Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-2018

Faculty Scholarship 5-2019 Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-2018 Paul J. Speaker [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Business Commons Digital Commons Citation Speaker, Paul J., "Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-2018" (2019). Faculty Scholarship. 1139. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/faculty_publications/1139 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Project FORESIGHT Annual Report, 2017-2018 Paul J Speaker, Forensic Science Initiative, College of Business & Economics, West Virginia University FORESIGHT— Example (US$) May 2019 Table of Contents Table of Tables ................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................. 5 FORESIGHT Benchmark Data 2017-2018 ........................................................................ 7 FORESIGHT 20/20 ............................................................................................................ 7 FORESIGHT 20/20 Executive Summary ....................................................................... 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 8 Relative Volume & Activity Metrics ................................................................................ 11 Cases per 100,000 Population Served ........................................................................... 11 Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served.......................................... 12 Samples per 100,000 Population Served ...................................................................... 13 Tests per 100,000 Population Served............................................................................ 14 Reports per 100,000 Population Served........................................................................ 15 Cost Metrics ...................................................................................................................... 16 Cost per Case ................................................................................................................ 16 Cost per Item ................................................................................................................. 17 Cost per Sample ............................................................................................................ 19 Metric Interpretation ......................................................................................................... 22 Market Metrics .................................................................................................................. 22 Average Compensation ................................................................................................. 23 Risk Management Metrics ................................................................................................ 24 Items per Case ............................................................................................................... 24 Samples per Case .......................................................................................................... 25 Tests per Case ............................................................................................................... 26 Samples per Item........................................................................................................... 28 Tests per Item ................................................................................................................ 29 Reports per Item ............................................................................................................ 30 Tests per Sample ........................................................................................................... 31 Reports per Sample ....................................................................................................... 32 Productivity Metrics.......................................................................................................... 33 Cases per FTE ............................................................................................................... 34 Items per FTE ............................................................................................................... 35 Samples per FTE ........................................................................................................... 36 Tests per FTE ................................................................................................................ 37 1|Page May 2019 Reports per FTE ............................................................................................................ 38 Analytical Process Metrics ............................................................................................... 39 Personnel Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ................................................... 40 Capital Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ....................................................... 41 Consumables Expense as a proportion of Total Expense ............................................. 42 Other Expenses as a proportion of Total Expense ........................................................ 43 Turn-around Time ............................................................................................................. 44 Turn-around Time (Timed in days from last submission of evidence to Report submission) ................................................................................................................... 44 Turn-around Time (Timed in days from first submission of evidence to Report submission) ................................................................................................................... 45 Backlog ............................................................................................................................. 46 Cases Open over 30 Days/Annual Caseload ................................................................. 46 Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness of Forensic Science Services—FORESIGHT 20172018 Benchmark Data....................................................................................................... 47 Blood Alcohol Analysis ................................................................................................ 48 Crime Scene Investigation ............................................................................................ 50 Digital Evidence............................................................................................................ 52 DNA Casework Analysis .............................................................................................. 54 DNA Database .............................................................................................................. 56 Document Examination ................................................................................................ 58 Drugs—Controlled Substances ..................................................................................... 60 Explosives Analysis ...................................................................................................... 64 Fingerprint ID ............................................................................................................... 66 Firearms & Ballistics Analysis ..................................................................................... 70 Forensic Pathology........................................................................................................ 72 Marks & Impressions Analysis ..................................................................................... 75 Toxicology Analysis ante mortem ................................................................................ 79 Toxicology Analysis post mortem ................................................................................ 81 Trace Evidence Analysis............................................................................................... 83 FORESIGHT Glossary ..................................................................................................... 85 Definitions: Investigative Areas ....................................................................................... 88 Project FORESIGHT Publications ................................................................................... 90 Forensic Science International: Synergy ........................................................................ 106 2|Page May 2019 Table of Tables Table 1: Cases per 100,000 Population Served ................................................................ 11 Table 2: Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served ............................... 12 Table 3: Samples Examined per 100,000 Population Served ........................................... 13 Table 4: Tests Performed per 100,000 Population Served ............................................... 14 Table 5: Reports per 100,000 Population Served ............................................................. 15 Table 6: Cost per Case by Investigative Area ................................................................... 16 Table 7: Real* Cost per Case across Time ....................................................................... 17 Table 8: Cost per Item Processed by Investigative Area .................................................. 18 Table 9: Cost per Sample by Investigative Area .............................................................. 19 Table 10: Cost per Test by Investigative Area.................................................................. 20 Table 11: Cost per Report by Investigative Area.............................................................. 21 Table 12: Average Compensation by Investigative Area ................................................. 23 Table 13: Items per Case by Investigative Area ............................................................... 24 Table 14: Samples per Case by Investigative Area .......................................................... 25 Table 15: Tests per Case by Investigative Area................................................................ 26 Table 16: Reports per Case by Investigative Area............................................................ 27 Table 17: Samples per Item examined internally by Investigative Area .......................... 28 Table 18: Tests per Item examined internally by Investigative Area ............................... 29 Table 19: Reports per Item examined internally by Investigative Area ........................... 30 Table 20: Tests per Sample by Investigative Area ........................................................... 31 Table 21: Reports per Sample by Investigative Area ....................................................... 32 Table 22: Cases per FTE by Investigative Area ............................................................... 34 Table 23: Items examined internally per FTE by Investigative Area ............................... 35 Table 24: Samples per FTE by Investigative Area ........................................................... 36 Table 25: Tests per FTE by Investigative Area ................................................................ 37 Table 26: Reports per FTE by Investigative Area ............................................................ 38 Table 27: Personnel Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ................. 40 Table 28: Capital Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ...................... 41 Table 29: Consumables Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area ............ 42 Table 30: Other Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses.......................................... 43 Table 31: Turnaround Time from Last Item Received by Investigative Area .................. 44 Table 32: Turnaround Time from First Item Received by Investigative Area ................. 45 Table 33: Backlog Cases as a Percent of Total Cases by Investigative Area ................... 46 Table 34: Efficient Frontier for Blood & Breath Alcohol Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads ................................................................................ 49 Table 35: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads .................................................................................... 51 Table 36: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 53 Table 37: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 55 Table 38: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 57 3|Page May 2019 Table 39: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 59 Table 40: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ...................................................................................... 61 Table 41: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 63 Table 42: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads .......................................................................................................................... 65 Table 43: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 67 Table 44: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ........................................................................................................................................... 69 Table 45: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 71 Table 46: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 47: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 76 Table 48: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 78 Table 49: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology ante mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 80 Table 50: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology post mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 82 Table 51: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads ............................................................................................................. 84 4|Page May 2019 Table of Figures Figure 1: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol—Cases/FTE v. Cases Processed ............ 48 Figure 3: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4: Efficient Frontier Crime Scene Investigation—Cases/FTE v. Caseload .......... 50 Figure 5: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ........................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 6: Efficient Frontier Digital Evidence—Cases/FTE v. Caseload .......................... 52 Figure 7: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8: Efficient Frontier DNA Casework—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ........................... 54 Figure 9: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ........................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 10: Efficient Frontier DNA Database—Cases/FTE v. Caseload........................... 56 Figure 11: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 12: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 58 Figure 13: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed .................................................................................................... 60 Figure 14: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 60 Figure 15: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ............................................................................................................ 