REPORT
DIGEST
MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM AUDIT OF THE
Released: March 2009
State
of
Office
of the Auditor General
AUDITOR
GENERAL
To
obtain a copy of the report contact:
Office
of the Auditor General
(217)
782-6046 or
TTY: (888) 261-2887
This report is also available on the
worldwide web at:
http://www.auditor.Illinois.gov
·
ISP
operates a system of nine forensic labs around the State of
·
Between
FY02 and FY07, ISP received $387 million from State and federal sources to
operate its forensic lab system.
Relative to lab funding and staffing we found:
ISP
was directly appropriated $348.6 million in GRF
during the audit period. In addition,
over $15 million was appropriated to DFS from three
major fee funds. The remainder, $22.9
million, came from other funds maintained by ISP or federal grants.
While
the backlog of cases continues to increase and labs report lost headcount, DFS has not utilized
all of the funding it received from the General Assembly. Our analysis of expenditure data from the
Comptroller’s Office shows DFS lapsed $19.3 million in State funds between FY02-FY07. In addition, at January 16, 2008, DFS had allowed $1.3
million in 21 federal grants for forensic activities to lapse since 2002.
ISP
transferred a significant amount of
funding ($6 million) to other purposes that was originally appropriated for forensic lab
operations.
The
number of backlogged cases at ISP labs
has increased by over 200 percent from FY02-FY07 (3,426 cases to 10,387
cases). However, the number of forensic
scientists, including trainees, has declined
3 percent during the same time period – 336 in FY02 to 327 in FY07.
·
During
FY07, ISP’s lab system held two major accreditation certificates, one from the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board
and another, conducted by Forensic Quality Services.
·
From
January-June 2007, the
REPORT
CONCLUSIONS
The Illinois State Police (ISP)
operates a system of nine forensic labs around the State of
The Division of Forensic Services (DFS) provides expert evidence collection and
state-of-the-art scientific evidence analysis to assist with the identification
and prosecution of offenders, and exoneration, for the ISP and other State,
federal and local law enforcement agencies.
The Division also provides assistance to local law enforcement agencies
through training, management, and consulting services.
Sufficiency of Funding and Staffing
Between
FY02 and FY07, ISP received $387 million from State and federal sources to
operate its forensic lab system. Funding
from the General Revenue Fund and various fee funds accounted for over 96
percent of ISP forensic funding. The
General Assembly directly appropriated $348.6 million in General Revenue Funds
to the Division of Forensic Services (DFS) during the
audit period. In addition, over $15
million was appropriated to DFS from three major fee
funds: the ISP Crime Lab Fund, the DUI
Fund, and the DNA ID Fund. The
remainder, $22.9 million, came from other funds maintained by ISP or federal
grants.
While
the backlog of cases continues to increase and labs report lost headcount, DFS has not utilized
all of the funding it received from the General Assembly. Our analysis of expenditure data from the
Comptroller’s Office shows DFS lapsed $19.3 million between FY02 and FY07. Of the total $19.3 million lapsed, $15.5 million
(80 percent) was lapsed during fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Almost half of the General Revenue Funding
lapsed during this time period ($7.7 million of $15.6 million) was for
staff-related salaries and benefits.
In
addition, ISP transferred a significant
amount of funding to other purposes that was originally appropriated for
forensic lab operations. During the
audit period, over $6 million was
transferred by ISP out of the forensic services area. While ISP does have appropriation transfer
authority, underfunding the forensic services area
can have a negative impact on the safety of the citizens of
We
also determined that DFS routinely allowed grant
funding to lapse. DFS
received over $14 million in federal grants during the audit period from a
variety of sources, including the National Institute of Justice, Project Safe
Neighborhoods, and funds set aside for the Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act. As of January
2008, ISP had allowed $1.3 million in 21
federal grants for forensic activities to lapse since 2002.
Significant
backlogs exist in all sections within the ISP’s forensic lab system. ISP has not
completed a formal study of the optimal staffing needed to operate its
forensic labs at sufficient levels to maintain its case processing goals. The number of backlogged cases at ISP labs has increased by over 200 percent from
FY02 to FY07 (3,426 cases to 10,387 cases).
However, the number of forensic scientists, including trainees, has actually
declined 3 percent during the same
time period – 336 in FY02 to 327 in FY07.
While ISP has notified the Governor’s Office of backlog and staffing
needs, the Governor’s Office has not allowed ISP to replace lost headcount. Failure to maintain necessary staffing levels
results in cases remaining unsolved and serial criminals could remain free to
commit additional crimes.
ISP’s
inability to fill lost forensic positions has resulted in staff performing work
outside of their official duties.
Forensic scientists working outside their position descriptions have
negatively impacted the ability of ISP to meet its 30-day case processing
goal. Time spent away from analytical
work lengthens the processing time for case analysis. We found:
·
Systemwide, the ISP labs met the turnaround of 30
days in 62.4 percent of the 115,956 cases processed during calendar year 2007.
·
Three
ISP labs processed less than 15 percent
of their cases within the 30-day time frame.
The
Quality Assurance Program and Case
Backlog
During FY07, ISP’s forensic science lab system held two
major accreditation certificates, one from the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)
and another, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
conducted by Forensic Quality Services (FQS-I). ISP first received its ASCLD/LAB
accreditation in 1982; the FQS-I ISO accreditation
was received in 2005. In June 2007, ISP
allowed the ASCLD/LAB accreditation to lapse, keeping
the FQS-I ISO accreditation.
