness of reports, clarity and thoroughness of reports, educational offerings and reference materials, and potential areas for improvement. Utilizing a web-based survey will offer ADFS the opportunity to maintain constant communication with its service users, helping to increase consistency between laboratories.

Evaluation/Cost

The potential financial impact of implementing solutions or recommendations would be lessened by the benefit of improving the professional services provided to district attorneys, defense attorneys, municipal police departments and county sheriff offices.When possible, offering training at locations regional to the services users would minimize the cost of travel and time for service users. The cost of travel for ADFS staff could be addressed by a nominal fee for the training. For example, if training in evidence collection was offered in Decatur and instructed by staff based in Auburn, travel cost would be approximately $250.00.

Distance of 200 miles x .50 mileage rate = $100; Overnight per diem - $150.00

The project team recommends implementation of a tool to measure satisfaction of its service users through their website and onsite intake. This would require staff hours to refine the tool drafted during this project, placing it on ADFS’s website for anytime access and instant feedback, and analysis of feedback. Ongoing maintenance of the website would include updates to this document. Furthermore, the addition of web-based reports to the current website would greatly enhance communication with service users and would minimally affect overall cost.

As a State agency, the ADFS receives appropriations from the state legislature and is experiencing budget constraints with 22% reduction in the overall budget in fiscal year 2010. They receive half of their funding from the state’s General Fund. These budget reductions have resulted in lower staffing level over the last few years. In fiscal year 2010, ADFS staffing level has decreased to 208, down 7.56% from 225 in FY 2009.ADFS’s budget is aided by a revenue generating source of fees for DNA, federal grants from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other agencies including the Department of Public Health.

Cost: The anticipated cost to establish an online system will be driven majorly by personnel cost. The agency currently has a website available to service users for access to training opportunities and forms. According to information systems sources, the process of developing the questionnaire to add to the existing site is estimated to require up to 4 hours. Analysis of the questionnaire results may require personnel with programming abilities to setup a report builder to store in a database, build queries, design reports to format data, and setup controls to print reports. The time required to complete this project is estimated to be less than one month. After setup is complete, relatively minimal cost to maintain the site is expected.

A sample breakdown of the setup cost follows:

Classification Salary/Fringe Hours Cost

IT Specialist Associate

$46.01/hr 8 $368.08

ProgrammerAnalyst

$34.45/hr 152 $5,236.40

Total 160 $5,604.48

State Personnel Department, Pay Plan (Salary Schedule), http://www.personnel.state.al.us/Documents/payplan.pdf ADFS Administrative Personnel & Contact Information, http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/

Appendices

A. Questionnaire results (redacted) B. ADFS Service Questionnaire for Attorney General/District Attorney/Defense

AttorneyC. ADFS Service Questionnaire for Law Enforcement

Key for column headings in attached data sheet:

RefID Randonly assigned ID number County County of interviewee Comments Miscellaneous comments noted Timeliness Perceived time to receive reports Compared Timeliness compared to recent past Understand Reports easy to understand Elements Reports contain all needed data elements EleComments Comments about the data elements Ed Education requested EdDC Education requested specifically on drug chemistry EdTox Education requested specifically on drug chemistry EdArs Education requested specifically on toxicology EdDI Education requested specifically for death investigations EdOth Education requested other EdOther Education requested other specified Online Online reference materials requested onDC Online reference materials requested specifically on drug chemistry onTox Online reference materials requested specifically on drug chemistry onArs Online reference materials requested specifically on toxicology onDI Online reference materials requested specifically for death investigations onOth Online reference materials requested other onOther Online reference materials requested other specified Improve Ideas for improvement

Priority If cases were prioritized, what cases would be recommended as high priority?