62 Figure 16: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 17: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 18 : Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............ 64 Figure 19: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 20: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 66 Figure 21: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed 68 Figure 22: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ............. 68 Figure 23: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 24: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 25: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed........................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 26: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ... 73 Figure 27: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed ................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 28: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................................... 75 5|Page May 2019 Figure 29: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 77 Figure 30: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................ 79 Figure 31: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ........................................................................................................................ 81 Figure 32: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Caseload ............................................................................................................................ 83 6|Page May 2019 FORESIGHT Benchmark Data 2017-2018 Project FORESIGHT is a business-guided self-evaluation of forensic science laboratories across the globe. The participating laboratories represent local, regional, state, and national agencies. Economics, accounting, finance, and forensic faculty provide assistance, guidance, and analysis. Laboratories participating in Project FORESIGHT have developed standardized definitions for metrics to evaluate work processes, linking financial information to work tasks, and functions. Laboratory managers can then assess resource allocations, efficiencies, and value of services—the mission of Project FORESIGHT is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. The benchmark data for the 2017-2018 performance period includes laboratory submissions for a variety of fiscal year definitions. However, all submissions have December 31, 2017 as part of their fiscal year accounting. The majority of submissions follow a July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 convention. Others follow a year that begins as early as January 1, 2017 (ending December 31, 2017) while the other extreme includes laboratories with a fiscal year originating October 1, 2017 and ending September 30, 2018. Consider the summary statistics for several of the key performance indicators. Because of outliers in several of the investigative areas, the most meaningful comparisons might best be made with respect to median as a representation of “typical” laboratory performance. To lend perspective to the spread of these metrics, each of the quartile metrics are reported along with the specific comparison to the laboratory highlighted in this report. As of this writing, one hundred thirty-nine laboratory systems have contributed data to the project. For most areas of investigation, the submitted data offers a large enough sample to elicit good statistical properties. However, for Digital Evidence, Evidence Screening & Processing, and Forensic Pathology, the number of reporting laboratories in these areas is small and fewer inferences may be drawn from the data. For more information on Project FORESIGHT, visit the Project web site at www.be.wvu.edu/forensic/foresight.htm. Questions regarding this report or other matters pertaining to Project FORESIGHT should be directed to the Principal Investigator Paul Speaker ([email protected]). FORESIGHT 20/20 The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was successful in securing a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) to assist laboratories in the extraction of data from their Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), 7|Page May 2019 including data for submission to Project FORESIGHT. The executive summary of FORESIGHT 20/20 project follows. FORESIGHT 20/20 Executive Summary The proliferation of television shows featuring CSI titles has both glamorized and cursed crime laboratories in America as expectations of laboratory performance have dramatically increased the demand for forensic science services. This increase in demand, coupled with laboratory funding cuts from the Great Recession, has created a bottleneck in the justice system as laboratory backlogs have risen, slowing down the entire system. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) recognized this problem and funded a solution via two grants for Project FORESIGHT for the years 2009 through 2015. The Project FORESIGHT team was tasked with studying the forensic science industry and developing business metrics for forensic laboratories that would enable them to gain efficiencies and become more cost effective, thus addressing the bottleneck in the justice system. While Project FORESIGHT has had a pronounced effect on the participating laboratories, less than 20% of U.S. laboratories submit data to the project. The main reason for the lack of participation has been the difficulty in extracting the necessary data on laboratory casework and coupling that information with laboratory expenditures and personnel detail, which come from separate information management systems. This proposal seeks funding to overcome this participation hurdle through the creation of software that provides the interface between the testing and casework information maintained in a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and the separate financial and personnel systems. This software will be developed under ASCLD’s leadership to connect the NIJ’s FORESIGHT measurement standards with laboratories nationwide to permit broader forensic science industry perspectives and to enhance the business metrics available to individual laboratory directors for daily decision-making. Organizing software development through the four major LIMS providers offers a permanent software solution to all crime laboratories for access to business metrics and does so at no cost to the individual laboratories. For laboratories participating in FORESIGHT, these business metrics have permitted dramatic increases in efficiency and saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Extending participation fivefold is expected to have similarly magnified gains. Once initiated across the leading LIMS providers, this offers a permanent, broad-based system for monitoring performance of the individual laboratory and details on the performance across all forensic science. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) is a nonprofit professional society of crime laboratory directors and forensic science managers dedicated to 8|Page May 2019 providing excellence in forensic science through leadership and innovation. The purpose of the organization is to foster professional interests, assist the development of laboratory management principles and techniques; acquire, preserve and disseminate forensic based information; maintain and improve communications among crime laboratory directors; and to promote, encourage and maintain the highest standards of practice in the field. With this mandate, ASCLD proposed to the Laura and John Arnold Foundation an investment to dramatically increase the efficiency and effectiveness of crime laboratories nationwide through the creation of financial intelligence software. With ever increasing demands for services and shrinking budgets, a crime laboratory must have a thorough understanding of their operations from a business perspective and a means to compare that performance to the standards of the “forensic science industry.” The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has led efforts to improve laboratory business practices through the creation of Project FORESIGHT. Project FORESIGHT is a performance benchmarking model that enables crime laboratories to perform an internal business assessment and external comparison by standardizing terminology and performance metrics across local, state, and federal laboratories. The FORESIGHT Project began as a funding award from the National Institute of Justice to the West Virginia University Forensic Science Initiative to develop a system that would enable laboratories to understand and assess the relationship between their casework, personnel, and budgetary expenditures. Forensic laboratory managers use these functions to assess resource allocations, human capital development, drive efficiencies, and evaluate the value of services—the mission is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. FORESIGHT is intended to support significant and enduring systematic reforms in accountability and decision-making in public forensic laboratories. Participation in FORESIGHT is free, voluntary, and open to forensic science laboratories worldwide. FORESIGHT has led to significant improvement at the individual laboratory level and for the forensic industry. Evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of a crime laboratory was virtually impossible without a common industry language and corresponding performance benchmarks. Individual annual reports to contributing laboratories detail the laboratory’s metrics with emphasis on productivity, risk management, analytical process, and economic market forces. These annual evaluations are equivalent to a consultant’s report, highlighting performance over time and across the industry. Even though participation is costless, less than 20% of U.S. laboratories enroll in the project. This low participation is not a comment on value of the project; rather a product of the difficulty of data extraction from multiple computer systems. Casework data is extracted from the LIMS, while personnel data and expenditures are extracted from one or more computer systems of the laboratory’s parent organization (generally, a policing organization). To bridge the firewalls protecting the data in each system, laboratory management must manually extract data from these multiple systems to report their performance to project FORESIGHT. For many laboratories, the 9|Page May 2019 cost in time and resources is deemed too high to participate. NIJ recognizes this burden and their Forensic Science Technology Working Group Operation Requirements highlight the need for increased IT knowledge and software for management to improve productivity. FORESIGHT has led to a macro view of the provision of forensic science services. The common measurements have permitted a review of fundamental economic hypotheses and the delivery of crime laboratory services for economic regions. The results have shown that individual laboratories are highly efficient in the provision of services, but rarely cost effective because of the reliance on political jurisdictions, rather than economic markets, for the provision of services. Although many laboratories have adopted this program to guide their operations, a major obstacle for implementation has been the “hands on” time required by laboratory staff to manually gather and input the required data. This data is composed of both laboratory and financial metrics, each of which is stored in separate locations or in systems that do not communicate. This then requires significant time dedicated to downloading this information and transferring it to the FORESIGHT program. The FORESIGHT program is not integrated with any of the existing vendor LIMS systems. As the LIMS systems have evolved, their capabilities have advanced to allow a more detailed monitoring of evidence samples as they move through the laboratory system. The crime laboratory user can detect problems and/or issues with samples before a report is issued and provides for a greater transparency to the criminal justice system as to the analysis history and quality assurance of that item of evidence. The development of such freeware then permits simple extraction and submission of FORESIGHT data. That allows 100% participation for all U.S. laboratories. Such a census, rather than the current voluntary sample, will benefit both the new participants as well as those laboratories currently in the program as a more complete picture of the forensic industry emerges. With the combination of casework, expenditures, and personnel data in a single database, the freeware will also permit easier reporting for federal grant purposes. For laboratory leadership, the freeware also permits the construction of a manager’s data dashboard with up-to-the-minute productivity metrics. The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors is requesting funding to support the development of freeware software, FORESIGHT 20/20, enabling the seamless data collection of core business metrics from Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) commonly employed by laboratories. Once implemented into the major LIMS providers, this legacy program requires no expenditures for individual laboratories beyond the normal updating of their LIMS. 10 | P a g e May 2019 Relative Volume & Activity Metrics The use of the forensic crime laboratory differs across jurisdictions. The FBI’s uniform crime reporting (UCR) offers some indication of the volume of crime. FORESIGHT offers additional indication of the role of the forensic crime laboratory in the processing of evidence for the population served by the laboratory. Cases per 100,000 Population Served A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 1: Cases per 100,000 Population Served Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 28.54 24.59 3.12 70.59 140.04 1.32 146.85 22.14 0.07 42.30 2.80 17.37 51.66 2.81 0.32 23.78 41.69 44.44 1.33 Median 72.59 347.47 6.66 109.42 187.34 2.11 266.05 31.28 0.26 86.76 3.41 26.84 51.66 4.78 0.47 69.33 56.09 49.67 2.62 75th percentile 113.16 747.03 70.59 154.27 311.10 22.44 510.55 56.16 0.97 250.90 4.64 91.15 51.66 10.39 0.64 74.16 125.05 71.49 3.52 11 | P a g e May 2019 Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. Table 2: Items Processed Internally per 100,000 Population Served Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 33.53 73.92 11.79 179.27 126.43 5.24 312.39 10.91 0.07 194.73 5.95 58.90 78.14 73.92 19.25 235.99 175.16 11.19 629.07 10.91 0.18 499.16 8.80 125.28 197.14 73.92 192.63 359.68 307.49 13.67 757.11 10.91 0.32 822.38 11.09 204.78 3.25 0.42 58.13 43.43 65.49 3.89 5.40 1.01 124.28 64.53 68.17 6.74 24.56 1.63 260.33 191.52 84.46 7.49 12 | P a g e May 2019 Samples per 100,000 Population Served A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. Table 3: Samples Examined per 100,000 Population Served Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 29.30 78.14 158.86 357.46 156.18 12.47 629.31 469.86 250.28 13.74 792.78 643.75 343.08 14.47 886.55 1.09 231.59 6.98 68.76 1.49 525.70 12.38 130.18 8.24 743.97 16.71 239.89 5.02 7.92 24.88 50.05 43.18 66.98 6.33 354.89 62.14 88.20 13.39 377.91 137.80 125.94 20.47 13 | P a g e May 2019 Tests per 100,000 Population Served A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. Table 4: Tests Performed per 100,000 Population Served Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 99.00 161.89 582.99 908.70 139.92 9.46 1,108.76 1,510.66 468.87 10.89 1,280.47 2,214.78 910.28 12.32 2,034.11 2.06 617.92 11.28 93.57 3.18 980.29 24.73 193.95 19.13 2,873.57 25.69 418.97 4.58 6.47 14.03 200.22 120.39 183.19 