Criminal Investigations Workshop

ANU, Canberra
10 & 11 December 2009

[NB: This is Version 2 of this workshop paper. Please delete and/or

shred Version 1 which was posted on this website prior to 1 December
2009.]

The Effectiveness of Forensic Science in Criminal Investigations

Roberta Julian (with Sally Kelty)

Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies
University of Tasmania

Introduction
Forensic science has received a great deal of publicity in recent years. This is apparent
in the popularity of television programs such as CSI and in novels published in the
crime science genre. This increased exposure in popular culture, it has been argued,
has led to increased public awareness of, and interest in, the field of forensic science
(NIJ, 2004; Dowling et al., 2006). However, popular interest in forensic science is not
a new phenomenon. What is new is the widespread belief that recent developments in
forensic science (DNA analysis in particular) have ‘revolutionized the ability of law
enforcement to identify criminals and protect the innocent from wrongful
prosecution’ (National Institute of Justice, 2004, p.3; italics added) and that DNA
analysis and databases in particular have ‘improved the capacity of police to identify,
arrest and prosecute offenders’ (Dunsmuir et al., 2008: 1).

What evidence is there that recent developments in forensic science have

revolutionized law enforcement in this way? What do we know about the impact of
forensic science on the criminal justice system in general and on criminal
investigations in particular?

This paper addresses this fundamental question by reviewing the available evidence
and identifying some of the factors that impact on the extent to which the potential of
forensic science to revolutionise law enforcement practices and justice outcomes is
realised in practice. It makes the case that there is an urgent need for empirical
evidence on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of forensic science in criminal
investigations before such definitive statements can be made with any confidence.
Finally, the paper introduces a collaborative research project that aims to establish an
evidence-based model of the key factors that affect forensic science’s impact upon the
investigation of crime.

1
Forensic science and the criminal justice system
‘Forensic science is a broad, interdisciplinary group of applications of physical and
biological sciences and various technologies to issues in civil and criminal justice’
(Gaensslen, 2003: 1151). While it can involve any of the scientific disciplines it
typically includes chemistry, biology, pathology, entomology, psychology,
dentistry/odontology, engineering, geology and anthropology (Wakefield and
Brookman, 2009: 66). The term ‘criminalistics’ is often used synonymously with
‘forensic science’. ‘Criminalistics is concerned with the recognition, identification,
individualization, and evaluation of physical evidence using the methods of the
natural sciences in matters of legal significance’ (De Forest, Gaensslen and Lee,
1983:4). It has been argued that there is no meaningful distinction between the two
terms (Saferstein, 2001) and many scholars use them interchangeably (Fradella, Owen
and Burke, 2007: 264).

Forensic science is an integral component of the criminal justice system (National

Audit Office [NAO], 2003: 3; California Task Force on Forensic Services, 2003;
National Institute of Forensic Science [NIFS], 2001). Forensic scientists provide
invaluable information that aids in the investigation and prosecution of crime through
the scientific examination of physical evidence (California Task Force on Forensic
Services, 2003). Forensic science disciplines are increasingly relied upon by law
enforcement to solve crime, and by the judicial system to prosecute offenders
(California Task Force on Forensic Services, 2003; Lambert et al., 2007).

Police have a long history of involvement in forensic science. However, to date most
of the national and international research has focused on the actual science rather than
on the use of forensic science in the criminal investigative process (cf. Julian et al.,
2004; Julian et al., 2005). In fact, current knowledge on the application of forensic
science, particularly its effectiveness in criminal investigations and judicial outcomes,
is limited.

Given the current pace of research and development, the potential impact of forensic
science use in crime investigation and upon criminal justice outcomes, which is
already significant, promises to grow even more significantly in the near future.
However, as this paper argues, the optimal realisation of that potential requires a level
of knowledge and understanding about the nature of the interface between forensic
science and police work that we do not at present possess.

Criminal investigations: forensic science and policing

In the recently published Sage Dictionary of Policing (2009), Wakefield and
Brookman state that:

In its traditional form, criminal investigation involves the application of

standard techniques and practices to establish the circumstances of an act or
event which appears at first sight likely to involve a breach of criminal law, to
identify and (where appropriate) apprehend and question possible suspects,
and to gather sufficient information and evidence to bring one or more of them
to justice’ (Wakefield and Brookman, 2009: 65).

2
Policing scholars classify criminal investigations into two types: reactive and
proactive (Wakefield and Brookman, 2009: 66). A reactive approach to criminal
investigation ‘begins with the discovery and reporting of potential crime, and its goal
is to bring the perpetrators to justice by identifying the suspects and uncovering the
evidence required for the court to determine their guilt. The investigative process
involves interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects, examining crime scenes and
linking the suspect to the offence through forensic, and other, procedures’ (Wakefield
and Brookman, 2009: 66).

A proactive approach to criminal investigation ‘is oriented less to securing immediate

convictions and more towards managing and controlling criminal groups and
individuals’. Proactive investigations are usually instigated as a result of intelligence
analysis that an individual or group is involved in criminal enterprise’ (Wakefield and
Brookman, 2009: 66).

Developments in forensic technologies, techniques and the ability to store digital data
in databases, which allow investigators to cross match samples in ways once not
possible, have redefined what can now be considered material evidence. Thus,
developments in forensic techniques and technologies have implications that go
beyond scientific methodologies and analytical procedures practised in forensic
laboratories. Many of these implications are directly related to the role of the police in
the identification and evaluation of the crime scene, the protection from
contamination and interference of the crime scene and any subsequent involvement of
forensic evidence in the criminal investigation. Innes and Clarke (2009: 549-50) have
noted recently that ‘collecting, processing and interpreting physical evidence now
routinely constitutes a significant proportion of the work performed during a major
crime investigation’, work that is strongly supported in the United Kingdom by a
rhetoric of ‘scientific policing’.

