Page 0 of 21
North Carolina Department of Justice
ANNUAL REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017
North Carolina State Crime Laboratory
Director John A. Byrd
Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21
I. Preface ......................................................................................................................................5
II. Quality (Accreditation and Certification) ....................................................................................5
III. Case Submissions and Completions .............................................................................................5
1. Case Submissions ...........................................................................................................................................5
a. Case Submissions by Forensic Discipline and Lab Location ....................................................6
b. Case Submissions by County ................................................................................................8
2. Case Completions ..........................................................................................................................................8
a. Case Completions by Forensic Discipline and Lab Location ....................................................9
b. Lead Times ........................................................................................................................ 10 c. Rush Case Program ............................................................................................................ 10
d. Court Testimony and Judicial Efficiencies ........................................................................... 11
e. Outsourcing ...................................................................................................................... 11
f. Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECK) ................................................................. 12
g. Drug Chemistry - Opioid and Fentanyl Update .................................................................... 12
h. Toxicology- Update ........................................................................................................... 13
IV. Process Improvements.............................................................................................................. 13
V. Human Capital .......................................................................................................................... 14
VI. Expansion ................................................................................................................................ 14
VII. Fiscal Resources ........................................................................................................................ 14
VIII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A - Submissions by County ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 1 Annual Case Submissions .............................................................................................................................6
Figure 2 - Latent Evidence Submissions by Month and Trend Line Graph......................................................................7
Figure 3 - Drug Chemistry Submissions by Month and Trend Line Graph ......................................................................8
Figure 4 Annual Case Record Completions ..................................................................................................................9
Figure 5 Total Cases Pending as of June 30, 2017 ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6: Court Testimony Hours 2012-2017 .............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 7 FY 2016-2017 State Crime Lab Toxicology Statistics ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 8 - FY 2016-2017 Scientific Supply Costs .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 9 Scientific Supply Funds from General Appropriations vs DNA Grants ............................................................ 16
Figure 10 Comparison of FY 2015-2016 FORESIGHT Cost per Item to NCSCL Cost per Item .......................................... 17
Figure 11 Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2015-2016 Cost per Item ...................................................................... 17 Page 3 of 21
Executive Summary
The North Carolina State Crime Laboratory remains committed to providing quality forensic analysis in a timely manner for the State’s criminal justice system and made significant progress toward this goal in Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Working more cases more efficiently
The State Crime Lab worked 59,102 submissions in FY 2016-2017. In FY 2016-2017, the Lab accepted more than 31,233 cases including nearly 55,830 items of evidence, as well as 26,000 submissions of convicted offender and arrestee samples to the State’s DNA Database of profiles.
The adoption of Lean Six Sigma methodology has helped the State Crime Lab continue to increase efficiency and work more cases faster without sacrificing quality. Pending cases have dropped by 42.9% and lead time has been reduced to a laboratory average of 115 days. Since January 2014 pending cases have dropped 82.3%. The increased production rates have led to two consecutive years of increased submissions (11.3% and 11.5%, respectively), as predicted by the WVU Foresight Project for Forensic Laboratories. The State Crime Lab continues to have a very effective rush program through which District Attorneys with law enforcement can request expedited analysis in cases through an automated web based system.
Continuing to meet high quality standards
The State Crime Laboratory continues to meet the highest quality standards possible, through its accreditation by ANAB under strict ISO/IEC 17025 requirements. Every eligible scientist at the State Crime Lab is independently certified or working toward this goal.
Partnering with the private sector
The toxicology outsourcing project ended in January 2017; however, a number of completed cases are still awaiting final court disposition. The remaining funds are being used to assist law enforcement agencies with their untested sexual assault evidence collection kits that are viable for testing.
Making more efficient use of scientists’ time in court
The State Crime Lab continues to seek help from the criminal justice system to reduce the time forensic scientists spend waiting to testify. Less time spent waiting in court or traveling to and from court for our scientists means more time in the Crime Lab working cases. The recommendations contained in the 2014 UNC School of Government’s Report of the Crime Laboratory Working Group: Administrative Solutions to Alleviate Lab Backlog led to a concerted effort among criminal justice stakeholders to minimize the time spent in court by Crime Laboratory forensic scientists. Nearly half of all Judicial Districts in North Carolina agreed to adopt the recommendations from the School of Government report. The Lab acknowledges the positive attention given to this important matter and continues to request assistance from our criminal justice stakeholders to minimize time forensic scientists spend in court and away from the lab.
Building and planning for the future
Construction on the new Western Regional Laboratory is complete and the move completed. Limited analysis of cases has begun in the disciplines of drugs, toxicology, latent evidence, and firearms. Forensic Biology will begin validations later this calendar year with projected casework expected to begin in first quarter of calendar year 2018. The new facility is approximately twice the size of the current regional lab and serves law enforcement agencies in Western North Carolina. A formal ribbon cutting ceremony will be conducted on Monday, December 4th, 2017.
An area in which significant improvement in efficiency and case production might occur is the much needed renovation of the Drug Chemistry and Toxicology laboratories in Raleigh. Designed in the 1980s, the lab space is not set up for collaborative and team approached case analysis as is currently being utilized.
Page 4 of 21
The prevalence of untested Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECK) has attracted considerable concern and attention, placing a spotlight on crime laboratories, police departments and sheriff’s offices nationwide. The North Carolina State Crime Laboratory (SCL) and the North Carolina Attorney General have been taking proactive steps since January 2017 to clear all testable SAECKs in North Carolina.
Session Law 2017-57, Section 17.7 included language directing each local law enforcement agency to conduct an inventory of untested Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs) in its custody or control. This one time inventory will address any SAECKs currently in existence; however, there is no statewide SAECK inventory and tracking management system to prevent unknown inventories of SAECKs reappearing in the future.
