Search results

This data collection contains data from the 2020 Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). The CPFFCL collected data on organizational characteristics, functions, budget, staffing, workload, resources, and quality assurance practices of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories operating in the U.S. and serving federal, state, and local jurisdictions. The CPFFCL includes crime labs that employed one or more full-time scientists who possess a minimum of a bachelor's degree in chemistry, physics, biology, criminalistics, forensic science or a closely related field and whose principal functions are examining physical evidence in criminal matters and providing reports and testimony to courts of law with respect to such evidence. Private laboratories were excluded from the CPFFCL. Laboratories may operate independently or as part of a larger system. Respondents to the CPFFCL could choose to respond as individual labs or as one system. A total of 423 individual labs, constituting 326 standalone labs and multilab systems, received the questionnaire. A total of 382 (90%) individual labs responded to the 2020 CPFFCL and 293 (90%) standalone labs and multilab systems responded. For the 2020 study, data were collected from July 2021 to February 2022.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) first surveyed forensic crime laboratories in 1998, focusing solely on agencies that performed DNA analysis. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the 1998 study as part of its DNA Laboratory Improvement Program. The BJS' National Study of DNA Laboratories was repeated in 2001. An expanded version of the data collection, called the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, was first conducted among all forensic crime laboratories in 2002.

This study examined the laws, policies, and practices related to juvenile DNA collection, as well as their implications for the juvenile and criminal justice systems. DNA evidence proved valuable in solving crimes, which motivated a concerted effort to expand the categories of offenders who provided DNA samples for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-operated national database.

State requirements for DNA collection, which initially focused on adult offenders convicted of sexual or violent offenses, expanded to include other categories of convicted felons, convicted misdemeanants, arrestees, and juveniles. In 30 states, certain categories of juveniles handled in the juvenile justice system must now provide DNA samples. The study was designed to explore the practice and implications of collecting DNA from juveniles and addressed the following questions:

1. How have state agencies, juvenile justice agencies and state laboratories implemented juvenile DNA collection laws?
2. What were the number and characteristics of juveniles with profiles included in CODIS?
3. How have juvenile profiles in CODIS contributed to public safety or other justice outcomes?
4. What improvements to policies and practices needed to be made?

To examine these questions, researchers at the Urban Institute: (1) systematically reviewed all state DNA statutes; (2) conducted semi-structured interviews with CODIS lab representatives in states that collect DNA from juveniles to understand how the laws were implemented; (3) collected and analyzed descriptive data provided by these labs on the volume and characteristics of juvenile profiles in CODIS; (4) conducted semi-structured interviews with juvenile and criminal justice stakeholders in five case study states; and (5) convened a meeting of federal officials and experts from the forensic and juvenile justice committees to explore the broader impacts of juvenile DNA collection.

This project evaluated whether DNA contamination can mimic the characteristics of low copy number (LCN), aged, damaged, and degraded DNA samples. Massive Parallel Sequencing/Next Generation Sequencing (MPS/NGS) was used to see if specific patterns of nucleotide damage is present with surface DNA contamination that has been aged and/or exposed to varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) and ultraviolet (UV). The project included two phases.

• Phase 1.0: Understand the process and rate of degradation and damage of applied touch DNA contamination on human skeletal remains and evidence tape. Five time intervals (ranging from 0 days to 1 year), three bleach treatments, and three UV treatments were tested. Two additional handlers (cumulative) created a scenario of minor contributors often encountered in forensic scenarios.
• Phase 2.0: Understand the utility and degradation of the skin microbiome associated with touch DNA. This included determining if unique forensic signatures can be identified and compared, especially on bone substrates that may have their own microbiome signature.

This study collected historical data on state DNA database size and the timing of state DNA database expansions in order to examine any impacts on crime rates.

Detection of minor DNA components in biological mixtures has increased as molecular techniques have become more sensitive, and thus, mixture deconvolution has become a major concern and topic of debate in the forensic DNA community. Deconvolution of forensic samples may be improved by sequencing microhaplotype loci as they are not subject to the amplification noise artifacts and stochastic effects that impact the commonly analyzed short tandem repeat (STR) loci. By coupling a highly discriminatory microhaplotype MPS assay with probabilistic genotyping methods such NexGenID, a novel software platform optimized for mixture deconvolution and probabilistic genotyping of sequence data, or EuroForMix, a widely used open-source probabilistic genotyping software modifiable for use with microhaplotype sequence data, this effort demonstrated an end-to-end microhaplotype analysis workflow that may be efficiently implemented by practitioners.