Over the last 15 years considerable advancements have been made in forensic science
as an investigative tool for police officers in criminal cases. These advances have
changed the way police services around the world have conducted criminal
investigations from murder cases to computer crime. Advancements in the methods of
identifying biological material (e.g. DNA profiling) found at crime scenes have
increased the possibility of identifying and convicting the offender. The increased
ability to store DNA results and samples prompted many countries to embark on
constructing national DNA databases, where the DNA profiles of convicted offenders
are entered and may be searched at a later date. Countries such as New Zealand,
Australia, England and the USA have established national DNA databases. The
English DNA database, for example, was enacted in April 1995 and has had
considerable success. In an evaluation of the database performance between April
1995 and October 1998 Werrett and Sparkes (1998) found that the number of matches
was between 300 and 500 per week. These included 28,128 matches of suspect to
crime scene, and 5,936 crime scene to crime scene matches (Werrett & Sparkes,
1998:56). Their evaluation of the English DNA database has highlighted the
effectiveness of biological forensic evidence as a powerful investigative tool for
police services in Britain (see also Roach and Pease, 2006). The results of more recent
analyses are equivocal with some confirming the positive impact of DNA evidence
(e.g. Smith, 2004) while others are less positive; for example, Briody and Prenzler’s

3
(2005) analysis of the impact of DNA on burglary conviction in Britain. Nevertheless,
there is a clear trend towards an increased reliance on DNA testing within criminal
justice (Williams and Johnson, 2008).

Other advances in the analytical equipment technology used by forensic scientists to

analyse physical material have also increased the likelihood of police identifying
perpetrators of crimes without victims or witnesses. For example, Meng, Cheng, and
Chen (2002) have described the success of using scanning electron
microscope/energy dispersive X-ray analyser (SEM/EDX) in Taiwan’s counterfeiting
crimes. These machines allow for the comprehensive analysis of the material used in
counterfeit coins without the destruction of some part of the evidence as was the case
previously in the analytical process required to identify the material used by
counterfeiters (Meng et al, 2002:39). More recently, the Australian Federal Police
have utilised the concept of a mobile laboratory (Mobilab) to enable rapid
identification of offenders, explosives, and chemical or biological agents in major
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CBRNE) incidents
requiring forensic investigation. Norman et al. (2009) have demonstrated the use of
the Mobilab as both a reactive and proactive response during operations.

At the forefront of these technological changes are the individual police officers that
attend a crime scene. Uniformed police officers are generally the first response at
crime scenes. They have the discretionary power that will determine what material is
identified and collected at the scene and whether police forensic units or other
forensic specialists are called to the scene. The ability of police officers to identify,
understand and process forensic evidence for further specialist forensic intervention is
of paramount importance to the successful conclusion of a criminal investigation.

Nevertheless, a recent review of what’s working in policing in the United States

concluded that, notwithstanding the expenditure of many billions of dollars on police
research by the National Institute of Justice, research into more effective criminal
investigation had been largely limited to car theft and burglary and was generally
thirty years out of date (Skogan and Frydl, 2004). In the United Kingdom between
1999 and 2001 the British Home Office funded a large body of research into problem-
oriented policing and crime prevention but none of this looked at the relationship
between the investigation of crime and the use of forensic science (Bullock and
Tilley, 2002). There has been a small cumulative development of official policy-based
research on the police use of forensic science in the United Kingdom, some conducted
by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (Blakey, 2000; Blakey, 2002), some
by the Audit Commission (NAO, 2003). Generally, though, research has centred upon
the development of forensic science and technology, rather than upon the use of that
instrumental capability by police officers and their managers (McCulloch, 1996).

Research into forensic science and policing

The dearth of research into the nexus between policing and forensic science has been
identified as problematic in the United Kingdom (NAO, 2003; ACPO & FSS, 1995),
the United States (California Task Force on Forensic Services, 2003), Europe (Ribaux
and Margot, 2003; Ribaux et al, 2003) and Australia (NIFS, 2001).

4
The limited research that has been undertaken in the UK, Canada and the USA has
identified deficiencies in the police use of forensic science as an evidentiary and
investigative tool (see Taylor and Hirst, 1995; Horvath & Meesig, 1996; Oliver, 2002;
Curran, 1997). Much of this research has focused on the police officers’ abilities to
identify and process forensic evidence that will meet the legal admissibility
requirements in court proceedings (McDonald, 2001).

McCulloch’s (1996) research studied the use of forensic science support services in
eleven police forces in the UK. The findings indicated that the majority of forensic
services were used to test drugs. The drug tests represented 42% of the submissions to
forensic laboratories, which constituted 16% of the forensic support budget
(McCulloch, 1996:25). Furthermore, 7% of the items submitted for drug testing were
not suitable for forensic examination. However, the majority of the submissions not
suitable for forensic examination were tendered by only three of the eleven police
forces. It was also possible from the data to consider the variation in submissions
between the police forces. This indicated that police forces that had a high crime rate
submitted samples from more violent crimes and police forces that had a low crime
rate were more likely to use forensic support services for volume crime. Tilley and
Ford (1996) studied the relationship of forensic science suppliers and the police use of
these services. Their findings suggested that there was little proactive use of forensic
science by police services and a widespread lack of understanding about the
application of forensic science as an analytical tool in criminal investigations (Tilley
& Ford, 1996:46).

The Home Office study by David Blakey entitled Under the Microscope (2000) found
that the knowledge of operational officers first attending a crime scene was deficient
in the areas of: their forensic responsibilities, the role of forensic science in their jobs
and the implications for policing in general. Blakey (2000: 3) determined:

How forensic science fitted into force strategies and plans, in particular into
the crime strategy, was not clearly understood by operational officers and
sometimes not by senior detectives. ACPO (Association of Chief of Police
Officers) policy developments in this dynamic field were not always easy to
track during the inspection. It is perhaps therefore not surprising that at an
operational level there was some lack of understanding.

In addition, Blakey observed there was a distinct lack of unity between the
‘investigative teams’ and the ‘Scene of Crime Officers’ (SOCOs). In Under the
Microscope it was found that there was a lack of acceptance of forensic personnel
within the police force at both the personal and professional level.

Many SOCOs reported no sense of belonging to the investigative teams in

their BCU (Basic Command Unit). Those co-located with CID (Criminal
Investigation department) officers or proactive teams either at BCUs or HQs
(Head Quarters) generally considered themselves better integrated and were
more satisfied that there was productive communication (Blakey, 2000: 7).

Nearly eighty-five per cent of forensic support personnel attending crime scenes were
civilian and it was posited by Blakey (2000: 8) that this may have been a major
contributing factor in their lack of acceptance. In addition, the forensic personnel

5
embedded in the BCU were under a different chain of command (HQ rather than
BCU) which contributed to tension between the two command personnel. One
attempt mentioned by Blakey (2000: 8) as a means to ameliorate the divisions and
tensions between the police and civilian staff at the Kent Police Department in
England, was to re-designate the SOCOs as Crime Scene Investigators (CSI) in order
‘…to emphasise the role and reinforce the principle that the personnel are full
members of the investigative team’. Overall, the Under the Microscope report
concluded that:

The lack of awareness across the service, at all levels, regarding what
scientific and technical support can deliver in terms of crime detection and
reduction is a major concern and can only be tackled by a systematic training
needs analysis followed up by appropriate training. Training at both the
specialist level and at the level of the operational officer is crucial and
fundamental to developing effective investigative techniques (Blakey, 2000:
83).

