DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Yes. They should have.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Why don't you summarize the proposed recommendation.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: The proposed recommendation, the draft you have in front of you, to summarize it succinctly, recommends an appropriation, an infusion of $22.5 million to specifically be designated for the DNA analysis at 13 STR code core loci of those, of the approximately 450,000 convicted offenders samples currently preserved in forensic laboratories waiting analysis.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Okay.

Chief Gainer.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: It strikes me number one as a great idea. But I think we owe it to make some hypotheses about outcomes other than cleaning up the backlog. So you get into some verbiage at the end of this, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to say we believe with 450,000 databases that we are going to have this many hits based on past experience. Which can be converted, if you also use some of the stats that exist on recidivism about crimes prevented and that we would make estimation on cost savings.

I think that is what makes this attractive and we ought to aggressively make those estimates based on past experiences.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: I agree. The only reason we didn't is there is two sides to this. There are two things that make hits. One is a database to search, and the other is the ability to run the crime scene samples.

I didn't want to infer that just the development of a databank by itself would produce hits. We all know in this room that that also entails running the unsolved crime scene evidence.

Now, if that unsolved crime scene evidence, and there is obviously tens of thousands of those nationally, we can anticipate tens of thousands of hits. But I didn't get into it here again because I'm only addressing one side of the equation.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: Again I would just submit that if we did nothing different other than have a bigger database, we anticipate this outcome. If we then improve incrementally, 10, 15, 20 percent, that each offers different things, variables that you can control, I predict this outcome. I just think it sounds a lot more practical. Frankly $22 million in the life scheme of Federal budget seems insignificant.

But I think it's a lot easier to wrap your hand around if we're bold enough to say if you give me this, this is what I can deliver with it.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Projecting data.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: But I think there is some experience. If we took -- I don't know, I'm reaching here a little bit -- but we can reach in England and bring it back here. But if we just took the hit experience we had for instance in Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania where we've seen some of our hits and did some extrapolating, it's fair to make some estimates.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I don't think you can make that. I doubt with the small number of hits you have in those jurisdictions that you could extrapolate.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: With our current experience we would underestimate I believe because of the relatively -- compared to the UK, relatively small amounts of data.

We've seen figures of approximately -- and our experience in Virginia is we are at the point of a hit for every 500 samples. Now, if I extrapolated that, and I'm not sure I could, that would come out to, tell me, 90,000. One in 500 would be --

COMMISSIONER GAINER: Again, I'm not certain what the numbers would be. But assuming there is some logic to having a database, we are making some statement about the value of it. So just from a cost/benefit analysis you can't say let's spend $12 million on 450,000 and I don't know whether it's going to be any good or not.

And again, whether you low ball and say it's 400 cases or 500 cases, I submit to you that go to any victim's right groups or rape groups whether they think prevention or solving 400 rapes is worth $22 million.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I agree with you, except that my problem with this, as some of you know, is that you rejected the requirement for prior authorization, number one. Because it still seems to me that all the data that we've seen in the last few days and since we last looked at this really aren't referred to in the Federal policy.

Now my judgment about what Federal policy will be is that you want the state and local governments to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do, that would be internationally interesting in terms of developing that it's more efficient.

And it seems to me that what is really disturbing in what Carl presented are the so-called owed samples. We know that the owed samples are the people that are on parole and probation, people on supervised release. The people that it seems that the law enforcement authorities in the State level and local level can't seem to get in any organized way.

And it seems to me they are the highest priority for the simple reason that they are the people out on the street who are most likely to be committing the crimes, who you will be able to match to the new cases coming in.

So in terms of crime prevention, all right, and in terms of getting the most hits as you type new cases, it would seem to me that getting those samples in first should be the highest priority. Secondly, the people that are about to be released from jail.

So my feeling is that in terms of this money, it's most appropriately spent on that.

Now in terms of typing these old collected samples, we are talking about people that already have been in jail that have been convicted of felonies, they're in for some substantial period of time. And as Paul pointed out, the only way we are going to get hits on those people in substantial numbers is if we go back and type the old unsolved cases.

I mean, that's what you're going to get from these people. The old unsolved cases because they have been in for five or six years.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Do we know how many of those 450,000 have been released?

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Certainly the majority of ours have because they have been typed before released.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: It really isn't rejecting prioritization. Prioritization is a wonderful goal as Carl described it.

I think we are dealing with the realities of 50 jurisdictions and the problem inherent not just in finding out who is going to be released and who is next. It would be wonderful if that information was accessible, but it just isn't.

But consequently the question is with that situation as it is now do we seek to try to correct that situation, which again involves 50 jurisdictions, or as Carl recommended yesterday do which attempt -- not attempt, but perform an immediate infusion of a substantial number of samples that can be done relatively quickly, certainly much faster than dealing with the 50 jurisdiction problem. And then create a database that will resolve in matches and involves individuals who are clearly out on the street as Jan pointed out in a fairly large number.

So I think it's dealing with the practical aspect of it as much if not more than the ideal goal.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I don't know if this introduces a different subject, but it strikes me that given some of the discussion this morning about the difficulties of doing this properly where you have a population that is not in a facility, I think investment in developing successful experience of doing that is an independent value. That is, if we don't attend at all to that now, we are going to miss the opportunity to develop the capacity to do that which is going to be critically important shortly.

So maybe I'm missing it, but I can't think why an all-or-nothing or either/or proposition on investment makes a hell of a lot of sense.

The prioritization, if that's what the answer I'm signifying is, because it seems to me there are two categories of people because we want to type right. As a task we need to develop testing for, and the evidence that we don't have that capacity is very upsetting.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Sometimes you have to stop the hemorrhaging before you operate on the patient.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: But not always.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: I think it might be informative to also keep in mind, based on experience, Virginia's experience is a good one, instead of most of our hits coming from entering a foreign profile found at the crime scene and searching the database and making a hit, more times than not on that first search a hit is not made.

However, as we produce and enter profiles of newly convicted felons who are going to serve 20 years or 10 years or 50 years or life, most of our hits are occurring there where we find out that that individual or those individuals have committed old, cold, unsolved cases.

So it's not like there is no gain to be had from running the samples of somebody who had just been convicted.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That goes the other direction.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Right. They are out on the street before they were placed in to get the sample.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: These are crimes they committed before they got convicted of the crime for which --

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Were they on probation or parole when they committed the crime for which they got the hit?