Appendix A

RefID

County

Comments

Timeliness

Compared

Understand

Elements

EleC

omm

ents

Ed

EdDC

EdTox

EdArs

EdDI

EdOth

EdO

ther

OnlineonDC

onTox

onArs

onDI

onOth

onOther

Impr

ove

Prio

rity

3A

utau

ga30

�60�

days

Bett

erEa

syY

subm

itted

�sev

eral

�item

s�sa

me�

time,

�re

port

s�ca

me�

back

�by�

item

�and

�ver

y�de

taile

dY

Y

DN

A�&

�fing

erpr

intin

g,�

colle

ctin

g�ev

iden

ce�a

nd�

AD

FS�e

xpec

tatio

nsY

YY

YY

Ycl

asse

sag

rees

�with

�cur

rent

�pr

iori

ties

9A

utau

ga30

�60�

days

Bett

erY

Yon

ly�2

�mon

ths�

in

mur

der�

��cla

ss�A

�felo

ny�

shou

ld�b

e�fir

st,�p

ublic

ity�

shou

ld�n

ot�m

atte

r.

13A

utau

ga>9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Neu

tral

YY

Yho

w�to

�pac

kage

Yw

ould

�pre

fer�

onlin

e�in

for�

inst

ead�

of�h

avin

g�to

�cal

l�to�

ask

hom

ocid

es�a

nd�r

apes

�iven

�pr

efer

ence

19Ba

ldw

in>9

0�da

ysSa

me

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

YY

YD

NA

Npr

ovid

e�in

fo�o

n�M

obile

�lab�

capa

bilit

ies�

conc

erni

ng�D

NA

33Ba

ldw

in30

�60�

days

Bett

erEa

syN

oY

YY

YY

N

34Ba

ldw

in30

�60�

days

Sam

eSo

mew

hat�

Diff

icul

tY

YY

YY

Ym

ore�

staf

f

38Ba

ldw

in<3

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syN

oY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YD

NA

�wor

se�th

an�e

ver

39Ba

ldw

in<3

0�da

ysSa

me

Easy

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Yon

line�

trai

ning

�too

43Ba

ldw

in>9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Yim

prov

e�co

mm

unic

atio

ns�b

etw

een�

agen

cies

49Ba

rbou

r<3

0�da

ysbe

tter

neut

ral

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y4

Blou

nt30

�60�

days

Easy

YY

YY

YY

YY

Ypi

ck�u

p�se

rvic

e

32Bu

tler

30�6

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syN

oY

YY

YY

very

�ple

ased

35Bu

tler

30�6

0�da

ysBe

tter

Easy

No

YN

5Ca

lhou

n<3

0�da

ysBe

tter

8Ch

erok

eegr

eat

<30�

days

Bett

erEa

syY

Ylim

ited�

time�

&�fu

ndin

gY

prio

rity

�upo

n�hi

s�re

ques

t

41Ch

octa

w60

�90�

days

Sam

eSo

mew

hat�

Easy

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

6Cl

ay60

�90�

days

Sam

eEa

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Mor

e�in

fo�fo

r�of

ficer

�nee

ds�o

n�th

e�st

reet

over

all�p

leas

ed

7Co

lber

tla

b�cl

osed

�at

�lunc

hBe

tter

Ym

edic

al�te

rmin

olog

yY

unde

rsta

ndin

g�D

NA

DA

�get

s�3�

prio

rity

�cas

es�

per�

year

16Co

necu

h60

�90�

days

Wor

seEa

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

mor

e�fu

ndin

g�fo

r�m

ore�

staf

fing

smal

ler�

agen

cies

�nee

d�pr

iori

ty�b

/c�m

ay�n

ot�h

ave�

anyt

hing

�els

e�to

�wor

k�on

�w

hile

�wai

ting

30Co

necu

h60

�90�

days

Bett

erSo

mew

hat�

Easy

ME�

use�

to�d

o�ev

eryt

hing

,�5�p

age�

repo

rt,�n

ow�n

othi

ngY

YY

YY

trac

e�ev

iden

ce,�n

eed�

help

�with

�CSI

prel

im�in

fo�to

�gra

nd�ju

ry

31Co

necu

h30

�60�

days

Sam

eSo

mew

hat�

Easy

Yne

ed�to

�kno

w�a

ll�dr

ugs,

�not

�just

�one

YY

YY

YY

crim

e�sc

enes

mul

tiple

�cas

es�in

�one

�wee

k�re

quir

e�m

ultip

le�c

hem

ists

�in�c

ourt

room

21Co

ving

ton

30�6

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syN

om

issi

ng�O

CA#/

no�r

efer

ence

�num

ber�

to�m

atch

�thei

r�O

CAY

YY

YY

YY

YY

OCA

#s�a

nd�b

ar�c

ode�

on�e

ach�

item

mur

der�

>att

empt

ed�

mur

der�

�>as

saul

ts�

>bur

glar

y�>t

heft

s

36Co

ving

ton

30�6

0�da

ysSa

me

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

Y

45Co

ving

ton

60�9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�D

iffic

ult

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Yca

ll�lin

e�fo

r�he

lp�w

ith�C

SI51

Cren

shaw

30�6

0�da

ysSa

me

som

ewha

tY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

48D

ale

30�6

0�da

ysSa

me

neut

ral

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y54

Dal

ebe

tter

easy

YY

YY

YY

YY

10El

mor

e60

�90�

days

Sam

eSo

mew

hat�

Diff

icul

tY

Yre

aliz

es�u

nder

staf

fed

mur

der�

�

14El

mor

e60

�90�

days

Bett

erSo

mew

hat�

Easy

YY

Yev

iden

ce�c

olle

ctio

nY

crim

e�(?

