Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123795›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022

Detailing the process of identifying and the outcomes of efforts to address lawfully "owed" DNA.

Rachel E Lovell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel E LovellCriminology Research Center, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8998-6173
Cleveland State University · US

Funding

Bureau of Justice Assistance 2016-AK-BK-K011Bureau of Justice Assistance 2019-AK-BX-0029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While missed DNA sample collection has been an identified problem for decades, there has yet to be a scholarly publication related to a large-scale effort to address lawfully "owed" DNA outside of a prison system. Lawfully owed DNA samples are DNA samples that legally should have been collected and entered into Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) based upon a qualifying offense but were not. As the first jurisdiction funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative to address lawfully owed DNA, this case study fills this knowledge gap by answering four key questions: What was the scope of the problem in this jurisdiction? What was the process by which individuals who owe were identified? What were the outcomes of these efforts? And what were the lessons learned and recommendations for other jurisdictions? Findings from this case study indicate widespread DNA sample collection issues in this jurisdiction, with nearly 15,000 identified as owing DNA over the span of approximately 7 years. Efforts to collect lawfully owed DNA samples from those who owe over a duration of approximately five and a half years have resulted in about one-fifth now being in CODIS, about 4% of these newly collected DNA profiles resulted in a forensic hit, and a quarter of those hits have resulted in a prosecution. This study serves as an important blueprint for other jurisdictions and underscores the importance of having effective policies and practices to help ensure that all who should lawfully have their DNA collected and uploaded into CODIS do.

Indexed as

Sex OffensesDNAForensic MedicineHumansSpecimen HandlingDNACODISDNADNA sampleDNA sample collectionlawfully owed DNASexual Assault Kit Initiative

Identifiers

PMID36123795
PMCPMC9826378
OpenAlexW4296781912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.