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That stat was just telling us that where you're really getting the hits are the new people in the system and if we made a concentrated effort to get the people on supervised release we may have gotten them on some of those cases.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: It seem to me you can have two tracks. You can be working on the obvious doable, get the databank, and still pursue a parallel track of trying to develop technology strategies, whatever you want to call it. I like that Laser Lance-It. That costs about what an intoxalizer costs. We can fit that in every sheriff's office in the State and solve half of our collection problems. So why couldn't we talk about two things or three things?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Do the samples you have got first.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: But is it either/or? Go for all.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: While trying to track down the old samples.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: There is nothing that would prevent this group from doing both, to recommend to the Attorney General both tracks. And very simply there are two parts of this equation. The one part of the equation is the database sampling that needs to be done. However, the other half of the equation is getting them in on time.

And as such, what we could do is simply develop a recommendation that says along with reducing the backlog, what we need to do is we need to provide money for pilot programs which would encourage that kind of operation among agencies, would encourage the faster collection of samples and getting them into the system more quickly in that regard.

There is nothing at all that prevents this group from recognizing both issues which are both significant issues and dealing with it that way. The cost of this particular one is 22.5 million. Do we have to put a dollar figure on the other one or not, I don't know. But there is nothing that prevents addressing appropriately both issues.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: I was just phrasing this question somewhat differently, but I think it boils down to the same.

Namely, if we recommended that money be put into a backlog, how do we know that in a year that theoretically when this backlog is going to be finished, that we don't have another backlog?

So my question is for my information, how many states are now keeping up with the current convicted offenders so that they are collecting and putting it in.

And my other question is I understand that this will ultimately be a new system, the STR. Now many states, or some, are doing it with RFLP. So how will it fit in Wisconsin for example? Not that Wisconsin is the world, but it's a good place to start.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: A good place to live, too.

COMMISSION GAHN: How this has been, we are just about finished up our -- as Paul wrote me a note saying RFLP with a question mark, and I said I don't want to get into that now.

But the simple fact is that Wisconsin legislature or whatever funds are available, we have to make a conversion of our whole database to STR. It's as simple as that.

In other words, all the samples that we have tested have to be tested again. And I think that's just what we are talking about today and if I just use the Wisconsin experience we've had, where you can look at both ends of this and you can say, well, we want to look at all the old unsolved cases and get them in.

And what I believe the prudent thing to do here is this. We already have all these samples of convicted offenders. Let's test them. Let's not let anything derail that if that money is available for that.

And the reason I say this is this. There is some semblance of control, the release the prosecutors have over those unsolved cases. We have no control over those thousands and thousands of convicted offender swabs or blood.

But there is something we can do while those are being tested, outsourced, or whatever. We still can filter out our cases, those where we have suspect modus operandi that we can work with and do something with the police and prosecution and even the crime net people.

But we have no control over those thousands of samples. And it would be a shame to micro-manage this and try to look for people who would just get released and people who aren't when we already have all these samples.

Good Lord, let's get them in and get them tested because then when we do put in those unsolved cases we have this huge amount to run those against. And consistent with the Attorney General Reno's philosophy that started this, every time you fill up that databank with a profile the chances of someone who didn't do the crime being looked after, gone after, incarcerated, decreases.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: If I may speak to this. I agree with you in theory, but I don't know if we can do it all. But the Chief Justice's comments are very succinct. With regard to what we are collecting now we could be creating a new backlog if we don't use a prioritization system. And I think we need to discuss that with regard to all the new cases that are coming in, with regard to prioritizing those people that are being released or about to be released along with those that we already have, and somehow do it in that manner.

If we are to do it all and do prioritization, I'm all for it. But I don't know that we can do it all.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: But if we could, and we think our working group makes this possible for $22.5 million, eliminate these 450,000 samples within one to two years, then you're essentially current and then you start from the samples on a first in, first out. So that is why we say in our body of our report if a commitment is made to analyze all current convicted offender backlog samples in less than one year, prioritization would become moot.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Because then you have a manageable work load, and is that really the way we are looking at it. We are going to convert 45,000 RFLP samples, another 86,000 in the freezer. We know we can keep up with our ongoing work load, it's how do we ever catch up without something like this.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: How did the backlog occur if you couldn't keep up?

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Because there were new mandates and because we don't have any funding to do the backlog for a long time. There was no database funded, but samples are being collected.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: These samples have been collected over the last nine years, and quite frankly until the forensic science community centered upon the 13 core loci, I know I didn't even seek the funding to run mine because I didn't want to have the money to run them when I didn't have the technology available at my disposal. Today we do. And only today.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Is that RFLP.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: No, everything is strictly all STR. We dropped RFLP totally. All of our old RFLP databank, which we stopped building at 10,600, have all been re-run. And of course that is inherent in our recommendation that all those go to STR and nobody else.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: So Virginia would have no backlog?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Virginia will have no backlog regardless of those recommendations. I have funding for the reduction of my backlog of 150,000 samples in three years.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: And Wisconsin will continue to have a backlog because you're putting it under RFLP.

COMMISSION GAHN: Yes. We will need at least ten thousand samples re-analyzed for STR's.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: We have about 45,000 that we need converted. But we have been planning on that. We knew about that.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: When you're talking about backlogs now let's define the term because unfortunately it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We are talking here when you say backlogs you're only talking about collected samples?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Correct.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I would say that the most important samples which are legislatively authorized but not yet even typed are the owed samples. Which, Paul, did you say and was Carl saying that that is as many as the collected samples? If you're making rough estimates I realize you don't have. But there are as many people who owed samples which haven't been collected yet for testing who are on the street for sure, as there are these collective samples that have not yet been tested.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: I don't know that.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: What is the number? Do we have any notion of what that would be?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Of the owed samples, no.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Dr. Crouse, you are the recorder in this room.

DR. CROUSE: Yes.

What Carl said yesterday was restricted to New York, Massachusetts, and then an idea of the backlog. In New York he said it was about half, collected was about 7,000, owed is about 3,500. In Massachusetts is 2,500 collected, but 11,500 owed. In the U.S., the guesstimate was, I guess, 600,000 collected and over a million owed.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: So if there are more owed samples of people on the street, do you want to be able to go out there and get these parole officers and probation officers and everybody else, get them to get the samples now, so that you can when a new case comes in, you can immediately type them and prevent them from committing crimes.