)ne

ed�m

ore�

mon

ey�b

ecau

se�v

ital�t

o�po

lice

proc

ess�

as�r

ec'd

25El

mor

e>9

0�da

ysSa

me

Neu

tral

YY

YY

Ym

ore�

man

pow

er

add�

plac

e�to

�mar

k�if�

prio

rity

�and

�then

�a�p

lace

�to

�exp

lain

�why

27Es

cam

bia

60�9

0�da

ysSa

me

Easy

YY

YY

Ycr

ime�

scen

eY

YY

Ycr

ime�

scen

e

App

endi

x A

RefID

County

Comments

Timeliness

Compared

Understand

Elements

EleC

omm

ents

Ed

EdDC

EdTox

EdArs

EdDI

EdOth

EdO

ther

OnlineonDC

onTox

onArs

onDI

onOth

onOther

Impr

ove

Prio

rity

37Es

cam

bia

30�6

0�da

ysSa

me

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

YY

YY

YY

trac

e�in

fo

40Es

cam

bia

30�6

0�da

ysSa

me

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

trac

e�el

emen

t

23Fr

ankl

in60

�90�

days

Bett

erEa

syN

oqu

ality

�of�e

vide

nce�

for�

tox�

like�

TX�la

b�by

�pot

ency

�of�t

he�d

rugs

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

2G

enev

a30

�60�

days

Bett

erEa

syY

YY

YY

YY

brin

g�ba

ck�tr

ace�

��has

�to�s

end�

to�

FBI

if�liv

es�o

f�the

�pub

lic�a

re�in

�da

nger

52G

enev

a<3

0�da

ysbe

tter

neut

ral

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

17H

enry

30�6

0�da

ysBe

tter

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

YY

YY

YY

AD

FS's

�Bea

st�s

oftw

are�

need

s�to

�w

ork�

wit�

Vist

aD

K47

Hen

ry<3

0�da

ysSa

me

som

ewha

tY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

50H

oust

on<3

0�da

ysSa

me

som

ewha

tY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

53H

oust

on<3

0�da

ysSa

me

som

ewha

tY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

20M

adis

on>9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Easy

26m

obile

>90�

days

Wor

seEa

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

11M

ontg

omer

y>9

0�da

ysW

orse

Som

ewha

t�Ea

syY

need

�mor

e�m

anpo

wer

�and

�sc

ient

ists

need

s�a�

prio

rity

�for�

hom

ocid

es

12M

ontg

omer

y>9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Easy

YY

Yho

w�th

ey�d

o�th

ings

�aft

er�

spec

imen

�dro

pped

�off

Yno

nem

urde

r�an

d�ra

pe�b

efor

e�bu

rgla

ry

15M

ontg

omer

y>9

0�da

ysSa

me

Som

ewha

t�D

iffic

ult

Ym

edic

al�te

rmin

olog

y,�w

eird

�m

easu

rem

ents

YY

basi

c�in

tro

Y

send

�mem

os�w

hen�

chan

ges�

occu

r,�

like�

amou

nt�o

f�coc

aine

�and

�m

ariju

ana�

need

ed�to

�test

chro

nolo

gica

l

18Ru

ssel

l>9

0�da

ysW

orse

Neu

tral

Yha

rd�to

�und

erst

and�

whe

ther

�tox�

leve

ls�a

re�li

fe�th

reat

enin

gY

YY

YY

DN

A�&

�tool

mar

ksY

YY

YY

DN

A�&

�tool

mar

ksdo

�DN

A�o

n�pr

oper

ty�c

rim

es

prio

rity

�for�

iden

tifyi

ng�o

r�lo

catin

g�su

spec

t,�n

ot�ju

st�

conv

ictio

n29

russ

ell

22Sh

elby

>90�

days

Sam

eEa

syY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

touc

h�D

NA

�for�

prop

erty

�cri

mes

46Sh

elby

60�9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Easy

YY

Yfu

ndin

g�fo

r�ne

w�e

quip

men

t�and

�pe

rson

nel

any�

case

�with

�a�d

eath

�ex

cept

�if�m

edic

ally

�de

term

ined

1Tu

scal

oosa

60�9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Easy

YY

YY

YY

man