Current (SAECK) inventory and tracking management systems, available on the market, are capable of tracking SAECKs from the moment it is collected at the medical facility to the time that the N.C. State Crime Lab results, other publically funded crime lab results or private vendor lab results are reported and made available to investigators, prosecutors and victims. All stakeholders would have access to this all-encompassing inventory and tracking management system and it is imperative that North Carolina acquire such a system to ensure all SAECKs are tracked and managed appropriately in the future.
The Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2017 provided $1,740,727(nr) for the purchase or lease of scientific equipment. This is the first time in laboratory history that language was drafted to allow the leasing of scientific equipment allowing for a more efficient and expeditious manner to replace outdated equipment. The State Crime Laboratory wishes to acknowledge the members of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety for their support.
The 2015-2016 FORESIGHT Project Report revealed that the SCL is comparable to other like size, publically funded state forensic laboratories servicing like size state populations. Nine of the twelve forensic disciplines noted were less in cost per item compared to the FORESIGHT 75th National Percentile. This is proof that the SCL is wisely managing its fiscal resources.
To remain a state-of-the-art forensic laboratory, additional funding needs remain. The Lab continues to see a decrease in federal grant funding and there is no contingency for periodic reductions in crime lab court fees authorized pursuant to NCGS 7A-304 (a) (7). Scientific supply costs increased to over $1.4 M last fiscal year yet general appropriations covered only 31% of that cost with grants covering the balance. Replacing and updating scientific equipment based on industry standards has been recently offset by tremendous support from the general appropriations over the last two years; however, that support was non-recurring. The North Carolina Forensic Science Advisory Board strongly recommended that the General Assembly establish a special revenue reserve fund to finance non-recurring expenses such as scientific equipment and to increase funding for scientific supplies to offset decreasing federal grants.
In short, caseloads and turnaround times at the State Crime Lab continue to improve but challenges remain in identifying adequate fiscal resources to meet the Lab’s continuing needs as it provides quality forensic services to the criminal justice system in our growing state.
Page 5 of 21
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CRIME LABORATORY REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2016-20171
This Report is presented to the Chairs of the North Carolina General Assembly Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety and to the North Carolina General Assembly Fiscal Research Division as directed by Section 17.2 of S.L. 2013-360, the Appropriations Act of 2013. Under the Section, DOJ must report annually each year on the work of the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory (State Crime Lab) during the previous fiscal year.
I. Preface
State Crime Lab Director John Byrd continued his work from the first year of his tenure to ensure that all aspects of laboratory operations focus on providing the criminal justice system with quality forensic analysis in a timely manner.
II. Quality (Accreditation and Certification)
Forensic services provided by the State Crime Laboratory continue to meet the highest quality standards possible. The State Crime Lab maintains accreditation under strict ISO/IEC 17025 requirements and is accredited by ANAB. ANAB is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) as required by NC General Statutes on accreditation for the State Crime Laboratory (S.L. 2011-19). During 2016 and 2017, surveillance visits were conducted by ANAB and the US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL) for our DNA Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) audit. In both visits, the State Crime Laboratory was found to be in compliance with established standards. It should also be noted that all eligible scientists at the State Crime Lab are independently certified or working toward this goal.2
III. Case Submissions and Completions
1. Case Submissions
In North Carolina, the nation’s ninth most populous state, more than 20,000 law enforcement officers and over 600 law enforcement agencies routinely submit evidence in criminal cases to the Crime Lab. In FY 2016-2017, more than 31,233 cases including over 55,000 items of evidence were accepted at the Crime Lab’s three locations. (See Figure 1) This is an 11.5% increase in case submissions compared to the FY 15-16 and a 23.9% increase in the last two years. Including DNA Database submissions, the State Crime Lab system received 57,233 submissions in FY 2016-2017.
Case submissions are broken down as follows:
 The main State Crime Laboratory in Raleigh received 16,754 casework submissions and 26,000 DNA Database submissions for a total of 42,754 submissions.
 The Triad Regional Crime Laboratory received 5,771 casework submissions.
 The Western Regional Crime Laboratory received 8,708 casework submissions.
1This Report addresses the statutorily mandated “previous fiscal year” (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017), and thus only briefly mentions, when required by context, important Crime Lab developments occurring on or after July 1, 2017, including, for example, funding in the 2017/2018 Appropriations Act (ratified June 28, 2017, and generally effective July 1, 2017), providing funding for the previously passed 2011 Forensic Sciences Act. Funding included $115,518(r) for an Ombudsman, $161,000(r) for scientist training and certification, $18,000(r) for the Forensic Science Advisory Board, and $51,155(r) for laboratory accreditation. Eight forensic scientist positions, previously funded from inadequate laboratory receipts, were transferred to general appropriations at a sum of $550,989(r). In addition, $1,740,727(nr) was provided for the purchase or lease of scientific equipment. This is the first time in laboratory history that language was drafted to allow the leasing of scientific equipment allowing for a more efficient and expeditious manner to replace outdated equipment. Finally, Session Law 2017-57, Section 17.7 included language directing each local law enforcement agency to conduct an inventory of Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs) in its custody or control and report its finding to the DOJ, SCL no later than January 1, 2018 and the SCL to compile the information and report its finding no later than March 1, 2018.