The most important factors in overcoming the difficulties resulting from lack of
forensic awareness of operational officers are leadership, communication, teamwork,
awareness and training. However, Blakey reported that in 1994 a similar investigation
into these issues produced a document, published by the ACPO and Forensic Science
Service (FSS) called Using Forensic Science Effectively (UFSE) in 1996, and that the
later inspection Under the Microscope in 2000 found that the awareness of the 1996
UFSE report was unacceptably low. ‘The 2000 inspection found awareness to be
strictly limited and consequently use of UFSE was limited for the most part to those
forces that had the bonus of a member of staff who had contributed to the production
of the document’ (Blakey, 2000: 3). The UFSE report found that:

Operational officers and their supervisors are fundamental to effective crime

scene preservation and the effective deployment of scientific and technical
support services. Theirs is the first contact with the victim and the first
professional assessment of the crime scene. They set the investigative scene in
which specialist scientific support staff later assume the lead roles. It is
crucial, therefore, that those officers are confidently aware of what the science
and the technologies develop’ (cited in Blakey, 2000: 75).

It was found, however, that ‘…operational staff were rarely given “awareness” or
refresher training on those issues which were for the most part absent from force
training plans. The majority of staff interviewed confirmed that they had not received
such training and, in consequence, lacked the confidence to carry out this part of their
daily duty’ (Blakey, 2000: 76). To counter this lack of awareness the following
recommendations were made (Blakey, 2000: 77):

Recommendation 14: Her Majesty’s Inspector recommends that awareness

training in relation to scientific and technical support be given to all police
staff appropriate to their roles during the following key stages of human
resource deployments:
- At the time of joining the service
- During initial training for role
- During training for specialist roles

6
 - During managerial and supervisory training
- As part of general refresher training

Recommendation 15: Her Majesty’s Inspector recommends that ACPO

develop an agreed national common minimum standard for all training in
relation to scientific and technical support and ensure that it is effectively
evaluated.

The limited UK research findings on the interface of forensic science and policing
have been mirrored in research in other western countries with similar police and
court structures. For example, research in the USA examined how police officers
understand the application of forensic science in criminal investigations (see Oliver,
2002; Lambert et al., 2007). This resulted in the US Department of Justice developing
the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigations, which aimed to
develop best practice procedures for police departments across the US (Office of
Justice Programs, 2000:v). Other initiatives by the US National Institute of Justice
have included the development of a briefing paper and training manuals for US police
forces on the possible location of DNA and physical evidence at the crime scene and
on how to process that evidence for further forensic analysis. One paper, ‘What Every
Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA’ (NIJ, 2001) which is designed
for police officers attending crime scenes, has prompt sheets that can be cut out and
pasted on clipboards, to help officers identify possible areas where DNA evidence
may be found and the correct processes for collecting and storing DNA evidence to
ensure its preservation for further forensic analysis. More recently, a report from the
National Research Council of the US National Academies, Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009) addressed a number of key
points including:

• recommendations for maximising the use of forensic technologies and

techniques to solve crime, investigate deaths, and protect the public; and,

• potential scientific advances that may assist law enforcement in using forensic
technologies and techniques to protect the public.

In Australia, a series of studies on forensic science and policing conducted for the
National Institute of Forensic Science in three jurisdictions (Julian, 2005; Julian &
Mason, 2002; Julian et al., 2004; Julian et al., 2005) produced similar findings. These
studies examined the awareness of forensic science among general duties officers and
included the following findings:

• the level of awareness of forensic science and what it offers to policing could
be improved among the majority of police officers;

• levels of confidence with respect to identifying and collecting forensic

evidence were variable across jurisdictions;

• breadth of knowledge was limited to a small range of forensic capabilities;

namely, fingerprinting, DNA sampling and crime scene examination. CIB
officers had a greater level of awareness of forensic capabilities outside these
four than did general duties officers; however, these other capabilities remain

7
 the domain of a few specialists;

• awareness of proactive ways of using forensic science was limited, as was

knowledge of any initiatives, developments or projects aimed at enhancing the
use of forensic science in their own workplace;

• the majority of police officers expressed an interest in forensic science and its
capacity to improve policing by adding value to their roles and functions. As a
consequence, the majority expressed a strong desire for more training in
forensic science. There were three aspects to this desire for more training.
First, there was a desire for more in-depth training in the forensic capabilities
in which they had already been trained so that they could ‘do it better’.
Second, there was a desire for training in ‘other’ forensic capabilities in order
to increase the breadth of their knowledge of various forensic capabilities.
Third, there was a desire for a better understanding of the broader principles of
forensic science to improve their overall awareness of the ways in which it
could add value to policing generally and to their own roles and functions
more specifically;

• very high levels of importance were attached to most areas of forensic science,
with the exception of cost, which most respondents did not view as important
(Julian, 2005)

The international literature has shown that police services access an increasingly large
amount of sophisticated data through a range of technologies such as
telecommunications, surveillance, expert systems and biotechnologies. This has led a
number of scholars to raise questions about the relationship between
science/technology and policing. Soullière (1999:7) has argued, for example, that it is
‘appropriate to ask whether the relationship the police have (and will have) with
technology will bring law enforcement closer to the community or drive it further
apart.’ In a similar vein, McCartney notes that: ‘Police powers have been extended to
keep up with technology, raising the question of whether technology itself is dictating
the development of the law and police powers’ (McCartney, 2006: 64 cited in
Wakefield and Brookman, 2009: 67).

The effectiveness of forensic science in criminal investigations

As discussed above, in the United Kingdom, a number of well-resourced studies of

the relationship between forensic services and policing have been undertaken in
recent years (McCulloch, 1996; Blakey, 2000; Blakey, 2002; NAO, 2003). Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s most recent review of the investigative use
of DNA and fingerprints ends by welcoming the Association of Chief Police Officers
announcement that it intends to develop a comprehensive police service strategy for
forensic science.