If that is not the first priority here and proper Federal function, you've lost me. I really believe that the impetus for this is that we have all these collected samples, some substantial number, not all of them, but some substantial number of them are probably the least important to type because then people who are in jail for substantial periods of time you are not going to be able to do anything useful with them unless you type the old unsolved cases.

The old unsolved cases, why isn't that a major priority? These are the samples that are, as we speak, being destroyed, right. Because in many states they just throw them away after five years, they are being lost, they are not being preserved.

I mean, these are the, you know. By the time the money is authorized to get through these I don't think that we have a fair answer to the Chief Justice's question. There will be another backlog of new incoming cases, too.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: If I could just address that briefly. Part of the theory here and the Chief Justice recognizes a fair dynamic that is at work here. The bottom line is that the backlog changes every single day. It goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down depending on what individual States are doing in terms of testing, what individual States are doing in terms of what offenses are included in their statute.

As soon as Texas passes legislation saying they are going to include burglaries, boom, we are back up again. But just because it's kind of a moving target doesn't negate of the value of infusing the system with 450,000 plus samples.

The bottom line of the theory here is that by doing that, by relieving the pressure of 450,000 samples from the laboratories who were never assigned to do this, would now be able to do exactly the kinds of things you're wanting them to do. And that is go back and analyze these other cases because they don't have to do those now.

There is another dynamic here, and that's a matter of the practical ability for Federal funding to effect this dynamic. The bottom line is I think it would be infinitely more difficult for Federal funding to go in and effect every one of the particular laboratories and try to find a way to help them gear up like that, as compared to the practical effect of reducing the backlog.

And the bottom line is number one, it's got to be done anyway; number two, from a prioritization standpoint we can't get away from the fact that in most places you can't do it. You cannot prioritize the current backlog samples. You just can't do it.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I find that so hard to accept.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Does anyone else want to say anything?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Just a question, the $22 plus million that is produced would go to whom to build what capacity, or what is it actually going to be spent on?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: It would be spent on the analysis of those 450,000 convicted felon samples at approximately 50 dollars per sample.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Like contracting out to people doing the analysis rather than building to capacity at the lab.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Either/or.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: It seems to me it matters which. If you go that route and you hold on to Barry's concern, building a capacity, I mean, if taking care of the backlog is treated as a professional building opportunity, that's simply different than clearing the backlog by expenditure of $22 million.

I'm not sure of that, but if it was to be contracted out, the analysis, rather than build the capacity to do analyses it would make a difference.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: That's why we indicated that for providing the funding to laboratories to do it in-house, that laboratory would have to demonstrate currency in the STR technology at this time, so that they could -- it's entirely conceivable for a State forensic science laboratory to run 50,000 STRs a year in-house, as well as outsourcing. It's just strictly that we want all of this to be done within the next 12 to 24 months. Not wait for a lab to develop that capacity.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: If the capacity building dimension is part of this proposal, and if there is any interest or any thought of plausibility to the suggestion made this morning that there is some technological advances possible, to grab that, rather than trying for the purpose of collecting samples from non-compliant populations. Then it seems to me I'm back to where we were earlier, that there was some combined investment capacity building is called for. Not if I can prioritize all the cases. It's because you have two related but different capacities that are insufficient today, both of which need replacing.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: It was never intended, I think, that this proposal that deals solely and specifically with backlog, was ever to the exclusion of all these other things.

This working group still has a tremendous amount of work ahead of it. And part of that is how do we get the laboratories to the point where they can do all the things that we're asking them to do. This working group extends the life of the Commission.

And the next step is to deal with the other comprehensive improvement of the laboratories and what is the best way to enable them to do that. And along with, again, the possibility of pilot program funding for the prioritization collection. So this is not an exclusionary proposition.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: But just to finish it, if I understand correctly, there is not one but two or many backlog problems. And to the extent that we were talking about the owed as a backlog problem, it seems to me important to recommend that that's also a backlog problem. And it may be that a planned investment which embraces both has substantive political and economic advantages that we should pay attention to rather than focus on only one backlog problem.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I think that to some extent that I did somewhat anticipate it, if for example a way we could deal with that is extend the time period for what we consider included in the backlog and say six months to a year. By nature of providing this funding, what that will do is encourage the collection of those samples so that they can be included in and tested.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: Which would increase your backlog.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: That would, no doubt about it, absolutely.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: So you have a temporary fix of a one, two, three year grasp on these people, you increase the capacity by that suggestion, which is going to put it on the local agencies to make sure that that capacity is going to be funded after.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: But the difference is number one, you only do the testing once. Once the guy is in the database, he is in. So you don't have that recurring issues. And number two, it's got to be done anyway.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: But you have over a million that are owed that you haven't even addressed yet, and we are going to collect another billion or two if we do it right.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: But those owed are not a laboratory funding issue. These are collection and State logistical issues, not laboratory funding.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: But it will be.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: It will be.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: It will be, but meanwhile if we do nothing, we will have nothing. If we do these 450,000 samples and, Chief, I'm hesitant to put a number on it. I can tell you that tens of thousands of cases will be solved upon completion of those 450,000 samples. People who are out on the street now are among those 450,000. 175 of those 450,000 are in Virginia and we have been collecting those samples for nine years. The average sentence is six years. So it's not like this is a population of samples that there is no way on God's green earth these people aren't committing rapes and murders today. And the longer we wait and try to collect samples, the more rapes and murders will occur.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: This is not the first time this group has visited this issue and the concept of prioritization has come up before. Let me just see if I can somehow summarize it.

We have collected samples across the country. And maybe not all States have collected samples, right? Some do, some don't, right?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: That's correct.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: And since they are collected and they're sitting, it's relatively easy to just get them and test them and put them into CODIS. And that is why we have the funding issue because the labs presently don't have enough funds to do it and they're either going to have to increase their own capacity to do it or they are going to outsource to do this.

And this backlog apparently includes samples that have been tested but will not be able to be put into CODIS because they are under a different system, in Wisconsin for example.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Is that right? Or is it 450 plus something?