28.43 336.92 232.33 205.96 35.38 354.89 468.54 294.45 100.42 14 | P a g e May 2019 Reports per 100,000 Population Served A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. Table 5: Reports per 100,000 Population Served Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th Median percentile 75th percentile 31.96 60.54 3.86 63.77 9.72 0.74 140.63 75.85 116.22 6.35 92.97 35.98 1.41 272.61 132.97 1,278.23 33.56 129.14 98.08 1.78 561.35 0.03 32.03 2.43 15.49 0.08 88.67 3.28 29.01 0.13 263.93 4.08 99.15 2.51 0.34 34.78 40.47 48.62 1.10 2.92 0.53 59.76 46.49 50.52 2.15 9.27 0.54 71.00 111.56 51.69 2.79 15 | P a g e May 2019 Cost Metrics Cost per Case The cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 6: Cost per Case by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile $95 $789 $2,515 $1,040 $39 $3,210 $230 $510 $12,848 $499 $1,397 $1,218 $1,717 $2,141 $5,584 $791 $629 $753 $2,417 Median $141 $1,568 $4,300 $1,253 $57 $4,633 $346 $635 $17,457 $786 $2,107 $1,799 $1,717 $3,067 $6,706 $912 $851 $865 $4,404 75th percentile $229 $3,467 $7,968 $1,975 $86 $5,389 $400 $855 $20,122 $1,206 $2,925 $2,939 $1,718 $4,103 $8,754 $1,797 $1,128 $1,201 $6,055 Project FORESIGHT submissions have increased annually. Although laboratory participation is voluntary, the summary statistics have been relatively consistent across 16 | P a g e May 2019 time, particularly for areas of investigation that have large numbers of submissions. For those areas with fewer observations, there has been a fair amount of fluctuation, indicative of the smaller sample and the voluntary nature of the submissions. To illustrate the time series behaviour of the median performance, the following table provides a comparison of the cost/case over time after correcting for inflation. These measures are termed “real cost/case” where real refers to inflation-adjusted measures. Prior year’s metrics have been converted to 2017-2018 prices. Table 7: Real* Cost per Case across Time 2012 2013 Blood Alcohol $147 Crime Scene Investigation $6,517 Digital evidence $8,314 DNA Casework $2,461 DNA Database $80 Document Examination $8,343 Drugs - Controlled Substances $338 Evidence Screening & Processing $2,044 Explosives $17,412 Fingerprints $651 Fire analysis $1,688 Firearms and Ballistics $893 Forensic Pathology $2,737 Gun Shot Residue (GSR) $2,788 Marks and Impressions $11,633 Serology/Biology $2,694 Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) $619 Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) $795 Trace Evidence $4,948 *2017-2018= 100 Area of Investigation 2013 2014 $160 $2,363 $2,942 $1,908 $103 $3,330 $396 $659 $8,885 $708 $2,652 $1,439 $2,522 $2,106 $3,787 $833 $591 $1,035 $6,021 2014 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2018 $156 $177 $181 $141 $3,988 $5,705 $3,877 $1,568 $3,261 $4,565 $12,233 $4,300 $2,188 $1,912 $1,925 $1,253 $85 $106 $105 $57 $4,758 $4,942 $7,156 $4,633 $382 $447 $502 $346 $1,390 $1,687 $1,913 $635 $13,927 $17,100 $16,405 $17,457 $955 $991 $903 $786 $2,203 $2,654 $2,775 $2,107 $2,423 $2,512 $1,920 $1,799 $2,429 $2,879 $4,663 $1,717 $2,957 $3,304 $3,610 $3,067 $7,929 $8,940 $7,951 $6,706 $1,929 $2,119 $1,998 $912 $680 $818 $752 $851 $807 $971 $922 $865 $4,509 $5,208 $4,935 $4,404 Cost per Item Differences in case detail and differences in case complexity across laboratories (and across time) suggest that other relative cost measures may offer more meaningful comparison. FORESIGHT data collection includes measures for items, samples, and tests in each investigative area. 17 | P a g e May 2019 An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. Table 8: Cost per Item Processed by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile $102 $232 $708 $363 $41 $811 $136 $156 $4,175 $233 $546 $471 $1,190 $1,967 $215 $563 $361 $37 $149 $440 $1,334 $414 $55 $1,171 $194 $289 $4,541 $362 $805 $804 75th percentile $199 $732 $4,215 $706 $85 $1,538 $222 $570 $5,468 $521 $1,196 $1,091 $1,511 $2,461 $275 $710 $415 $63 $2,041 $3,164 $505 $963 $548 $83 Median 18 | P a g e May 2019 Cost per Sample A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. The sample offers a consistently applied metric across laboratories and suggests an average cost measure that is intuitively comparable in cross sectional commentary. Table 9: Cost per Sample by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th Median percentile $102 $132 $143 $268 $1,050 $1,758 $223 $263 $41 $53 $485 $717 $89 $118 $365 $365 $1,328 $1,675 $149 $230 $254 $366 $306 $469 $585 $592 $48 $306 $203 $22 $760 $784 $65 $339 $231 $33 75th percentile $180 $710 $4,490 $407 $81 $1,055 $138 $365 $2,442 $342 $547 $647 $1,038 $966 $108 $544 $319 $46 19 | P a g e May 2019 Cost per Test A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. Table 10: Cost per Test by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile $52 $80 75th percentile $140 $32 $53 $36 $129 $45 $182 $67 $52 $280 $54 $708 $98 $78 $1,123 $63 $300 $70 $166 $247 $396 $101 $242 $392 $627 $143 $336 $532 $414 $446 $40 $84 $75 $11 $496 $556 $56 $109 $87 $16 $684 $766 $87 $147 $115 $21 Median 20 | P a g e May 2019 Cost per Report A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. As noted above, the cost includes allocations for capital, wages & salary, benefits, overtime & temporary hires, chemicals, reagents, consumables, gases, travel, quality assurance and accreditation, subcontracting, service of instruments, advertisements, non-instrument repairs and maintenance, equipment leasing, utilities, telecommunications, overhead, and other expenses. Table 11: Cost per Report by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile $81 $897 $1,158 $648 $37 $2,783 $126 $9,519 $347 $718 $779 $1,706 $1,280 $3,595 $224 $210 $568 $1,364 $107 $2,057 $3,904 $1,118 $56 $4,382 $281 75th percentile $188 $4,296 $7,073 $1,548 $86 $5,220 $394 $12,682 $702 $1,791 $1,337 $1,716 $2,862 $7,034 $884 $687 $860 $3,547 $21,205 $998 $2,865 $2,686 $1,727 $4,113 $9,420 $1,352 $992 $1,212 $6,047 Median 21 | P a g e May 2019 Metric Interpretation The various unit cost metrics may be interpreted using the technique highlighted in The Decomposition of Return on Investment for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 96-102. Consider the Cost/Case metric which may be decomposed into: 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑥 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 From the decomposition expression for the Cost/Case, an increase in the numerator components, Average Compensation or Testing (or Sampling) Intensity, will increase the cost per case. Similarly, a decrease in denominator component will increase the cost per case. This may occur from either a drop in productivity, as measured by cases processed per FTE, or from an increase in capital investment for future productivity but financed via a drop in personnel expenses relative to total expenses. Although the metric breakdown illustrated above offers a decomposition of the Cost/Case metric, a similar procedure may be applied to other cost metrics. Likewise, the Testing Intensity metric may be replaced by a Sampling Intensity metric (e.g., Samples/Case) or similar decomposition which offers the most meaning to the individual laboratory. Market Metrics A substantial portion of the cost to the laboratory comes through personal services budget for salary and benefits. (The section below on Analytical Process Metrics highlights the percentage of total costs attributable to personnel expenditures.) Laboratories across the globe and across a particular country face very different labor markets and cost of living conditions. As such, accounting for the salary and benefit pressures in each market is beyond the direct control of the individual laboratory and is subject to the market forces in a laboratory’s political jurisdiction. It may be helpful for a laboratory to replace their specific average compensation with that of the reported sample median to gain insight into how they compare to other laboratories once market forces have been neutralized. 22 | P a g e May 2019 Average Compensation Note that compensation includes all personnel expenditures. This includes wages, salary, and benefits operating staff, support staff, and administrative staff. Centrally assigned compensation is apportioned to each investigative area according to the percentage of full-time equivalent employees assigned to a particular investigative area. Note that values reported in this table and other tables with budgetary metrics have been converted to the currency of the reporting laboratory using the exchange rate for December 31 of the measured year as reported at www.xe.com. Table 12: Average Compensation by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile $59,832 $88,211 $100,055 $104,554 $84,363 $101,501 $91,287 $79,171 $100,569 $89,676 $101,062 $100,481 $463,080 $91,590 $94,682 $91,158 $94,799 $94,234 $93,017 Median $75,527 $104,901 $109,747 $118,648 $97,938 $108,847 $103,478 $84,852 $103,040 $96,068 $105,279 $105,532 $469,299 $97,935 $102,616 $98,857 $99,657 $100,634 $99,252 75th percentile $85,915 $118,748 $117,136 $126,583 $111,963 $119,234 $108,656 $89,923 $107,908 $103,810 $110,082 $110,541 $475,518 $104,276 $114,228 $103,995 $103,376 $108,662 $107,063 23 | P a g e May 2019 Risk Management Metrics There are a variety of metrics that may be used in the decomposition of average cost to suggest quality and/or risk. Three of these metrics follow to highlight the level of testing, sampling, and items examined internally per case. Items per Case An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 13: Items per Case by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.01 2.88 1.67 2.79 1.00 3.01 1.66 1.50 3.26 2.14 2.45 2.59 2.00 2.66 3.64 1.16 2.17 75.53 1.04 4.72 2.69 2.97 1.00 4.11 1.76 2.43 3.74 2.22 2.52 2.77 75th percentile 1.11 6.86 4.30 3.12 1.01 4.90 1.86 3.34 4.24 2.28 2.56 2.85 2.07 2.75 3.73 1.19 2.22 78.04 2.19 2.93 3.77 1.23 2.27 81.32 Median 24 | P a g e May 2019 Samples per Case A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 14: Samples per Case by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.02 3.47 1.81 4.42 1.00 4.61 2.71 2.36 8.43 3.64 5.54 4.50 3.91 8.62 16.86 1.07 3.86 130.20 1.07 7.76 3.91 4.90 1.00 6.45 2.96 2.36 9.83 3.72 5.77 4.68 75th percentile 1.22 12.62 5.90 5.08 1.02 8.80 3.10 2.36 11.14 3.80 6.16 4.92 4.05 8.87 17.50 1.10 3.96 135.50 4.17 9.18 17.75 2.03 4.06 144.84 Median 25 | P a g e May 2019 Tests per Case A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 15: Tests per Case by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.72 1.89 75th percentile 1.96 7.24 19.12 1.00 6.05 6.25 16.87 20.83 1.00 17.22 6.58 92.61 21.88 1.04 32.11 6.81 30.93 8.20 8.44 5.46 42.07 8.59 8.97 5.70 50.11 8.82 9.42 5.90 6.11 11.64 19.64 7.74 10.25 261.92 6.32 12.58 20.03 7.91 10.56 272.17 6.57 13.38 20.54 8.05 10.96 285.30 Median 26 | P a g e May 2019 Reports per Case A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. A case in an investigative area refers to a request from a crime laboratory customer that includes forensic investigation in that investigative area. Note that a customer request may lead to a case in multiple investigative areas. Table 16: Reports per Case by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 0.91 0.97 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.80 0.92 0.91 0.95 1.00 0.92 0.89 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.81 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 75th percentile 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.85 1.03 0.99 1.00 1.04 1.01 0.96 0.96 0.98 1.01 0.98 0.92 Median 27 | P a g e May 2019 Samples per Item A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. Table 17: Samples per Item examined internally by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.01 1.15 1.02 1.53 1.00 1.24 1.45 1.03 2.43 1.90 1.62 1.00 1.56 1.65 75th percentile 1.08 3.43 3.89 1.73 1.00 2.31 1.74 2.10 1.61 2.21 1.61 2.60 1.68 2.32 1.75 3.24 1.75 2.44 1.84 1.81 3.00 4.47 1.00 1.71 1.62 1.95 3.25 4.68 1.00 1.79 1.73 2.03 3.39 4.79 1.69 1.84 1.91 Median 28 | P a g e May 2019 Tests per Item A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. Table 18: Tests per Item examined internally by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.50 1.85 75th percentile 1.95 1.14 6.42 1.00 1.14 3.48 6.87 6.86 1.00 4.02 3.70 85.20 7.36 1.00 8.57 3.91 7.41 3.64 3.40 1.96 11.55 3.89 3.59 2.07 15.01 4.05 3.76 2.24 2.92 4.19 5.21 6.35 4.53 3.31 3.04 4.49 5.40 6.60 4.71 3.50 3.22 4.73 5.61 6.83 4.97 3.95 Median 29 | P a g e May 2019 Reports per Item A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. An item refers to a single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note that one item may be investigated and counted in several investigation areas. Table 19: Reports per Item examined internally by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 0.82 0.14 0.24 0.31 1.00 0.20 0.52 0.93 0.19 0.47 0.34 1.00 0.25 0.55 75th percentile 0.98 0.26 0.82 0.36 1.00 0.33 0.57 0.20 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.27 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.45 0.40 0.38 0.43 0.31 0.25 0.79 0.41 0.01 0.46 0.32 0.26 0.82 0.43 0.01 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.86 0.45 0.01 Median 30 | P a g e May 2019 Tests per Sample A test refers to an analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. Table 20: Tests per Sample by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 1.45 1.80 75th percentile 1.94 1.10 3.85 1.00 0.90 2.09 2.84 4.24 1.00 2.08 2.18 53.06 4.60 1.00 3.98 2.30 3.05 2.16 1.45 1.14 4.29 2.32 1.52 1.20 5.19 2.38 1.60 1.29 1.49 1.32 1.12 2.99 2.58 1.87 1.55 1.40 1.15 3.15 2.69 2.01 1.63 1.54 1.21 3.69 2.80 2.20 Median 31 | P a g e May 2019 Reports per Sample A report refers to a formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. A sample refers to an item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reported result. Table 21: Reports per Sample by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 0.69 0.14 0.25 0.20 0.85 0.12 0.34 0.83 0.20 0.45 0.21 0.94 0.14 0.35 75th percentile 0.92 0.25 0.65 0.22 1.00 0.15 0.37 0.08 0.24 0.15 0.20 0.09 0.25 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.23 0.10 0.05 0.32 0.24 0.01 0.24 0.11 0.06 0.35 0.24 0.01 0.25 0.11 0.06 0.38 0.26 0.01 Median 32 | P a g e May 2019 Productivity Metrics Return to the decomposition measure for the cost/case. The denominator terms have the opposite effect on average cost. That is, as labor productivity or the labor expense ratio increase, average costs will fall. This confirms that, as a representative scientist is able to process more cases per year, then the effect will be a decrease in the average cost as fixed expenditures are averaged over a higher volume of processed cases. Similarly, if a greater portion of the budget is devoted to personnel expenditures (as opposed to capital investment) ceteris paribus, more cases will be processed for the same expenditure at the opportunity cost of delaying investment in capital equipment for future returns. The next five tables contain the LabRAT summary statistics for alternative personnel productivity ratio measures. 