2 Eligible forensic scientists are waiting for the appropriate independent certifying body to schedule certification testing. Page 6 of 21
Figure 1 Annual Case Submissions
a. Case Submissions by Forensic Discipline and Lab Location
In FY 2016-2017, the State Crime Lab received the following cases, broken down by forensic discipline and laboratory location:
Raleigh Triad Western TOTALS
Drug Chemistry 8,420 2,877 6,070 17,367
Toxicology 3,653 1,979 2,0283 7,660
Forensic Biology 2,074 339*4 263* 2,676
DNA Database 26,000 0 0 26,000
Latent 781 359 134 1,274
Digital 53 3* 8* 64
Trace Evidence 530 139* 97* 766
Firearm & Tool Mark 1,243 75* 108 1,426
In FY2016-2017 approximately 5,200 of the 26,000 DNA database samples received were duplicates. Duplicate submission and improper use of kits during collection continues to impact the DNA Database Section. The Laboratory pays approximately $5.00 per kit for the collection kits, which are provided to law enforcement agencies at no cost. The
3 The Western Regional Laboratory provides drug chemistry analysis as well as latent evidence and firearm & tool mark examinations. The Western Lab currently does not conduct trace evidence, digital evidence and forensic biology analyses, convicted offender or DNA upon arrest samples. Forensic biology analyses is projected to be added to the Western Regional Laboratory in the first quarter of calendar year 2018.
The Triad Regional Laboratory provides drug chemistry and toxicology analyses as well as latent evidence examinations. The Triad Lab does not perform examinations of firearm and tool mark, digital or trace evidence, forensic biology analyses, or convicted offender or DNA upon arrest samples.
4 Case submissions to a Regional Laboratory for a forensic discipline not offered at that Lab (identified by the * symbol) are transferred to the appropriate Lab location for analysis. The chart reflects all cases received at each Lab location, regardless of whether the requested analysis was offered at that Lab.
28,532
25,200
27,998
31,233
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
2015 - 2016
2016 - 2017
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
2015 - 2016
2016 - 2017Page 7 of 21
duplicates submitted in FY 2016-2017 cost $26,000. To maximize taxpayer resources, the Lab encourages ongoing training in efficient collection procedures for submitting law enforcement agencies. All personnel involved in the collection of offender and arrestee DNA samples are encouraged to complete training available on the North Carolina Justice Academy website to reduce duplicate sample submissions.
New instrumentation, increased production efficiencies and the opening of the new Western Regional Laboratory will allow increased case production from most of our disciplines. The two exceptions are latent evidence and drug chemistry for two very different reasons. Latent evidence submissions have increased due to many local laboratories terminating their own latent evidence analysis as employees retire or leave. An aggravating factor for local labs continuing their own analysis is the additional cost of hiring, training and certifying their analysts. Drug Chemistry has seen an increase in more complex drug analysis specifically new opioids such as fentanyl and fentanyl based analogs. These new drugs require additional testing procedures lengthening the processing time. Based on the last two years of submission data, the addition of two new drug chemistry analysts and two new latent evidence analyst is projected to mitigate this increase. The State Crime Lab can absorb these submission increases by making internal transfers of current positions and therefore; no additional human resources are anticipated for FY 2017-2018. See Figures 2 and 3.
An area in which significant improvement in efficiency and case production might occur is the much needed renovation of the Drug Chemistry and Toxicology laboratories in Raleigh. Designed in the 1980s, the lab space is not set up for collaborative and team approached case analysis as is currently being used in the rest of the Lab.5 As a result of completing a Lean Six Sigma efficiency study, the forensic biology section underwent a $1.6 M renovation in 2015 to create open lab space. Six months after the renovation was completed, the forensic biology section reported a 600% increase in case completions.
Figure 2 - Latent Evidence Submissions by Month and Trend Line Graph
5 Preliminary analysis of this capital renovation by a State Construction Office approved architect is approximately $4 M. This renovation would include upgrading HVAC and addressing ongoing humidity issues in the building.
0
50
100
150
200
250
July 2015
September 2015
November 2015
January 2016
March 2016
May 2016
July 2016
September 2016
November 2016
January 2017
March 2017
May 2017
July 2017
September 2017
Latent SubmissionsPage 8 of 21
Figure 3 - Drug Chemistry Submissions by Month and Trend Line Graph
b. Case Submissions by County6
Case work and evidence item submissions over the past four fiscal years per North Carolina County may be found in Appendix A.
2. Case Completions
For FY 2016-2017, scientists in the State Crime Lab system worked 59,102 submissions, broken down as follows:
 The main State Crime Lab in Raleigh worked 23,352 case submissions and 19,377 profiles processed for the DNA Database (including 10,165 DNA samples from convicted offenders and 9,212 DNA samples taken upon arrest).
 The Triad Regional Crime Lab worked 5,626 case submissions.
 The Western Regional Crime Lab worked 10,747 case submissions.
Improvements in efficiency and methodology have led to decreased turnaround times. This, in turn, has led to a reduction in stop works (cases that the DA’s office has determined no longer require analysis). In FY 2015-2016, the State Crime Lab processed 13,046 stop works; however, in FY 2016-2017, the number of stop works was reduced to 4,933. This is good news for the criminal justice community because that means that cases are being worked quickly enough that cases do not need to be dismissed due to the length of time required for lab analysis. With the reduction in stop works, the State Crime Lab appears to have worked fewer cases than in previous years; however, the 39,725 cases worked exceeded the 31,233 cases submitted in the same fiscal year. See Figure 4.