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: That is a good question. I would like to state the facts. Would 450,000 include Wisconsin's backlog that is not in STR?

COMMISSIONER GAHN: It should not.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I think that is a 600,000 figure.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: So because that is the 250,000 that are already in CODIS under RFLP, so we are now dealing with 600,000, okay. And that is one issue.

And if I heard the speakers correctly for the last two days, they are saying that for that 600,000 to put priority is too costly and too difficult, and why. Because you're going to complete them within a short time, within a year or two.

Am I summarizing that correctly?

And when we talk about backlog, we have, it seems to me, if I understand this, that we have to have a cutoff date that is as of -- and you can pick the date today, what is today, November 23 1998. Everything collected before this date is backlog. Everything collected after this date is not.

I mean, and if you put the date April 15, 1999, as backlog, then Paul would indicate you will encourage law enforcement corrections to collect because then it will be a Federal expense. Right so far?

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Yes.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: I don't know where it all leads, I'm just trying to get a baseline of information that we are all working on.

Now the other sense, if I understand the conversation, is we have a million uncollected offender samples. And the question is maybe we should put the money or ask the money be put to collect and test those. Or try and propose both backlog, as we have used the term, and collect the future.

Now, if I stated the issue, I'm trying to get us all focused. Maybe I was the only one that wasn't focused and all of you were.

Did I state it right?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: You stated all that correctly. The one thing I think is missing from it is our sense of what the backlog of owed would be two years out if we don't focus on it now. Because it's a million, but rising fast.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: That is I think the issue I raised initially. That in we say the backlog is as of today, everything. Now the question is will the new ones be collected, and if so will the labs work on it so that we don't have two years from now a two year backlog.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Let me ask one question here. Paul has a very good handle on what is going on in Virginia and I'm the type of person that can't visualize concepts, I have to see it in sort of a visual form as an example.

If you could take the State of Virginia and break it down into all of these things that you're talking about with the numbers plugged in and here is the population of the State and here are the numbers and here is what can be done and this is what will be done, and this is the model, then, for the entire United States. Then I can understand it. And I think you might be able to do a better job of selling it to Janet Reno.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Thank you. And would that that were true. Virginia doesn't have owed samples. Virginia passed a law in 1989, the first statute, and said upon conviction samples will be drawn and samples were drawn. There are no owed samples.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That's why you can say if you do your backlog of collected samples you're going to get the people on the street. But that is not true for our jurisdiction.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: That is why I'm trying to explain why you can't really use Virginia as an example here, because although I might point out that that certainly constitutes 1/3rd of the 450,000 samples, which incidentally are going to be run with or without this funding.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: If I can articulate one alternative proposal. My alternative proposal is simply that I'm assuming that there is a comparatively finite amount of money that can be put into the implementation of CODIS and that you have to look at it as a system-wide investment. I mean, I understand that it would help the certain lab per se issues, but you can't overlook what is going on and the failure to collect owed samples of people on supervised release.

So my proposal is pretty simple. I would recommend to the Attorney General that whatever amount of money is going to be provided for CODIS backlog typing, whether the municipalities and the States decide to outsource them or do them internally, whatever it was, that keep prioritizing them. That if you come in with a program in the state of New York, California, wherever it is and you say here is your program for typing owed samples for people out on the street who haven't been typed, we have a program for prioritizing if they can. People getting first out on to the street, right. If you can present that, you get more money.

If you tell me that you have absolutely no ability to figure out who is getting out of jail and who is on supervised release and finding and getting samples, if that is a logistical problem that your criminal justice can't solve or won't promise to solve or put money into it, you won't get as much as money.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: In fact, if I understand Paul correctly, he's saved us somewhere in the area of $8,750,000 of this 22.5 half million. And if we took that amount or a bit more and put it into a program such as Barry is explaining with a prioritized grant situation for these. And I speak for California, we have an incredible amount and we are going to have a bigger one as of January 1 exponentially.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Our figures are that we have 56,000 un-analyzed samples from violent offenders that remain to be analyzed for STRs. That is a backlog.

We have 45,000 RFLP profile DNAs that have to be converted to STR. We anticipated 36,000 or so are owed, are people who are in prisons who weren't sampled on intake or on release, and people who should have been sampled at the local jails who haven't been sampled. We estimate that is about 36,000 and we don't know for sure what that number is.

And we know that we will be getting about 3,000 a year which we will keep up with as an ongoing STR.

So what are we saying, 125,000 would be the backlog. But the owed isn't as many as you might think because we have been collecting samples since 1984.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That is California and Virginia are the exceptions to that.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: As I understand it, then, there is a captive audience that is really captive, they are in the jails, they are in the prisons. And before they are released Virginia, and if I understand correctly, California also.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: It used to be before they were released, now it's on intake.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: They are right there, you don't have to find them.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: They will be sampled, no problem.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: But what we are talking about, what Barry is concerned about, are the people who have been through the system, yet as far as actual incarceration but are now out under some sort of governmental control.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Well, they have felony sentences that don't begin with prison sentences. That is it a very large number.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: That is probation.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: A lot of them serve jail term never make it into prison.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Willy Horton.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Is your law retroactive? Ours is in some offenses and in some they aren't.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: But before they go on probation somebody has them in their hands, they are right there. Why aren't they drawing blood from them when they are sitting there?

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Well, in reality their last touch may be in Court when they are sentenced and they may be released in a few hours. And many of them don't have to report to their probation officers.

DR. CROUSE: I'd actually like to answer Dr. Davis' question.

We had a meeting about four weeks ago with the laboratories in Florida, and the frustration level is very high. Because those rules are there, they should be enforced. Keep in mind there are two types of laboratories in the State of Florida, CODIS laboratory and caseworking laboratory. The caseworking people are "give me your tired, your poor." And the people in the CODIS laboratories are give me the money to get the backlog done.

In Metro Dade or Miami Dade I guess it's now called, out of every 100 individuals who are given time served, ten samples are collected. Only ten percent. And they are right there. The prosecutor is there, the judge is there, everyone is there. They have the system in line to take these blood samples. They are not getting taken.

So the people up in Tallahassee are saying let's get the backlog done, but what I'm hearing is we are not going to give you that money unless you, as the person in the laboratory, can show that you can get these samples into your laboratory.