FQS-I and ASCLD/LAB’s
accreditations are similar, but vary in implementation. The accreditation process generally consists of an initial site visit by a
team of scientists associated with the respective accrediting organization,
interim site visits, and self-reporting on the part of the labs. For example, FQS-I’s
accreditation cycle for ISP is four years with a comprehensive site visit after
two years, whereas ASCLD/LAB’s accreditation cycle is
for a period of five years with annual site visits that sample aspects of the
lab’s management system.
ISP’s
Forensic Sciences Command (FSC) has established an extensive quality assurance program,
which includes:
·
Adoption
of professional standards and guidelines, as well as issuing Command Directives
and manuals.
·
Assessing
compliance through both internal reviews and external assessments.
·
Monitoring
service to assure quality and providing corrective action for quality concerns
identified.
·
Performing
various types of internal and external proficiency testing, case file reviews,
case reanalysis, and other procedures.
The
Quality Assurance procedures can result in “Minor
Issues” (issues which would not deter or have any effect on the
adjudication process) or “Issues
Affecting Cases” (issues which would effect adjudication). During 2007, 185 Minor Issues were reported
in the various disciplines through the Quality Assurance program. This is a decrease from 220 in 2005 and 204 in 2006. These Minor Issues can be as innocuous as
misspellings and pagination issues to dates of analysis being incorrect. Other Minor Issues include: improper cross outs, evidence description
being different than evidence, and missing information from reports.
Twenty-three
issues that could affect the
adjudication of the evidence analyzed were found during the Quality Assurance
testing in 2007. This is an increase
from 9 in 2005 and 13 in 2006. These
issues included failure to identify certain fluids to results changed from
inconclusive to identification. However,
to the Division of Forensic Service’s (DFS) credit,
more quality assurance cases have been initiated to respond to quality
issues. DFS
initiated 46 in FY05, 71 in FY06, and 94 in FY07.
To determine whether ISP is resolving quality concerns that
arise, we sampled 45 of the 211 Quality Issue Reports (QIRs)
opened during FY05-FY07. A QIR Form is
utilized to follow the progress of remedial/corrective action taken to resolve
a quality issue, and serves as a record of the actions taken. If the QIR case was substantiated, we tested
to ensure that actions taken were appropriate to remedy the issue. Of the 45 QIR cases we sampled, 34 were substantiated,
all of which were followed up on and had an appropriate disposition.
We
did note that ISP is not conducting site
visits as required by ISP’s Quality Manual and QA Program. Quality Review Coordinators conducted only two site visits in the last three
years. The Quality Manual requires site
visits to all the labs at least once
during a Quality Review Coordinator’s term, which is two or three years
depending on discipline.
Case
backlogs within the ISP forensic labs have grown
significantly during the audit period.
The overall backlog for all sections within all labs has grown by 203
percent (not including backlogged cases which are outsourced), while total case
submissions have only grown by 10 percent.
A case is considered backlogged if it is not worked within 30 days of
receipt. The longer cases remain
unanalyzed, the longer the perpetrators go unidentified, free to commit
additional crime.
ISP
has underreported backlogged DNA cases
in its Accountability Report provided to the Governor and General
Assembly. The backlogged DNA statistics
in the Accountability Report, required by 730 ILCS 5/5‑4‑3a, do not match internal ISP
documents and did not include cases
which ISP has outsourced to private vendors.
The most significant difference reported was for FY05. The DNA Accountability Report notes a backlog of “0,” as does an ISP weekly
report to the Governor’s Office. On
In
addition, when ISP outsourced a DNA case to a vendor, ISP took that case out of its backlog statistics. For example, after reporting a backlog of
“0” at
The
FY08 DNA Accountability Report released
From January through June 2007, the
Rockford lab implemented an unconventional method for processing forensic
biology/DNA cases which resulted in the misstatement of the true DNA backlog,
in violation of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS
5/5-4-3(a)(1)). According to the lab
director, Forensic Services Command (Command) knew of the use of this
unconventional method, condoned the practice, and never told the lab to
discontinue its use.
At the
·
The
lab director implemented a process, in January 2007, whereby the one full-time
scientist that analyzed biology cases was instructed to only work biology cases
until 15-20 were ready to be transferred for DNA testing. After that level (15-20) was reached, the
scientist would not work any other biology cases so as to not increase the
workload in DNA, thus increasing the backlog of DNA cases. The analyst was assigned other duties to help
the DNA processing such as proofing reports.
The lab director reported that this strategy was communicated to the
bureau manager, within Command, in charge of the
·
The
end result of this unconventional processing method was that the DNA backlog
would be understated and the biology backlog would become inflated. It needs to be noted that during FY07 only
the DNA backlog, and not the biology backlog figures, were reported to the
General Assembly in the DNA Accountability Reports.
·
Our
review of ISP backlog figures at the Rockford lab for the period FY06-FY07
showed a 211 percent increase (from 55 to 171 cases) in biology with a
corresponding 51 percent decrease (from 169 to 83) in DNA backlog figures.
To
obtain users’ perspectives on the performance of the ISP’s forensic labs, we
surveyed local police departments, county sheriff’s offices, state’s attorneys,
and public defenders located throughout the State. The following summarizes the major
conclusions from their responses:
·
Timeliness: Overall, 51 percent of the users surveyed
indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with forensic results
related to timeliness. Conversely, 26
percent responded that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Seventy-one percent cited timeliness problems
with biology/DNA cases; 35 percent cited timeliness problems with latent print
cases. When a “rush” analysis was
requested, only 19 percent responded that the State lab was unable to meet that
request.
