B.E. Henry, G.S. Rogers, C. Mauterer, D.K. Dodd, and J.W. Hicks
Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, Birmingham, AL

× Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø × Ø

The Alabama DNA Databank Act was enacted in May, 1994 and specified the collection of DNA specimens from all persons convicted of felony offenses and misdemeanor sexual offenses. Additionally, the law stated that the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (ADFS) was the agency responsible for the analysis of the offender samples by a DNA typing method(s) compatible with the CODIS system.

Initially, it was determined that due to the large number of samples expected to result from the implementation of the law and the limited space and personnel resources of the department, an outside contractor (Genetic Design, N.C.) would be used for the actual DNA analysis process. In addition, the convicted offender population was divided into three groups based upon the type of offense. These divisions consisted of Group I (personal crimes), Group II (robbery and burglary) and Group III (all other felony offenders). Since the inception of the program more than thirty thousand (30,000) convicted offender blood samples have been collected, catalogued and stored by the ADFS facility in Birmingham. Of these 30,000 samples approximately 45% have been analyzed by the contract laboratory. In addition, duplicate quality control blood samples were forwarded to Genetic Design for blind testing. Specifically, Group I offender samples have been profiled both by RFLP using the current CODIS loci and by PCR using the CTT triplex while Group II offenders have been profiled only by PCR. Group III offenders have not been typed but instead are collected and stored for future analysis.

The cost of the contract for performing these analyses has been in excess of $400,000 per year. Therefore, the decision was made to develop the necessary expertise and support to perform all database functions in-house to include the DNA typing of all convicted offenders. It was determined that a fluorescent PCR based typing system could provide the optimum in speed and simplicity of analysis while allowing for the level of discrimination necessary for a large database. In addition, such a DNA typing system could be readily adapted for use in casework throughout the ADFS system.

The decision to depend exclusively in PCR systems was based on several years of experience using the CSF1PO-TPOX-TH01 triplex for databank and casework purposes. The use of these three STR’s for screening database patterns has proven very successful. For instance, the most common pattern encountered so far in over 11,000 CTT profiles has been thirty-two matches which were quickly differentiated by the use of additional markers. This process has resulted in several "warm" and "cold" hits on nonsuspect cases. In one case of a high profile sexual assault/homicide the suspect exhibited a unique CTT pattern as compared to the 11,000 profiles currently contained in the ADFS database. However, it has become increasingly apparent that additional markers will have to be employed as the database continues to grow. The need for more discrimination power will become even more crucial in light of the proposed national STR database and the fact that other states are beginning to use PCR based databanks.

A number of considerations had to be taken into account to determine whether the establishment of an in-house database program was warranted. Among these considerations was the overall cost of analysis both as a total program cost and on a cost per sample basis. Comparisons of several factors indicated that the money expended for the operation of an in-house database was comparable with the expense of using an outside contractor. The major problem faced by the ADFS was the initial cost of the equipment needed to outfit the database and the four regional DNA laboratories; a total of five separate locations. This problem was eliminated by the availability of federal grant funds to purchase the necessary number of fluorescent detection units. A second obstacle to implementation of an in-house database was the creation of several new permanent positions within the department. This difficulty was overcome by use of resources generated from the Alabama DNA Database Act which provided funding for the positions from within the ADFS.

A second group of considerations relative to the database concerned the problems encountered with respect to the QA/QC of convicted offender samples.

A related concern was the turnaround time between submission of the blood sample to the contractor and return of the typing results to the ADFS. These concerns were not due to any problem with the outside contractor but instead were due to the difficulty in communication caused by distance. Obviously, these and other related problems would be corrected with the implementation of an in-house database.

Lastly, a non-technical but significant economic consideration was the political desire to keep the money within the state. The cost of using an outside contractor has increased every year and show no sign of slowing down. As an example, in excess of $400,000 dollars was expended for contract work in 1997. At present, over 12,000 individuals per year are convicted of various offenses which fall under the Database Act and, as such, the ADFS is required to obtain a DNA sample from each person. These consist of blood samples obtained at the beginning of the prison term. For those individuals incarcerated before the Databank Law took effect, blood samples will be drawn before the release or parole date. As the backlog is funneled into the database and as the numbers of convicted offenders increases the strain on the resources generated by the Database Act will become more severe.

In addition, the Databank Law requires the collection of a DNA sample from all persons convicted of a felony and those convicted of certain misdemeanors (sexual) even though these individuals are placed on probation and serve no prison time. This number is expected to exceed 12,000 persons per year which does not include some 21,000 current probationers who fall under the law but from which a DNA sample has not been obtained. Due to the logistics of collecting blood samples from each of these persons the ADFS has developed and field tested a buccal swab collection kit which can be used by non-medical personnel (i.e. Parole and Probation case workers) to collect samples suitable for DNA typing. The kit will be mailed to the database laboratory which will allow collection of samples in each of the Parole and Probation facilities throughout the state. Another significant health related advantage, in addition to the use of non-medical personnel, is the very low biohazard threat encountered with the use of buccal swab kits.

The field trials for the buccal swab kit consisted of three rounds of collection, extraction, quantitation, amplification, and typing of samples. During these several phases a number of questions relating to the design of the kit were answered. Specifically, these included:

The final design of the buccal swab kit has optimized all of these factors and has proved to provide consistent yields of high quality DNA suitable for use with PCR based STR typing systems (See Table I).

With the resolution of general problems related to space, personnel and collection of samples the decision to bring the database in-house was made. However, a series of more specific concerns remained to be answered. The first of these involved the size and structure of the database. It was determined that a separate database section would be created which consisted of a supervisor, four permanent analysts and several forensic science graduate students on rotation. Additional space to house the database section was obtained by renting laboratories adjacent to the casework facility.

Training of the four permanent database analysts has been essentially completed and consisted of the following:

Graduate students hired for the database program will be trained in those areas where they are needed such as data entry.

The final requirement for a completely functional database has been to satisfy those TWGDAM guidelines as applied to a forensic DNA database laboratory. Specifically, these included testing known samples precision studies using the Hitachi FMBIO^® and the Promega PowerPlexÔ system and proper laboratory design to minimize possible contamination of samples. With respect to the proficiency test aspect of the TWGDAM guidelines an internal test, a collaborative test (ADFS and Palm Bach Co. SO) and external tests have all been completed.

The decision to implement an in-house database was taken with the goal of making the process of profiling convicted offender samples a faster, cheaper and more efficient process. This major commitment was made based upon a number of results and concerns as described above. It is probable that some degree of restructuring of the database will have to be made in future, however, it is hoped that the overall performance of the database will prove to have been a wise investment in time and resources.

Table 1.

Quantitation results indicated an average yield ranging from 0.03 ng/ml to 0.12 ng/ml of DNA. Amounts of DNA in excess of 0.5 ng/ml were seldom observed.

Overall, these results indicated a more consistent and slightly higher yield of human DNA from the Texwipe swabs, regardless of the head shapes, than with the Schleicher and Schuell foam stick applicators.