But there is this huge chasm between what one person can do that is sitting in a laboratory trying to get the samples analyzed and the other person is sitting in the caseworking laboratory trying to figure out what importance this is to him and why they're not collecting. It's a very important issue.

And money, something should happen to try to get this system together.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: And if I don't misunderstand Barry's suggestion, that is the essence of it. To work on the prioritization of these people that are.

And I appreciate Jan's figures. I think they may be conservative with regard to what is owed, just because of the same situation with regard to out the door. And Woody knows about this as well. I'm not saying they're inaccurate, I'm just saying perhaps conservatively.

But I would think some amount of this money or a greater amount of money should be concerning itself with some type of prioritization system, some kind of carrot out there for the collection of those persons that aren't being collected.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: In the comment I heard Dr. Sozer talk about the difficulties of getting a collection from people who are already out on the street. It sounds to me like if your going to prioritize, we ought to also prioritize the collection basis. In other words, get these systems set up.

I'm not concerned about the person who is already out on the street. It's too late. The barn door -- they have escaped. But while they are still in the clutches of the Court, that is the time to get the blood drawn.

Now once they walk out of the courthouse, then you compounded the problem of getting them back and getting that sample. So what is the cost, what is the benefit of making sure that these samples are done?

I'm appalled when I hear about Florida. I thought Florida was doing a good job until I heard this. Now they are doing a number on us. They are not doing their job.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: The Judge wants to comment.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: First of all, I didn't realize when we are talking about the 450,000, that it's really 300,000 plus the Virginia ones. So I think that's important.

I think that every single one of those should be tested, and then we should clear up that backlog. But at the same time, at least where I am, it's not that difficult to get probationers back in. I think in my jurisdiction if I cut an order tomorrow, within 30 days I can get virtually everybody on probation in for testing. Now that is just having them come in there. I can get them in on a Court order because they are on probation and I can set the terms of probation.

But the problem that, I guess, is what exactly is that going to do to the lab, and just the mechanics of getting it done once they are on probation.

Every single person I think in most jurisdictions at the time of sentencing has to give a fingerprints on the sentencing order. And you can do the same thing with some type of machinery. Everybody who I sentence has to go three floors up to the probation department after they leave my Court. If they don't, they are in violation for probation and we will bring them back in because our probationer to probation officer levels are very manageable. And they do know their probationers and they can see them and that isn't true everywhere.

But I think as many of those samples as you can bring in, that we should do that just to build up the database. But I agree that whatever backlog we have should be taken care of.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: The big issue after the order to take a sample, is whatever agency is going to draw the blood, there is a cost here. They either bring in the contract phlebotomist and we have some on staff, or they use another thing like buccal swab. And there are technical reasons why those slides aren't being accepted by most of the labs now.

So we invested for those 36-some-odd thousand samples we've got sitting out there, it's a million dollars for the local agencies, $30 a blood draw just to pay to have the blood drawn, never mind the cost of the analysis. So there is a real legitimate local cost here.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: There is that cost, but let's talk prioritization again. I agree with you, the cost is there. But those are the people that are out on the street that we really do need to have analyzed probably in a higher priority than those that need --

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: I'm identifying for you what I think the cost is, and it's real and it's significant.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: I'm not sure we are disagreeing.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Right.

Mike.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: One of the difficulties about treating this as a competition between two ideas is that one of the ideas is very complex. That is, it's not in the hands of a laboratory, it's not as if you can grant funds and accomplish what is both work.

It's rather that it's sort of a shocking and unacceptable thing to accept that we are unable to put our hands on a million plus people who represent high risks in our communities. And as a clue, we are don't have the DNA information that we are entitled to.

Both parts of that proposition are not acceptable. Now the Judge is right. There are a lot of jurisdictions why this fantasy is simply wrong. We put our hands on them and we draw the blood with some type of technician or if we do what we do with this new technology, it seems to me pretty important for this Commission not to accept that we are going to live with the idea that we can't find or type our probation/parole people. That's a terrifying prospect. Not acceptable.

So it seems to me we need to have a way of investing in technology if that's the issue because we can't afford the technicians to come to Court or invest in strategies for bringing people in to demonstrate that we can put our hands on these probationers and parolees.

But to give up, throw our hands up in despair and say they're gone, it's too late, that is not acceptable.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: In virtually every jurisdiction I think for somebody who is on intensive probation who are the closest people going to prison, they really do have low case loads I think in almost every jurisdiction by statute. Whether it's 25 to 1 or 25 to 2 and you can get these things done quickly. It's just the cost factor is something else.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: I guess there is one other comment I'd like to throw in there, maybe just for the record and nothing else.

When we talk about things that we have control over, the backlog of the 450,000, and the things that we have less control over and can get control, a million and some people, it also seem to me that the backlog equation that we have control over is the failure to process non-suspect cases.

So it's one thing to build the CODIS file, and I think Barry mentioned this in the beginning. I think there is more we ought to be held more criminally liable because of the terrifying -- and I don't mind using that word -- backlog of non-suspect rape cases.

So if we were somehow making a move where we were going to lay out a couple different priorities, then either I would want to have some confidence that we are going to get back to that or that ought to be listed there before we say, gee, I know there isn't enough money but we have an awful lot of non-suspect rape cases that are sitting and not running against any database.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: You're right, Chief. And that's certainly something that our working group recognized. But because of the complexities and costs associated with the analysis of how much it will take to get to where we all agree we should be with regards to casework, our group felt that that is a much more difficult intractable problem.

So for a short term, while we are doing that, let's get those 450,000 samples run.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: Then I would refer to Michael's comments would apply in this case, too, that because it is complex it at least has to be mentioned.

And I guess I'd still wish we'd try to get some resolution on this, have some cost/benefit analysis over where I put my money. Because I'm going to have to admit as sitting here as executive, as chief of police, or head of the state police agency, if somebody offered me money to solve one of these three things, I suggest to you I would put my money on non-suspect cases and go to case-by-case before I do anything else.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Please recognize that one does not preclude the other. My laboratories have been running unsolved cases, California has been running unsolved cases, Florida has been running unsolved cases.