·
Impact of Timeliness on
Cases: Nearly half, 46 percent,
responded that problems with timeliness negatively
impacted a case in the past five years.
Many respondents indicated that the delays in receiving results hindered
the prosecution of cases including not filing cases, dismissing cases, cases
being delayed, and losing cases. Delays
have also affected law enforcement’s ability to arrest suspects or keep suspects
in custody, and have caused individuals to remain suspects longer than
necessary.
·
Adequacy or Accuracy of
Results: User agencies provided
positive ratings of the accuracy of ISP forensic analyses. Overall, 86
percent of respondents indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied
with the adequacy/accuracy of results while only 4 percent were dissatisfied or
very dissatisfied.
·
Sufficiency of ISP
Standards and Procedures: We asked if, in the last
five years, agencies had issues during a court case with the sufficiency of ISP
standards and procedures. An example of
this would be challenges to the standards and procedures in court. Ten
percent (5 of 49) of the respondents identified an issue.
Investigations of Forensic Results
The Paul Coverdell Forensic Improvement Grants Program requires
a certification that a government entity exists and an appropriate process is
in place to conduct independent external investigations into allegations of
serious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of
forensic results. In the proposal for
FY07 Coverdell funding, ISP listed two
entities to meet the independent external investigation requirement: the ISP Division of Internal Investigation
(DII) and the Illinois Office of the Executive Inspector General (OEIG).
DII provided a list of 56 investigations conducted during
fiscal years 2005 – 2008 (through April 2008) that involved the Division of
Forensic Services. In addition, OEIG provided two reports that involved the Division of
Forensic Services. However, although
investigations involving the Division of Forensic Services were conducted, neither investigating entity designated as
such by ISP under the Coverdell Program was aware of the Coverdell requirements. In addition, because DII is part of ISP and
because many cases are referred back to the Division of Forensic Services for
investigation, it is questionable whether these investigations meet the
independent external criteria.
The Division of Forensic Services could not provide a list of investigations that met the Coverdell
criteria. We reviewed 17 DII
investigations conducted during fiscal years 2005-2008 that were most likely to
meet the Coverdell criteria. Of the 17
DII investigations we reviewed, five involved errors that impacted forensic
results. In all five cases, the
allegations against the forensic scientist were
sustained. Where necessary, agencies
were notified of the errors through the issuance of amended reports.
Internally, ISP utilizes the Quality Issue Report (QIR) form
to assure remedial/corrective action is taken to resolve quality issues. If the review was initiated due to external
questions, the agency is to be notified of the results of the review. However, the QIR form does not specifically
address whether the agencies were notified of the results of the review at the
review’s conclusion. One of nineteen QIR
cases reviewed did not indicate that the external agency was contacted with the
results.
Regional Advisory Board meetings, one of the processes in
place to receive feedback regarding quality concerns, were not being held annually at two of the eight operational labs
as required.
We asked users of the State labs that if they have had
problems with lab results, did the State lab first contact them to discuss
these problems or did they contact the State lab to discuss these
problems. Responders indicated that both
situations occurred. Comments were
generally positive regarding results when resolving an issue. However, when asked if the State labs have an
established procedure to voice any concerns or issues regarding forensic
services, 49 percent (24 of 49) of the respondents answered yes that there was
a procedure with the remainder answering no or not sure if there was a process
in place.
Outsourcing of Case Analysis
ISP officials outsource case
analysis as part of the ISP’s ongoing efforts to reduce the backlog. During the period 2000 through 2007, ISP utilized seven outside vendors to
provide forensic services.
ISP has established a Quality Assurance program which
monitors the quality of analyses done by the contractual labs. Approximately three percent of outsourced
forensic biology cases are reworked by ISP for quality assurance after being
returned by the outside vendors.
Additionally, ISP sends three percent of the total DNA outsourced cases
as blind proficiency tests. In these
blind proficiency tests, ISP has already worked up the DNA profile on the
cases, has the vendors work up the cases, which the State pays for, and ISP
then compares the results from the vendor to the known results of its own
testing.
Most analyses conducted by contractual labs performing DNA
analyses were not completed within the 75 day processing time requirement
contained in their contracts with ISP.
ISP contracts state, “The Contract
Laboratory shall complete analysis of each shipment of forensic casework
samples within 75 days of receipt. If the Contract Laboratory cannot meet the
delivery date(s) for the effort as specified in its proposal, it will be liable
to the State to the sum of $1,500 per
day not to exceed a maximum of 200 days that such delivery is late unless
sum is waived by ISP (emphasis added).”
During the time period from FY02-FY07, we calculated the
number of days it took contractual labs to complete their analyses. We added two additional days to the 75 day
requirement to allow for shipping the forensic material to the lab, since ISP’s
database does not track when the contractual lab received the case from ISP,
but rather only has the date sent. We
found that from FY02-FY07:
·
16
percent of cases were returned within 77 days from the sent date;
·
53
percent of cases were returned between 78 and 85 days from the sent date;
·
8
percent of cases were returned between 86 and 100 days from the sent date; and
·
21
percent were returned over 100 days from the sent date.
Furthermore, ISP is not
utilizing enforcement provisions contained in the contracts when time
requirements are not met. When we
questioned ISP officials regarding the enforcement of the penalty provisions in
the contract, ISP responded: “No one contacted can recall who developed this language,
when it was developed, or the original idea about how this penalty would be
applied and calculated. It is possible
it was developed/added by a former employee within the Division of Forensic
Services. No documentation remains on
this matter.” ISP officials stated that
to their knowledge they have never
invoked a penalty.