6This information is provided in compliance with S.L. 2013-360 (3) which requires that the Annual Crime Lab Report contain “A breakdown by county of the number of submissions received by the Laboratory in the previous fiscal year." The numbers in these tables do not include Convicted Offender or DNA upon Arrest submissions.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
July 2015
September 2015
November 2015
January 2016
March 2016
May 2016
July 2016
September 2016
November 2016
January 2017
March 2017
May 2017
July 2017
September 2017
Drug Chemistry SubmissionsPage 9 of 21
Figure 4 Annual Case Record Completions
a. Case Completions by Forensic Discipline and Lab Location
In FY 2016-2017, the State Crime Lab completed the following cases, broken down by discipline and lab location:
Raleigh Triad Western TOTALS
Drug Chemistry 11,533 2,475 8,102 22,110
Toxicology 6,588 2,425 2,144 11,157
Forensic Biology 2,572 299 207 3,078
DNA Database 19,377 0 0 19,377
Latent 590 264 131 985
Digital 71 3 7 81
Trace Evidence 603 108 77 788
Firearm & Tool Mark 1,395 52 79 1,526
Notable successes of the DNA Database Section include a record 478 hits to the DNA database, which now contains more than 320,000 DNA profiles. New technology now allows faster input of DNA samples into the database where it can be used to identify suspects in unsolved cases.7 The Lab received submissions resulting from changes to G.S. 15A-266.3A that authorized the collection of DNA profiles from those arrested for 35 additional offenses, to include all violent felonies.
Total Cases Pending
Case completions have steadily increased over the last two and a half years. At the end of FY 2016-2017, the lab system had a total inventory of 9,060 cases. This is a decrease of over 82% over the last two years. For FY 2016-2017, the caseload is down by 42.9%. See Figure 5.
7 At the writing of this report, the average time to receive convicted offender (CO) or arrestee (AR) samples and input into the database is approximately 14 days.
33,258
42,066
47,718
39,725
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
2015 - 2016
2016 - 2017
2013 - 2014
2014 - 2015
2015 - 2016
2016 - 2017Page 10 of 21
Figure 5 Total Cases Pending as of June 30, 2017
b. Lead Times
Lead times at the State Crime Lab continue to improve as additional scientists complete their required training and begin to work on active cases. Average lead time for the laboratory was 115 days as of October 1, 2017. Lead times for individual cases vary depending on the amount of evidence submitted and the type or types of analysis requested, and certain cases can be worked in as little as days with a rush request from a District Attorney. For example, a DWI case submission may include a single vial of blood to be tested for alcohol while homicide case submissions may include 75 to 150 pieces of evidence. Even a single piece of evidence can require multiple types of analysis; for example, a firearm may be submitted for ballistics, fingerprint and DNA analyses. The State Crime Lab continues to battle inaccurate public perceptions of turnaround times, often due to evidence not being submitted to the Lab until weeks or months after the crime was committed. Unfortunately, public perception of turnaround time is directly tied to the date of the crime rather than the date when it was submitted to the Lab. c. Rush Case Program The State Crime Lab continues to operate a successful rush case program to give District Attorneys the option to expedite cases when appropriate. Upon the request of a District Attorney, the Lab can rush or expedite a case for public safety or court purposes. Depending on the evidence submitted and the type(s) of analysis requested, rush cases can be worked in a matter of days. Lab management welcomes inquiries from District Attorneys about cases where a rush request may be needed.
8 Backlog is defined by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) as older than thirty days from the date of offense but is an arbitrary measure based on when the evidence is submitted to the Lab. Lead Time is defined as the time from when the analyst receives the evidence until the time they publish a report at the completion of their analysis. Turnaround time is defined as the time from when the evidence is submitted to the State Crime Lab to when the report is published. This includes time the evidence sits in the Lab evidence vault waiting to be assigned to an analyst.
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Total Cases Pending FY 2016-2017
42.9 % Decrease Page 11 of 21
d. Court Testimony and Judicial Efficiencies
During FY 2016-2017, the State Crime Lab continued to feel the effects of the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that requires forensic scientists to provide live, in-court testimony rather than testifying by sworn affidavit. More time spent by scientists in court or traveling to court means less time in the lab working on cases.
In FY 2016-2017, Crime Lab scientists spent a total of 3,500 hours traveling to court, waiting to testify or testifying. This is an increase of 220 hours or 6% from FY 2015-2016 and a 19% increase from FY 2014-2015. Of those hours, Crime Lab scientists spent 1,906.29 hours traveling to court, 1,187.54 hours waiting to testify (an increase of over 126 hours from the previous year),and 407.05 hours testifying. See Figure 6. Assistance is still needed from our criminal justice stakeholders to minimize time forensic scientists spend in court and away from the lab. The seventeen recommendations from the UNC School of Government’s Report of the Crime Laboratory Working Group: Administrative Solutions to Alleviate Lab Backlog specifically outlines recommendations to minimize wait time for our analysts.
Figure 6: Court Testimony Hours 2012-2017
Nearly half of all Judicial Districts in North Carolina agreed to adopt the recommendations from the School of Government report. The State Crime Lab acknowledges the positive attention given to this important matter and continues to request assistance from our criminal justice stakeholders to minimize time forensic scientists spend in court and away from the lab.
e. Outsourcing
Time-limited outsourcing of certain toxicology cases to the State’s vendor for toxicology analysis ended in January 2017; however, a number of completed cases are still awaiting final court disposition. The remaining funds are being used to assist law enforcement agencies with their untested sexual assault evidence collection kits that are viable for testing.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
FY 12-13 Total
FY 13-14 Total
FY 14-15 Total
FY 15-16 Total
FY 16-17 Total
Court Testimony Hours 2012-2017
Testimony Hours
Wait Hours
Travel Hours
39%
33%
33%
32%
9%
9%
16%
11%
2735
2576
2814
3280
3500
12%
34%
52%
58%
51%
57%
54%Page 12 of 21
At the end of the toxicology project, the State Crime Laboratory outsourced 5,019 toxicology cases. The total amount of money spent from FY 2014 through FY 2017 was in excess of $1.8M for testing and in excess of $116K for testimony. The testimony amount will grow slightly as some cases are still awaiting final court disposition. Total anticipated amount is approximately $2.1M. The State Crime Lab acknowledges the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys for their strong partnership and willingness to participate on this project.
f. Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECK)
The prevalence of untested Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECK) has attracted considerable concern and attention, placing a spotlight on crime laboratories, police departments and sheriff’s offices nationwide. The North Carolina State Crime Laboratory (SCL) and the North Carolina Attorney General have been taking proactive steps since January 2017 to clear all testable SAECKs in North Carolina. The SCL has been working with the NC Conference of District Attorneys in order to begin assessing how many untested SAECKs are in local law enforcement agencies throughout NC. In addition, unused outsourcing money appropriated for the purpose of testing toxicology cases (completed in January 2017) was available for DNA testing. As a result of having available funding, the SCL secured two private vendor laboratories to assist in testing viable, untested SAECKs. Both vendor laboratories are accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 standards and FBI Quality Assurance Standards for DNA Testing Laboratories This proactive approach has begun to identify viable, untested SAECKs that are being tested, at no cost to the local agency, while allowing the SCL to continue working current cases.
In April 2017, the SCL and the NC Department of Justice (DOJ) worked closely with members of the General Assembly to draft language for conducting a state-wide inventory. To that end, Session Law 2017-57, Section 17.7 included language directing each local law enforcement agency to conduct an inventory of Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs) in its custody or control and report its finding to the DOJ, SCL no later than January 1, 2018 and the SCL to compile the information and report its finding no later than March 1, 2018. This one time legislatively mandated inventory will address any SAECKs currently in existence; however, there is no statewide SAECK inventory and tracking management system to prevent unknown inventories of SAECKs reappearing in the future.
Current Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) inventory and tracking management systems, available on the market, are capable of tracking SAECKs from the moment it is collected at the medical facility to the time that the N.C. State Crime Lab results, other publically funded crime lab results or private vendor lab results are reported and made available to investigators, prosecutors and victims. Initial estimates of a statewide, commercial off the shelf (COTS) system is approximately $2M spread over five years. The State Crime Lab sought federal grant funding for this system but was denied. All stakeholders would have access to this all-encompassing inventory and tracking management system and it is imperative that North Carolina acquire such a system to ensure all SAECKs are tracked and managed appropriately in the future.
g. Drug Chemistry - Opioid and Fentanyl Update
During FY 2016-2017, the Drug Chemistry Section saw a significant increase in the number of fentanyl or fentanyl analog related items from 116 items in the first half of the fiscal year to 300 items in the second half. Ten fentanyl analogs were added to the N.C.G.S. during the 2017 Legislative Session and will become effective Dec. 1, 2017.
Page 13 of 21
There are immediate safety concerns for handling fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. Laboratory procedures have been recently modified to incorporate additional personal protective measures for scientists when any case that may involve heroin or an unknown powder is to be analyzed. In addition to personal protective equipment, scientists must notify another scientist that they are working a possible fentanyl case. Finally, each scientist has been trained to use and has available Narcan in their workstations. Narcan is the antidote for exposure to fentanyl or fentanyl analogs.
With the nationwide attention that the opioid crisis has received and the increase in overdose deaths and fentanyl exposures, the State Crime Lab added suspicious overdose cases to its list of services provided to its customers. To further assist local agencies, the State Crime Lab is rushing the analyses of these type cases and returning information back within a week or two.
Finally, an increase in a new synthetic opioid called U-47700, or “pink” as it is called on the streets, has been identified in several cases in the laboratory. This substance has been attributed to several deaths in our state. Analysis in the first half of the fiscal year confirmed 3 items and the number jumped to thirty confirmations in the second half of the fiscal year.
h. Toxicology- Update
During FY 2016-2017, the Drug Chemistry and Toxicology Units were separated into individual sections due to their large size and to create efficiencies. The Toxicology Section currently has 25 scientist positions located between the three laboratories. Eight analysts completed the in-house Toxicology training program and five are currently in training. Two robotic liquid handling systems were purchased to increase efficiency. Additional automation is being planned for the next fiscal year using grant funding.
Approximately 98% of the 11,157 completed cases involved Driving While Impaired investigations (DWI). Other types of cases submitted include Drug Facilitated Sexual Assaults (DFSA), homicide investigations, and custodial neglect cases (e.g. – parental drug use contributing to the death of their child). FY 2016-2017 State Crime Lab Toxicology statistics are included in Figure 7, below.
FY 2016-2017 State Crime Lab Toxicology Statistics
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) o Average Blood Alcohol Concentration = 0.1561.
o Highest Blood Alcohol Concentration observed = 0.4513 o Four cases had a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.40 or greater, which is considered capable of causing coma or death.
Blood Drug
o The average blood sample contained 2-3 unrelated drugs o 55% contain Benzodiazepines (e.g. Valium, Xanax, Klonopin)
o 44% contain Marijuana related drugs o 33% contain Opiate drugs (e.g. Fentanyl, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Morphine/Heroin)
o 13% contain Cocaine and related drugs
Figure 7 FY 2016-2017 State Crime Lab Toxicology Statistics
IV. Process Improvements
The State Crime Lab continues its concerted effort to identify cases that have been disposed of in court (“stop-work cases”) and no longer need forensic analysis. The State Crime Lab routinely provides prosecutors with lists of cases which Page 14 of 21
appear to have cleared the court system but for which the Lab has not received a disposition notice, requesting confirmation that the case is completed and that no further Lab work is required. The NC Conference of District Attorneys has facilitated prosecutorial review of these notices and forty-three of the forty-four District Attorneys are either fully or partially participating. As a result, the Lab is able to focus on the cases where forensic analysis is still needed.