Still, however, this doesn't mean they are running them all. But while this database is being built, either by outsourcing or being done inside, that doesn't diminish or take away at all the emphasis that we feel is equally important on the crime scene sample. It's just that that elimination of that backlog isn't going to be done with $22 million in two years, it's going to take ten times that amount of money and five times as much time.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: If I can, just one more thing on this. As I sit here, maybe the rest of you do, I don't know if there is still a bigger payoff even to start ruling away at that. Even if it's a more expensive longer term problem, my gut would be is there would be a bigger payoff to work on those cases. But that is my gut.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: And one of the reasons why we like the outsourcing idea because that frees up the forensic laboratory staff to work on those unsolved crime scenes.

I mean, we are whittling away. I think all the labs are probably hopefully more than whittling away at that. It's just that short term, again is there is a short term quick fix infusion of funds to do those 450,000 samples.

Now I wonder if our recommendation, aside from the money to do the 450,000, could include a recommendation to the Attorney General to say to the States who are not collecting samples and are not actively pursuing those, however it works, that she ties efforts to collect those owed samples to the amount of funding for running on the backlog.

In other words, don't take the money away, just say the Attorney General says down in California, down in New York, down in Illinois, you should be collecting those samples. You're not following your own law and get on it. And maybe that is the impetus that we need to get the States to collect the samples.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: You're talking about capacity, too. That is what, as Mr. Smith said, I think the laboratories need to be free to work on those cases and/or to develop the capacity to do so. And either way, they develop an in-house capacity or outsource the samples it's going to give them support to build up their own capabilities to train their own people. It's a necessary step, however you use it.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: Right. When we were doing databanking in-house that was an excellent training step towards our examiners. When we went outsourcing, we were able to take those people -- and I mean, the case work examination staff will double in the next nine months from 14 to 28 examiners.

So we are not ignoring crime scene samples. As a matter of fact, the biggest roadblock to running unsolved cases is the Court dates and the priority of samples that are why a suspect has been identified and charged and is going to Court, and the DNA has to be done on those samples.

So when I'm faced with those two, sadly I have to do the one that is going to Court in preference to the unsolved crime where nobody has been charged, although I find that a very difficult decision to have to make. It's a real dilemma and obviously it should not be an either/or, it should be a both and it will be.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Barry, under the suggestion that you made, would those States that have a currently collected backlog, but were not capable of prioritization, would they still be eligible for money?

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Yes, but I think they should get a less amount. In other words, what I'm suggesting is this --

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Let me finish, okay. It seems to me the question is would they be eligible for money. And then the next question is would those states that were capable of prioritizing their current backlog and they prioritize it, in an efficient span of time, would they be eligible. I assume, yes, perhaps less so. Perhaps, again, less money would be available to them.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: What I'm trying to say is that you have a certain amount of money to spend, and if you really look at the whole problem what Paul is saying, and it's true, you have to get a grip on this.

We have cases where people are in jail for 10 or 11 months where the police have already gotten the suspect, they haven't done a DNA test, and then the DNA test excludes them. They spend 11 months in jail, they shouldn't be there.

So the front line capacity isn't there and what offended me, frankly, from the beginning is saying when you have a triage situation, because I associate with what Chief Gainer said, if I have that where you're going to get the most hits and solve the most crimes is what Norman did. You're getting more of your stuff from the scene-to-scene cases.

So I'm saying let's be smart. We ought to have grants, you want to call them CODIS grants that go to the states. To the extent that the state comes in and says I will prioritize, I will get the people that do owe samples, the people on the street, I will do a certain amount of old unsolved cases, whatever package they want to put through, and however many resources they are willing to put towards what the federal government is saying these are the priorities on how to do it, all right.

And to the extent that they have a plan to fit all these different categories, you give them more money. And the people that are not going to do that, you give them less money.

Because we're not going to solve all these problems. So you have to make smart investments. If you do that, you're going to do much more to solve crime, frankly, than just saying let's take all of this and throw it at this one collected sample backlog and ignore the million that are on the street that we haven't even collected. And then the Chief Justice is right. You do that and two years from now there will be a backlog.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: I don't know. I asked that as a question. I'm glad you all have such confidence in me.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: In regard to this, this group should be giving the Federal government the priorities if that's what you're suggesting we should come to some sort of consensus as to giving Janet Reno, giving the Federal government so that when these States apply for these grants and they know what the rules are in front of them and they are willing to jump through these hoops.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: If you're going to go through that route, then you have to look at what investment the State is making on it's own.

One State may have the capacity to do the unsolved cases and outsource samples and another State may do it differently and the third may want to put the money in sample collection because they already have resources for sample analysis. That is essentially what your saying.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: May I say one thing, because I had this unique thing in New York State in terms of our forensic science review board. What's happened in our State is that we passed a law saying you have to be accredited to be a lab in New York. So we forced the municipality and localities to spend an extra $32 million to get accredited.

Now if you have these CODIS grants up there and you say you want more money from the Federal government, well, then you have to demonstrate to us that you can find the people that are on parole and probation and get the owed samples. If you can't get the owed samples, then you're not getting as much money.

I bet from a political point of view that no State is going to afford -- no one is going to keep their job if they can't get it done. Because as Michael says it's absolutely unacceptable if we can't get the samples from the people who have already demonstrated they committed serious crimes and are on the street. That is really an important issue, a big issue.

COMMISSIONER CLARKE: Actually what it should inspire is taking samples on arrest. The fingerprint systems works on that.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That is a civil liberties issue, don't go there.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: That will be a legal issue. That will be discussed later.

Let me see if I can get a census, because time is coming for Norm to leave.

This started out as a proposal from the lab funding working group, and we have to keep remembering that. And from that prospective, Paul, the working task force brought in a proposal that the backlog be funded, tested, put into CODIS. And that makes perfectly good sense coming from that in terms of what is desired.

At the table within that backlog an issue has been raised about prioritizing that backlog and whether that is available or not if it's done within a year or year and a half it may not be worth the effort to prioritize.

In the discussion, some members of the group think that there are other issues for getting samples and testing those samples that are of importance. I don't want to put ranges on importance. So that we have -- a million has been used -- of not collected, owed samples. And that will be important to have a strategy to collect and test.

And we've heard that that is difficult, that many agencies of many States don't have or aren't using that capability.