Forensic Sciences Command monitors whether or not the
outsourcing vendors are returning the cases within the 75 day turnaround. According to ISP staff, weekly conference
calls between Command and the vendor usually occurred, discussing the status of
batches. An ISP official stated ISP
sometimes gave approval of the vendor not meeting the 75 day return deadline
and later provided examples of this approval.
We also identified significant
delays between the time ISP received a case, to
when it was outsourced to a contractual lab.
From a sample of 141 cases, we found:
·
The
median number of days ISP took to
send to the vendor for outsourcing was 79,
with a range of 2 days to 1,517 days.
·
The
median number of days from ISP
receiving evidence on a case to receiving a report of the results from the
vendor was 170, ranging from 78 days
to 1,597 days.
ISP officials noted that
before a case can be sent out for analysis, some work must be done on it by ISP
forensic scientists. However, the ISP
management information system does not capture the number of days this
preparation takes. The longer a case
submitted by a user agency is at ISP and not being worked, the less timely its value in the criminal
justice system.
Our review of the procurement process for five contracts ISP
awarded for forensic services identified several areas of concern.
·
A
$19,800 contract for Quality Assurance testing of DNA samples was awarded after
receiving only two bids. ISP policy required three bids for small purchases. Furthermore, the procurement file contained no
award notice or documentation showing which vendor was awarded the
contract. According to the ISP
Procurement Officer, since it was procured as a small purchase, an award notice
is not required.
·
A
$612,200 contract for training ISP forensic scientists was awarded by ISP as a sole source procurement.
We questioned why these services were not competitively procured. An ISP official stated that this contract was
determined to be a sole source procurement and
procuring this competitively as a professional and artistic contract was never discussed as an option. The procurement file did not contain a
justification of the sole source award.
Furthermore, documentation showed that the ISP Commander of the Forensic
Services Command, at the time, who was in charge of this procurement, had a
relationship with the sole source vendor as the president of its Board of
Directors. In a March 2004 email, an ISP
procurement official stated, “By procuring
this training as a sole source we will not be required to disclose any
conflicts of interest (emphasis added).” We identified at least one other potential
vendor which had the capability to provide these services. (pages 1-7)
INTRODUCTION
On June 20, 2007, the
Illinois House of Representatives adopted Resolution 451 (See Appendix A),
which directs the Auditor General to conduct a management and program audit of
the Department of State Police’s (ISP) Division of Forensic Services. In summary, the Resolution directed the
Auditor General to determine: (1) the
sufficiency of funding and staffing of the ISP forensic labs; (2) the program
adequacy of lab operations including policies and protocols and backlog of
forensic analyses; (3) the extent of investigations on forensic operations;
and, (4) issues surrounding outsourcing of forensic operations. (page 8)
The Division of Forensic Services (DFS) provides expert evidence collection and
state-of-the-art scientific evidence analysis to assist with the identification
and prosecution of offenders, and exoneration, for the ISP and other State,
federal and local law enforcement agencies.
State law (20 ILCS
2605/2605-40) outlines the functions DFS is to
provide for the people of
·
Establish and operate a
forensic science lab system, including a forensic toxicological lab service,
for the purpose of testing specimens submitted by coroners and other law
enforcement officers in their efforts to determine whether alcohol, drugs or
poisonous or other toxic substances have been involved in deaths, accidents or
illness. Forensic toxicological laboratories shall be established in
·
Subject to specific
appropriations made for these purposes, establish and coordinate a system for
providing accurate and expedited forensic science and other investigative and
lab services to local law enforcement agencies and local State’s Attorneys in
aid of the investigation and trial of capital cases. (page 9)
Forensic
Lab Locations
Each operational lab serves a
specific geographical location in the State and provides analysis of evidence
from crimes committed in that region. Digest
Exhibit 1 provides the location for the nine ISP labs around the State with the
counties that generally utilize each lab.
(page 11)
Nine forensic science labs statewide
provide an array of specialty forensic services. Scientists can provide investigators with
literally hundreds of leads through DNA identification and examination of hair,
fibers and fluids – nearly anything collected at a crime scene.
The ISP labs are various sizes and are designed to serve a
specific population. While ISP leases 6
of 9 labs, there are plans to convert some to State-owned facilities. The State has purchased land in
Operational
labs have various sections that are responsible for conducting specific types
of analysis. The number of sections per
lab varies and is dependent upon case load submission Not all labs have all of
the sections. If evidence comes into a
lab that doesn’t offer such service, the ISP staff will forward the evidence to
a lab that does have such service. Digest
Exhibit 3 lists the sections/analyses each lab offers. (pages 13-15)
Several
ISP labs experience a number of environmental factors which could adversely
impact the analysis of evidence. While
ISP is addressing some of the deficiencies, it does not have a comprehensive
plan to address all the issues.
During
the audit we toured all nine ISP lab sites and spoke with lab directors
regarding the condition of the labs. Lab
directors reported a number of facility issues including mold, asbestos, lack
of drinking water, and space constraints.