Among these reports are a few that have reviewed how effectively forensic science
has been employed to support policing in the United Kingdom. These reports have
identified a combination of factors that together determine the effectiveness of

8
forensic service delivery (NAO, 2003; Fraser, 2003). In these reports the effectiveness
of forensic science has been assessed using criteria such as the timeliness of services,
the conclusiveness of results and the cost of the service.

1) Timeliness of forensic services

As part of evaluating the timeliness of forensic services the performance of
forensic service providers against service level agreements with police forces
has been measured (Comptroller and Auditor General, 2003). The satisfaction
of police members with the timeliness of forensic services has been surveyed
and included in reports.

2) Conclusiveness of forensic results

A report from the Home Office in 1996 (McCulloch, 1996) equated the
usefulness of forensic science with how conclusive the results of the forensic
tests were. In this report the conclusiveness of the forensic results was
assessed by police members.

3) Cost effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is an important and valid parameter to consider when
assessing the efficiency of the delivery of forensic services (Fraser, 2003).
Systems that measure the total cost per output and systems that measure the
value added per staff costs have been applied (Comptroller and Auditor
General, 2003).

However, with respect to the last criterion, a Home Office Research Group review of
the police use of forensic science argued that in the absence of sustained research into
ways of solving crimes and their costs, questions about cost benefit analysis could not
be answered, with current patterns of usage of forensic science unable to reveal their
cost-benefit potential.

More recently, Fraser (2003) has argued that while a variety of reports in the UK have
been influential in shaping police practices ‘none has explored how to specify and
evaluate forensic science provision from suppliers’ (2003: 249). He points to a
number of factors that compound the situation such as:

• a lack of knowledge of forensic science in the police service;

• the paucity of evaluations of tactical use of forensic science;
• a reliance on anecdotal evidence of success by police; and
• cultural differences between scientific and law enforcement organisations.

Importantly, he argues that:

The absence of a structured approach to forensic supply means that decisions

may be made on restricted criteria that do not provide sufficient information to
make effective evaluations. There is also a danger of being driven by short-
term priorities such as price or timeliness at the cost of value and scientific
standards (2003: 249).

A similar picture emerges in the United States. In a 2004 report, the American Society
of Crime Laboratory Directors noted that ‘(r)esearch in the forensic sciences is

9
focused primarily on how technology can be applied to forensic evidence’ (ASCLD,
2004: 23-4). This same report, however, emphasises that ‘forensic science
laboratories must identify innovative ways of working more efficiently and rapidly to
reduce case backlogs and to bring forensic science to the crime scene’ (ASCLD,
2004: 24). In the same year, a National Institute of Justice report to Congress on the
Status and Needs of Forensic Service Providers concluded that ‘it is not possible to
present a full and complete picture in certain areas [of forensic science]’, explaining
that this was, at least in part, due to a lack of available ‘quantifiable data’ (NIJ, 2004:
3). Such reports have prompted a number of recent studies in the US that focus on
return on investment (ROI) and cost-benefit analyses as decision-making tools for
managers of forensic laboratories (Roman et al., 2008; Speaker, 2009a; Speaker
2009b).

In Australia, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) recognised the need for
research on the interface between forensic science and policing and commissioned its
Partnership Projects in 2002 to begin exploring this lacuna (Julian and Mason, 2002;
Julian et al, 2004; Julian et al, 2005; Julian, 2005). Subsequently, research examining
the impact of a DNA database on rates at which crimes are cleared and/or offenders
prosecuted and convicted has been conducted in the context of prison inmates in
NSW (Dunsmuir et al., 2008).

In sum, the role of forensic science in the criminal justice system is to provide support
to criminal investigations and court trials. Previous reports have recognised the
absence of reliable data to appraise the performance of forensic science (Blakey,
2000; Fraser, 2003). Clearly, it would be beneficial to have empirical data on the
actual outcomes that follow the application of forensic services, which could provide
a measure of the impact of the forensic services on police investigations1 and court
trials.

Current Knowledge and Future Challenges

The limited research that has been conducted to date on the effectiveness of forensic
science in the criminal justice system points to its enormous potential. However, very
little rigorous empirical research has been conducted, in Australia or elsewhere, into
whether forensic evidence impacts on criminal investigations and (and if so, at what
point in the process and how). While current knowledge is limited, a number of
factors can be identified that make realising the potential of forensic science in
supporting criminal investigations extremely challenging. Some of these are worth
noting here.

Increased case workloads and backlogs

Internationally, one of the biggest challenges for the forensic science community is
that of meeting increasing case workloads (NIJ, 2004: 3). Over the past decade,
demand for forensic science analysis has been increasing while ‘forensic science is

1
A recent study conducted by the Home Office has made a significant step in this direction. The
Scientific Work Improvement Model (SWIM) Summary Report (The Home Office and The Larner
Group, 2007) documents a study exploring the forensic process in a number of police forces across
England and Wales.

10
becoming more specialised and complex’ (NAO, 2003:1). In the United Kingdom, the
total number of cases received from the police by the Forensic Science Service
increased by 52% between 1996-7 and 2003 (NAO, 2003: 4). At the same time, added
pressure to ‘make the difference’ in criminal investigations has come from the general
public whose interest in forensic science has increased dramatically through popular
television shows depicting ‘the crime laboratory as an important and exciting
endeavor’ (NIJ, 2004: 3).

The criminal justice system increasingly relies on forensic science as new technology
emerges at an ever-increasing rate (California Task Force on Forensic Services,
2003). This places demands on the forensic science community and on the capacity of
forensic laboratories to deliver effective and efficient forensic services. In a 2004
study on the Status and Needs of United States Crime Laboratories it was noted that:

The demand for testing has increased for crime laboratory analyses, but
funding has not kept pace with this increasing demand. Crime laboratory
backlogs cause significant delays in evidence being analysed, resulting in
delays in the courts as well as in the investigation of crimes. The largest 50
laboratories in the U.S. ended the year 2002 with an increase of 134% in their
backlogs (ASCLD, 2004: iii).

In Australia, the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) also identified

backlogs and problems in the timeliness of results as significant issues for law
enforcement in forensic service delivery (Julian et al., 2004; Julian, 2005).