33 | P a g e May 2019 Cases per FTE This measure is simply the number of Cases completed for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area. Table 22: Cases per FTE by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 383 52 20 76 2,132 22 307 144 5 104 42 49 29 12 59 132 115 22 640 79 30 110 3,353 25 365 169 7 152 59 62 75th percentile 1,281 126 46 137 4,224 34 512 182 9 216 86 108 39 17 115 169 148 29 54 22 146 209 171 41 Median 34 | P a g e May 2019 Items per FTE This measure is the number of Items examined internally for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area. Table 23: Items examined internally per FTE by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 379 196 41 245 2,407 75 568 222 21 239 103 131 62 32 214 154 265 1,620 618 314 99 357 3,435 107 652 400 26 331 153 164 75th percentile 1,229 434 211 422 4,293 158 886 608 29 478 231 285 75 48 403 203 306 1,992 105 62 556 243 362 3,042 Median 35 | P a g e May 2019 Samples per FTE This measure is the number of samples from Items examined internally for each fulltime equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area. Table 24: Samples per FTE by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 484 286 42 395 2,691 125 900 420 48 371 237 224 119 107 895 221 454 2,910 655 590 76 554 3,591 169 1,022 420 63 540 338 283 75th percentile 1,227 958 148 662 4,297 255 1,349 420 94 772 467 456 154 147 1,607 425 568 3,656 206 197 2,511 436 636 5,207 Median 36 | P a g e May 2019 Tests per FTE This measure is the number of tests performed on samples for each full-time equivalent (FTE) employee (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area. Table 25: Tests per FTE by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 735 1,161 75th percentile 2,408 239 1,703 2,724 130 2,027 800 2,335 3,688 431 2,287 5,388 2,749 4,326 878 2,889 188 901 377 271 286 1,222 513 343 428 1,705 715 563 187 146 1,173 1,004 1,250 5,914 222 217 1,937 1,280 1,544 7,940 298 273 2,772 1,570 1,704 10,275 Median 37 | P a g e May 2019 Reports per FTE This measure is the number of reports filed per full-time equivalent (FTE) employees (the work input of a full-time employee working for one full year) retained by the laboratory. It gives an indication of the level of productivity within the average laboratory by investigative area. Table 26: Reports per FTE by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 381 48 20 85 2,075 21 307 4 95 41 48 298 27 10 57 124 112 19 672 69 35 113 3,228 26 357 75th percentile 1,276 99 53 138 4,288 32 480 7 140 55 62 303 36 15 105 170 139 23 9 191 83 100 309 50 20 140 202 163 37 Median 38 | P a g e May 2019 Analytical Process Metrics The next decomposition measure, Personnel Expense/Total Expense, serves as a proxy for the level of analytical technology chosen. This measure has a significant negative correlation with Capital Expense/Total Expense and serves as simpler decomposition term for the return on investment. Below, the cost structure is detailed with a breakdown of expenses in capital, labor, consumables, versus other costs. Investigative areas that are highly automated, such as evidenced by the DNA database processing line, should show a lower Personnel Expense/Total Expense. 39 | P a g e May 2019 Personnel Expense as a proportion of Total Expense Note that compensation includes all personnel expenditures. This includes wages, salary, and benefits operating staff, support staff, and administrative staff. Centrally assigned compensation is apportioned to each investigative area according to the percentage of full-time equivalent employees assigned to a particular investigative area. Table 27: Personnel Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 67.50% 70.14% 65.74% 67.58% 47.54% 84.03% 78.59% 67.25% 81.27% 82.86% 82.68% 73.63% 90.17% 81.75% 89.17% 86.65% 64.99% 68.57% 78.03% Median 78.64% 83.01% 71.18% 75.04% 53.89% 89.24% 83.02% 79.11% 86.15% 84.61% 85.08% 77.51% 90.17% 84.55% 91.39% 88.01% 69.34% 75.16% 82.43% 75th percentile 83.23% 92.55% 78.12% 81.74% 63.16% 94.42% 86.01% 83.54% 92.78% 85.76% 86.01% 81.05% 90.17% 87.86% 91.68% 90.11% 73.18% 80.43% 84.73% 40 | P a g e May 2019 Capital Expense as a proportion of Total Expense Capital expenditures reference those purchases by the laboratory for assets whose use extends across time periods. Since depreciation classifications place laboratory equipment into a five-year depreciation class, the capital expenditures over a five-year period are averaged in the determination of this portion of a laboratory’s expenditures. Table 28: Capital Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 2.96% 1.32% 6.34% 4.96% 8.65% 0.38% 3.21% 2.76% 1.55% 3.37% 2.93% 3.03% 1.88% 3.23% 1.46% 0.79% 7.86% 4.22% 4.57% Median 4.38% 5.07% 14.67% 6.95% 17.52% 1.00% 4.00% 5.18% 3.00% 3.96% 3.15% 4.65% 1.89% 4.47% 1.68% 1.31% 10.75% 6.63% 5.39% 75th percentile 10.21% 11.84% 20.29% 9.86% 21.85% 1.66% 5.76% 7.55% 4.44% 4.38% 3.50% 6.77% 1.89% 5.00% 2.10% 1.87% 13.52% 10.50% 7.69% 41 | P a g e May 2019 Consumables Expense as a proportion of Total Expense This category includes a variety of variable cost components including chemicals, reagents, consumables, and gases. Table 29: Consumables Expenditures/Total Expenditures by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 3.86% 0.08% 0.08% 4.07% 2.23% 0.35% 2.65% 2.28% 1.37% 1.48% 2.57% 3.54% 3.38% 1.83% 1.19% 2.50% 5.56% 4.76% 2.18% Median 5.61% 0.41% 0.78% 6.25% 4.30% 0.88% 3.45% 4.01% 2.53% 1.68% 2.72% 5.05% 3.38% 2.26% 1.31% 2.98% 7.10% 5.75% 2.46% 75th percentile 9.26% 0.82% 3.28% 9.90% 6.04% 1.40% 4.70% 4.95% 3.68% 1.86% 3.09% 7.07% 3.38% 2.97% 1.70% 3.75% 8.18% 7.48% 3.01% 42 | P a g e May 2019 Other Expenses as a proportion of Total Expense This category includes all other cost components not accounted for above in personnel, capital, and consumables expenses. Table 30: Other Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 5.65% 2.58% 5.99% 6.16% 17.65% 3.94% 6.59% 8.98% 3.00% 8.27% 7.98% 9.38% 4.56% 7.22% 5.40% 6.39% 9.77% 8.61% 7.97% Median 8.37% 7.00% 7.98% 8.83% 22.39% 5.98% 8.05% 11.08% 5.29% 9.39% 8.62% 11.41% 4.57% 8.17% 5.85% 6.90% 11.55% 9.98% 9.22% 75th percentile 11.31% 12.73% 13.47% 11.75% 27.15% 11.35% 9.98% 19.14% 7.77% 10.26% 9.27% 15.03% 4.57% 9.18% 6.40% 7.82% 13.60% 12.87% 10.20% 43 | P a g e May 2019 Turn-around Time Note that turn-around time is offered in two forms. The first is a measure that begins when the last item of evidence in an investigative area has been submitted to the laboratory. The second measure begins the turn-around time count with the submission of the first piece of evidence in an investigative area. Because most laboratories only record one or the other of these measures, there is some seeming inconsistency which is attributed to the limited sample. The metric has been slightly altered from previous years to correspond to recommendations from Project FORESIGHT participants. The change in the metric reflects the time from each request for analysis to issuance of a report. As such, a case in one investigative area may have multiple turn-around times that correspond to separate requests. Turn-around Time (Timed in days from last submission of evidence to Report submission) Table 31: Turnaround Time from Last Item Received by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 16 18 55 63 22 26 36 20 172 79 79 58 40 63 75th percentile 28 378 133 129 163 58 75 64 28 23 32 88 53 64 48 111 71 106 87 34 60 30 63 39 40 49 68 41 68 58 157 73 92 61 72 86 366 Median 44 | P a g e May 2019 Turn-around Time (Timed in days from first submission of evidence to Report submission) Table 32: Turnaround Time from First Item Received by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 19 16 97 88 35 42 47 23 34 136 116 49 55 65 75th percentile 32 305 200 150 60 71 85 61 43 46 43 93 62 102 64 148 84 133 92 45 60 39 41 45 138 75 81 56 55 68 200 105 116 77 67 84 346 Median 45 | P a g e May 2019 Backlog Another area of concern involves the increased demand for laboratory services and the level of backlog. For data collection purposes, the definition of backlog has been defined as open cases at the end of the fiscal year that have been open for more than thirty days. As a relative comparative measure, the ratio of open cases to total cases for the year is presented in the following table. Cases Open over 30 Days/Annual Caseload Table 33: Backlog Cases as a Percent of Total Cases by Investigative Area Area of Investigation Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprints Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions Serology/Biology Toxicology ante mortem (excluding BAC) Toxicology post mortem (excluding BAC) Trace Evidence 25th percentile 6% 29% 70% 34% 49% 65% 28% 9% 31% 82% 59% 72% 73% 51% 75th percentile 12% 33% 89% 76% 82% 84% 65% 50% 44% 51% 51% 78% 56% 68% 66% 100% 65% 80% 78% 33% 50% 23% 50% 35% 79% 66% 69% 51% 59% 60% 89% 83% 83% 65% 69% 69% 93% Median 46 | P a g e May 2019 Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness of Forensic Science Services—FORESIGHT 2017-2018 Benchmark Data The summary statistics offer a one-dimensional view of performance. In this section, that view is expanded through a consideration of cost effectiveness and efficiency. Economic theory indicates that any industry, including forensic science laboratories, will have average costs (Cost/Case) that decline as caseload is increased until reaching a point of perfect economies of scale. Thereafter, diseconomies of scale will be realized and average costs will rise as caseload increases. This behavior is exemplified via Ushaped average cost curves. For each investigative area, the industry average total cost curve has been estimated by a series of non-linear regressions. When a laboratory performs on or near the curve, it is an indication of efficiency for the corresponding caseload. For an efficient performance that is near the bottom of the U-shaped curve, the laboratory exhibits cost effective performance as it approaches perfect economies of scale. Each of the average cost curves is illustrated with a corresponding table of values for the cost/case for various caseloads. Also note that productivity in the form of Cases/FTE versus the corresponding caseload exhibits an inverted curve as compared to the average cost. Research to-date suggests that the level of productivity for any caseload is the most critical component in the DuPont breakdown to explain efficiency in the laboratory. That is, a laboratory which exemplifies high productivity for their caseload is likely to be operating near peak efficient average cost for that level of casework. In addition to this cross–sectional comparison, it is recommended that participants track their average cost and productivity for all past FORESIGHT submissions in real terms. The term “real” indicates that costs have been adjusted for inflation and converted to the most recent year’s price index. 47 | P a g e May 2019 Blood Alcohol Analysis Figure 1: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $600.00 $500.00 Cost/Case $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 20,000 Cases Processed 2,500 Cases/FTE 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 5,000 10,000 Cases Processed Figure 2: Efficient Frontier for Blood Alcohol—Cases/FTE v. Cases Processed Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 48 | P a g e May 2019 Table 34: Efficient Frontier for Blood & Breath Alcohol Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads Cases 125 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 Efficient Cost/Case $335.93 $325.36 $308.68 $295.74 $285.17 $276.23 $268.49 $261.66 $255.55 $244.98 $236.04 $228.30 $221.47 $215.36 $209.83 $204.78 $200.14 $195.85 $191.85 $182.91 $175.16 $168.33 $162.22 Cases/ FTE 162 177 202 225 245 263 281 297 312 340 366 389 412 433 453 472 490 507 524 564 601 635 667 Cases 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 Efficient Cost/Case $156.70 $151.65 $147.01 $142.71 $138.71 $134.97 $131.46 $128.14 $125.01 $122.03 $111.46 $102.52 $94.78 $87.95 $81.84 $76.31 $71.27 $66.63 $62.33 $58.33 $54.59 $51.07 $47.76 Cases/ FTE 698 727 756 782 808 833 858 881 904 926 1,010 1,086 1,157 1,223 1,285 1,345 1,401 1,455 1,507 1,557 1,605 1,652 1,697 49 | P a g e May 2019 Crime Scene Investigation Figure 3: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $14,000 $12,000 Cost/Case $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 Cases Processed 350 300 Cases/FTE 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Cases Processed Figure 4: Efficient Frontier Crime Scene Investigation—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 50 | P a g e May 2019 Table 35: Efficient Frontier for Crime Scene Investigation—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads Cases 12 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 400 450 Efficient Cost/Case $9,777 $8,769 $6,837 $5,804 $5,135 $4,656 $4,292 $4,003 $3,767 $3,568 $3,398 $3,251 $3,121 $2,856 $2,649 $2,483 $2,344 $2,227 $2,126 $2,038 $1,890 $1,771 $1,672 Cases/ FTE 21 23 27 31 34 36 38 40 42 43 45 46 47 50 53 56 58 60 62 64 67 70 73 Cases 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 5,000 6,000 Efficient Cost/Case $1,589 $1,454 $1,348 $1,263 $1,193 $1,133 $1,082 $1,037 $997 $962 $930 $863 $809 $763 $725 $692 $664 $638 $616 $595 $577 $517 $473 Cases/ FTE 76 81 85 89 93 96 99 102 105 108 110 116 122 127 131 135 140 143 147 151 154 166 177 51 | P a g e May 2019 Digital Evidence Figure 5: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 Cases/FTE $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Cases Processed 80 70 Cases/FTE 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Cases Processed Figure 6: Efficient Frontier Digital Evidence—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 52 | P a g e May 2019 Table 36: Efficient Frontier for Digital Evidence—Efficient Cost/Case & Cases/FTE for Various Caseloads Cases 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $15,579 $13,537 $12,139 $11,105 $10,300 $9,649 $9,110 $8,653 $7,916 $7,342 $6,878 $6,494 $6,168 $5,887 $5,643 $5,426 $5,233 $5,060 $4,903 $4,760 $4,629 $4,508 $4,397 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 Cases 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 750 800 850 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $4,151 $3,943 $3,763 $3,607 $3,468 $3,345 $3,234 $3,134 $3,043 $2,959 $2,882 $2,810 $2,744 $2,683 $2,625 $2,571 $2,520 $2,472 $2,427 $2,384 $2,305 $2,234 $2,169 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 59 53 | P a g e May 2019 DNA Casework Analysis Figure 7: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 Cost/Case $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Cases Processed 350 300 Cases/FTE 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Cases Processed Figure 8: Efficient Frontier DNA Casework—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 54 | P a g e May 2019 Table 37: Efficient Frontier for DNA Casework—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $3,309 $3,115 $2,960 $2,832 $2,630 $2,475 $2,352 $2,250 $2,164 $2,089 $1,967 $1,869 $1,788 $1,719 $1,660 $1,608 $1,563 $1,522 $1,485 $1,451 $1,379 $1,319 $1,268 50 53 55 58 61 65 67 70 72 75 79 82 85 88 91 93 96 98 100 102 106 110 114 Cases 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $1,225 $1,187 $1,153 $1,123 $1,095 $1,048 $1,008 $973 $943 $916 $892 $870 $851 $833 $801 $773 $749 $728 $709 $692 $676 $662 $648 118 121 124 127 129 134 139 143 147 151 154 158 161 164 169 174 179 183 188 192 195 199 203 55 | P a g e May 2019 DNA Database Figure 9: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $1,000.00 $900.00 $800.00 Cost/Case $700.00 $600.00 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 60,000 70,000 Cases Processed 12,000 10,000 Cases/FTE 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cases Processed Figure 10: Efficient Frontier DNA Database—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 56 | P a g e May 2019 Table 38: Efficient Frontier for DNA Database—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $785 $546 $380 $307 $264 $214 $184 $164 $149 $137 $128 $120 $114 $103 $95 $89 $84 $79 $75 $72 $69 $66 $64 217 313 453 561 654 811 944 1,063 1,171 1,271 1,364 1,452 1,535 1,691 1,835 1,970 2,097 2,217 2,332 2,442 2,548 2,651 2,749 Cases 16,000 17,000 19,500 22,000 24,500 27,000 29,500 32,000 34,500 37,000 39,500 42,000 44,500 47,000 49,500 52,000 54,500 57,000 59,500 62,000 64,500 67,000 69,500 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $62 $60 $56 $52 $50 $47 $45 $43 $41 $40 $39 $37 $36 $35 $34 $33 $33 $32 $31 $30 $30 $29 $29 2,845 2,938 3,160 3,369 3,566 3,755 3,936 4,109 4,277 4,438 4,595 4,747 4,895 5,039 5,179 5,316 5,450 5,581 5,710 5,836 5,960 6,081 6,200 57 | P a g e May 2019 Document Examination Figure 11: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $12,000 $10,000 Cost/Case $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,200 Cases Processed 100 90 80 Cases/FTE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 Cases Processed Figure 12: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 58 | P a g e May 2019 Table 39: Efficient Frontier for Document Examination—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $9,918 $9,264 $8,762 $8,359 $8,025 $7,741 $7,496 $7,002 $6,623 $6,318 $6,066 $5,851 $5,666 $5,359 $5,112 $4,908 $4,735 $4,585 $4,453 $4,336 $4,232 $4,137 $4,051 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 Cases 175 200 225 250 275 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,800 1,900 2,100 2,300 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $3,864 $3,710 $3,579 $3,465 $3,366 $3,278 $3,002 $2,804 $2,652 $2,530 $2,429 $2,343 $2,269 $2,204 $2,146 $2,094 $2,047 $2,005 $1,965 $1,896 $1,865 $1,809 $1,759 31 32 33 34 35 36 40 43 45 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 68 70 59 | P a g e May 2019 Drugs—Controlled Substances Figure 13: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis— Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $1,400 $1,200 Cost/Case $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Cases Processed 1,800 1,600 1,400 Cases/FTE 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Cases Processed Figure 14: Efficient Frontier Document Examination—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 60 | P a g e May 2019 Table 40: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis— Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $457 $426 $406 $390 $378 $368 $360 $353 $346 $341 $335 $331 $327 $323 $319 $316 $313 $310 $307 $305 $302 $300 $298 239 259 274 287 297 306 315 322 329 335 341 347 352 357 361 366 370 374 378 381 385 388 391 Cases 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,500 13,500 14,500 15,500 16,500 17,500 18,500 19,500 20,500 21,500 22,500 23,500 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $293 $290 $286 $283 $280 $277 $275 $272 $270 $268 $266 $262 $259 $255 $253 $250 $247 $245 $243 $241 $239 $237 $235 398 404 409 414 419 424 429 433 437 442 445 453 460 466 473 479 484 490 495 500 504 509 513 61 | P a g e May 2019 Evidence Screening & Processing Figure 15: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $2,500 Cost/Case $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 3,500 4,000 4,500 Cases Processed 300 250 Cases/FTE 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Cases Processed Figure 16: Efficient Frontier for Drugs-Controlled Substances Analysis— Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 62 | P a g e May 2019 Table 41: Efficient Frontier for Evidence Screening & Processing—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 $1,132 $1,072 $1,021 $977 $938 $904 $873 $846 $821 $798 $777 $758 $740 $723 $708 $694 $680 $667 $655 $644 $633 $623 $613 133 136 139 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 157 159 160 162 163 164 166 167 168 169 171 172 775 800 825 850 900 950 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 $604 $595 $587 $579 $563 $549 $537 $513 $493 $475 $459 $445 $431 $408 $389 $372 $357 $344 $333 $322 $313 $304 $296 173 174 175 176 178 180 181 185 188 191 194 196 199 203 207 211 215 218 221 224 227 230 232 63 | P a g e May 2019 Explosives Analysis Figure 17: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $80,000 $70,000 Cost/Case $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 0 10 20 30 40 50 40 50 Cases Processed 30.00 25.00 Cases/FTE 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 Cases Processed Figure 18 : Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 64 | P a g e May 2019 Table 42: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 $52,386 $38,086 $31,606 $27,689 $24,988 $22,978 $21,405 $20,130 $19,068 $18,166 $17,387 $16,705 $16,101 $15,562 $15,076 $14,635 $14,232 $13,863 $13,522 $13,207 $12,914 $12,641 $12,385 2.04 2.88 3.52 4.07 4.55 4.98 5.38 5.75 6.10 6.43 6.74 7.04 7.33 7.61 7.87 8.13 8.38 8.63 8.86 9.09 9.32 9.53 9.75 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 $12,145 $11,919 $11,706 $11,504 $11,314 $11,132 $10,960 $10,796 $10,640 $10,490 $10,347 $10,210 $10,079 $9,952 $9,831 $9,714 $9,602 $9,493 $9,389 $9,288 $9,190 $9,095 $9,004 9.96 10.16 10.36 10.56 10.76 10.95 11.13 11.32 11.50 11.68 11.85 12.02 12.19 12.36 12.53 12.69 12.85 13.01 13.17 13.33 13.48 13.63 13.78 65 | P a g e May 2019 Fingerprint ID Figure 19: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $3,500 $3,000 Cost/Case $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 30,000 35,000 Cases Processed 600 500 Cases/FTE 400 300 200 100 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cases Processed Figure 20: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 66 | P a g e May 2019 Table 43: Efficient Frontier for Fingerprint Identification Analysis— Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $2,238 $2,050 $1,909 $1,796 $1,705 $1,627 $1,561 $1,504 $1,454 $1,368 $1,298 $1,240 $1,189 $1,146 $1,107 $1,073 $1,042 $1,014 $989 $944 $906 $872 $843 52.68 57.45 61.67 65.47 68.96 72.19 75.20 78.04 80.72 85.70 90.26 94.49 98.44 102.15 105.66 109.00 112.18 115.22 118.15 123.68 128.85 133.71 138.30 Cases 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,500 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 Efficient Cases/ Cost/Case FTE $817 $794 $772 $727 $690 $659 $632 $609 $588 $554 $525 $481 $448 $422 $400 $382 $367 $353 $341 $331 $321 $313 $305 142.67 146.83 150.82 160.13 168.65 176.55 183.92 190.86 197.42 209.60 220.75 240.74 258.41 274.35 288.95 302.48 315.11 327.00 338.24 348.92 359.11 368.86 378.22 67 | P a g e May 2019 Fire Analysis Figure 21: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $12,000 $10,000 Cost/Case $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cases Processed 350 300 Cases/FTE 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cases Processed Figure 22: Efficient Frontier for Explosives Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 68 | P a g e May 2019 Table 44: Efficient Frontier for Fire Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 $5,423 $4,997 $4,663 $4,392 $4,166 $3,973 $3,807 $3,661 $3,532 $3,417 $3,313 $3,218 25.23 27.19 28.96 30.60 32.11 33.53 34.87 36.14 37.35 38.50 39.61 40.67 56 58 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 110 $2,504 $2,465 $2,427 $2,342 $2,265 $2,196 $2,133 $2,076 $2,024 $1,975 $1,930 $1,849 51.18 51.92 52.65 54.41 56.09 57.70 59.25 60.75 62.19 63.59 64.94 67.53 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 $3,132 $3,052 $2,979 $2,912 $2,849 $2,790 $2,735 $2,683 $2,634 $2,588 $2,545 41.70 42.69 43.65 44.58 45.48 46.36 47.21 48.04 48.85 49.65 50.42 120 130 140 150 175 200 250 300 350 400 450 $1,779 $1,716 $1,660 $1,609 $1,502 $1,414 $1,280 $1,179 $1,100 $1,036 $983 69.99 72.33 74.56 76.71 81.72 86.32 94.61 101.96 108.63 114.75 120.44 69 | P a g e May 2019 Firearms & Ballistics Analysis Figure 23: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $16,000 $14,000 Cost/Case $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 8,000 9,000 Cases Processed 450 400 350 Cases/FTE 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Cases Processed Figure 24: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 70 | P a g e May 2019 Table 45: Efficient Frontier for Firearms & Ballistics Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 25 50 75 85 110 135 160 185 210 235 260 310 $9,402 $6,441 $5,162 $4,821 $4,188 $3,745 $3,414 $3,153 $2,943 $2,767 $2,619 $2,379 13.77 20.11 25.08 26.86 30.91 34.57 37.93 41.06 44.00 46.78 49.43 54.41 885 985 1,085 1,185 1,285 1,385 1,485 1,585 1,685 1,935 2,185 2,435 $1,342 $1,266 $1,201 $1,144 $1,095 $1,051 $1,012 $976 $944 $876 $819 $772 96.45 102.25 107.79 113.11 118.22 123.15 127.93 132.56 137.06 147.81 157.94 167.56 360 410 460 510 560 610 660 710 $2,193 $2,042 $1,918 $1,813 $1,723 $1,644 $1,575 $1,514 59.04 63.38 67.49 71.40 75.14 78.73 82.18 85.53 2,685 2,935 3,185 3,285 3,785 4,285 4,785 5,285 $732 $698 $667 $656 $607 $567 $534 $506 176.74 185.53 194.00 197.30 213.16 228.09 242.25 255.75 760 810 860 $1,458 $1,408 $1,363 88.76 91.90 94.95 6,285 7,285 8,285 $460 $425 $396 281.11 304.70 326.86 71 | P a g e May 2019 Forensic Pathology There is insufficient data to estimate the average total cost curve for this area of investigation. 72 | P a g e May 2019 Gunshot Residue Figure 25: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 Cost/Case $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Cases Processed 600 500 Cases/FTE 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Cases Processed Figure 26: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 73 | P a g e May 2019 Table 46: Efficient Frontier for Gunshot Residue Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 $15,342 $11,188 $9,301 $8,159 $7,370 $6,783 $6,323 $5,949 $5,639 $5,374 $5,146 $4,946 9.35 12.42 14.66 16.49 18.07 19.47 20.74 21.91 22.99 24.00 24.96 25.86 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 195 220 $2,858 $2,709 $2,582 $2,472 $2,376 $2,291 $2,215 $2,146 $2,084 $2,027 $1,904 $1,803 42.35 44.44 46.40 48.25 50.00 51.67 53.26 54.79 56.26 57.67 61.00 64.09 26 28 30 35 40 45 50 55 $4,769 $4,611 $4,468 $4,165 $3,919 $3,714 $3,540 $3,390 26.73 27.55 28.34 30.19 31.88 33.46 34.93 36.33 270 320 370 420 470 520 570 620 $1,642 $1,520 $1,423 $1,343 $1,276 $1,218 $1,168 $1,124 69.70 74.73 79.30 83.53 87.47 91.17 94.66 97.98 60 65 70 $3,258 $3,141 $3,037 37.64 38.90 40.10 720 820 920 $1,050 $990 $939 104.17 109.86 115.17 74 | P a g e May 2019 Marks & Impressions Analysis Figure 27: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Cases Processed $30,000 $25,000 Cost/Case $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 70 Cases Processed 140 120 Cases/FTE 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cases Processed Figure 28: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 75 | P a g e May 2019 Table 47: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 $24,105 $19,217 $16,362 $14,444 $13,044 $11,967 $11,107 $10,399 $9,804 $9,295 $8,854 $8,467 4.59 5.82 6.88 7.83 8.70 9.52 10.29 11.02 11.71 12.38 13.02 13.64 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 35 37 39 41 $5,875 $5,747 $5,627 $5,514 $5,407 $5,305 $5,209 $5,030 $4,867 $4,718 $4,582 $4,455 19.95 20.41 20.86 21.31 21.75 22.18 22.61 23.45 24.26 25.06 25.84 26.60 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 $8,123 $7,816 $7,539 $7,288 $7,059 $6,848 $6,655 $6,476 $6,310 $6,155 $6,010 14.24 14.83 15.39 15.94 16.48 17.01 17.52 18.03 18.52 19.01 19.48 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 $4,338 $4,229 $4,128 $4,033 $3,944 $3,860 $3,781 $3,706 $3,635 $3,568 $3,504 27.35 28.08 28.80 29.50 30.20 30.88 31.55 32.22 32.87 33.51 34.15 76 | P a g e May 2019 Serology/Biology Figure 29: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis--Average Total Cost v. Caseload $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 Cost/Case $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Cases Processed 600 500 Cases/FTE 400 300 200 100 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Cases Processed Figure 30: Efficient Frontier for Marks & Impressions Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 77 | P a g e May 2019 Table 48: Efficient Frontier for Serology/Biology Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 450 500 550 $2,311 $2,221 $2,143 $2,075 $2,002 $1,989 $1,976 $1,963 $1,951 $1,925 $1,900 $1,875 42.59 44.61 46.49 48.26 49.93 51.52 53.04 54.50 55.89 58.53 61.00 63.32 1,201 1,202 1,203 1,204 1,205 1,206 1,207 1,209 1,211 1,213 1,215 1,217 $1,575 $1,574 $1,574 $1,573 $1,573 $1,572 $1,572 $1,571 $1,570 $1,569 $1,569 $1,568 86.00 86.03 86.06 86.09 86.12 86.14 86.17 86.23 86.28 86.34 86.40 86.45 600 650 700 750 $1,851 $1,827 $1,802 $1,779 65.52 67.61 69.60 71.51 1,219 1,221 1,223 1,225 $1,567 $1,566 $1,565 $1,564 86.51 86.56 86.62 86.67 800 850 900 950 $1,755 $1,732 $1,709 $1,686 73.34 75.11 76.81 78.45 1,227 1,229 1,231 1,233 $1,563 $1,563 $1,562 $1,561 86.73 86.79 86.84 86.90 1,000 1,100 1,200 $1,663 $1,619 $1,575 80.05 83.09 85.98 1,235 1,237 1,239 $1,560 $1,559 $1,558 86.95 87.01 87.06 78 | P a g e May 2019 Toxicology Analysis ante mortem Figure 31: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem— Average Total Cost v. Caseload $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 Cost/Case $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Cases Processed 1,000 900 800 Cases/FTE 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Cases Processed Figure 32: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis ante mortem — Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 79 | P a g e May 2019 Table 49: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology ante mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 $1,738 $1,676 $1,619 $1,567 $1,520 $1,477 $1,437 $1,400 $1,366 $1,334 $1,304 $1,276 93 96 99 101 104 107 109 111 114 116 118 120 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,250 $993 $944 $901 $864 $830 $800 $773 $749 $726 $705 $686 $645 148 154 160 166 172 177 182 187 192 196 201 212 650 675 700 725 $1,250 $1,225 $1,201 $1,179 122 124 126 128 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 $609 $553 $509 $474 222 240 257 273 750 775 800 825 $1,158 $1,138 $1,119 $1,101 130 132 134 136 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,500 $446 $421 $400 $366 287 301 314 338 850 875 900 $1,083 $1,067 $1,051 138 140 141 7,500 8,500 9,500 $339 $317 $299 360 380 399 80 | P a g e May 2019 Toxicology Analysis post mortem Figure 33: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem— Average Total Cost v. Caseload $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 Cost/Case $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 Cases Processed 300 250 Cases/FTE 200 150 100 50 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Cases Processed Figure 34: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology Analysis post mortem — Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 81 | P a g e May 2019 Table 50: Efficient Frontier for Toxicology post mortem—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 450 500 550 $1,550 $1,531 $1,512 $1,493 $1,475 $1,457 $1,439 $1,421 $1,403 $1,369 $1,335 $1,302 79.48 82.57 84.97 87.38 89.79 92.20 94.61 97.01 99.42 104.24 109.05 113.87 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 $862 $825 $792 $761 $734 $710 $690 $672 $658 $646 $638 $633 162.48 167.19 171.56 175.60 179.29 182.64 185.66 188.33 190.67 192.66 194.32 195.64 600 650 700 750 $1,270 $1,238 $1,208 $1,178 118.68 123.50 128.32 133.13 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 $632 $638 $656 $688 196.62 197.55 197.13 195.36 800 900 950 1,050 $1,149 $1,093 $1,066 $1,015 137.95 147.58 152.39 162.03 3,400 3,600 3,800 4,050 $732 $789 $858 $963 192.22 187.73 181.88 