ISP
officials told auditors that the Capital Development Board (CDB),
Central Management Services (CMS), and ISP Logistics are working on a
recommendation and obtaining funding for
An
official with ISP’s current accrediting body (FQS-I)
reported that poor environmental conditions can affect accreditation. If the environmental conditions affect the
quality of testing or compromise the quality of the evidence, then a lab’s
accreditation can be affected. For
example, a water leak dripping on the evidence or an uncontrolled temperature
that could affect machinery and testing would be considered an environmental
issue. According to ISP, no such
conditions have yet affected ISP’s accreditation. (pages 15-17)
FUNDING BACKGROUND
DFS received $387 million in funding for the period
FY02-FY07 for forensic lab activities.
Funding was primarily received from State appropriations ($373 million)
with an additional $14 million in federal grants. State funding made up more than 96 percent of
total funding received by DFS during the audit
period. Digest Exhibit 4 shows the
funding amounts from State and federal sources.
While
ISP officials indicated that additional funding is needed for lab operations,
ISP had conducted no formal analysis
to determine what the funding level should be.
The
General Assembly appropriated $364 million in State funds during the audit
period directly to DFS
for lab operations. State funding to DFS included General Revenue Fund (GRF)
appropriations and three fee funds.
According
to staff, DFS also received and spent $8.8 million in
funds for forensic services (i.e., DNA outsourcing, training) that were not directly appropriated to DFS. These
additional monies were from the Road Fund, ISP Services Fund, Asset Forfeiture
Fund and GRF.
Spending from these other funds was limited to FY02-FY04. ISP officials also provided information that
monies from the Whistleblower Fund were used for outsourcing DNA cases during
FY02-FY05. (pages
22-23)
While
ISP forensic labs report backlogs and lost headcount, DFS
has not utilized all of the funding it received from the General Assembly. Our analysis of expenditure data from the
Comptroller’s Office shows DFS lapsed $19.3
million in State funds between FY02 and FY07. Of the total $19.3 million lapsed, $15.5
million (80 percent) was lapsed during fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Additionally, ISP allowed $1.3 million of
federal grants for forensic lab activities to lapse. Digest Exhibit 5 shows a comparison of the
total funding received by DFS between FY02 and FY07
and the amount of funding lapsed from appropriations and federal grants. (pages 28-29)
ISP
transferred a significant amount of funding to other purposes that was
originally appropriated for forensic lab operations. During the audit period, over $6 million was
transferred by ISP out of the forensic services area. While ISP does have appropriation transfer
authority, under funding the forensic services area can have a negative impact
on the safety of the citizens of
The
majority of funds transferred, $6.19 million, were transferred outside of DFS. One transfer,
in the amount of $43,900, was transferred within DFS
from personal services into employee retirement.
Most
of the transfers, $4.3 million, were made to pay for vehicle expenses (repairs,
oil, gas, financing, etc.). Other
purposes for transfers included $170,000 for legal services and settlements,
$316,100 for payroll obligations and employee retirement contributions and
$1,215,900 to fund the CeaseFire
The longer it takes cases to be
analyzed, the greater the chances that criminals commit additional crimes on
the citizens of
GRANT FUNDING
ISP’s
Division of Forensic Services received $14,125,597 in grants during the audit
period. DFS
created budgets totaling $14,056,771.
ISP was not timely in executing and administering some grants. Additionally, ISP lapsed $1.3 million in
grant funding for grants that had been officially closed.
DFS routinely allowed grant funding to lapse. During the audit period, ISP lapsed $1.3
million in grant monies received for forensic lab services. Twenty-one of twenty-three grants lapsed some amount ranging from under $100 to $568,000.
According
to Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA)
officials, the DuPage County Sheriff’s Crime Lab and
the Northern Illinois Regional Police Crime Lab spend grant funding as soon as
they receive the permission to do so.
ISP, however, does not spend grant funding in a timely manner. For example, the FFY06 Coverdell funding
cycle was to run
Digest
Exhibit 6 shows grant funds that were not expended by DFS
as of January 16, 2008. Several of the
grants in the exhibit that show a large unspent dollar amount are still
active. According to ISP officials,
there are several National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
grant programs for which funds have been awarded but the programs are not
currently active due to ISP efforts to complete 2005 and 2006 grant
programs. (pages
31-35)
Significant
backlogs exist in all sections within the ISP forensic lab system. ISP has not completed a formal study of the
optimal staffing needed to operate its forensic labs at sufficient levels to
maintain its case processing goals. The
number of backlogged cases worked by ISP
labs has increased by over 200 percent from FY02 to FY07 (3,426 cases to
10,387 cases). While ISP has notified
the Governor’s Office of backlog and staffing needs, ISP staff
have reported the Governor’s Office has not allowed ISP to replace lost
headcount.
Failure
to maintain the necessary staffing levels results in cases remaining unsolved
and serial criminals could remain free to commit additional crimes. ISP’s inability to fill lost forensic
positions has resulted in staff performing work outside of their official
duties, which increases the backlog of forensic cases submitted to the
labs.
Staffing Levels
ISP
officials stated that when a Forensic Scientist position is lost through
resignation or retirement, the headcount reverts to a Forensic Scientist
Trainee vacancy. ISP officials also said
that Forensic Scientist Trainee vacancies would not necessarily be filled in
the same discipline or the same lab where the headcount was previously
located. Forensic Sciences Command headquarters
would determine the placement of the new hires based on operational needs both
at the time of hire and at the completion of training.
ISP
administrative staff reported that headcount at the forensic labs is
constrained by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) and that GOMB does not
allow ISP to fill positions when forensic scientists leave. Once a scientist leaves the ISP lab system,
it can take up to two years, after the hiring process is completed, to train a
new scientist.
During
the period FY02-FY07, we found:
·
Overall
headcount decreased by 3 percent.