Chief Gainer, you indicated there is even another area that might be tested and that is non-suspect cases. And those are the two, aside from the backlog that has been put on the table and I'm assuming if we proceeded we might even find other categories that can fall into it.

So I'm gathering that there is some disagreement here as to whether we should just go in on lab funding or whether if we make a proposal to the Attorney General we do it on a number of issues, as to funding for tested samples and putting them into CODIS.

Have I stated the differences here?

Now that I have done that, the harder question is how to proceed. And I suppose that, unless someone has a better suggestion, that I can just call for a vote on how many are just going the lab backlog and forgetting all the rest of it, and that is one way of proceeding.

Another way of saying that is we do the lab funding and add to that other aspects, and that we indicate that a grant proposal ought to be set up with an advisory committee setting forth criteria, taking into account these three categories, plus any other we should come up with. And that funding for all would be required in one format or other, not to be decided in terms here as to the priorities, but at a later stage.

So we just go with the proposal for funding of the backlog, or try and broaden it, funding the backlog and other programs.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Point of clarification, if it were to be broadened would you also consider increasing the amount, or are we talking about same amount of money split differently?

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: I'm not calling for anything. I'm just trying too lay it out here on the table. So you can if you want call for more and whatnot.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I think that the only number that is a hard number in terms of costs is the 22.5, what you say cost to type and collect the samples.

So what I would propose in so-called prioritization that then what we are saying is we will get together and make a list. And I don't think that would include many other items than you said, Chief Justice. You pretty much got them all.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: I've only got what you put on the table.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I think we could probably reach a consensus as to what the priorities are, and simply recommend to the Attorney General that in terms of CODIS funding we suggest that those States that are willing to do more of these things which we have included are the important crime fighting ingredients in CODIS get more money, and those States that are not doing it get less money. That was the submitted plan.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: That is too much detail, Barry. Because the question of how best they are actually going to go about the business of encouraging good practices on the part of the States is a complex question.

It seems to me that we are better suited to investigating the question and there it would be appropriate to OJT, by what method they in all their experience could get those goals within reach. The rest, we have enough trouble trying to find out what we are trying to do.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: I agree with Michael, but I think it has to be on the table. And it's not an insignificant amount of money to get those that are owed tested and analyzed. And with regard to Chief Gainer's proposal with regard to these non-suspect cases isn't an insignificant amount of money. But the benefits of it is very significant and I think we need to put that into the mix as well.

So I don't think if we spend this money we are looking at a like amount of money that it would take to encourage the rest of them.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Mike, how would you set forth the goals?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: At the end of the day, a tough question. Because I think I would want to go back to the minutes because I don't know as much as anybody else about this.

But it does seem to me that it's insufficient to state goals with respect to what we are talking about in terms of laboratory funding. And I think your point about the origin of the proposal we have been talking about is you're right, and I think it's part of the difficulty we are having because it's hard to say the laboratories don't need more money. They do.

They need more money to test the backlog case file, they need more money to test the samples that have never been collected.

We need to collect that backlog or develop techniques for solving that problem. We need to do that just as much as we need to solve the backlog.

If all of that is right, then the goals are to solve all those problems better stated than I have and if the federal funding is important for that purpose, I don't know if it's important to punish them if they don't.

I think the real problem is that most of the States would like to do it all, they don't know how to do it all, don't have the capacity to do it all, is something, and be clearer and better than I was at articulating that would be a substantial step towards securing the government assistance in doing that. That is all I want to do.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I move that we recommended to the Attorney General that the proposal of the lab funding working group be adopted as stated by their report, but also that the recommended to the Attorney General the OJT, if I have the definitions right, that they provide funding after a study.

And it could be done either by this Commission or their researchers, to test all of the or collect all of the owed samples and test those and provide full funding for those of the States.

Now that doesn't take care of the problem Chief Gainer was talking about, which is the caseload samples, but if I understand those things were taken care of either by outsourcing or expansion, that then the labs could get to the casework easier. Am I right?

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: You're absolutely right.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: He has a motion. I want to distinguish at least so that I'm not confused that this unsolved caseload we are talking about is not processing gobs of evidence taken from a rape scene. I'm talking about something as simple as all the rape kits that have been collected and are sitting on shelves. Which is not a terribly complicated issue, nor time consuming. This is finite work. Take the rape kit, test it, and move on.

So we should all be concrete on at least the point I was raising. The rapes kits are taken, they are sitting and not being tested. It's finite material.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Can I ask when you said the study.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I didn't know as far as cost goes. They figure out what the recommendations should be as far as dollar amounts. I've heard that it's about a like amount to what we are talking about.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: We don't know.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: How about this. What is it to process a rape kit, what does it cost to type it?

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: Depending on how you do it. It could be several hundred.

COMMISSIONER FERRARA: If you figure half a dozen samples or more at roughly $50, you're probably talking several hundred dollars, to say nothing of the -- keep in mind that these convicted felon samples that we are talking about represent the easy part of a forensic DNA examination.

What is very costly to the laboratory is going through the items in a crime scene and properly identifying, collecting, isolating. And then after the DNA analysis is run evaluating the results, quality assurance, writing a report, et cetera, et cetera. So from a cost standpoint for supplies and such, maybe $500, 3 to $500. From a forensic scientist laboratory standpoint, $2,000.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: I will second the Judge's motion.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: All right. That is on the table.

Chris has perhaps an amendment or suggestion.

Chris.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: It's really in recognition I think to what Professor Smith, the dynamic Professor Smith talked about in the way it's envisioned this will actually be administered.

My friendly amendment is this. That we send a proposal to the Attorney General which recognizes the backlog containing both the currently drawn and owed backlog as significant and immediate problems in the criminal justice system. And that two goals need to be recognized and need to be achieved.

And that is the reduction of the backlog, the currently drawn backlog, and the prioritization of the samples that are currently owed and will be owed in the future.

And that the Attorney General should allocate funding to the office of adjusted programs for encouraging those two goals.

What would practically happen, assuming the funding occurs, that money goes to OJP. Practically after that, NIJ or whatever is the specific administering body, essentially establishes a group to review, essentially establishes the guidelines to review these submissions that are submitted. And it would be creating an advisory group.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: It wouldn't have proposals. She would have to put out some kind of stimulating document.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Right. Is it fair to say you think we should not draft that.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: We should not draft that.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Is that a comfortable way to approach it that accomplishes everybody's goals?