172.67 1,100 1,200 1,300 $991 $945 $902 166.84 176.47 186.10 4,300 4,550 4,800 $1,088 $1,232 $1,397 161.32 147.86 132.28 82 | P a g e May 2019 Trace Evidence Analysis Figure 35: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Average Total Cost v. Caseload $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 Cost/Case $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 500 600 Cases Processed 100 90 80 Cases/FTE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 Cases Processed Figure 36: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Cases/FTE v. Caseload Foresight Project 2017-2018, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA 83 | P a g e May 2019 Table 51: Efficient Frontier for Trace Evidence Analysis—Efficient Cost/Case for Various Caseloads Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE Cases Efficient Cost/Case Cases/ FTE 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 $14,277 $10,456 $8,715 $7,763 $7,527 $7,296 $7,069 $6,846 $6,628 $6,415 $6,206 $6,002 13.67 14.87 16.04 17.20 18.34 19.45 20.55 21.62 22.68 23.71 24.73 25.72 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 $3,902 $3,616 $3,348 $3,097 $2,865 $2,651 $2,455 $2,277 $2,117 $1,976 $1,852 $1,747 36.09 37.54 38.90 40.18 41.39 42.51 43.55 44.51 45.39 46.19 46.91 47.55 65 70 75 80 $5,802 $5,606 $5,416 $5,229 26.70 27.65 28.59 29.50 250 270 295 320 $1,590 $1,506 $1,503 $1,612 48.58 49.29 49.72 49.65 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 $5,048 $4,871 $4,698 $4,530 $4,366 $4,207 $4,052 30.40 31.27 32.13 32.96 33.77 34.57 35.34 345 370 395 420 445 470 495 $1,835 $2,172 $2,621 $3,183 $3,859 $4,648 $5,550 49.08 48.00 46.41 44.32 41.73 38.63 35.03 84 | P a g e May 2019 FORESIGHT Glossary assistant / analyst backlog case - institute case case - area case Case – as reported in the LabRat form casework An individual carrying out general casework examinations or analytical tests under the instruction of a Reporting Scientist or Reporting Analyst and who is able to provide information to assist with the interpretation of the tests. Open cases that are older than 30 days. A request from a crime lab "customer" that includes forensic investigations in one or more investigative areas. A request for examination in one forensic investigation area. An area case is a subset of an institute case. Cases reported in LabRat are “area cases” All laboratory activities involved in examination of cases. Total FTE´s for operational personnel in an investigation area casework time (in hours) subtracted by the hours of R&D and, E&T and support and service given to external partners. crime Perceived violation of the law that initiates a case investigation. Compensation paid to employees, including salary, overtime, direct salary vacation salary, bonuses, etc. Sum of rents, cleaning and garbage collection, security, energy, facility expense water, communication, ICT infrastructure and facility maintenance. floor area Total of all floor area including office, laboratory and other. full-time The work input of a full-time employee working for one full equivalent (FTE) year. full-time A forensic scientist whose primary responsibility is research researcher and who is not taking part in casework. Area limited by item type and methods as they are listed in the investigation area ”definitions of investigative areas tab. investment Purchases of equipment, instruments, etc. with a lifetime expense longer than one year (alternatively capital expenses). A single object for examination submitted to the laboratory. Note: one item may be investigated and counted in several item investigation areas. Floor area used for forensic investigation, including sample and laboratory area consumable storage rooms. An individual whose primary responsibilities are in managing non-reporting and administering a laboratory or a unit thereof and who is not manager taking part in casework. 85 | P a g e May 2019 office area operational personnel other floor area personnel expense report reporting analyst reporting scientist representation expense sample scientist in training support personnel test Floor area of offices (square feet). Personnel in operational units providing casework, research and development (R & D), education and training (E & T) and external support services. Non-reporting unit heads are included. Floor area of space not belonging to laboratories or offices, i.e. corridors, lunch corners, meeting rooms, etc. (square feet). Sum of direct salaries, social expenses (employer contribution to FICA, Medicare, Workers Comp, and Unemployment Comp), retirement (employer contribution only towards pensions, 401K plans, etc.), personnel development and training (internal or external delivery, including travel), and occupational health service expenses (employer contribution only). A formal statement of the results of an investigation, or of any matter on which definite information is required, made by some person or body instructed or required to do so. An analyst responsible in non-complicated cases (e.g. simple drugs analysis) for performing the examination of the items submitted, interpreting the analysis results, writing the analysis report and, if necessary, providing factual evidence for the court. The forensic scientist responsible in a particular case for performing or directing the examination of the items submitted, interpreting the findings, writing the report and providing evidence of fact and opinion for the court. The costs for hosting guests: lunches, dinners, coffees offered by the lab, and giveaway to guests or during visits abroad, etc. An item of evidence or a portion of an item of evidence that generates a reportable result. An individual with no reporting rights being trained to become a reporting scientist. Forensic laboratory staff providing various internal support services. Management and administration personnel not belonging to the operational units are included. An analytical process, including but not limited to visual examination, instrumental analysis, presumptive evaluations, enhancement techniques, extractions, quantifications, microscopic techniques, and comparative examinations. This does not include technical or administrative reviews. 86 | P a g e May 2019 Turn-around time workload The number of days from a request for examination in an investigative area until issuance of a report. (Note that an area case may have multiple requests and each new request has a separate turn-around time.) Total time spent on all work related to job, including overtime. 87 | P a g e May 2019 Definitions: Investigative Areas Blood Alcohol Crime Scene Investigation Digital evidence - Audio & Video DNA Casework DNA Database Document Examination Drugs - Controlled Substances Evidence Screening & Processing Explosives Fingerprint Identification Fire analysis Firearms and Ballistics Forensic Pathology Gun Shot Residue (GSR) Marks and Impressions The analysis of blood or breath samples to detect the presence of and quantify the amount of alcohol. The collection, analysis, and processing of locations for evidence relating to a criminal incident. The analysis of multimedia audio, video, and still image materials, such as surveillance recordings and video enhancement. Analysis of biological evidence for DNA in criminal cases. Analysis and entry of DNA samples from individuals for database purposes. The analysis of legal, counterfeit, and questioned documents, excluding handwriting analysis. The analysis of solid dosage licit and illicit drugs, including pre-cursor materials. The detection, collection, and processing of physical evidence in the laboratory for potential additional analysis. The analysis of energetic materials in pre- and post-blast incidents. The development and analysis of friction ridge patterns. The analysis of materials from suspicious fires to include ignitable liquid residue analysis. The analysis of firearms and ammunition, to include distance determinations, shooting reconstructions, NIBIN, and toolmarks. Forensic pathology is a branch of medicine that deals with the determination of the cause and manner of death in cases in which death occurred under suspicious or unknown circumstances. The analysis of primer residues from discharged firearms (not distance determinations). The analysis of physical patterns received and retained through the interaction of objects of 88 | P a g e May 2019 various hardness, including shoeprints and tire tracks. Serology/Biology Toxicology, ante-mortem Toxicology, post-mortem Trace Evidence The detection, collection, and non-DNA analysis of biological fluids. Toxicology involves the chemical analysis of body fluids and tissues to determine if a drug or poison is present in a living individual, to separately measure blood alcohol analysis (BAC). Toxicologists are then able to determine how much and what effect, if any, the substance might have had on the person. Toxicology involves the chemical analysis of body fluids and tissues to determine if a drug or poison is present in a deceased individual, to separately measure blood alcohol analysis (BAC). Toxicologists are then able to determine how much and what effect, if any, the substance might have had on the person. The analysis of materials that, because of their size or texture, transfer from one location to another and persist there for some period of time. Microscopy, either directly or as an adjunct to another instrument, is involved. 89 | P a g e May 2019 Project FORESIGHT Publications FORESIGHT: A Business Approach to Improving Forensic Science Services, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Max M. Houck, Richard A. Riley, Paul J. Speaker, & Tom S. Witt, pages 85-95 Abstract: Managers of scientific laboratories see themselves as scientists first and managers second; consequently, they tend to devalue the managerial aspects of their jobs. Forensic laboratory managers are no different, but the stakes may be much higher given the importance of quality science to the criminal justice system. The need for training and support in forensic laboratory management has been recognized for many years, but little has been done to transition the tools of business to the forensic laboratory environment. FORESIGHT is a business-guided self-evaluation of forensic science laboratories across North America. The participating laboratories represent local, regional, state, and national agencies. Economics, accounting, finance, and forensic faculty provide assistance, guidance, and analysis. The process involves standardizing definitions for metrics to evaluate work processes, linking financial information to work tasks, and functions. Laboratory managers can then assess resource allocations, efficiencies, and value of services—the mission is to measure, preserve what works, and change what does not. A project of this magnitude for forensic laboratories has not been carried out anywhere. Key Performance Indicators and Managerial Analysis for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 1, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 32-42 Abstract: Forensic laboratories generate a great deal of data from casework activities across investigative areas, personnel and budget allocations, and corresponding expenditures. This paper investigates ways in which laboratories can make data-driven managerial decisions through the regular extraction of key performance indicators from commonly available data sources. A laboratory's performance indicators can then be compared to peer laboratory performance to search for best practices, determine inhouse trends, manage scarce resources, and provide quantitative support for the justification of additional resources. 90 | P a g e May 2019 The Decomposition of Return on Investment for Forensic Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 2, 2009, Paul J. Speaker, pages 96-102 Abstract: For forensic laboratories, a detailed understanding of return on investment (ROI) is necessary for routine assessment, consideration of new legislative alternatives, and cost-benefit analysis for decision making. Converting performance data to ratio measures provides useful comparisons between an individual laboratory and the standards for excellence for the industry; these measures also permit an evaluation across time. Unfortunately, these same ROI measures are subject to abuse when overemphasis on a single measure leads to unintended consequences. In this paper, the ROI measure is broken down into various parts that can be tracked on a regular basis to reveal how a laboratory achieves its results. The tradeoffs between return and risk, efficiency, analytical process, and market conditions are outlined. The end product is a series of easily monitored metrics that a laboratory director may examine on a regular basis for continuous improvement. Benchmarking and Budgeting Techniques for Improved Forensic Laboratory Management, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 1, Issue 4, 2010, Paul J. Speaker & A. Scott Fleming, pages 199-208 Abstract: Forensic laboratories are not immune from downturns in the worldwide economy. Recession and economic slowdowns, when coupled with the public's heightened sense of the capabilities of forensic science, put stress on the effectiveness of forensic laboratories. The resources available to forensic laboratories are limited, and managers are under greater pressure to improve efficiency and effectiveness. To this end, the use of internal and external financial and accounting metrics to plan, control, evaluate, and communicate performance is examined. Using data from the QUADRUPOL and FORESIGHT studies, we illustrate the use of external benchmarking through a calculation of laboratory return on investment and the internal development and use of a budget to enhance laboratory performance in light of limited resources. 91 | P a g e May 2019 Forensic Science Staffing: Creating a Working Formula, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, Joyce Thompson Heames & Jon Timothy Heames, pages 5-10 Abstract: The key issue facing forensic labs is "the classic economic problem—how to allocate limited resources with increasing demand for services, while maintaining high quality standards" (Speaker 2009). Employees are the biggest expense and most valuable resource that forensic labs possess, thus the question arises as to how to maximize human resource functions to best allocate resources through personnel. As the search is on to look for better practices to improve the operations as well as technical expertise of labs, human capital management is crucial to that objective. The purpose of this article is to process map some of the staffing issues facing forensic science labs, whether public or private, and to identify metrics from the FORESIGHT study (Houck et al. 2009) that might help lab directors create a working formula to better manage staffing (e.g., recruiting and selection) issues. Managing Performance in the Forensic Sciences: Expectations in Light of Limited Budgets, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011, Hilton Kobus, Max Houck, Paul J. Speaker & Richard Riley, pages 36-43 Abstract: For forensic service providers worldwide, the demand for high-quality services greatly outpaces available resources to meet those requests. The gap between the demand for services and the resource-restricted supply of those services has implications for managing performance: the effectiveness and efficiency of forensic science. The effectiveness of forensic science is directly related to the quality of the scientific analysis and the timeliness with which that analysis is provided, while efficiency is associated with attempts to minimize costs without negatively impacting quality. An inevitable result of the demand and supply gap is a backlog that results in downstream effects on timeliness, service, and quality. One important strategy to respond to the demand-supply imbalance is continual process improvement. Collaborative benchmarking as a basis for process improvement is another approach. This paper discusses the disjunction between perceived and actual value for forensic services and the rationale for providers to evaluate, improve, and re-tool their processes toward continual improvement given limited resources. 