·
However,
during the same period, the number of cases submitted for analysis increased by
10 percent.
Digest
Exhibit 7 shows the Forensic Services Command staff levels at the end of
FY02-FY07. (pages
38-40)
ISP
has lost significant experienced staff
over the past four years. During
calendar years 2004-2007, 117 personnel left employment with the labs. While some of these positions have been
replaced, they are replaced by less experienced individuals that will take some
time to learn the position. According to
documentation compiled by ISP, 64 forensic scientists have left the employment
of the forensic labs between calendar years 2004 and 2007. An additional 16 evidence technicians were
lost during the same period. (pages 40-41)
Backlogs
and Staffing
ISP has growing backlogs
in virtually all of its forensic testing sections. ISP officials stated that they have not
conducted any studies on the funding or staffing levels that would be necessary
to eliminate the backlog in cases that have not been worked.
To determine if the
number of staff has an effect on the backlog of cases, we compared the trends in staffing and backlogs for
fiscal years 2002 through 2007. We found
that even as the number of scientists increased from fiscal years 2002 through
2005, the number of backlogged cases also increased. The number of scientists increased by 10
percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2003 as shown in Digest Exhibit 7. This was the biggest staffing increase during
the time period covered by the audit.
During this same time period, backlogged cases increased by 30 percent,
the second largest increase during the audit period. Digest Exhibit 8 depicts the relationship
between staffing (the number of forensic scientists plus trainees) and
backlogs. (pages
41-42)
During FY07, ISP’s forensic science lab system held the two
major accreditation certificates generally accepted by the forensic
community: ASCLD/LAB
through the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory
Accreditation Board and ISO (International Organization for
Standardization). ISP first received its
ASCLD/LAB accreditation in 1982. The ISO accreditation was provided through
Forensic Quality Services (FQS-I) in 2005.
Prior to 2005, ISP was only accredited by ASCLD/LAB. According
to an ISP official, ISP decided that ISO accreditation has international
recognition in all fields, and is just as, or more, rigorous than the ASCLD/LAB Legacy accreditation; therefore, in June 2007,
ISP let the ASCLD/LAB Legacy accreditation
lapse.
In May 2005, an initial ISO program assessment was conducted
on ISP labs against the standards of ISO/IEC
17025. Despite 48 site-specific findings
and 19 general findings or instances of non-compliance with the standards, the
assessment team indicated in its report that there were a relatively small
number of findings for an initial assessment.
All non-compliant issues were appropriately remediated
and by October 2005, ISO accreditation was awarded to each ISP lab. In August/September 2007, ISP received
another ISO program assessment.
Twenty-nine site-specific and 6 general instances of non-compliance were
noted. (pages
50-52)
Case
backlogs within the ISP forensic labs have grown significantly during the audit
period. From FY02-FY07, the overall
backlog for all sections within ISP’s labs has grown by 203 percent (not
including backlogged cases which are outsourced), while total case submissions
have only grown by 10 percent. The
longer cases remain unanalyzed, the longer the perpetrators go unidentified,
free to commit additional crime.
Backlogs
occur when the number of cases submitted to the lab exceeds the capacity of the
lab staff to conduct the analysis within a 30-day time period. While the 30-day turnaround is an informal
ISP goal, it is the basis for backlog reporting utilized by ISP and many other
states.
ISP’s
backlog of unworked cases has grown from FY02 to FY07. Digest Exhibit 9 shows the number of backlogged
cases by section and the percent increase (positive) or decrease (negative)
from FY02 to FY07.
ISP
is statutorily required, by Public Act 93-0785, to submit DNA testing backlog
accountability reports to the Governor and to the General Assembly to show the
extent of the DNA backlog and what measures have been and are being taken to
reduce it. The purpose of the reports is
to provide the Governor and General Assembly with information so that they can better monitor the
progress of backlog reduction and respond accordingly to any critical
needs. (pages
52-53)
Differences in DNA Accountability Reports and
ISP Backlog Statistics
ISP’s
internal backlog statistics reflect higher
backlog numbers than the DNA Accountability Reports. The most significant difference reported was
for FY05. The DNA Accountability Report
noted a backlog of “0,” as does an ISP weekly report to the Governor’s
Office. On
While
the Accountability Report and the weekly report showed a backlog of 0 at the
end of FY05, ISP’s backlog statistics showed a backlog of 170 DNA cases for the
same time period. ISP officials
attributed the discrepancies to an inability for the CALMS system to provide
actual backlog numbers until 2006; therefore, the backlog numbers previously
reported for FY04-06 in the DNA Accountability Reports were estimates, according to ISP officials.
The DNA backlog figures are understated in both the DNA Accountability Reports and ISP backlog statistic
reports. When ISP outsources
a DNA case to a vendor, ISP takes that
case off its backlog and, up until FY08, considered it part of the vendor’s
backlog. (pages
53-54)
Distortion
of DNA Backlog Statistics
From January through June 2007, the
Rockford lab implemented an unconventional method for processing forensic
biology/DNA cases which resulted in the misstatement of the true DNA backlog,
in violation of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS
5/5-4-3(a)(1)). According to the lab
director, Forensic Sciences Command (Command) knew of the use of this
unconventional method, condoned the practice, and never told the lab to
discontinue its use.
At the
The end result of this
unconventional processing method was that the DNA backlog would be understated
and the biology backlog would become inflated.
It needs to be noted that during FY07 only the DNA backlog, and not the
biology backlog figures, were reported to the General Assembly in the DNA
Accountability Reports.