Reactive and proactive policing

As noted above, policing scholars generally classify frontline police work into two
types: reactive and proactive. Operational policing has been predominantly demand
driven (i.e. reactive). It has been, and continues to be, dominated by a preoccupation
with responding to calls for assistance through traditional investigative techniques.
Thirty years ago this approach may have been appropriate due to the lower levels of
technology available to assist investigations, the relatively less sophisticated crime
patterns and the lower volume of reported crime compared with contemporary society
(Ross, 2006). However, many jurisdictions in the developed world have experienced
an escalation in the volume and sophistication of crime, without an associated
increase in clearance rates. This experience of policing being dominated by the need
to respond to reports of crime has been described in the UK as a ‘vicious circle’.

In contrast, proactive policing involves predicting, identifying and analysing problems

so that options can be proposed for averting or resolving them. Police managers are
tasked with championing and leading the process and making decisions on
implementing tactics. Importantly, when police resources are focussed on responding
to crime incidents, managers are unable to apply proactive strategies. This becomes
particularly problematic when the demand for resources to deal reactively to crime is
ever increasing. This describes the current situation (some would say ‘crisis’) in
relation to the application of forensic science to criminal investigations.

Any investment in proactive strategies involves considerable resource commitment.

Accordingly, to realise resource commitment to such strategies it is necessary that

11
reactive strategies are reinvented. Proactive measures cannot be adopted unless the
response burden for reported crime is relieved (Ross, 2006).

Forensic science can be used effectively in both reactive and proactive policing. As
noted in the UK:

Assessing the effectiveness of casework is important in terms of whether it

provides conclusive evidence in support of an investigation or information of
intelligence value (NAO, 2003: 14).

To date, however, the focus has been on the use of forensic science in reactive
policing. Traditionally, the role forensic science has played in criminal investigations
has come after the fact. It has been as an aid to investigators following the
commission of a crime (Ross, 2006). With developments in technology and higher
expectations being placed on forensic science to be used in criminal investigations,
this has led to an exponential growth in requests for forensic analysis – along with the
associated problems of lengthy turnaround times, backlogs, and excessive case
workloads for forensic scientists.

The advent of DNA profiling has brought about a fundamental change in approach by
forensic science and it is now recognised as a powerful intelligence tool in addition to
being a vital investigative aid (Ross, 2006; Ribaux, Baylon, Roux, Delemont, Lock,
Zingg & Margot, forthcoming 2010a). In their review of the literature on the use of
forensic science in volume crime investigations, Bradbury and Feist (2005) show how
forensic evidence was predominantly used for corroborative purposes in the past but
has now moved ‘to a position where cold searching of contact trace material against
large computer databases … increasingly means that such information can itself
generate detections’ (Robinson and Tilley, 2009). Using forensic science more
effectively as an intelligence tool has the potential to resolve some of the problems
that have arisen from increases in case workload. Realising this potential, however,
will require a shift in police culture and a re-distribution of resources towards
proactive policing (Ribaux, Baylon, Lock, Delemont, Roux, Zingg and Margot,
forthcoming).

Volume crime and serious crime

Forensic science has been used predominantly to address serious crime, partly due to
the resource issues described above. However, the potential for forensic science to be
used as an intelligence tool is enhanced when it is used to assist in the investigation of
volume crime. Volume crime is the term applied to a range of prevalent property
crimes including: burglary of residential and other premises, theft of motor vehicle,
theft from motor vehicle, property damage, theft of bicycle, and theft. In Victoria in
2001/2002, volume crime offences represented approximately 67% of all reported
offences (Statistical Service Branch, Victoria Police, 2003 cited in Ross, 2006).

It is now widely recognised that a proportion of criminals progress from the

commission of volume crime to the commission of crimes against the person or
serious crimes such as assault, sexual offences and homicide. Studies in New Zealand
and the UK have shown that approximately 85% of serial offenders have previously
committed volume crime offences such as house burglary.

12
The targeting of volume crime has numerous benefits. One of them is the ability to
obtain, for example, fingerprints and DNA profiles from the offenders and to maintain
them on a database. Should these offenders then migrate to the commission of serious
crimes there is a much greater chance of early detection and prevention of further
offences. In Victoria, figures from the Forensic Services Department (FSD) DNA
database show that profiles from offenders convicted of the volume crimes of
burglary/attempted burglary and theft of a motor vehicle have subsequently been
linked to:

• murder/manslaughter;
• rape/attempted rape;
• armed robbery; and
• assault/unlawful assault cases.

The targeting of volume crime allows for the development of more comprehensive
databases and will enable an improvement in the efficiency of those databases (Ross,
2006). In support of this view, a recent study in the United States that examined the
impact of expanding DNA evidence collection and testing from violent criminal
incidents only to the investigation of property crimes, found that:

Property crime cases where DNA evidence is processed have more than twice
as many suspects identified, twice as many suspects arrested, and more than
twice as many cases accepted for prosecution compared with traditional
investigation’ (Roman et al, 2008: 3).

Intelligence-led policing and resource re-distribution

Intelligence-led policing is intelligence-driven, evidence-based and problem-oriented
(Ratcliffe, 2003). Its achievement requires a shift in police culture and resources
towards proactive policing (Ratcliffe, 2005). The efficient and effective use of forensic
science is an essential element in this shift. However, as noted above, police and the
forensic science community do not have adequate information on the factors that
contribute to the efficient and effective use of forensic science. This limited
knowledge-base is a major factor inhibiting the realisation of the enormous potential
of forensic science in the criminal justice system. As noted in a 2003 assessment of
California’s forensic service delivery system:

The limited resources of our forensic delivery system are under increasing
strain as the demand for scientific evidence continues to grow. To the extent
that our laboratories are unable to meet the needs of their clients in a timely
fashion, the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire criminal justice system
can be undermined. We must ensure that pressure on the laboratories for more
and faster results never reduces the accuracy and quality of their work, for that
could result in injustice (California Task Force on Forensic Services, 2003;
italics added).

The forensic science community in Australia has expressed similar concerns. The
National Institute of Forensic Science and senior members of the forensic science
community in Australia consider it essential that the nexus between policing and
forensic science be critically examined and the relationship between them redesigned
in order to:

13
• reduce workload pressure in the forensic laboratory,
• reduce backlogs in the forensic laboratory,
• improve the turnaround times/timeliness of forensic results, and
• increase the efficiency and effectiveness of forensic science in criminal
investigations.