92 | P a g e May 2019 Strategic Management of Forensic Laboratory Resources: From Project FORESIGHT Metrics to the Development of Action Plans, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 2, Issue 4, 2011, Jonathan Newman, David Dawley, & Paul J. Speaker, pages 164-174 Abstract: The project FORESIGHT stated objectives begin with the development of metrics applicable to the activity of forensic science laboratories. These metrics enable a laboratory to assess how they fit within the forensic science industry and offer a glance at the levels of performance that they might be able to achieve. FORESIGHT's mission goes on to state the intent for laboratories to use those measurements to "preserve what works, and change what does not" (Houck et al. 2009, p. 85). This paper addresses the strategic implications of those additional aspects of the FORESIGHT mandate with a view of the strategic planning process for a forensic science laboratory. The keys to the development of an ongoing strategic planning and execution process are outlined, and then the actions of one laboratory, Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences, are examined to demonstrate the move from metrics to action. While there cannot yet be made a claim of "best practices," this Canadian example offers some guidance to "better practices" in the quest for continual improvement in the provision of forensic science services. The Power of Information, Forensic Magazine April 10, 2012, Tom S. Witt & Paul J. Speaker Abstract: When it comes to cost, the Foresight model was designed to overlook nothing. When we talk about the cost of doing something, we look at everything from equipment, telecommunications, heating, lighting, facility rent … everything. If a participant doesn't have access to the data, we can estimate those costs from other labs in our studies. We come up with an all-inclusive figure that tells participants what it costs to process a case. This leads to informed decisions. Take trace evidence cases, for example. You might find that processing one trace evidence case costs the same as processing two, three, or even four traditional DNA cases. While trace evidence is wonderful and powerful, if DNA alone will get you where you need to be, this cost factor will heavily affect your decision-making process. Foresight is not about cutting where it matters. It's about using resources wisely so that labs can do more and enhance the services they provide. Once you know the key metrics, you can make informed decisions. 93 | P a g e May 2019 Is Privatization Inevitable for Forensic Science Laboratories?, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, William McAndrew, pages 42-52 Abstract: Given the recent global recession, many national governments have been forced to implement austerity measures, and the forensic science industry has not been immune from such changes. Proposals to privatize some or all aspects of forensic science services have been bantered about for decades, but the recent economic climate has brought this idea back to the forefront of public debates. Although privatization has been shown to have many benefits in the provision of other goods and services, the idea of privatizing forensic services has been harshly criticized by scholars and practitioners. This paper explores some of those criticisms through the lens of economics, and arguments are offered regarding why market approaches in forensic science may be more successful than might have originally been imagined under certain conditions. On the other hand, recognition of those economic forces and reaction by forensic laboratories to address inefficiencies may provide the effective delivery of forensic services that forestalls privatization efforts. The Balanced Scorecard: Sustainable Performance Assessment for Forensic Laboratories, Science and Justice Volume 52, 2012, Max Houck, Paul J. Speaker, Richard Riley, & A. Scott Fleming, pages 209216. Abstract: The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of the balanced scorecard into the laboratory management environment. The balanced scorecard is a performance measurement matrix designed to capture financial and non-financial metrics that provide insight into the critical success factors for an organization, effectively aligning organization strategy to key performance objectives. The scorecard helps organizational leaders by providing balance from two perspectives. First, it ensures an appropriate mix of performance metrics from across the organization to achieve operational excellence; thereby the balanced scorecard ensures that no single or limited group of metrics dominates the assessment process, possibly leading to longterm inferior performance. Second, the balanced scorecard helps leaders offset short term performance pressures by giving recognition and weight to long-term laboratory needs that, if not properly addressed, might jeopardize future laboratory performance. 94 | P a g e May 2019 Efficiency and the Cost Effective Delivery of Forensic Science Services: In-Sourcing, Out-Sourcing, and Privatization, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 2, Chris Maguire, Max Houck, Robin Williams, & Paul J. Speaker, pages 62-69 Abstract: Given the recent global recession, many national governments have been forced to implement austerity measures, and the forensic science industry has not been immune from such changes. Proposals to privatize some or all aspects of forensic science services have been bantered about for decades, but the recent economic climate has brought this idea back to the forefront of public debates. Although privatization has been shown to have many benefits in the provision of other goods and services, the idea of privatizing forensic services has been harshly criticized by scholars and practitioners. This paper explores some of those criticisms through the lens of economics, and arguments are offered regarding why market approaches in forensic science may be more successful than might have originally been imagined under certain conditions. On the other hand, recognition of those economic forces and reaction by forensic laboratories to address inefficiencies may provide the effective delivery of forensic services that forestalls privatization efforts. Enhancing Employee Outcomes in Crime Labs: Test of a Model, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, David Dawley. Abstract: This paper developed and tested a model identifying determinants of employee turnover intentions and desirable performance behaviors, including helping others and engaging in knowledge sharing. Data collected from 798 employees at ten FORESIGHT laboratories suggest that job satisfaction and embeddedness are the primary antecedents of turnover intentions and knowledge sharing, and that embeddedness is a stronger predictor variable of both outcomes. Embeddedness is driven by the employees' understanding of the lab's strategic vision. Moreover, job satisfaction and embeddedness are positively associated with helping behavior. Finally, we identified job autonomy as a primary determinant of job satisfaction. We discuss practical implications of these findings for managers. 95 | P a g e May 2019 Forensic Science Service Provider Models: Data-Driven Support for Better Delivery Options, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume 45, Issue 2, 2013, Paul J. Speaker. Abstract: There are a variety of models for the delivery of forensic science analysis in service to the justice system. In answer to the question as to whether there is a ‘best’ option for the delivery of forensic science services, New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) has been offered as a model which demonstrates a comparative advantage over the delivery of forensic services in more traditional models. The support for that assertion rests in the ability of the ESR to react at the speed of business and avoid bureaucratic drag found too often in the public sector. This efficiency argument addresses one dimension of the search for ‘best’ delivery. The second dimension involves the discovery of the optimal scale of operation to take efficiency and turn it into cost effectiveness. Improving the Effectiveness of Forensic Service: Using the Foresight Project as a Platform for Quality, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume XIX, Max M. Houck, Jay W. Henry, and Paul J. Speaker, February 2013, p.21. Abstract: Forensic service providers are—in essence—non-profit, production-oriented organizations staffed largely by knowledge workers. Forensic scientists as knowledge workers take evidence and data and convert them into knowledge in the form of reports and testimony. They specialize in these transactions and, therefore, simplify them for the benefit of the criminal justice system; the investigators or attorneys do not need to find numerous individuals to conduct the specific examinations required for a case. As long as the costs of providing these services externally do not exceed the costs of their internal provision, for example, by a government forensic laboratory, then the organization can prosper. If the government laboratory costs are greater than the cost of finding private laboratories to provide services, then the organization may be reevaluated. Comparatively, non-profit and for-profit organizations are similar in some ways (money is an input for both) yet different (money, in the form of profits, is an output only for the private sector). Non-profits must therefore measure success in other ways, such as “low cost” or “cost effective.” Forensic service providers and their parent organizations use terms such as “cost-effective” vaguely without reference to other disciplines which use these as well-defined technical terms in evaluative phrases or formulae. Despite the great concern and administrative angst over forensic service 96 | P a g e May 2019 providers’ “performance” and “capacity,” these metrics go undefined as industry standards. Determinants of Turnover Intentions, Helping, and Knowledge Sharing in Crime Laboratories, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Volume XIX, David Dawley, February 2013, p.230. Abstract: Forensic scientists are knowledge workers and are a laboratory’s single greatest enduring expense. Therefore, it is imperative for forensic managers to find ways to retain employees, share knowledge, and create a cohesive, coherent team perspective. Based on a discussion with a group of FORESIGHT forensic laboratory directors in 2011, four major areas of research interest were identified: (1) reducing employee turnover; (2) increasing employees’ helping behaviors with colleagues; (3) knowledge sharing among employees; and, (4) creating and disseminating a strategic vision to all employees. Are Forensic Science Services Club Goods? An Analysis of the Optimal Forensic Science Service Delivery Model, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, William P. McAndrew, pages 151 – 158. Abstract: Forensic science has been described as a public good by practitioners, legal professionals, and scholars, many of whom were suggesting that forensic science is simply something good for the public. It would indeed be difficult to argue otherwise. In an economic sense, the concept of a public good is defined differently from this colloquial meaning, however, leading to confusion in discussions between forensic scientists and business consultants concerning how to evaluate laboratory performance and ultimately consider strategic change from an economic or efficiency perspective. This article discusses what economists mean by a public or private good, with an application using the forensic science industry. Forensic science is likely neither a purely public or purely private good, but rather a club good that contains a degree of both the public and private. When calculated, the degree of publicness of this club good will aid in determining the appropriate institutional framework from which to provide forensic science services, as well as its optimal jurisdiction size and production level. 97 | P a g e May 2019 The Effects of Politics on Job Satisfaction in Crime Lab Employees, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, David Dawley & Timothy P. Munyun, pages 159 – 164. Abstract: This study examined the effects of crime lab workers’ perceptions of intra-lab politics on job satisfaction. In addition to finding that political behavior reduces employee job satisfaction, the study also identified ways in which crime lab managers can mitigate the negative effects of political behavior, increasing employee job satisfaction when political behavior is high within a given unit. Data collected from 874 employees at twelve FORESIGHT laboratories suggest that increasing crime lab worker job autonomy, job efficiency, strategic vision, and task significance are especially effective interventions that increase job satisfaction when political behavior is high. We discuss practical implications of these findings for crime lab managers. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how perceived political behavior affects the job satisfaction, or morale, of crime lab workers. The study was motivated by several interactions we had with forensic crime lab managers at the 2013 American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) meeting. In ASCLD human resources and FORESIGHT meetings, we received consistent inquiries concerning the potential role of organizational politics as a detrimental factor on employee attitudes. These conversations highlight the unfortunate ubiquity of political behavior at work, including work in crime labs. Organizational politics often create disharmony among employees and can negatively affect employee job satisfaction and other attitudes (Breaux et al. 2009; Ferris et al. 1996). Thus, we sought to explore how political behavior affects the job satisfaction of crime lab employees, and potential managerial strategies that could be useful in mitigating for this potential negative effect. Expanding Budgets via Strategic Use of Leasing, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, 2012, William P. McAndrew & Paul J. Speaker, pages 169 - 179. Abstract: An examination of the budgets of forensic laboratories reveals an unused or underused tool at the disposal of forensic laboratories. Equipment leasing offers an opportunity for a unilateral increase in the purchasing power of existing laboratory budgets and an immediate response to austerity measures. Rather than react to budget tightening with reductions in force, shared furloughs, or the forfeiture of unfilled positions, a laboratory director can forestall such measures and even see an effective increase in disposable income through a planned use of operating leases. If a public 98 | P a g e May 2019 laboratory makes an equipment purchase, the cost to the laboratory will be the full list price from the equipment supplier. However, when a private laboratory makes the same equipment purchase, it pays the supplier the full list price, but is able to deduct the expense from its income when it calculates its corporate income tax and ends up with a final expense, net of taxes, that is considerably less than the cost to the public laboratory. Leasing offers the opportunity for a private entity to purchase equipment and pass on some of the tax savings to the public laboratory through an operating lease. In this manuscript the leasing gains are explained and accompanied by a detailed example to illustrate the potential magnitudes of the gains. In this example, a representative laboratory is shown to experience nearly a twenty-five percent gain from the lease compared to the expense of a direct purchase Developing New Business Models for Forensic Laboratories, Chapter 13 in Forensic Science and the Administration of Justice, Kevin J. Strom & Matthew J. Hickman editors, Max M. Houck & Paul J. Speaker, April 2014. Abstract: Forensic service providers inhabit a unique, central place in the criminal justice system. Stakeholders in the forensic enterprise abound, from law enforcement to attorneys to the courts and even the public they all serve. The public orientation of these services and stakeholders necessitates forensic managers rely on providing sound performance at a reasonable cost. Certainly, the laboratory's jurisdiction will judge them on criteria such as accuracy, timeliness, and cost. Too much emphasis on quantitative outcomes, however, can create an imbalance that ignores longer-term issues, such as quality and value. Thus, efficiency, the extent to which time and effort are used to produce the desired outcome, can be mistaken for effectiveness, the attainment of that desired outcome, but they are intimately connected. 