Our review of ISP backlog figures
for the period FY06-FY07 showed a 211 percent increase (from 55 to 171 cases)
in biology with a corresponding 51 percent decrease (from 169 to 83) in DNA
backlog figures. This DNA backlog
included 50 cases discovered in March 2007 where the lab director found the
biology scientist had worked cases in excess of the 15-20 limit. These cases were not in any backlog at the
time. (pages
54-55)
Although ISP officials have been taking actions to decrease
backlogs, ISP does not have a formal
plan to address backlogs, nor were officials aware of any studies done to
ascertain the funding level needed to eliminate backlogs. Activities ISP has undertaken to reduce
backlogs include:
·
Requested
more staffing and utilized overtime.
·
Outsourced
cases to private labs to decrease the DNA and Forensic Biology backlogs and get
information back to user agencies in a more timely
manner; however, ISP is outsourcing less due to problems with vendors and the
lack of time savings when review of outsourced cases is considered.
·
Transferring
cases between State labs.
·
Increasing
efficiency, streamlining training programs, new technology and looking at cases
that have the most probative value for efficiency. However, without a formal plan, ISP lacks
defined goals for decreasing backlogs and does not have benchmarks with which
to compare its progress. (page 64)
ISP’s
Forensic Sciences Command (FSC) is responsible for
ensuring the individual labs maintain compliance with professional
guidelines. According to the FSC Quality Manual, it uses the following professional
guidelines: ISO 17025 standards, FQS supplemental requirements, and DNA Quality Assurance
Standards published by the FBI. FSC has established Command Directives and manuals to
implement these standards. Compliance is
assessed through both internal review and external assessments. (page 67)
PROCESS TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS
OF ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY
The quality of services for both the lab as a whole and the
individual analysts are monitored continually through administrative
reviews. If a quality issue is
identified, ISP utilizes the Quality Issue Report (QIR) form to assure
remedial/corrective action is taken to resolve the quality issue. If the QIR was initiated because of questions
raised by external parties, ISP’s practice is to notify the party of the
results of the review.
The QIR form contains information on whether external
agencies were notified at the beginning of the review. However, the QIR form does not specifically
address whether the agencies were notified of the results of the review at the
review’s conclusion.
We tested a sample of 45 QIRs from
a total of 211 QIRs during fiscal years 2005-2007. As part of that sample, we examined 19 that
were initiated as a result of external questions. External questions came from a range of
users, including state’s attorneys, police departments, and coroners. In nearly all cases, the agency that
initially contacted ISP was notified of the results of the review. However, of the 19 QIRs
initiated due to an external question, one did not indicate that the external
agency was contacted with the results.
ISP has a number of processes in place to receive feedback
regarding quality concerns. Regional
Advisory Board meetings, one of the processes in place to receive feedback
regarding quality concerns, were not
being held annually at two of the eight operational labs as required. Not holding annual Advisory Board meetings
could result in users of those labs not having a means of providing direct
input into the services provided.
We asked users of the State labs that if they have had
problems with lab results, did the State lab first contact them to discuss
these problems or did they contact the State lab to discuss these
problems. Responders indicated that both
situations occurred. Comments were
generally positive regarding results when resolving an issue. However, when asked if the State labs have an
established procedure to voice any concerns or issues regarding forensic
services, 49 percent (24 of 49) of the respondents answered yes that there was
a procedure, with the remainder answering no or not sure if there was a process
in place. (pages
76-81)
INVESTIGATIONS
The Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants
Program awards funds to states and units of local government to help improve
the quality and timeliness of forensic science and medical examiner
services. To request a Coverdell Program
grant, an applicant must submit, in addition to all other required documents, a
certification that:
A government entity
exists and an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external
investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct
substantially affecting the integrity of forensic results committed by
employees or contractors of any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s
office, coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical facility
in the State that will receive a portion of the grant amount.
In the proposal for FY07 Coverdell funding, ISP listed two
entities to meet the independent external investigation requirement: the ISP Division of Internal Investigation
(DII) and the Illinois Office of the Executive Inspector General (OEIG).
A DII official we spoke to was unfamiliar with the specifics
of the Coverdell requirements but said that DII has conducted investigations
involving forensic services. DII
provided a list of 56 investigations conducted during fiscal years 2005 – 2008
(through April 2008) that involved the Division of Forensic Services. Investigations fell into two categories: 1) investigations conducted by DII (20 cases)
and 2) investigations referred back to the Division of Forensic Services (36
cases). According to ISP’s Complaint and
Disciplinary Investigations policy (PER-030), DII will investigate allegations
that, if true, would result in discipline greater than summary punishment
(two-day suspension). Allegations deemed
to be less serious transgressions will be referred back to the referring unit
to be investigated.
Like DII, the OEIG was also
unfamiliar with the Coverdell requirements.
The OEIG did, however, provide two reports
that involved the Division of Forensic Services. DII also noted that they work with the OEIG and keep in contact with them to discuss cases but do
not work on the same cases.
Not notifying DII and the OEIG
that they were named as the investigative entities in the Coverdell grant
proposal could have an adverse effect on whether investigations conducted meet
the Coverdell requirements.
Specifically, the entities need to ensure that investigations are
conducted independently and that the entities have the capabilities and
resources to investigate allegations involving DNA analysis.
Additionally, because DII is part of ISP and because many
cases are referred back to the Division of Forensic Services, it is
questionable whether they meet the requirement that investigations be both
independent and external. Of the 56
investigations conducted from fiscal years 2005-2008, 36 cases (64 percent)
were actually referred back to the Division of Forensic Services to conduct the
investigations.