Knowledge and awareness of forensic science among police officers

The collection of evidence at the crime scene is a crucial first step in the process
through which forensic science impacts on the criminal justice system. Although the
collection is undertaken by police officers, little is known about the views and
attitudes of law enforcement personnel toward forensic science matters (Julian, 2005;
Lambert et al., 2007:416). As Steadman (2000) has noted, however, ‘police are the
crucial link in the forensic evidence chain, as the vast majority of the forensic
evidence requests made to crime labs are from the police’ (cited in Lambert et al,
2007: 416).

The few studies that have been undertaken on this topic indicate that the level of
forensic awareness and knowledge of many police officers is limited. Horvath and
Meesig (1996) argued that, as a consequence, ‘the true value of forensic evidence is
often underutilized’. In the United States, Lambert et al. (2007) examined the forensic
science views and needs of a sample of Michigan law enforcement agencies. They
found that forensic evidence appeared to be used more frequently in violent crimes
than non-violent-crimes and that smaller and rural departments were ‘more
inexperienced with the more specialized forms of forensic evidence’ (2007: 427).
When asked to nominate the areas considered most important for applicants and
recruits, the majority of respondents did not select the more specialized forensic
evidence as important. As Lambert et al. argue:

It is likely that many police officials have little background in these areas
themselves, and therefore may not fully understand their importance in an
investigation (2007: 427).

Nevertheless, approximately three-quarters of respondents thought that forensic

evidence was important in criminal cases and 78% of respondents wanted additional
forensic training (2007: 427).

The research need

Currently, to a large extent the policing and forensic community has been ‘flying
blind’ in terms of the true impact of its work. The time saved in an investigation by
information and intelligence provided by forensic examination and/or analyses is not
known. Investments of government funds are based on the best sources of information
known at the time and are often based on number of analyses that will or can be
performed rather than on the maximum effectiveness and efficiencies of the various
forensic disciplines. With the onset of new technologies and the time and cost
involved in their implementation it is important that the best strategic decisions are
made. The questions of how effective one type of forensic test is over another or the
synergistic effects of a certain group of tests over another have yet to be answered.
Investment in infrastructure, personnel and future research into new techniques can be

14
more effectively allocated if the value it will obtain can be predicted. With the
emergence of more proactive forensic techniques and the application of intelligence
databases and data-mining tools the speed of decision-making will increase and so too
will rapid changes in the demand for certain types of forensic analyses. With ever-
competing demand for time and money, research on new forensic techniques and
applications has to have a more focused system for evaluation of potential worth.
Police agencies need to know that they are providing the right level of forensic
services and the most effective mix of such services.

New research
A team of researchers based at the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies
(TILES) at the University of Tasmania has been successful in receiving funding to
undertake research on the ‘Effectiveness of Forensic Science in the Criminal Justice
System’ through the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Grants program. Victoria
Police, the Australian Federal Police and the National Institute of Forensic Science
are the Collaborating Organisations on this five-year project that will focus on two
jurisdictions: Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The project brings
together, possibly for the first time in a multi-disciplined approach, sociological and
economic researchers, state and federal police agencies, forensic science practitioners,
forensic researchers and intelligence experts from both local and international
institutions (including the University of Tasmania, the University of Technology
Sydney and the University of Lausanne, Switzerland).

The project involves a comprehensive analysis of the role of forensic science in the
criminal justice system. Conceptually, it adopts a model that enables a focus on
processes and outcomes across three areas: forensic services, police and the courts.

Forensic investigation Police investigation Court process

and outcome(s) and outcome(s) and outcome(s)

The objectives of the proposed research are (1) to assess the effectiveness of forensic
science in police investigations and court trials, and (2) to identify when, where and
how forensic services can add value to police investigations, court trials and justice
outcomes while ensuring the efficient use of available resources. The aims are:

• to identify the processes involved in police investigations and court trials and
investigate the phases in which forensic science is typically employed;
• to quantify the outcomes of police investigations and court trials that have
utilised forensic services;
• to undertake a robust economic interpretation of the effectiveness of a range of
forensic science disciplines and techniques;
• to identify the objective and subjective factors that contribute to the effective
(and ineffective) uses of forensic science;
• to develop an evidence-based best practice model for using forensic science
effectively as intelligence, as an identification science and as an investigative
science.

15
What does ‘the effectiveness of forensic science’ mean? Managing expectations
and achieving successful outcomes

One of the challenges in achieving successful outcomes in this research lies in the
need to understand, and satisfy, the expectations of its diverse stakeholders. Mochal
(2006) suggests there are two distinct reasons for why stakeholders can view projects
as unsuccessful. The first is where, over time, stakeholders expand their original
outcome expectations. This becomes problematic when outcome expectations change
over time and the change exceeds what the research team can deliver. Alternatively, it
is possible that the stakeholders all have different output expectations and not all the
expectations are clear or known to other team members.

The second way that projects can be viewed as unsuccessful is where one or more
stakeholders become immersed in a new line of enquiry that causes them to radically
alter their original thinking and worldview. Research and knowledge are not stagnant
and we are not suggesting that research progress must stop during projects. However,
this shift in thinking can create problems if the majority of team members do not wish
to pursue this new direction or where, over time, a stakeholder begins to
subconsciously misconstrue the original purpose of the project and the research aims
start to blur in to the new research direction.

In the early stages of the ARC Linkage Project, we used a direct approach to explore
expectations. In order to avoid group bias we saw each of our stakeholders
individually and held an informal meeting to discuss the research. In each meeting we
explored the stakeholder’s understanding and expectations for the project. In order to
assess expectations we asked our stakeholders tow explicit questions. As the project is
titled ‘the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system’ we asked
each stakeholder what the term ‘effective forensic science’ meant to them. Our
second question was what are areas of criminal justice and/or forensic science they
would like to see explored in the project. The third question was what outcomes they
believe the research should aim to achieve. The overall rationale for these questions
was to discover whether or not industry partners were all aligned in their expectations
of the project.

From our interview notes five qualitatively different expectation/outcome themes

emerged. Each of these themes represented a qualitatively different meaning assigned
to the term ‘effective forensic science’. We present below each of the five different
meanings assigned and how that related to five different outcome expectations.

Theme One: Higher quality science

The first interpretation emphasised the quality of the work done by forensic scientists
and scientific improvements in the field. The stakeholders here described the
importance of the validity and reliability of scientific techniques and the accuracy of
reports. From this perspective, for forensic science to be effective Australian forensic
laboratories should be equipped with reliable and advanced technology, and the tests
and techniques used in analyses should be based on the latest evidence.

