NCJ Number
80097
Date Published
1979
Length
239 pages
Annotation
This document provides historical and statistical data on Missouri's criminalistics laboratories, analyzes their compliance with recognized laboratory standards and good management principles, and proposes a model management system for all State crime laboratories.
Abstract
An historical overview of Missouri's criminalistics laboratories emphasizes that significant expansion began in 1970 with the assistance of the Missouri Council on Criminal Justice and Federal funds. Under legislation passed in 1980, the State will assume all or part of the crime laboratories' operating costs and the Department of Public Safety will coordinate the dispersement of these funds. This report first presents a management model for all crime laboratories which suggests that users be assigned to particular laboratories in their areas and that the laboratory network consist of four full service and eight limited service facilities. Average caseloads, professional staff size, and case turnaround times are detailed, as are equipment allocations and formulas for analyzing budgets. The adoption of standardized evidence categories and terminology by all laboratories is stongly recommended. The next section contains information that was used to construct the model, beginning with a description of the study's assumptions and data collection methods. Research material on the 1975-78 period was gathered through questionnaire surveys of users, interviews with staff in the State's 12 crime laboratories, and statistical records. This data was analyzed for compliance with laboratory standards formulated by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the American Society for Crime Laboratory Directors, and the Missouri Action Plan for Public Safety. The evaluation showed that Missouri's laboratories functioned in a confusing arrangement of independent institutions which determined their own rules for administration, management, and operation. Recommendations for effecting compliance with each standard are provided. Reports for each of the 12 laboratories considered are presented, along with responses from individual laboratory directors. Tables and charts are used throughout the text. Survey forms, legislation, and the evaluation design are appended.