Cargando…

Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015

In 2011, the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science Australia New Zealand (ANZPAA NIFS) ran the End to End Forensic Identification Process Project: Phase 1 (E2E1) to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies across the end-to-end forensic process in Austr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bruenisholz, Eva, Vandenberg, Nicholas, Brown, Cheryl, Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32411960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.05.001
_version_ 1783532943911682048
author Bruenisholz, Eva
Vandenberg, Nicholas
Brown, Cheryl
Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
author_facet Bruenisholz, Eva
Vandenberg, Nicholas
Brown, Cheryl
Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
author_sort Bruenisholz, Eva
collection PubMed
description In 2011, the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science Australia New Zealand (ANZPAA NIFS) ran the End to End Forensic Identification Process Project: Phase 1 (E2E1) to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies across the end-to-end forensic process in Australia and make recommendations as to how these might be addressed. The study concentrated on the analysis of DNA and fingerprint evidence in burglary offences, benchmarking current forensic processes and performance across all eight Australian States and Territories (jurisdictions). Following a positive response, overwhelming support was given for the project to be repeated four years later in order to measure any improvements. End to End Phase 2 (E2E2) was conducted in the same eight Australian jurisdictions with the same sampling areas, across the same length of time as E2E1. The aim was to enable agencies to compare their own data from the previous phase and establish, amongst other things, whether implemented recommendations from E2E1 project had any significant impact. Data was collected for over 7,500 burglaries nationally. This paper presents the findings of the 2015 study as well as comparative analyses between 2011 and 2015. Finally, we discuss the measures taken, whether legal, technological or organisational, that are likely contributors to the performance improvements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7219170
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72191702020-05-14 Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015 Bruenisholz, Eva Vandenberg, Nicholas Brown, Cheryl Wilson-Wilde, Linzi Forensic Sci Int Synerg Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel) In 2011, the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science Australia New Zealand (ANZPAA NIFS) ran the End to End Forensic Identification Process Project: Phase 1 (E2E1) to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies across the end-to-end forensic process in Australia and make recommendations as to how these might be addressed. The study concentrated on the analysis of DNA and fingerprint evidence in burglary offences, benchmarking current forensic processes and performance across all eight Australian States and Territories (jurisdictions). Following a positive response, overwhelming support was given for the project to be repeated four years later in order to measure any improvements. End to End Phase 2 (E2E2) was conducted in the same eight Australian jurisdictions with the same sampling areas, across the same length of time as E2E1. The aim was to enable agencies to compare their own data from the previous phase and establish, amongst other things, whether implemented recommendations from E2E1 project had any significant impact. Data was collected for over 7,500 burglaries nationally. This paper presents the findings of the 2015 study as well as comparative analyses between 2011 and 2015. Finally, we discuss the measures taken, whether legal, technological or organisational, that are likely contributors to the performance improvements. Elsevier 2019-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7219170/ /pubmed/32411960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.05.001 Text en Crown Copyright © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel)
Bruenisholz, Eva
Vandenberg, Nicholas
Brown, Cheryl
Wilson-Wilde, Linzi
Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title_full Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title_fullStr Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title_short Benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in Australia between 2011 and 2015
title_sort benchmarking forensic volume crime performance in australia between 2011 and 2015
topic Policy and Management (in memory of Jay Siegel)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219170/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32411960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.05.001
work_keys_str_mv AT bruenisholzeva benchmarkingforensicvolumecrimeperformanceinaustraliabetween2011and2015
AT vandenbergnicholas benchmarkingforensicvolumecrimeperformanceinaustraliabetween2011and2015
AT browncheryl benchmarkingforensicvolumecrimeperformanceinaustraliabetween2011and2015
AT wilsonwildelinzi benchmarkingforensicvolumecrimeperformanceinaustraliabetween2011and2015