The State Crime Lab has partnered with the NC Department of Justice (DOJ) Information Technology Division (ITD), NC Government Data Analytics Center (GDAC), NC Conference of District Attorneys, NC Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Institute, Inc. to develop a software solution to automate the stop work process within the laboratory information management system. The group is in testing phase now with an anticipated solution sometime in FY 2017-2018. District Attorneys will be able to access and update case dispositions through the State Crime Lab’s web-based laboratory information management system without the Lab providing lists.
V. Human Capital
The State Crime Lab continues to see some turnover with employees. In FY 2016-2017, there were twelve resignations and six retirements. Of the resignations, none were attributed to salary issues. The State Crime Lab had an 8.5% attrition rate and an 11% vacancy rate at the end of the fiscal year. Additional demographics indicate the State Crime Lab work force is composed of 53% Millennials and 77% female. To assist the State Crime Lab in retention, a concerted effort has been made to create promotional opportunities through career advancement. Twenty-four promotions were conducted during FY 2016-2017 and nine promotional opportunities are pending.
The State Crime Lab has conducted significant analysis to determine the future needs within each of the disciplines. As previously noted, the State Crime Lab is able to internally transfer positions to address projected shortfalls in production. Currently, there are no projected needs for additional manpower in FY 2017-2018. The one potential exception may occur within the DNA Database section should legislation be brought forward to add the remainder of felony charges to the DNA collection list.
Diversity within the State Crime Lab work force remains an area of needed emphasis. At the end of the fiscal year, the racial/ethnic breakdown is 87% Caucasian, 8% African-American, 2% Hispanic, 1% Indian, 1% Asian, and 1% Other. In FY 2016-2017, the lab has conducted two recruiting events at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in a concerted effort to improve diverse representation within the lab system. Three recruiting events are planned for the second quarter of FY 2017-2018.
VI. Expansion
Construction on the new Western Regional Laboratory is complete and the move completed.9 Limited analysis of cases has begun in the disciplines of drugs, toxicology, latent evidence, and firearms. Forensic Biology will begin validations later this calendar year with projected casework expected to begin in first quarter of calendar year 2018. The new facility is approximately twice the size of the current regional lab and serves law enforcement agencies in Western North Carolina. A formal ribbon cutting ceremony will be conducted during the last quarter of calendar year 2017.
VII. Fiscal Resources10
9 The NC State Construction Office issued a Certificate of Beneficial Occupancy on September 21, 2017.
10S.L. 2013-360 (4) also provides that the Annual Crime Lab Report contain “[a]n average estimate of the dollar and time cost to perform each type of procedure and analysis performed by the Laboratory.” The Crime Lab has not had the capability in the past to calculate this data. However, late in the 2013/2014 fiscal year, the Lab initiated participation in “Project Foresight,” operating out of West Virginia University, which compiles such information for forensic laboratories. The data collection deadline for the Project Foresight Annual Report published the next May is Dec.1. Because the Crime Lab’s data for the May, 2015, report will not represent a full year Page 15 of 21
The State Crime Lab has faced fiscal resource challenges in the recent past due to unfunded requirements11 which placed a strain on the Lab’s budget. In addition, a significant decline in dedicated receipts generated from court fees12 resulted in unstable funding challenges. The Current Operations Appropriations Act of 2017 (ratified June 28, 2017, and generally effective July 1, 2017), provided funding for the previously unfunded mandates of The Forensic Sciences Act of 2011. Funding included $115,518(r) for an Ombudsman, $161,000(r) for scientist training and certification, $18,000(r) for the Forensic Science Advisory Board, and $51,155(r) for laboratory accreditation. In addition, eight forensic scientist positions, previously funded from inadequate laboratory receipts, were transferred to general appropriations at a sum of $550,989(r). Finally, $1,740,727(nr) was provided for the purchase or lease of scientific equipment. This is the first time in laboratory history that language was drafted to allow the leasing of scientific equipment allowing for a more efficient and expeditious manner to replace outdated equipment. The State Crime Laboratory wishes to acknowledge the members of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Justice and Public Safety for their support.
At the beginning of calendar year 2014, the State Crime Lab began participating in Project Foresight through the West Virginia University, College of Business & Economics. The purpose of the collaboration was to begin building a detailed picture of the fiscal resources required to operate a forensic laboratory to include determining the cost of each test. This annual report is the first opportunity to provide this data.
During FY 2016-2017, the State Crime Lab had 218 full time equivalent positions, or FTEs, including 148 forensic scientist positions and 70 support staff positions to include administrative and technician positions. As newly hired scientists completed their training and began work on active criminal cases, the State Crime Lab’s supply costs have increased. During FY 2016-2017, the State Crime Lab expended over $1.4 M on scientific supplies of which 75% was forensic biology and DNA Database. See Figure 8. Of that amount, 31% or $455,943.72 was from General Appropriations and the remaining 69% or $1,029,158.30 was from DNA Grant funding. See Figure 9.
and will thus be incomplete, the first full year data reflecting a comparative breakdown of analysis costs will be issued May, 2016. Therefore, category 2013-360 (4) is being addressed, for the first time, in the FY 2016-2017 State Crime Laboratory Annual Report.
11 S.L. 2011-19 also known as “The Forensic Sciences Act of 2011” required the Crime Laboratory to absorb recurring costs associated with individual forensic scientist certification, facility accreditation by ISO 17025 standards, a fulltime ombudsman (Attorney III) and travel support for the Forensic Science Advisory Board which is required to meet multiple times each year. This unfunded mandate equated to over $345,000 annually.
