MPOS LAPD Pubdoc Demo 90419

Report on the Controllers Office Audit Recommendations
May 2010 Update Recommendation #1 Reconcile the difference between the rape kit records from the physical inventory to the APIMS records to ensure that the entire rape kit backlog is accounted for. Response: This recommendation has been completed. Recommendation #2 Verify the information of the physical inventory (such as tested or not tested) with SIDs database. Eliminate the kits which have already been tested and include the untested kits which were omitted from the rape kit backlog. Response: This is an ongoing process. The minimum amount of DNA obtained from a kit that was considered unsuitable for profile has changed and the interpretation on what was considered analysis complete was inconsistent. The rape kit backlog does not include kit re-tests or kits that are currently deemed as non-evidentiary due to the report status as unfounded. Robbery-Homicide Division, Special Assault Section (RHD-SAS) reviewed 356 cases initially identified as Report Unfounded from the 6,132 Historical Backlog. Upon case assessment, RHD SAS determined that 151 (42%) of cases reviewed would remain Report Unfounded. Out of the 151 cases, 90 kits were slated for testing and were accounted for in the Remaining Untested Kits in the monthly Progress Report. The May DNA Progress Report, will reflect the 90 kits being placed into the Unsuitable for Testing after RHD SAS Report Unfounded review. Recommendation #3 Assess the resources needed to clear the secondary backlog of kits awaiting technical reviews and request additional funding, if necessary. Response: This recommendation is ongoing upon the completion of all the technical reviews, however, the funding of this procedure is anticipated to be sufficient.
The 2009 Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement Program Grant for $245,549 has been approved by the Mayor. This will allow for the secondary backlog of the technical data reviews to be completed from the Historical Backlog numbers in a timely manner. The funds have been tabulated to be sufficient to complete the secondary backlog of about 2400 technical reviews on an overtime basis. $1.8 million has been allocated from the general fund for FY 2010/2011. When combined with funds from the 2009 and 2010 NIJ Backlog Grants, as well as the UASI Grant, the total funding available to cover costs associated with the outsourcing of pending SAEK analysis is approximately $3.5 million. This amount is anticipated to be sufficient to address the needs of the Department. Nine of the ten new staff members have been hired as of June 7, 2010. Due to background check completion, the starting dates for the remaining selected staff members is pending, but expected to be hired by June 22, 2010. Recommendation #4 Submit written reports to the Public Safety Committee once a month and to City Council once a quarter which show pertinent sexual assault kit statistics as described in the audit report. Response: This recommendation has been completed. A monthly DNA report has been developed with the corroboration of the Controllers Office, the City Attorneys Office, Councilmember Eric Garcettis office, and a multitude of victim advocate groups. The monthly report documents efforts to reduce the Historical Backlog and provides the monthly progress. The report is currently viewable to the public online via the Department website (http://www.lapdonline.org). Recommendation #5 Place a high priority on developing a comprehensive master database to account for all untested rape kits and develop a formal timeline for implementing the master database. Response: To date, funding for this project has not been established. Information Technology Division is attempting to develop a loosely-coupled database system to integrate information from different databases to accurately account for the tracking of all kits booked and provide comprehensive information pending funding of a master database. Also, a Request for Proposal (RFP) will be completed upon continued research on the development of a master database that will provide accurate and comprehensive information. An actual dollar amount cannot be determined without an RFP.
Recommendation #6 Continue to place a high priority on sending out required victim notifications and seek additional resources if required. The Department should also send out notifications on pre-2004 cases that are not required by the Penal Code. Response: The letter notification process has been completed for the original 403 Stranger cases. The Department identified 137 victims that required letters according to the mandates of Penal Code section 680. Letters were sent to all 137 victims. The Department will continue to place a high priority on the victim notification process. The Department will continue to track, monitor, and send victim notification letters as mandated by Penal Code section 680. Scientific Investigation Division will continue to test the SAEKs within two years, thus eliminating the need for future notification letters. Penal Code section 680 is not retroactive, therefore Victim Notification Letters were not initially sent on any cases that occurred between 1997 and 2004. However, if a victim expresses an interest in their SAEK case status, the Department provides notification updates and refers the concerned individuals for counseling. We will continue to look at how we can address pre-2004 victims that meet 680PC criteria and seek innovative ways to notify victims without revictimizing, and review the impact this notification process will have on the Department. Recommendation #7 Develop protocols which will increase the likelihood that victims receive the notifications. Response: This recommendation has been completed. Currently, the Department obtains the victims most recent address through various Department computer resources. Thorough work on the front-end will increase the likelihood of locating each victim. All victim notification letters are being sent as certified mail for higher contact rate from victims.
Recommendation #8 Update the information in the Grants Tracking System in a timely manner to prepare the Quarterly Report submitted to the Department of Justice. If needed, request access to FMIS from the Controllers Office. Response: Grants staff will enter Program expenditures into the Grants Tracking System (GTS) immediately after the expenditure is approved by the Grants Supervisor and forwarded to Fiscal Operations Division (FOD) for processing. After expenditures are paid, FOD enters the payment information into GTS. When the quarterly reports to the Department of Justice are prepared, the grants billing analyst will refer not only to GTS, but the SAR, paid invoices, and other supporting documentation to complete the financial report. Recommendation #9 Modify the system features of the Grants Tracking System so that month-end information will be available to the users more timely. Response: Currently, any information entered into the GTS is immediately available for review by a user. Grant staff is currently discussing system modifications of GTS with Information Technology Division staff to capture more data and create additional reports.
Prepared By Detective James Blocker Robbery-Homicide Division SAEK Coordinator

MPOS LAPD Pubdoc Demo 90419

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPOS LAPD Pubdoc Demo 90419

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report on the Controllers Office Audit Recommendations

Prepared By Detective James Blocker Robbery-Homicide Division SAEK Coordinator

You might also like