Analysis of the 2004-05 Budget Bill Legislative Analyst's Office February 2004

Department of Justice (0820)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) operates 12 criminalistic laboratories throughout the state. In addition to its regional crime labs, the department also operates a statewide DNA analysis laboratory in Richmond. The laboratories provide analysis of physical evidence and controlled substances and, when requested, assist local law enforcement agencies in processing and analyzing crime scenes.

No capital outlay proposals are included in the 2004-05 budget for the department. The department included one project in the 2003 Infrastructure Plan about which we have concerns. This project and the DOJ infrastructure plan are discussed below.

Infrastructure Plan

In the 2003 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, DOJ identified $83 million in infrastructure needs over the period (see Figure 1). This figure also shows the capital outlay approved in the 2003-04 Budget Act and proposed by the current administration in the Governor's 2004-05 budget.

Future Projects and Issues

The department's main need for facilities is for its criminalistics program. That program requires laboratory space, the amount of which is driven by workload growth and program delivery changes. Workload growth is influenced by laws which require crime scenes, suspects, and evidence to be subject to specific forensic testing. Along with forensic testing growth, the need for space is also driven by requirements associated with analysis, storage, and preservation of evidence. This work is currently undertaken at laboratories located in Berkeley, Chico, Eureka, Fresno, Redding, Richmond, Ripon, Riverside, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, and Watsonville. The main capital outlay issue for the department involves the possible replacement of the existing DNA laboratory at Richmond.

New DNA Laboratory

We recommend the department report at budget hearings on how capital outlay funds appropriated for a planned statewide DNA laboratory were instead used to offset state operations reductions. Furthermore, we recommend the department report at budget hearings regarding the status of planning efforts for the new DNA lab. This information should include available scope and cost information, and available workload projections for the DNA program.

The existing $18 million 68,000 square foot Richmond laboratory is located in a leased facility. The department has a firm-term lease which runs through June 2006. The Richmond lab currently has a staff of around 150 scientists and support staff. The Richmond lab replaced a laboratory in Berkeley that housed the state DNA and sex-offender data banks, and the missing persons DNA program. The DOJ also operates a research and development program to develop new DNA and criminalistics analysis techniques. In view of the new DNA laboratory identified in last year's plan, the future of the leased Richmond facility is unclear.

The department plans to develop a new $80 million 240,000 square foot statewide DNA laboratory to replace the existing Richmond facility. The new lab, to be located in the I-80 corridor between Davis and Fairfield, is planned to be nearly four times the size of the existing lab. The department indicates its proposal is based on assumed future workload and staff growth. The planned facility would be a major expansion of the department's program space, and will require close scrutiny by the Legislature when a specific proposal is made. In view of the department's plan to construct a new DNA laboratory, we recommend the department report at budget hearings regarding the status of planning efforts. This information should include available scope and cost documents, and available workload projections for the DNA program.

The Legislature did appropriate $2 million in the 2001-02 budget for site acquisition for a new statewide DNA lab. Provisional language provided that this capital outlay appropriation was to be available for site search, planning, and a site purchase option. The department indicates that these funds were not spent for their intended purpose but were instead used to satisfy various unallocated state operations cuts to the department's operating budget. It is unclear what authority the department used to take this action. We recommend the department explain at budget hearings why its capital outlay funds were not used for the purposes the Legislature designated.