12 The current statute authorizes the courts to assess fees for the following laboratory analyses: forensic DNA analysis; bodily fluid tests for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances; and the analysis of controlled substances. The 2017/2018 Appropriations Act amended the statute to add fees for digital evidence analysis. Fees are not currently permitted for the following laboratory analyses: firearms & tool marks; latent; and trace evidence. Page 16 of 21
Figure 8 - FY 2016-2017 Scientific Supply Costs
Figure 9 Scientific Supply Funds from General Appropriations vs DNA Grants
The FORESIGHT Project Report indicates that the NC State Crime Lab is comparable to other like size, publically funded state forensic laboratories servicing like size state populations. Nine of the twelve investigative areas noted were less in cost per item compared to the FORESIGHT 75th National Percentile. The areas that were higher were areas in which small numbers of cases are generated and/or new instrumentation was recently purchased. In both situations, the cost per item will be higher. As newer instrumentation is acquired, it is anticipated that the initial cost per item will also increase. See Figures 10 and 11.
Scientific Supplies for DNA Disciplines, $1,115,952.63 , 75%
Scientific Supplies for Non-DNA Disciplines, $369,149.39 , 25%
FY2016-2017 Scientific Supplies
DNA vs Non-DNA Disciplines
Total = $1,485,102.00
Scientific Supplies -General Appropriations, $455,943.72 , 31%
Scientific Supplies -Grant Funding, $1,029,158.30 , 69%
Appropriation -vs-Grants
Total = $1,485,102.00Page 17 of 21
Investigation area FORESIGHT 75th National Percentile 2015-2016 NCSCL Cost per Item 2016-2017
Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC)
$644
$902 Blood Alcohol (BAC) $229 $195
Digital evidence - Audio & Video
$3,946
$5,267 DNA Casework $730 $379
Drugs - Controlled Substances
$232
$184 Fingerprints $471 $675
Fire analysis
$1,043
$268 Firearms and Ballistics $1,042 $353
Gun Shot Residue (GSR)
$1,516
$353 Marks and Impressions $3,213 $339
Serology/Biology
$692
$166 Trace Evidence $3,058 $856
Figure 10 Comparison of FY 2015-2016 FORESIGHT Cost per Item to NCSCL Cost per Item
Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2015-2016
Cost per Item by Investigative Area Area of Investigation 25th percentile Median 75th percentile
Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC)
$366
$446
$644 Blood Alcohol $86 $115 $229
Digital evidence -Audio & Video
$348
$1,268
$3,946 DNA Casework $316 $434 $730
Drugs -Controlled Substances
$124
$181
$232 Fingerprints $227 $303 $471
Fire analysis
$401
$596
$1,043 Firearms and Ballistics $391 $634 $1,042
Gun Shot Residue (GSR)
$858
$1,065
$1,516 Marks and Impressions $972 $2,268 $3,213
Serology/Biology
$205
$420
$692 Trace Evidence $966 $1,589 $3,058
Figure 11 Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2015-2016 Cost per Item
During FY 2016/2017, the State Crime Lab utilized available grants to refresh scientific equipment, purchase supplies and pay for training to meet unfunded and mandated certification and accreditation requirements. During the last twelve months, the Lab used six grants for FY 2016-2017 through various federal programs. The grant awards include: $250,000 for scientific instrumentation and equipment for Triad Lab and Trace Evidence; the 2014 and 2015 DNA grants totaling over $3.2 M for DNA supplies and scientific instruments for Forensic Biology & DNA Database; $250,372 for Page 18 of 21
software, scientific instrumentation, equipment and supplies for Drug Chemistry, Toxicology and Latent Evidence; $160,000 for a Toxicology scientific instrument; and $250,000 for software, training and equipment for Digital Evidence. The 2016 DNA Grant funds were recently awarded in the latter half of FY 2017 and are now being utilized.
The North Carolina Forensic Science Advisory Board, composed of 15 renowned national forensic experts, reported in a letter to the North Carolina General Assembly the “tremendous progress by the State Crime Laboratory over the past 36 months...” as well as “…an urgent need for more Laboratory resources.” The Board unanimously supported and strongly recommended that the General Assembly establish a special revenue reserve fund to finance non-recurring expenses such as scientific equipment and to increase funding for scientific supplies to offset decreasing federal grants. To remain a state-of-the-art forensic laboratory, scientific instrumentation and equipment must be replaced and updated based on current industry standards. Realistically, $1.5 M recurring would allow a ten year replacement schedule and combined with the nearly $3.5 M received over the last two years, the State Crime Lab would be very close to industry standards. A special revenue reserve fund would provide contingency funding to offset periodic reductions in crime lab court fees authorized pursuant to NCGS 7A-304 (a) (7).
VIII. Conclusion
The State Crime Lab continues to provide high-quality forensic science while improving efficiencies and turnaround times. The Crime Lab will continue to seek increased efficiencies through the use of Lean Six Sigma methodology, streamlined evidence management processes, advanced instrumentation, strategic redistribution of casework, and improved coordination with the courts and our partners in the criminal justice system.
The opening of a larger Western Regional Laboratory will speed analysis of cases by providing more types of forensic analysis in the region, and it will help the entire state by relieving the main State Crime Lab in Raleigh of some of its workload.
However, the Crime Lab continues to face challenges, particularly a recurring funding source for the purchase or lease of scientific equipment, complimentary recurring increases in scientific supply funds, funding and acquisition of a state-wide Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit Inventory and Tracking Management System, renovation of the Raleigh Drug Chemistry and Toxicology laboratories, and the requirement that lab scientists provide in-person court testimony.
