Four years after an audit found severe issues at the Austin Police Department Forensic Services Division DNA Lab that led to an immediate shutdown, the conversation on what to do with the embattled laboratory continues.
Last week, Austin’s Assistant City Manager released the results of a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice that looked at past issues in the laboratory in an effort to pave a path forward. In a subsequent meeting with key Austin stakeholders, nine options were presented, which the group narrowed down to four. These include:
- Reconstituting the DNA Lab within APD
- Creating a new DNA Lab run by the City, independent of APD
- Forming a local government corporation to provide DNA lab services
- Entering into an interlocal agreement between the City and County for DNA lab services (This option is dependent on choosing one of the first three options).
Option 1: Reconstitution within APD
The path toward reconstituting the DNA lab within APD recently encountered a sharp curve as Austin’s “Reimaging Public Safety” initiative cut about $150 million from the department to reinvest in other areas—and plans to remove the forensics lab from police oversight as early as this month. While the Stakeholder Workgroup is still raising the possibility of co-location, the report acknowledges this would be a very hard sell.
“Regaining Public trust and stakeholder acceptance would be very difficult to achieve. There are stakeholders that believe independence, transparency, accuracy and reliability, and accountability can only be achieved with a lab that is independent of local government,” the report reads.
On the other side of the spectrum, the group sees this option as the quickest way to once again have a functioning DNA laboratory within the city of Austin, with an expected 2.5 years until full operational capacity.
Option 2: A New DNA Lab Run by the City
The group found a forensic laboratory run by the city, independent of APD, would also be fairly quick to get up and running, within a similar timeframe to option 1. The main benefit of this option is increased public perception of transparency and accountability. Additionally, having the lab in the city of Austin would minimize delays in transmitting analysis results to investigators and facilitate close coordination of testing samples to support high priority cases.
Even though the lab would be independent of APD, the group acknowledged that may not be enough for some stakeholders and members of the public who do not believe the DNA laboratory can be trusted if there is any affiliation with the city. There are also concerns funding and resources for the laboratory could compete with other citywide budget priorities.
Option 3: Local Government Corporation to Provide DNA Lab Services
Working with a local government corporation similar to the Houston Forensic Science Center represents the greatest level of independence from law enforcement. This option would also give the laboratory the ability to develop its own budget recommendation, independent of competing requirements.
However, this option would also take the most amount of time—estimated time to full operational capability is about 5 years. It would also require significant legislative action to form the local government corporation, necessitate the hiring of new staff and likely require the acquisition of a new laboratory facility.
Option 4: Interlocal Agreement between City and County for DNA Lab Services
This interlocal agreement option between county and city would put the DNA laboratory in the same category as other “shared services,” such as emergency medical services, animal services and the transportation, emergency and communication center. With this, there is potential for faster processing of cases for the Sherriff’s Office and local police departments, and the Stakeholder Workgroup believes it would facilitate greater transparency and accountability.
The time to implement this option falls in between the others at 3 years. There is however a concern that turnaround time for cases could be impacted if services are not properly resourced, particularly given the property tax revenue cap. Additionally, while transparency may be better with this option, it does not address independence as completely as the local government corporation idea.
Moving forward
The Quattrone Center's review identified 57 contributing factors and conditions that worked together in 2016 to create an environment where errors occurred and persisted without appropriate oversight or correction. From there, the center presented 87 recommendations to the Stakeholder Group for implementation into the ultimate plan of action—once it’s decided.
Speaking in generalities, the report, appropriately titled “Looking Back to Move Forward,” urges the Stakeholder Group to focus on four specific elements that are necessary for any laboratory handling DNA or other biological samples for use in the criminal justice process: 1) independence; 2) accuracy and reliability; 3) transparency and 4) efficiency.