Outcome expectations associated with ‘higher quality science’ were the requirement
for more critical peer review of what forensic techniques are currently used and why,

16
for more research into advancements in the science, and for results to be published in
high quality empirically-based journal articles.

Theme Two: Broadening the role of forensic science

The second interpretation was less concerned with the quality of the science per se
and more concerned with how people use forensic science. The stakeholders here
stressed a belief that forensic scientists were under-utilised and that the value of
forensic science was not fully recognised in the criminal justice system (i.e. by police
and the courts). These stakeholders argued that rather than being used as processors of
evidence, forensic scientists could play a more active intelligence and investigative
role than is currently the case. In essence, there was a belief that the science, and its
potential value, was ‘drowning in the criminal justice bureaucracy’.

Outcome expectations associated with ‘broadening the role of forensic science’ could
be met through a critical reflection on the current role of forensic science that would
lead to changes in the way in which forensic science is used by the criminal justice
system. This critical examination would include developing, trialling and evaluating a
model for using forensic science more proactively. It would also determine whether
the demands placed on forensic scientists by the courts are an efficient use of time and
resources, and whether the types of evidence required for court could be streamlined
without compromising justice.

Theme Three: Improving the use of forensic evidence

This theme was also concerned with how people use forensic science. However, the
stakeholders here were concerned with reflecting on, and improving, the current
processes involved in the identification and use of forensic evidence in criminal
investigations and courts. This involved mapping the process of the criminal
investigation, identifying the points at which forensic evidence is involved, and
identifying problems (or ‘leakage points’) in the system. The stakeholders here talked
about how to make the system work better; for example, identifying what causes
specific problems in the workflow, fixing attrition points.

For these stakeholders, the aim of the project was to map out better practice,
especially in terms of better communication and feedback between various
practitioners (e.g. forensic scientists, police officers, prosecutors and magistrates).

Theme Four: Influence on justice

The fourth meaning was concerned with whether forensic science has a beneficial
influence on justice. Rather than emphasising the quality of the science, or broadening
the role of forensic science, the stakeholders here wanted to know whether forensic
science made a difference in the criminal justice system by having an impact on
justice outcomes. From this perspective, if forensic science is effective then it should
have a positive role in ensuring justice by exonerating the innocent, supporting police
in their criminal investigations, and influencing just outcomes in court.

Theme Five: Effective forensic science = ‘bang for your buck’

The last interpretation of ‘effective forensic science’ was couched within a
managerialist approach and focused on finances. The stakeholders here emphasised
that to be effective, forensic science should be cost-effective and show value for

17
money to the community. These stakeholders expected a return on investment (RoI)
analysis to be a major outcome of the research.

Finding that stakeholders had different interpretations of the meaning of the term
‘effective’ is not surprising; nor is it uncommon. According to Ausenda (2003), the
terms effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency, although having very different meanings,
are often used interchangeably. This can create ambiguity. Effectiveness is a term that
describes the quality of outputs where an effective output is one that can be judged as
competent, complete or capable of allowing a secondary task to commence. Efficacy
is a term used to describe the power to produce desired effects within given
constraints. Efficacy therefore does not describe whether an actual outcome is
effective just whether it could be. In contrast, efficiency is an economic concept
describing how desired results are produced within the prescribed minimum use if
resources. Cost-effectiveness is often used to mean cost-efficiency. This distinction is
useful in analysing our discussions with stakeholders. We found that they used the
term ‘effectiveness’ to mean one or more of these and it was used to describe both
economic and non-economic outcomes following the application of forensic science
in the criminal justice system.

Working through these issues and differences in meaning is an essential first step in
determining ‘the effectiveness of forensic science’ in criminal investigations.

Conclusion

It is always desirable to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery.

This is particularly so for forensic science as the number of criminal incidents
investigated greatly exceeds the available forensic resources that can be applied.
Some work has been done which has sought to evaluate the effectiveness of forensic
services and identify ways to improve its impact. However there is still no readily
available mechanism for evaluating the final impacts of forensic services on police
investigations, court proceedings and community well-being which can facilitate the
strategic deployment of resources for maximum benefit.

This is a problem that has been identified, and is only just beginning to be explored,
in the international context. The collaborative research described here will establish
an evidence-based model of the key variables that affect forensic science’s impact
upon the investigation of crime and justice outcomes for use by Australian police
agencies and governments in pursuit of optimal evidence-based policies and practices.
In doing so, the research and its outcomes will provide an international lead for
Australia.

18
References
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (2004) 180-Day Study Report:
Status and Needs of United States Crime Laboratories, American Society of Crime
Lab. Directors.
Association of Chief Police Officers and the Forensic Science Service (ACPO & FSS)
(1995) Using Forensic Science Effectively, Birmingham.
Ausenda, G. (2003) ‘Introduction’ in G. Ausenda (ed.) On Effectiveness, Boydell
Press, pp. 1 – 12.
Blakey, D. (2000) Under the Microscope: Thematic Inspection Report on Scientific
and Technical Support, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, London.
Blakey, J. (2002) Under the Microscope: Refocused, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary, London.
Bradbury, S. & Feist, A. (2005) The use of forensic science in volume crime
investigations: A review of the research literature (RDS Online Report OLR 43/05).
London: Home Office.
Bullock, K. & Tilley, N. (2002) ‘Shootings, gangs and violent incidents in
Manchester: developing a crime reduction strategy’, Crime Reduction Research
Series. Paper 13, London: Home Office.
California Task Force on Forensic Services (2003) ‘California Task Force on Forensic
Services Report’, Office of the Attorney General, California.
Curran, T. (1997) Forensic DNA Analysis: Technology and Application,
Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, Canada.
De Forest, P.R., Gaensslen, R.E. & Lee, H.C. (1983) Forensic Science: An
Introduction to Criminalistics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dowling, K., Fleming, T. & Muzzatti, S.L. (2006) ‘Constructing crime: Media, crime
and popular culture’. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48, (6),
837-850.
Dunsmuir, W.T.M., Tran, C. & Wetherburn, D. (2008) Assessing the Impact of
Mandatory DNA Testing of Prison Inmates in NSW on Clearance, Charge and
Conviction Rates for Selected Crime Categories, Attorney General’s Department of
NSW, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Fradella, H.F., Owen, S.S. & Burke, T.W. (2008) ‘Building Bridges Between
Criminal Justice and the Forensic Sciences to Create Forensic Studies Programs,
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, (2), 261-282.
Fraser, J. (2003) ‘Delivery and Evaluation of Forensic Science, Science and Justice,
vol. 43.
Gaensslen, R.E. (2003) ‘How Do I Become a Forensic Scientist? Educational
Pathways to Forensic Science Careers’, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 376,
1151-55.
Horvath, F. & Meesig, R. (1996) ‘Content Analysis of Textbooks on Criminal
Investigation: An Evaluation Comparison to Empirical Research Finding on the
Investigative Process and Role of Forensic Evidence’. Paper presented to the 48th
Annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 1996,
Nashville.
Innes, M. & Clarke, A. (2009) ‘Policing the past: cold case studies, forensic evidence
and retroactive social control’, The British Journal of Sociology, 60, (3), 543-563.
Julian, R. (2005) National Institute of Forensic Science - Partnership Projects 2002-
2004, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of Tasmania,
Hobart.