Respectfully submitted November, 2017,
John A. Byrd
Director, North Carolina State Crime Laboratory
Page 19 of 21
Appendix A - Submissions by County
7/1/2013 to 6/30/2014
7/1/2014 to 6/30/2015
7/1/2015 to 6/30/2016
7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
County Alamance 420 689 267 445 278 446 359 689
Alexander
66
108
46
93
72
142
89
259 Alleghany 21 22 34 42 30 55 13 19
Anson
89
326
63
153
65
129
55
235 Ashe 61 115 29 69 42 70 27 61
Avery
83
136
76
113
53
78
56
99 Beaufort 432 616 371 507 372 508 446 710
Bertie
61
86
33
51
24
70
56
137 Bladen 67 118 110 149 84 185 98 157
Brunswick
521
660
437
614
550
785
428
683 Buncombe 985 1745 897 1416 1046 1839 1051 1890
Burke
327
547
258
459
335
519
455
861 Cabarrus 615 1113 571 789 609 841 600 1009
Caldwell
376
638
325
529
325
650
324
542 Camden 26 53 21 29 17 25 13 13
Carteret
397
544
320
464
447
623
412
600 Caswell 127 146 47 62 68 151 78 139
Catawba
573
1066
652
1133
988
1430
885
1612 Chatham 135 235 133 233 126 212 118 219
Cherokee
66
106
55
113
81
133
102
175 Chowan 27 49 53 81 32 56 57 80
Clay
25
50
40
72
50
75
34
56 Cleveland 322 607 330 477 468 744 543 772
Columbus
247
388
203
336
204
391
142
292 Craven 316 511 268 590 347 675 351 599
Cumberland
916
1532
497
1023
247
1155
274
1186 Currituck 80 133 50 99 80 102 69 109
Dare
220
339
240
385
223
309
256
415 Davidson 650 972 326 441 330 486 435 709
Davie
58
77
99
135
85
117
88
162 Duplin 262 408 180 338 222 399 410 677
Durham
1706
3822
1299
3806
1376
4624
1066
3969 Edgecombe 358 492 328 442 253 377 206 331
Forsyth
471
852
501
980
925
604
282
799 Franklin 141 313 144 364 203 569 285 751
Gaston
859
1170
751
1151
857
1287
1120
1675 Gates 7 9 14 15 10 16 9 21 Page 20 of 21
7/1/2013 to 6/30/2014
7/1/2014 to 6/30/2015
7/1/2015 to 6/30/2016
7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
County
Graham
95
236
36
107
41
71
32
60 Granville 322 449 267 408 257 334 246 490
Greene
75
162
73
139
76
122
44
87 Guilford 1494 2197 1301 1993 1294 1965 1375 2635
Halifax
220
590
222
405
181
313
242
454 Harnett 349 500 339 514 204 402 226 480
Haywood
203
299
292
404
250
384
357
515 Henderson 353 536 275 443 350 526 397 612
Hertford
71
124
73
97
54
98
52
114 Hoke 212 574 195 652 234 635 203 553
Hyde
22
54
5
9
10
20
20
28 Iredell 382 503 302 507 341 560 262 571
Jackson
164
333
145
332
152
381
188
302 Johnston 672 1048 647 1110 706 1098 590 952
Jones
62
95
56
73
52
66
70
109 Lee 265 409 218 462 217 405 211 417
Lenoir
392
613
394
661
413
783
480
1027 Lincoln 76 137 221 367 566 745 501 651
Macon
124
168
127
196
128
205
172
288 Madison 71 141 48 80 38 67 116 222
Martin
67
88
172
294
188
276
213
454 McDowell 141 200 124 213 137 182 177 314
Mecklenburg
406
573
354
499
444
754
375
715 Mitchell 46 84 31 53 86 132 41 90
Montgomery
89
150
38
76
38
98
95
205 Moore 466 672 228 340 264 421 233 469
Nash
367
561
420
616
455
669
392
653 New Hanover 437 827 537 1247 666 1689 829 2153
Northampton
45
106
38
101
121
235
41
118 Onslow 603 958 449 698 513 835 576 959
Orange
520
811
384
755
322
593
462
986 Pamlico 25 49 79 108 126 183 117 184
Pasquotank
175
249
113
192
122
216
210
359 Pender 110 149 70 105 76 115 144 270
Perquimans
38
78
43
74
15
20
27
46 Person 173 229 162 218 130 166 173 246
Pitt
346
525
237
394
211
456
479
883 Polk 48 60 79 125 87 163 117 179 Page 21 of 21
7/1/2013 to 6/30/2014
7/1/2014 to 6/30/2015
7/1/2015 to 6/30/2016
7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
Submissions
Items Submitted
County
Randolph
567
798
338
546
442
691
609
935 Richmond 384 648 214 354 241 447 378 701
Robeson
371
908
281
588
311
592
327
672 Rockingham 340 691 254 392 247 369 247 609
Rowan
220
396
385
616
578
823
587
1067 Rutherford 120 173 121 204 169 290 209 373
Sampson
359
567
272
424
302
463
175
326 Scotland 167 382 119 270 179 444 156 377
Stanly
135
253
192
319
187
322
261
492 Stokes 142 248 108 166 139 228 170 328
Surry
327
504
312
462
289
486
287
590 Swain 83 142 60 110 105 156 99 186
Transylvania
69
110
76
144
128
248
114
280 Tyrrell 44 45 31 34 15 18 4 4
Union
436
684
349
498
455
702
464
835 Vance 163 291 147 279 189 340 244 518
Wake
228
802
263
921
485
1954
589
1631 Warren 32 73 37 98 22 34 31 57
Washington
32
57
21
55
30
40
15
26 Watauga 200 290 148 243 133 207 160 263
Wayne
404
837
377
675
488
908
601
1132 Wilkes 282 508 257 381 320 525 305 532
Wilson
488
835
413
807
435
702
516
820 Yadkin 152 237 88 138 207 307 202 378
Yancey
58
111
60
101
99
148
79
136
TOTAL
27,642
46,920
23,785
42,090
27,284
48,704
28,606
55,830