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: I would support that, with one issue. In terms of problems I would add old unsolved cases.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: That would take care of Gainer, right?

COMMISSIONER GAINER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: That is very important.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: So it would be reduction of that prioritization of owed and collected there of owed, and then to be owed and the non-suspect, owed non-suspect cases.

COMMISSIONER BASHINSKI: And then the only cost figures we give are the ones that are easily calculated which is the existing backlog, that's a cost estimate for just that piece.

COMMISSIONER SMITH:Federal government can buy the collected, buy the solution. You can't buy the solution to the owed, right, because the Federal government can't go out and buy collectors if it has to develop a capacity elsewhere. Different strategies.

But we would be foolish not to recognize the different levels of complexity involved here and a referral to the Attorney General for these purposes needs to do that, lest they do the same thing we started to do, which is let's do the simple one.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: Question, if we do not set the criteria you're going to have a Commission set the criteria.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: It probably would not be a separate Commission, it would be a body that NIJ would pull together just like they pulled together this Commission.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: To do exactly what we have been doing.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: It may be a lower visibility technical assistance to an agency that is accustomed to putting out requested proposals to States. And then maybe they would do a great job. It seems to me they are better positioned than we are to do that work.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: As long as we leave a goal set for these objectives, which I gather are three.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I see what Commissioner Kennard is saying.

You're thinking that maybe this is going to delay everything if we have now another commission that has to reconsider everything that we were doing.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: You're right. He is suggesting that we set up the three criteria for the branch, they're going to set up the ideas and the grant process.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Which would have to be done anyway. Under any scenario that's the process going through anyway.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Details, difficulties.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: Details of who is going to prove that. Are they going to come back to us and we're going to suggest that that meets our criteria of our three goals?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I would not imagine they would come back to this body for that.

COMMISSIONER GAINER: They would take some parameters and some guidance and go from there. There would be a lot of trust in the relationship.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We are a product of NIJ also and the Attorney General's office, as that group would also be a product of the Attorney General's office, the Department of Justice, kind of all being on the same team, same goal. And it would have to be done in conjunction with what the Attorney General would send down to them if she agreed and supported our goals.

COMMISSIONER KENNARD: I guess as a boss you're sending me a package, but you're not sending me a whole package, folks. And this is my concern that this is how she would look at it.

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: I'm okay with it as long as there is no delay in the implementation of the lab funding working group with all the other things we talked about. I think the recommendations should go in.

I think we will still be doing it. Of course the study shows there is no delay in anything, because they will do it anyway, that happens.

I'm not rejecting what he said. From what you said, there would not be any further delay in the recommendation for funding Paul's committee.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Correct.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Just so we understand. This is only a recommendation. We don't have the money, and I don't know that DOJ, Department of Justice, or NIJ has the money. This is a recommendation.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: They need our recommendation to go to that branch of government for the money anyway. No reason not to start that process if they're waiting on us.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON:So if I understand this, we would propose to the Attorney General that she seek funding to initiate three goals. One, a reduction of backlog. And on that there have been some figures put out.

Two, that should be prioritization and techniques for owed samples. That is now owed and those that are going to come to be owed in the future.

And that there be consideration for financing for processing non-suspect cases.

Those are the three objectives we have identified, recognizing there might be others.

That these three objectives have different levels of complexity and different levels of funding issues.

That the assumption has been made here that there is a process in the Department of Justice that if funds are sought, either before or after they are sought and in determining how much to be sought is a process for some group to advise the Attorney General on how to do this and we are not going into those details, but some group will.

Now that's not very well stated, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

I would be very happy for any additions, deletions, or corrections to my nonspecific stated words.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: As an addition, although it's not with respect to the list of issues, but it seems to me it might be useful for the Attorney General and to OJT in the process of this advice, to spell out in some detail our thoughts that you referenced in the list just as this is probably not enough. If I can find the list in this group, it would be fine.

I think you can do that without getting into the business of how they spend the money, describe the probability in a little more detail.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: We can certainly attach to any well-summarized recommendation supporting documentation. We can attach, you know, Paul's report, we can attach a census of those other issues that were before, including Chief Gainer's concern.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Prioritization.

Did we capture the essence of the discussion?

Kathryn, you have a question?

COMMISSIONER TURMAN: One thing it would help knowing a little bit when we talk about the money, and I think it needs to be mentioned as part of that package that maybe don't cost a lot of money. But there are some major players that we haven't talked about. The doctors, State Attorney Generals, APPA.

I mean, there are a lot of things that can be done at OJT, the Commission could recommend by having meeting and making presentation to different groups.

And I think if we at least mention that not everything that needs to be done to address these problems costs money. A lot of it is change in how people do business.

And I think if we can document, too, the cost of not doing these things, the cost of crime. They talk about the tangible and intangible cost to a victim of crime being about $8,000 per crime.

So much of our crime is committed by people that are on probation and parole and they still haven't addressed it. So I think we need to do a much better job and discuss these issues.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: And you raised federalism issue because we have a national, but we also have the States. And States are putting in large amounts of money. It differs from State to State in handling this. So these federalism issues, the carrot, the stick, and all of these non-economic dollar issues.

COMMISSIONER THOMA: I think that is very well stated.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: And we have that down. So have we captured the essence that we can have a consensus on? I see everybody nodding. Does anyone disagree as to the procedure? Okay. Questions, I don't see that anyone wants to discuss it.

So those in favor of this statement of consensus which is going to have to be put down in writing and then circulated to everybody with appropriate additions and deletions, et cetera, Kathryn I assume you will work on that aspect, those who know justice will put in that.

I really would prefer not to restate it, because I have restated it, we'll get the transcript. And this is in principle and you're not bound ultimately as to the exact language until we see it, okay. Anyone? All those in favor.

THE FULL BOARD: Aye.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: Everyone's hand went up or said aye, is that correct? There is no descents. Fine.

Anything else to come before the table? Do you have a timetable monthly or don't you know?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: To get that out to everyone, given the importance of the issue we can have our end done in two weeks. Let's make it a nice Christmas present to everyone, get this wrapped up and on it's way.

MADAM CHAIRMAN ABRAHAMSON: And it's Thanksgiving coming up. All right.

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page