We asked the Commander of Forensic Services whether any
investigations conducted would fall under the Coverdell requirements (allegations
of serious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of
forensic results) and, if so, to specify which investigations met this
criteria. The official could not provide
a list of investigations that met the criteria.
Instead the official responded that there are some examples; however, no
analytical results were impacted.
We reviewed 17 DII investigations conducted during fiscal
years 2005-2008 that were most likely to meet the Coverdell criteria. Contrary to the Commander’s statement, five
involved errors that impacted forensic results.
In all five cases, the allegations against the forensic scientist were
sustained. For two of the cases, the errors
were corrected in the case files but had not been reported in a lab report to
an agency; therefore, notifying the agencies was not required. For the remaining three cases, the errors
were corrected and the agencies were notified of the errors through the
issuance of amended reports. (pages 82-85)
OUTSOURCING VENDORS
According to documentation provided
by ISP, seven outside vendors have been contracted with between 2000 and 2007
to provide forensic services. From
FY00-FY07, ISP paid outsourcing vendors a total of $16,355,731. The vast amount of forensic outsourcing by
ISP is for biology and DNA testing. Digest
Exhibit 10 details payments made by ISP to vendors for outsourcing. (pages 93-94)
TRACKING OF OUTSOURCED
CASES
ISP outsourcing vendors were not meeting the required
turnaround time for analyses of DNA cases, and therefore were in violation of
their contracts. While ISP’s contracts
with the vendors have penalty clauses, ISP doesn’t know who inserted those
penalty clauses or how to enforce them.
Using the data from ISP’s Approach database, we calculated
how many cases were returned to ISP within a 77 day turnaround time. We used 77 days because ISP does not track
when the contract lab actually receives the cases. We added two days to the 75 day contract specification
because outsourcing contract language dictates that cases are to be shipped to
the contract lab via an overnight carrier and the contract lab must confirm
with ISP the receipt of samples within 24 hours of receipt. We found that for the six years, only 16
percent of the cases were returned within 77 days from the sent date. However, 53 percent of cases were returned
between 78 and 85 days and another 8 percent of the cases were returned between
86 and 100 days. Cases being returned
over 100 days from the sent date equaled 21 percent. Results by fiscal year are summarized in Digest
Exhibit 11. ISP reported that the large
number of FY06 cases that took more than 100 days were due to cases being
returned unworked by one vendor that were then sent
to another vendor to analyze. (pages 101-103)
Time Taken to Outsource Cases
ISP has not been timely in sending cases out for
analysis. The longer a case submitted by
a user agency is at ISP and not being worked, potentially the less its value in
the criminal justice system.
In order for us to ascertain how long cases may have been
waiting at ISP prior to being outsourced, we sampled CALMS data for 151
outsourced cases in order to calculate the number of days between when ISP
first received the case, when ISP sent the case to be outsourced, and when the
case was concluded. Of these 151 cases,
10 cases were unable to be calculated based on factors such as the case was too
old to have been included in the CALMS system or the case was submitted as part
of the QA process.
For the remaining 141 cases, the median number of days ISP
took to send to the vendor for outsourcing was 79, with a range of 2 days to
1,517 days. The median number of days
from ISP receiving evidence on a case to receiving a report of the results from
the outsourcing vendor was 170 days, and ranged from 78 days to 1,597
days. (pages
103-104)
OUTSOURCING PROCUREMENT
TESTING
We reviewed the procurement process
for five contracts ISP had for forensic services. These five contracts have an estimated
financial commitment of $5,561,591.
Results of our review included:
·
A
QA testing of DNA samples was procured as a small purchase by ISP. However, in an email from the Director of QA
to the vendors solicited for bids, the Director discusses having $25,000 to
spend, which exceeds the $20,000 threshold, and would have required competitive
bidding.
·
For
the same procurement, an ISP official indicated that ISP obtained three quotes
as required by internal ISP policy, and the lowest quote was awarded. However, the procurement file only contained two bids. Another
vendor was contacted by the Director
of QA; however, it declined to bid due to a potential perceived conflict of
interest since it has a multi-million dollar contract for outsourced casework.
·
A
training contract awarded to a vendor by ISP as a sole source award had a maximum amount of $612,200 even though we
identified another vendor that was capable of providing the training.
·
We
questioned why ISP did not competitively bid this training procurement. An ISP official explained that this contract
was determined to be a sole source procurement in
March 2004 and procuring this as a professional and artistic contract was never discussed as an option. Documentation showed that the ISP Commander
of the Forensic Sciences Command, at the time, who was in charge of this
procurement, also had a relationship with the sole source vendor as the
president of its Board of Directors. In
a March 2004 email by an ISP procurement official who was conducting a review
of the sole source request, he noted this fact and expressed his concern that
“By procuring this training as a sole source we will not be required to
disclose any conflicts of interest.”
·
ISP
forensic lab trainees complained of the training vendor’s lack of equipment to
be trained on, stating they had to work in shifts and go back after normal
training hours to complete the training.
While ISP officials contended that the accelerated training program from
this vendor was one of a kind, the State trainees that attended the academy had
differing reports. (pages 106-108)
The Audit contains 16
recommendations. The Illinois State
Police agreed or partially agreed with some recommendations and disagreed with
other recommendations. Appendix F of the
audit report contains the agency responses.
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND
Auditor
General
WGH\MJM
March 2009