The proposed microhaplotype panel demonstrated high discriminatory power with combined match probabilities ranging from 9.53E-52 to 4.79E-63 and the ability to infer biogeographical ancestry. The assay proved to be sensitive down to 50 pg inputs and applicable to inhibited or degraded trace samples. Application to complex DNA mixture samples demonstrates the assay's potential to exceed minor-contributor detection when compared to STR deconvolution, help solve complex cases, increase the number of samples considered suitable for comparison, and enable retesting of cold cases where a minor contributor was assumed present but was not suitable for comparison.

This study produced six csv datasets covering microhaplotype panel construction information and a variety of sample metrics for all analyzed study samples.

The Pilot Study of State and Federal Digital Evidence Laboratories data collection contains data collected in 2015 as part of the Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories (CPFFCL). The CPFFCL examined the forensic services provided by publicly funded crime labs across the nation and the resources devoted to completing the work.

To capture more information about an emerging forensic science discipline known as digital evidence, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) expanded the scope of the 2014 CPFFCL from previous data collections to include a separate pilot study of state and federal agencies that solely analyzed digital evidence in support of criminal investigations and prosecutions. These agencies obtained digital and multimedia evidence in various formats, including audio, video, and graphical images from computers, cell phones, cameras, and other electronic devices. The traditional CPFFCL definition of a crime lab limited the information collected about digital evidence since some agencies only handle this type of evidence and employ forensic experts with training in computer science or information technology as opposed to natural sciences such as chemistry and biology.

The census collected detailed information on laboratory staff, budgets, workloads, and backlogs in requests for forensic services. The census also provides data on lab accreditations, proficiency tests, and other quality assurances.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This collection includes data gathered through three separate study designs. The first study called for tracking cases and forensic evidence through local criminal justice processes for five offenses: homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. Two sites, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected on victims (Victim Data n = 7,583) and defendants (Defendant Data n = 2,318). Data on forensic evidence collected at crime scenes included DNA material (DNA Evidence Data n = 1,894), firearms evidence (Ballistics Evidence Data n = 488), latent prints (Latent Print Evidence Data n = 766), trace evidence (Other Impressions Evidence Data n = 49), and drug evidence (Drug Evidence Data n = 43). Comparisons were then made between open and closed cases from the participating sites. Two smaller studies were conducted as part of this grant. The second study was an analysis of an experiment in the Miami-Date, Florida Police Department (Miami-Data County Data n = 1,421) to determine whether clearance rates for no-suspect property crimes could be improved through faster processing of DNA evidence. The third study was a survey of 75 police departments across the nation (Crime Labs Survey Data) to obtain information on the organizational placement, staffing and responsibilities of crime lab units.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

Seeking to measure the usage of Familial DNA Searching (FDS) to aid in criminal investigations, this study utilized a multi-phase, mixed methods approach to obtain data on FDS policies and practices in the United States. This study includes data from the National Survey of CODIS Laboratories, which was compiled after two expert roundtables, a literature and policy scan of practice, cost modeling, and state case studies.

The study includes one SPSS data file: FDS_National_Survey_of_CODIS_Labs_Data.sav

Although human identification through DNA analysis has reached a level of maturity in the Forensic Science field with regards to the sophistication of the techniques and confidence in the results, the equally important question of body fluid identification has lagged behind, and could still be considered to be in a rudimentary state. Current crime scene and in-laboratory methods utilize detection methods that exploit the properties of each biological fluid (e.g. phenolphthalin or TMB testing for blood, amylase detection for saliva, and urease tests for urine), but validated confirmatory techniques are largely limited to microscopic methods (i.e. identification of spermatozoa) or immunological methods, as seen in the widely used immunochromatographic commercial tests for blood, semen, and other biological fluids.

Thus, while there is widespread confidence in the DNA profile generated, there is often significantly less assurance in the identity of the body fluid that the DNA profile was developed from. It is common during trials for attorneys to categorically accept the STR analysis, but probe the forensic scientist on the source of the DNA that generated the profile. Because of this dichotomy, significant efforts have been made over the past fifteen years in order to develop forensic serological techniques of a more discriminatory nature.

Of late, there has been some work in the forensic science field in regards to exploring microRNAs (miRNAs) for a molecular-based, forensic body fluid identification method. MiRNAs are small structures that are 19-23 nucleotides long and regulate cellular processes through interactions with mRNA by regulating gene expression through translational suppression or cleavage of a targeted mRNA. miRNAs are highly conserved among organisms, indicating their importance in regulating biological processes. As such, some miRNAs can be consistently expressed in all human tissues, and others can be tissue-specific Because of the potential for tissue specificity, their small size and consequent inherent stability, miRNAs have been the subject of recent research interest as a potential forensic body fluid identification technique. They are found in extracellular fluids, and thus the application of unique miRNAs for forensically relevant body fluids is a distinct possibility.