99 | P a g e May 2019 A Novel Approach to Forensic Molecular Biology Education and Training: It’s Impact on the Criminal Justice System, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 47 (2), 182 – 193, 2015, Khalid M. Lodhi, Robert L. Grier, and Paul J. Speaker. Abstract: The managers of crime laboratories face significant hurdles when preparing new hires to become productive members of the laboratory. New hires require six months of training/experience in the crime laboratory before becoming a productive member of the Biology (DNA) section. To address this deficiency in forensic DNA education, a novel forensic education curriculum was developed and tested for three consecutive years in the forensic science program at Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC. The curriculum used a CTS proficiency kit which is the same kit used to validate the proficiency of forensic scientists in crime laboratories in the US. A cost benefit analysis suggests that training students in a classroom instead of in a crime laboratory provides both direct savings to the laboratory and significant societal savings as more DNA profiles are entered into the database. The societal benefit from the combined reduction in the amount of training in a crime laboratory and increasing the number of DNA database profiles entered into a database suggests a societal saving of $8.28 million for each of these months of reduced training. A Review of Forensic Science Management Literature, Forensic Science Review 27, Max M. Houck, William P McAndrew & B. Daview, 2015, 53-68. Abstract: The science in forensic science has received increased scrutiny in recent years, but interest in how forensic science is managed is a relatively new line of research. This paper summarizes the literature in forensic science management generally from 2009 to 2013, with some recent additions, to provide an overview of the growth of topics, results, and improvements in the management of forensic services in the public and private sectors. This review covers only the last three years or so and a version of this paper was originally produced for the 2013 Interpol Forensic Science Managers Symposium and is available at interpol.int. 100 | P a g e May 2019 Financial Management of Forensic Science Laboratories: Lessons from Project FORESIGHT 2011-2012, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 6(1-2), Paul J Speaker, 2015. Abstract: Critical to the decision-making within an individual forensic science laboratory is an understanding of their efficiency and effectiveness. The NIJ-funded project, FORESIGHT, applies financial management techniques to avowed public sector goals and offers a common starting point for the comparison of individual forensic laboratories to the established standards in the industry through a review of financial ratios. Such ratios adjust for size differences and allow insight into several aspects of the operation including evaluation of efficiency, quality, risk, market nuances, and return on investment. This study offers insight into the financial performance, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of forensic science laboratories. Using data from the National Institute of Justice’s Project FORESIGHT for 2011-2012, a variety of benchmark performance data is presented with analytical insight into the nature of that performance. The tabular and graphic presentations offer some insight into the current status of the forensic science industry in general and provide a basis by which individual laboratories may begin to assess their own performance with respect to both analytical efficiency and cost effectiveness. Forensic Laboratory Financial Management, ASCLD Crime Lab Minute, Paul J. Speaker, July 2015. Abstract: The National Institute of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs has supported laboratories for the last several years with analysis of performance via Project FORESIGHT. Project FORESIGHT has collected data from the 2006 fiscal year, growing from a handful of laboratories to over 100 participating laboratories in the most recently completed fiscal year. There is no cost to participants, and all forensic laboratories are invited to join the program. In return for data submissions, each laboratory receives a customized report comparing their performance in each forensic investigative area to the industry standards obtained from the project. 101 | P a g e May 2019 Project FORESIGHT and Return on Investment: Forensic Science Laboratories and Public Health Laboratories, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal 8(1-2), Paul J Speaker, 2017. Abstract: Project FORESIGHT developed business guided metrics for use by forensic science laboratories. Since the introduction of the project nearly a decade ago, much has been learned about the efficiency and effectiveness of the forensic laboratory industry and laboratory management has been forewarned and forearmed as they develop strategic initiatives to deal with the economic problem of limited resources available for a seemingly unlimited demand for services. The success of forensic science laboratories in the application of best practices has not gone unnoticed. Public health laboratories face similar problems and the laboratories in that industry have joined forces through the Association of Public Health Laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to follow the guidance of Project FORESIGHT and develop business metrics to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this public sector service. In this paper, the project development process is highlight towards an expanded set of outcomes that offers insight into efficiency and effectiveness and connects that performance to societal outcomes through development of return on investment metrics for the industry. National versus Local Production: Finding the Balance between Fiscal Federalism and Economies of Scale, Public Finance Review, pages 1-23, William P. McAndrew, 2017. Abstract: Public finance and public choice economists have contrasting views on the determinants of public sector size. This article makes a unique contribution to this literature by exploring an integer count of output, rather than the commonly used dollar approximation of output, using data that are homogeneous across the levels of 102 | P a g e May 2019 government, where a unit of observation is not a governing body, but rather a service provider. Specifically, this article explores the counteracting effects of fiscal federalism and economies of scale using data from the National Institute of Justice with an application of data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. I determine that provision of forensic science services at the national level rather than local level does not lead to higher relative cost, and national production may be relatively more efficient. In general, however, neither locally nor nationally operated laboratories are operating at an efficient scale, a potential argument for privatization, insourcing, or outsourcing. Process Improvement and the Efficient Frontier: Forecasting the Limits to Strategic Change across Crime Laboratory Areas of Investigation, Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal 8 (3-4), 109-127, Paul J Speaker, 2017. Abstract: Undertaking programs for process improvement, such as Lean Six Sigma, permit a laboratory to do more with their limited resources. The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) embraced a Lean Six Sigma change process that led to dramatic increases in capacity, while simultaneously reducing turnaround time (TAT) to a fraction of their historical experience. As other laboratories adopt similar process improvement programs, will those laboratories also experience similar results with higher productivity across the laboratory and reduced turnaround time in every area of scientific investigation? We demonstrate that similar success may be expected with a laboratory's current caseload, but the degree of improvement is related to the size of the political jurisdiction, crime rates, and the resulting caseload; and the degree of inefficiencies at the start of the process improvement program. An understanding of the economic forces at play enables laboratory management to better forecast outcomes and plan for the eventualities. Using data from Project FORESIGHT 2015–2016, tables are provided that permit laboratories to match their caseload within each area of investigation to the forensic laboratory standard for efficiency at that caseload. 103 | P a g e May 2019 Strategic leadership through performance management: FORESIGHT as PerformanceStat, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1-11, Max M Houck, 2017. Abstract: Unlike the private sector, no single overarching metric exists to evaluate public sector performance. Without concepts such as profit, it can be difficult for government agencies to be accountable to stakeholders. Unless organizations have a clear strategy that holds performance to account, the organization can become pathological and never truly succeed. Momentum has been building towards evidencebased evaluations and management in government, inspired by the use of evidencebased decision-making, made popular by Michael Lewis' book Moneyball. This article presents a platform for adopting the forensic version of 'moneyball', the FORESIGHT Project, as a strategic tool to set metrics as goals, develop ways to achieve them, and improve the performance of public forensic service providers. The jurisdictional return on investment from processing the backlog of untested sexual assault kits, Forensic Science International: Synergy, 18-23, Paul J Speaker, 2019. Abstract: The economic problem for the forensic laboratory is a problem faced in all arenas; limited resources are available to address seemingly unlimited desires. This is as true for entities in the public sector as it is for any private concern. To assist decisionmakers in the allocation of those scarce resources, we synthesize existing research on the benefits of additions to the DNA Database and the potential benefits from diverting resources to analysis of the backlog of sexual assault kits. We offer some guidance for the optimum use of limited resources, through the measurement of the return on investment (ROI) at the jurisdictional level (i.e., that is, the net benefits to society relative to the investment itself). These net benefits include those to survivors from a resolution to their assaults, the benefits to others from the prevention of repeated 104 | P a g e May 2019 assaults from serial rapists, and the prevention of societal costs external to those directly victimized. Those external costs extend from the effects on friends and family to expenses for preventive measures to anyone aware of sexual assaults. Such metrics surrounding ROI will assist the public sector in the optimal allocation of scarce resources to the justice system by providing a measures of the marginal social welfare improvement from alternative allocations of these scarce resources in light of objectives of public sector entities. The analysis demonstrates that the societal return on investment from the testing of all sexual assault kits ranges from 9,874% to 64,529%, depending on the volume of activity for the laboratory conducting the analysis. There are extreme economies of scale in effect that are suggestive of some policy alternatives. 105 | P a g e May 2019 Forensic Science International: Synergy An international journal dedicated to the forensic sciences and its cross-disciplinary effects on the administration of justice. Editor-in-Chief: M. Houck Forensic Science International: Synergy is a Gold Open Access journal which welcomes significant, insightful, and innovative original research with the aim of advancing and supporting forensic science while exceeding its expectations for excellence. By being freely available to anyone, we seek to promote and support open discourse across diverse areas of interest, avocation, and geography. Papers are invited from all forensic sciences and influencing disciplines, including but not limited to the humanities, life sciences, social sciences, and the law. Cross-disciplinary collaboration promotes innovative approaches, encourages systems-level perspectives, and seeds the literature with insightful opportunities. Because the good management of science can be as important as the science itself, the journal welcomes articles on issues related to forensic science policy and management. Management, human resources, economic studies, policy implications of new methods or technology, and any other work intended to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and operations of forensic science laboratories as well as to the education and training of forensic scientists. In addition, the journal welcomes manuscripts on the governmental and institutional policies that affect the practice and management of forensic science. Our goal is to publish quality work quickly so that information and results that have the potential to affect the public or a criminal justice system can be distributed, discussed, and incorporated into future research or applications. We will consider the following types of manuscripts: • • • Original research Review articles Case reports • • • Opinion pieces Policy papers Practitioner notes Forensic science is central to modern criminal justice systems. It supports investigations, demonstrates associations between people, places, and things involved in criminal activity, and exonerates the innocent. Forensic services are sciences integral to a just society governed through rule of law, it is unarguably a public good and should be accessible to anyone. Transparency is key to good science, rational governance, and equitable justice. 106 | P a g e