Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures

Samples containing DNA from two or more individuals can be difficult to interpret. Even ascertaining the number of contributors can be challenging and associated uncertainties can have dramatic effects on the interpretation of testing results. Using an FBI genotypes dataset, containing complete genotype information from the 13 Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) loci for 959 individuals, all possible mixtures of three individuals were exhaustively and empirically computed. Allele sharing between pairs of individuals in the original dataset, a randomized dataset and datasets of generated cousins and siblings was evaluated as were the number of loci that were necessary to reliably deduce the number of contributors present in simulated mixtures of four or less contributors. The relatively small number of alleles detectable at most CODIS loci and the fact that some alleles are likely to be shared between individuals within a population can make the maximum number of different alleles observed at any tested loci an unreliable indicator of the maximum number of contributors to a mixed DNA sample. This analysis does not use other data available from the electropherograms (such as peak height or peak area) to estimate the number of contributors to each mixture. As a result, the study represents a worst case analysis of mixture characterization. Within this dataset, approximately 3% of three-person mixtures would be mischaracterized as two-person mixtures and more than 70% of four-person mixtures would be mischaracterized as two- or three-person mixtures using only the maximum number of alleles observed at any tested locus.     

The Dilemmas of Frontline Staff Working With the Homeless: Housing First,Discretion, and the Task Environment

This article examines staff discretion in permanent supportive housing facilities run by a nonprofit agency claiming to use a Housing First approach. Field observation, archival data, and individual and group interviews with staff and clients were examined to better understand agency processes involved in intake, sanctions, and disposal of clients to evaluate Housing First fidelity. In their day-to-day interactions with clients, frontline workers' discretion is affected by working conditions such as lack of resources and heavy workloads, as well as by demands placed on the agency by members of its task environment. Implications for Housing First programs and homeless clients are discussed.     

Designing Public Participation Processes

The purpose of this Theory to Practice article is to present a systematic, cross‐disciplinary, and accessible synthesis of relevant research and to offer explicit evidence‐based design guidelines to help practitioners design better participation processes. From the research literature, the authors glean suggestions for iteratively creating, managing, and evaluating public participation activities. The article takes an evidence‐based and design science approach, suggesting that effective public participation processes are grounded in analyzing the context closely, identifying the purposes of the participation effort, and iteratively designing and redesigning the process accordingly.     

Same Crime,Different Time: Why we Need an Amended Guideline for Repeat Offenders to Minors

Currently there is a circuit split between the Second and Ninth Circuits in determining whether or not to apply previous juvenile sex offenses to the sentencing of an adult sex offender. The Second Circuit feels it is within the trial court's discretion to apply an enhancement of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by applying either a juvenile adjudicated or unadjudicated sex offense to the sentencing of an adult offender. The Ninth Circuit sees that as improper and only adult sex offenses should be counted toward the sentencing of adult sex offenses. Due to the vague language of this enhancement, the determination of how to apply this is up to the court's discretion. This Note proposes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission amend section 4B1.5, and decide in favor of the Ninth Circuit due to the plain text reading of the statute, as well as the intent of the guideline itself alongside the “rule of lenity” as understood in the Ninth Circuit's reasoning of only applying adult offenses to the sentencing of that adult later on in life. The positive public policy of rehabilitation of juvenile offenders would be served greatly by this amendment to this guideline. By eliminating the possibility of having such an offense count against a juvenile in the future would allow and encourage those juveniles to take positive steps toward their future.