pow

er,�o

ne�p

erso

n�pr

oces

s�st

art�t

o�fin

ish�

less

�roo

m�fo

r�qu

estio

ns,�w

ould

�like

�ori

g�re

ques

t�re

turn

ed�w

ith�r

epor

t�for

�whe

n�A

DFS

�rep

ort�a

rriv

es�b

efor

e�la

w�

enfo

rce�

repo

rt28

wal

ker

YY

YY

Yad

d�ce

ntra

l�loc

atio

n�fo

r�au

tops

y44

was

hing

ton

60�9

0�da

ysBe

tter

Neu

tral

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

CSI

App

endi

x A

ADFS Service User Questionnaire Attorney General/District Attorney/Defense Attorney

1. Which lab do you use for the following:

Drug Chemistry: Toxicology:

Arson: Death Investigation:

Forensic Biology/DNA: Implied Consent:

Firearms/Toolmarks:

2. When called to testify in court, how would you classify ADFS staff? Select all that apply.

easy for prosecutors to understand easy for defense to understand

easy for jurors to understand comprehensive well prepared

appropriate use of visual aids available for pre-testimony meeting/run-through

available to testify within a reasonable time frame

Additional comments

3. How timely are the reports your office receives from ADFS?

Less than 30 days 30 – 60 days 60 – 90 days More than 90 days

4. Compared to previous years how has the timeliness of ADFS reports changed?

Better Same Worse

5. How easy are the reports to understand?

Easy Somewhat Easy Neutral Somewhat Difficult Difficult

6. Do ADFS reports provide all critical data elements needed to efficiently perform your job duties? Yes / No If no, what elements would you say are missing?

7. Would you be interested in ADFS services educational seminars? Yes / No If so, what type(s)?

drug chemistry toxicology arson death investigation other

Or online reference material? Yes / No If so, what type(s)? drug chemistry toxicology arson death investigation other

8. How could ADFS improve? Any additional comments.

For example if a priority system could be placed on testing, in your opinion how could this be accomplished?

Appendix B

ADFS Service User Questionnaire Law Enforcement

1. Which lab do you use for the following:

Drug Chemistry: Toxicology:

Arson: Death Investigation:

Forensic Biology/DNA: Implied Consent:

Firearms/Toolmarks:

2. When visiting ADFS lab(s) how responsive is the staff during the intake process? Select all that apply.

Professional Informative Logical Smooth Fast Courteous

Confusing Frustrating Time consuming

Additional comments

3. How timely are the reports your office receives from ADFS?

Less than 30 days 30 – 60 days 60 – 90 days More than 90 days

4. Compared to previous years how has the timeliness of ADFS reports changed?

Better Same Worse

5. How easy are the reports to understand?

Easy Somewhat Easy Neutral Somewhat Difficult Difficult

6. Do ADFS reports provide all critical data elements needed to efficiently perform your job duties? Yes / No If no, what elements would you say are missing?

7. Would you be interested in ADFS services educational seminars? Yes / No If so, what type(s)?

drug chemistry toxicology arson death investigation other

Or online reference material? Yes / No If so, what type(s)?

drug chemistry toxicology arson death investigation other

8. How could ADFS improve? Any additional comments.

For example if a priority system could be placed on testing, in your opinion how could this be accomplished?

Appendix C