Estimating Crime Laboratory Efficiency in the Testing of Sexual Assault Kits,

Abstract

Over the past decade, the large numbers of untested sexual assault kits (SAKs) have been highlighted as a systematic problem that jeopardizes or delays justice for victims. Considering the benefits of testing SAKs, researchers have worked to shed light on why sexual assault evidence has not been effectively submitted to and processed by crime laboratories. Missing from this discourse has been an understanding of the types of practices or qualities that encourage efficiency in the testing of SAKs in crime laboratories. We analyzed results of a national survey administered to all publicly funded state and local crime laboratories (N = 132 respondents) to provide critical information about (i) the extent to which laboratories are testing all of the SAKs possible given the resources they have available; and (ii) the impact that staffing, equipment, policies, and other practices have on SAK testing efficiency. We find that the average laboratory tests only about 69% of the SAKs possible given the resources available to them. However, although technical inefficiencies explain a large proportion of the number of untested SAKs, the accumulation of untested SAKs must also be attributed to laboratories having insufficient resources (e.g., too few forensic analysts). Moreover, results from stochastic frontier models show that doubling the number of forensic analysts in the typical laboratory would allow them to expand their SAK testing capacity by nearly 50%. Implications of these findings are discussed as they relate to the prioritization of resources for crime laboratories, which often operate under strict budgetary realities.

“Just Bring Us the Real Ones”: The Role of Forensic Crime Laboratories in Guarding the Gateway to Justice for Sexual Assault Victims

“…From their national-scale study of law enforcement agencies and their partner crime labs, Strom and colleagues (2017) selected six jurisdictions for in-depth qualitative study to understand how stakeholder relationships influence case processing. From semi-structured interviews with police, lab personnel, and prosecutors, Strom et al (2017) documented discernable power structures that affect SAK processing: “if the laboratory is acting as the ‘gatekeeper’, it sets the standard for what will be accepted for testing, providing little negotiation or collaboration with outside agencies” (p. 7). They also noted in some jurisdictions law enforcement agencies were perceived to be the key decision makers and lab personnel felt “demoralized” by the lack of input they had into SAK submission policies and practices (p. 7).…”

“…These issues may be interrelated: if crime labs do not have capacity to meet demand and struggle to complete yearly testing requests, this likely affects how much evidence police are able to submit. We do not know what percentage of SAKs are submitted/not submitted on a national level, but a recent study by Strom et al (2017) of 321 law enforcement agencies and the 145 crime labs they partner with for testing revealed that police are submitting fewer than 60% of SAKs that are possible given their available resources. Johnson et al (2012) collected prospective data from five jurisdictions (across two states) from the point at which a sexual assault police report was made through court disposition.…”

“…Lab and law enforcement agencies may have broader policy-level submission standards, but they may also make case-by-case decisions, which creates opportunities for bias to affect access to testing. That said, the National Academy of Sciences (2009) emphasized the importance of forensic science as an independent, neutral, and objective discipline, but as interdependent parts of the criminal justice system, police and lab personnel need and want collaboration and communication (Strom et al, 2017). Decades of research on police decision making in sexual assault cases underscores that they heavily weigh extra-legal factors about victims and their perceived credibility (Morabito et al, 2019; Spohn, White, & Tellis, 2014; Venema, 2016), but it is unknown if and how those beliefs are communicated to lab personnel and whether those beliefs carry any weight with their forensic science colleagues.…”

A window of opportunity: Examining the potential impact of mandatory sexual assault kit (SAK) testing legislation on crime prevention.

“…Davis et al’s (2020, 2021) evaluation of Texas’s mandatory SAK testing law (TX SB 1636) documented that crime labs struggled to keep pace with these timelines and law enforcement were overwhelmed as their caseloads increased as testing was completed. Likewise, Strom et al (2017) found that criminal justice system personnel had mixed feelings about mandatory testing legislation because it removes police discretion to prioritize submissions, testing queues, and investigations. Policy implementation is the collective behavior of individuals, which is undoubtedly influenced by biases, stresses, and burnout.…”

“…Based on these findings, victim advocacy groups increased their efforts to require testing of all previously unsubmitted SAKs and current case kits (see Beitsch, 2016; Marcus, 2017). Criminal justice system personnel raised concerns about the expense of such policies (Strom et al, 2017), which prompted several jurisdictions to initiate cost-benefit studies. For example, Wang and Wein (2018) reanalyzed Detroit’s SAK testing results to evaluate whether all remaining kits ought to be tested.…”