19
Julian, R. & Mason, R. (2002) Forensic Science and Policing in Tasmania :
Preliminary Report, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of
Tasmania, Hobart.
Julian, R., Mason, R., Hickey, G. and Tomkins, K. (2004) Forensic Science and
Policing in South Australia, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, Uni. of
Tasmania, Hobart.
Julian, R., Mason, R. & Hickey, G. (2005), Forensic Science and Policing In Victoria
– Final Report, Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of
Tasmania, Hobart.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Nerbonne, T., Barton, S.B., Watson, P.L., Buss, J. &
Lambert, J. (2007) ‘Differences in Forensic Science Views and Needs of Law
Enforcement: A Survey of Michigan Law Enforcement Agencies’, Police Practice
and Research, 8, (5), 415-430.
McCulloch, H. (1996) ‘Police use of forensic science’, Police Research Series, Paper
19, Home Office Police Research Group, London.
McDonald, T. (2001) ‘Genetic Evidence: DNA Evidence and the Criminal Law in
Canada’, Manitoba Law Journal, 26, (1), 1-24.
Meng, H.H., Cheng, K.C. & Chen, H.S. (2002) ‘A systematic procedure for the
forensic examination of questioned coins with a face value of fifty New Taiwan
Dollars’, Forensic Science Journal, 1 (1), 39-46.
Mochal, T. (2006) ‘Framework to manage expectations on your project’,
TechRepublic (April 17, 2006 ed.): ZDNet Tech Community.
National Audit Office (NAO) (2003) Improving Service Delivery: The Forensic
Science Service, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, The Stationery
Office, London.
National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) (2001) The Advancement of Science for
Justice, National Institute of Forensic Science, Melbourne.
National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) (2005) Australian Forensic Science:
Education and Training for the Future, Melbourne: National Institute of Forensic
Science.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (2001) What Every Law Enforcement Officer
Should Know About DNA, Department of Justice Publication No. BC000614.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (2004) Status and Needs of Forensic Science
Service Providers: A Report to Congress, National Institute of Justice.
National Research Council of the National Academies (2009) Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward.
Norman, K., Roffey, P. & Roydes, D. (2009) ‘Application of a mobile laboratory for
real time response to incidents’, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41 (1), 73-
80.
Office of Justice Programs (2000) Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for Law
Enforcement Research Report, US Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, Publication No. NCJ 178280.
Oliver, W. (2002) ‘Teaching Investigation/Criminalists with Fatal Vision/Fatal
Justice’, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13 (1), pp. 129-142.
Ratcliffe, J.H. (2003) ‘Intelligence-led Policing’ Trends and Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice, no. 248, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp.1-6.
Ratcliffe, J. (2005) ‘The Effectiveness of Police Intelligence Management: A New
Zealand Case Study’, Police Practice and Research, 6, (5), 435-451.
Ribaux, O. & Margot, P. (2003) ‘Case-based Reasoning in Criminal Intelligence
Using Forensic Case Data’, Science & Justice, 43, 135-143.

20
Ribaux, O., Baylon, A., Roux, C., Delemont, O., Lock, E., Zingg, C. & Margot, P.
(forthcoming 2010a), ‘Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part I. Forensic
Intelligence’
Ribaux, O., Baylon, A., Lock, E., Delemont, O., Roux, C., Zingg, C. & Margot, P.
(forthcoming 2010b), ‘Intelligence-led crime scene processing. Part II. Intelligence
and Crime Scene Examination’
Ribaux, O., Girod, A., Walsh, S.J., Margot, P., Mizrahi, S. & Clivaz, V. (2003),
‘Forensic intelligence and crime analysis’, Law, Probability and Risk, vol. 2, pp. 47-
60.
Robinson, A. & Tilley, N. (2009) ‘Factors influencing police performance in the
investigation of volume crimes in England and Wales’, Police Practice and Research,
10, (3), 209 – 223.
Roman, J.K., Reid, S., Reid, J., Cahlfin, A., Adams, W. & Knight, C. (2008) The
DNA Field Experiment: Cost- Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the
Investigation of High-Volume Crimes, Washington: Urban Institute, Justice Policy
Center.
Ross, A. (2006), ‘Report on Project Clarendon’, Unpublished paper, Victoria Police.
Saferstein, R. (2001) Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science (7th ed.),
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Skogan, W. & Frydl, K. (eds) (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the
evidence, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Soulliere, N. (1999) Police and Technology: Historical Review and Current Status,
Canadian Police College, Ottawa.
Speaker, P.J. (2009a) ‘Key Performance Indicators and Managerial Analysis for
Forensic Laboratories’, Forensic Science Policy and Management, 1, 32-42.
Speaker, P.J. (2009b) ‘The Decomposition of Return on Investment for Forensic
Laboratories’, Forensic Science Policy and Management, 1, 96-102.
Taylor, M. & Hirst, J. (1995) ‘Initial Scene Visits to House Burglaries’, Police
Research Series, Paper 14, Home Office Police Research Group, London.
The Home Office and The Larner Group (2007) Summary Report of the Scientific
Work Improvement (SWIM) Package. London: Author.
Tilley, N. & Ford, A. (1996) ‘Forensic Science and Crime Investigation’, Crime
Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 73, Home Office Police Research Group,
London.
Wakefield, A. and Brookman, F. (2009) ‘Criminal Investigation’ in Wakefield, A. &
Fleming, J. (eds) The Sage Dictionary of Policing, Sage, pp. 65-70.
Werrett, D.J. & Sparkes, R. (1998) ‘Proceedings of Ninth International Symposium
on Human Identification’, Promega Corporation, Madison, WI.

21