U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001, 200343 This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis01htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sschis Lawrence Greenfeld Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director and author of the report was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director. Support for the project was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, Corporate Communications. The Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 95-RU-RX-K001, awarded to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright (c) SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics 2003. The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. Contents List of data tables Glossary of terms Introduction Major findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Level of disposition reporting Level of felony flagging Timeliness of trial court disposition data Detailed findings Status of State criminal history files Completeness of data in State criminal history repository Disposition data Correctional data Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository -Arrests -Disposition data -Admission to correctional facilities Procedures to improve data quality Linking of arrests and dispositions Other data quality procedures Audits Data tables Methodology List of data tables 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2001 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1997, 1999 and 2001 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2001 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 9. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2001 10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2001 11. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 14. Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2001 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2001 17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2001 18. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2001 19. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 2001 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, March 1, 2003 22. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2001 Glossary of terms Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS): An automated system for searching fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint images. AFIS computer equipment can scan fingerprint impressions (or utilize electronically transmitted fingerprint images) and automatically extract and digitize ridge details and other identifying characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the computer's searching and matching components to distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or even millions of fingerprints previously scanned and stored in digital form in the computer's memory. The process eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint files and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment also can be used to identify individuals from "latent" (crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint images generated by AFIS equipment can be transmitted electronically to remote sites, eliminating the necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and providing remote access to AFIS fingerprint files. Central Repository: The database (or the agency housing the database) that maintains criminal history records on all State offenders. Records include fingerprint files and files containing identification segments and notations of arrests and dispositions. The central repository is generally responsible for State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly serves as the central control terminal for contact with FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a national record check (for criminal justice or firearm check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central repository. Although usually housed in the Department of Public Safety, the central repository is maintained in some States by the State Police or other State agency. Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or Criminal History Record Information System: A record (or the system maintaining such records) that includes individual identifiers and describes an individual's arrests and subsequent dispositions. Criminal history records do not include intelligence or investigative data or sociological data such as drug use history. CHRI systems usually include information on juveniles if they are tried as adults in criminal courts. Most, however, do not include data describing involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice system. Data in CHRI systems are usually backed by fingerprints of the record subjects to provide positive identification. State legislation varies concerning disclosure of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes. Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history records are complete, accurate and timely. In addition, accessibility sometimes is considered a data quality factor. The key concern in data quality is the completeness of records and the extent to which records include dispositions as well as arrest and charge information. Other concerns include the timeliness of data reporting to State and Federal repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the repositories, the readability of criminal history records and the ability to have access to the records when necessary. Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category of offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history information are accepted by the FBI and entered in the Bureau's files, including the III system. Serious misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor offenses, such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses. Interstate Identification Index (III): An "index-pointer" system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an identification index to persons arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. The index includes identification information, (such as name, date of birth, race, and sex), FBI Numbers and State Identification Numbers (SID) from each State holding information about an individual. Search inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide are transmitted automatically via State telecommunications networks and the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications lines. Searches are made on the basis of name and other identifiers. The process is entirely automated and takes approximately five seconds to complete. If a hit is made against the Index, record requests are made using the SID or FBI Number, and data are automatically retrieved from each repository holding records on the individual and forwarded to the requesting agency. As of September 30, 2000, 41 States participate in III. Responses are provided from FBI files when the State originating the record is not a participant in III. Participation requires that the State maintain an automated criminal history record system capable of interfacing with the III system and capable of responding automatically to all interstate and Federal/State record requests. Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal history record systems do not accept such records, which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and which usually are confidential under State law. Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the same basis as adult records. States, however, are not required to submit such records to the FBI Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by criminal history record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for each person about whom a record is held in the systems. As of 2001, only the U.S. Virgin Islands did not have at least a partially automated MNI; almost all jurisdictions (48 States & Puerto Rico) had fully automated MNIs. The automated name index is the key to rapidly identifying persons who have criminal records for such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminal investigations or bailsetting. MNIs may include "felony flags," which indicate whether record subjects have arrests or convictions for felony offenses. National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An automated database of criminal justice and justice-related records maintained by the FBI. The database includes the "hot files" of wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is through central control terminal operators in each State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI. Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the State control terminal via the State law enforcement network. Inquiries are based on name and other nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC telecommunications system. NCIC data may be provided only for criminal justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history searches, this includes criminal justice employment, employment by Federally chartered or insured banking institutions or securities firms, and use by State and local governments for purposes of employment and licensing pursuant to a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presale firearm checks are included as criminal justice uses. National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact which establishes formal procedures and governance structures for the use of the Interstate Identification Index (III). It is designed to facilitate the exchange of criminal history data among States for noncriminal justice purposes and to eliminate the need for the FBI to maintain duplicate data about State offenders. Under the Compact, the operation of this system is overseen by a policymaking council comprised of Federal and State officials. The key concept underlying the Compact is agreement among all signatory States that all criminal history information (except sealed records) will be provided in response to noncriminal justice requests from another State - regardless of whether the information being requested would be permitted to be disseminated for a similar noncriminal justice purpose within the State holding the data. (That is, the law of the State that is inquiring about the data - rather than the law of the State that originated the data - governs its use.) In some cases, ratification of the Compact will have the effect of amending existing State legislation governing interstate record dissemination, since most States do not currently authorize dissemination to all of the Federal agencies and out-of-State users authorized under the Compact. At present, noncriminal justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates of State records and generally results in less complete records being provided, since FBI files of State records are not always complete due to reporting deficiencies. The Compact was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in October 1998. The Compact became effective in April 1999, following ratification by two State legislatures, those being Montana on April 8, 1999 and Georgia on April 28, 1999. Since that time, 12 additional States have entered into the Compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida (June 1999); Colorado (March 2000); Iowa (April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); South Carolina (June 2000); Arkansas (February 2001); Kansas (April 2001); Alaska (May 2001); Oklahoma (May 2001); Maine (June 2001); New Jersey (January 2002); Minnesota (March 2002); and Arizona (April 2002). National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and procedures designed as a component of the III system, which, when fully implemented, would establish a totally decentralized system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. The NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders and a single set of fingerprints on State offenders from each State in which an offender has been arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF concept, States forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual to the FBI accompanied by other identification data such as name and date of birth. Fingerprints for subsequent arrests are not forwarded. Disposition data on the individual also is retained at the State repository and is not forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic images), the FBI enters the individual's fingerprint impressions in the NFF and enters the person's name and identifiers in the III, together with an FBI Number and a State Identification (SID) Number for each State maintaining a record on the individual. Charge and disposition information on State offenders are maintained only at the State level, and State repositories are required to respond to all authorized record requests concerning these individuals for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. States have to release all data on record subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries regardless of whether the data could be released for similar purposes within the State. The NFF has been implemented in five States: Florida, New Jersey, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon. Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using biometric characteristics that are unique and not subject to alteration. In present usage, the term refers to identification by fingerprints but may also include identification by retinal images, voiceprints or other techniques. Positive identification is to be distinguished from identification using name, sex, date of birth, or other personal identifiers as shown on a document subject to alteration or counterfeit such as a birth certificate, Social Security card or driver's license. Because individuals can have identical or similar names, ages, etc., identifications based on such characteristics are not reliable. Note to Readers: This is a report of the results of the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems. In some of the tables that follow, data from earlier data quality surveys are included. Caution should be used in drawing comparisons between the results of earlier surveys and the survey reported here. Since the last national data quality survey, the U.S. Justice Department has continued to implement assistance programs dedicated to improving criminal history records. As a result, some States are focusing new or additional resources on the condition of their records and in many cases, know more about their records today than in the past. A number of State repositories have suffered fiscal cutbacks and have had to shift priorities away from certain criminal history information management tasks. For these and other reasons, trend comparisons may not as accurately reflect the status of the Nation's criminal history records as the current data considered alone. Introduction This report is based upon the results from a two-part survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in January - July 2002. Fifty-three jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses were received from all 53 jurisdictions. Throughout this report, the 50 States will be referred to as "States"; the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands will be referred to as "territories," consistent with prior surveys; "Nation" refers collectively to both the States and territories. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the source for information relating to the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index (III) system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States, as of March 1, 2003. Major Findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2001 (Table 1): * Forty-nine reporting States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file. * Twenty-seven States (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico have fully automated criminal history files. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 2001 (Table 4): * All 50 reporting States and Puerto Rico have fully automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * The Virgin Islands has no automated criminal history files. * Of those States maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the prior manual record is subsequently automated in 18 States. In three States (Kansas, Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Delaware, the new information is added to the manual file. In California, if a manual record contains seven or more arrests, only the new information is automated; thus creating a "hybrid record" that is part manual and part automated. If the manual record contains less than seven arrests, the entire record is automated. Level of disposition reporting Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2001 (Table 1): * Sixteen States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont and Virginia) and Puerto Rico, representing approximately 43% of the Nation's population (based on 53 jurisdictions) and 43% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests within the last 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 21 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, representing approximately 54% of the Nation's population and 53% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 70% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 24 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, representing approximately 59% of the Nation's population and 56% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 60% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * When arrests older than 5 years are considered, 14 States and Puerto Rico, representing 27% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty States and Puerto Rico, representing 46% of the Nation's records, report 70% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-seven States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, representing 59% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 60% or more arrests in the entire database have final dispositions recorded. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 3): * Thirty-nine States and Puerto Rico provided data on the number of final dispositions reported to their criminal history repositories indicating that nearly 6.8 million final dispositions were reported in 2001. The responding jurisdictions represent approximately 80% of the Nation's population. Level of felony flagging Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2001 (Table 1): * Thirty-nine States currently flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases. * Twelve States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands collect sufficient data to permit them to flag at least some previously unflagged convictions. Timeliness of trial court disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 (Table 13): * An average of 18 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 1 day in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Puerto Rico, to 80 days in North Dakota. * An average of 29 days separates the receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases, ranging from less than 1 day in States where dispositions are entered either directly by the courts or by tape, to 330 days in Washington. Twenty-four of the 40 reporting jurisdictions enter the data in less than 10 days. * Twenty-seven States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands indicate having backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database. Detailed findings Status of State criminal history files Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 2001 (Table 2): * Over 64 million criminal history records were in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories on December 31, 2001. (An individual offender may have records in more than one State.) * Eighty-nine percent of the criminal history records maintained by the State criminal history repositories are automated. Approximately 6.8 million, or 11%, are not automated. * The Virgin Islands has no automated criminal history files. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 2001 (Table 4): * All 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in either the criminal history file or the master name index. * Forty-nine States and Puerto Rico have fully automated master name indexes. Maine and the District of Columbia have partially automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * Of those States maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the prior manual record is subsequently automated in 18 States. In three States (Kansas, Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Delaware, the new information is added to the manual file. In California, if a manual record contains seven or more arrests, only the new information is automated; thus, creating a "hybrid record" that is part manual and part automated. If the manual record contains less than seven arrests, the entire record is automated. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 5): * Thirty-two States and the Virgin Islands require prosecutors to report to State criminal history repositories their decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases. * Forty-five States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands require felony trial courts to report the dispositions of felony cases to the State criminal history repository. * State prison admission on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 37 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. State prison release information on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 28 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. * Admission data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 26 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Release data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 15 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. * The reporting of probation information is mandated in 31 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, while 30 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico require reporting of parole information. Arrest records with fingerprints, 2001 (Table 6): * During 2001, almost 9.7 million fingerprint cards and livescan images were submitted to the State criminal history repositories. * Forty-two States and Puerto Rico, representing 94% of the Nation's population, have records that are 99-100% supported. A total of 44 States, or an additional 2 States, and Puerto Rico, representing 95% of the Nation's population, have records that are at least 90% fingerprint-supported. In 4 States and the District of Columbia, some of the arrests in the criminal history files, ranging from 30% to 85%, are fingerprint-supported. In Massachusetts, there are no fingerprint-supported criminal history records. Completeness of data in State criminal history repository Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 2001 (Table 7): * Thirty-five States and the District of Columbia require law enforcement agencies to notify the State criminal history repository when an arrested person is released without formal charging but after the fingerprints have been submitted to the repository. Disposition data Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 8): * Eighteen States (Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont) and Puerto Rico report that criminal history repositories receive final felony trial court depositions for 80% or more of the cases. Ten States (Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Utah) estimate that they receive notice in 100% of the cases. A. A total of 20 States, or 2 additional States (California and Hawaii) and Puerto Rico report that dispositions in 70% or more of the cases are received by the State criminal history repositories. B. A total of 23 States, or 3 additional States (Delaware, Montana and Wisconsin) and Puerto Rico report that dispositions in at least 57% of the cases in their States are received by the State criminal history repositories. * Of the respondents indicating that there is a legal requirement for prosecutors to notify the State criminal history record repository of declinations to prosecute, 5 States (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Rhode Island) estimate that notice is received in 100% of the cases. * Thirteen States were able to estimate the number of prosecutor declinations received. The number of declinations received range from 1 in Mississippi to 197,500 in California. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2001 (Table 9): * Expungements: Twenty-four States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have statutes that provide for the expungement of felony convictions. In 11 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the record is destroyed by the State criminal history repository. In Minnesota, although State law does not provide for destroying conviction data, the State does get orders issued pursuant to the inherent authority of the courts. In 11 States, the record is retained with the action noted on the record. Three States seal the record. In Virginia, although the State law does not provide for expungement of convictions, if expungement orders are received, the files are sealed. In Mississippi, records that are expunged are deleted from the database; however, the State criminal history repository is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases. * Setting aside of convictions: Thirty-eight jurisdictions have statutes that provide for setting aside felony convictions. In 2 States, South Dakota and Tennessee, the record is destroyed. In 33 jurisdictions (31 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), the record is retained with the action noted. In Nevada and Michigan, the record is sealed. In Mississippi, records are deleted from the database; however, the State criminal history repository is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases. * Pardons: All reporting jurisdictions (50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) have statutes that provide for the granting of a pardon. In 45 States and the District of Columbia, the criminal history record is retained with the action noted. In 6 jurisdictions (4 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), the record is destroyed. In Mississippi, records are deleted from the database; however, the State criminal history repository is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases. * Restoration of civil rights: Forty-two States and the District of Columbia have legal provisions for the restoration of a convicted felon's civil rights. In the majority of those jurisdictions (35 States and the District of Columbia), the record is retained with the action noted. In 2 States, the record is destroyed. In Missouri, no action is taken. In Alaska and Maryland, although there are legal provisions for restoration of civil rights, such actions are not reported to the State criminal history repository. In Mississippi, records are deleted from the database; however, the State criminal history repository is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases. Correctional data Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 10): * In 38 States and Puerto Rico, there is a legal requirement (State statute or State administrative regulation having the force of law) that the State prison system must fingerprint admitted prisoners and send the fingerprints to the State criminal history repository. * A total of 26 States and Puerto Rico have the same legal requirement for reporting by local jails. * In jurisdictions where State correctional facilities are legally required to report information or the information is reported voluntarily, the majority (31 States and Puerto Rico) estimate that in at least 98% of the cases, admission information is reported to the State repository. Twenty-nine of those States and Puerto Rico estimate that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. Four States estimate a reporting rate of less than 98%, ranging from less than 5% in Pennsylvania to 90% in Washington. * For reporting from local jails, where required by law or completed voluntarily, 12 States and Puerto Rico report that 95% or more of the admissions are reported to the State repositories. Four States report rates of less than 95%, ranging from less than 5% in Pennsylvania to 87% in Montana. * In 44 States and Puerto Rico, fingerprints received from State and local correctional facilities are processed by the State criminal history record repository to establish positive identification of incarcerated offenders and to ensure that correctional information is linked to the proper records. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 11): * Of the 20 responding jurisdictions where reporting of probation data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 10 estimate that at least 95% of the cases in which probation is ordered are reported to the State criminal history repository by the probation authority. One additional State (Arkansas) reports that in at least 60% of the cases, the State criminal history repository receives probation information. Arkansas also reported that it expected to receive 100% reporting by late 2002 with the implementation of a new system. Six States report that information is received on less than 60% of the cases. In Texas, probation sentences are reported; releases are not. * Seventeen jurisdictions (16 States and Puerto Rico) where reporting of parole data is legally required or voluntarily reported, estimate that parole information is reported in 95% or more of the cases. Four States report receiving parole information in less than 95 % of the cases. Timelines of data in State criminal history repository -Arrests Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 (Table 12): * Based on the responses of 48 jurisdictions, the average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and fingerprints by the State criminal repositories is 13.7, ranging from 1 day or less in 5 States and the District of Columbia to 169 in Mississippi. The majority (30) receive the data in 10 days or less. * Based on the responses of 47 jurisdictions, the average number of days between receipt of fingerprints by the State criminal history repository and entry into the master name index by the State criminal history repositories is 14.4, ranging from 0 in Delaware to 180 days in Oklahoma. The majority (36) of jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Based on the responses of 48 jurisdictions, the average number of days between receipt of fingerprints by the State criminal history repository and entry of arrest data into the criminal history databases is 18.8, ranging from 0 in Delaware to 180 in Oklahoma. The majority (34) of jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Twenty-six States indicate that they have, or had at the time of the survey, backlogs in entering arrest data into the criminal history database. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 2 days in Rhode Island to clear an estimated 200 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards, to over 12,600 in Washington to clear an estimated 129,000 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards. -Disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 (Table 13): * An average of 17.5 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 1 day in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Puerto Rico, to 80 days in North Dakota. * An average of 29.5 days separates the receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases, ranging from less than 1 day in States where dispositions are entered either directly by the courts or by tape, to 330 days in Washington. Twenty-four of the 39 reporting jurisdictions enter the data in less than 10 days. * Twenty-seven States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands indicate having backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database, ranging from 5 days to clear a backlog of 200 dispositions in Utah, to over 6,300 days to clear 338,000 dispositions in Washington. -Admission to correctional facilities Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2001 (Table 14): * Based on 33 applicable jurisdictions providing responses, the average number of days between the admission of offenders to State correctional facilities and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 13, ranging from 1 day or less in 9 States, to 60 days in North Carolina. * Based on the responses of 21 applicable States, the average number of days between the release of offenders from State correctional facilities and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 16, ranging from 1 day or less in 5 States, to 30-45 days in Florida. * The responses from 31 applicable jurisdictions indicate that the average number of days between the receipt of correctional information and entry by the State criminal history repository into the criminal history database is 14.5, ranging from 1 day or less in 9 jurisdictions, to 90 days in Illinois. * Thirteen jurisdictions indicate that they have or had backlogs in entering the correctional information into the criminal history databases. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 10 in Nebraska to clear an estimated 120 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms, to 666 person-days in Missouri to clear an estimated 100,000 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms. Procedures to improve data quality Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2001 (Table 15): * The method most used to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting is telephone calls, conducted by 42 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. * Twenty-seven States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico generate lists of arrests with missing dispositions as a means of monitoring disposition reporting. Twenty of those jurisdictions use the lists to provide notice to criminal justice agencies in order to obtain the missing dispositions. * Thirty-three States generate form letters to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Thirty States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico report using field visits to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Other jurisdictions report using such methods as audits, training, and electronic contact as methods to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. Linking of arrests and dispositions Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2001 (Table 16): * Thirty-three States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands utilize methods for linking disposition information and arrest/charge information, which also permit the linking of dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts. * All responding jurisdictions report using at least one method for linking disposition information and arrest/charge information on criminal history records, and nearly every jurisdiction indicates multiple mechanisms to ensure linkage: - Thirty-two States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico employ a unique tracking number for the individual subject. - Thirty-seven States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico use a unique arrest event identifier. - Fifteen States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico utilize a unique charge identifier. - Thirty-seven States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands use the arrest date to link disposition data. - Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands use the subject's name as a method to link disposition information to arrest information. - Twenty-three States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico report using the reporting agency's case number. - Individual jurisdictions also report using other methods, such as the originating agency (ORI) number, the Social Security number and other unique combinations of numbers. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2001 (Table 17): * Forty-seven jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive final court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history database. The jurisdictions vary in the percentage of court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal database from less than 1% in Nevada to 50% in Indiana. Seven States (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming) report that all final court dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * Thirty-four jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive correctional information that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The percentage of correctional dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database range from a "minimal amount" in Nevada and less than 1% in Montana and South Dakota, to 100% in Wisconsin, where correctional information is posted to the criminal history record as an independent event. * The jurisdictions use a variety of procedures when a linkage cannot be established. Seven States create "dummy" arrest segments from court disposition records; five States create "dummy" court segments from custody records. Three States and the District of Columbia enter court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest, and 15 States enter custody information into the database without any linkage to a prior court disposition. Twenty-three States and the Virgin Islands do not enter the unlinked court information. Fifteen States do not enter unlinked custody information. Fifteen States utilize other procedures, such as returning the information to the originating or contributing agency or using temporary or pending files until a match can be established. Other data quality procedures Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2001 (Table 18): * To prevent the entry and storage of inaccurate data and to detect and correct inaccurate entries in the criminal history database, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands use at least one strategy to circumvent this problem. * Forty-three States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands manually review incoming source documents or reports. * The other most-frequently utilized strategy is the use of computer edit and verification programs employed by 42 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. * Twenty-nine States and the Virgin Islands perform manual double-checking before data entry. Manual review of criminal record transcripts before dissemination is performed in 28 States and the Virgin Islands. * Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia perform random sample comparisons of the State criminal history files with stored documents. * Twenty-one States and Puerto Rico generate error lists that are returned to the reporting agencies. * Seventeen States use various strategies, such as audits and contacting contributing agencies for more information. Audits Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 19): * Forty-nine States and Puerto Rico maintain transaction logs to provide an audit trail of all inquiries, responses and record updates or modifications. * More than half of the repositories, a total of 35 States, report that the State criminal history repository or some other agency performed random sample audits of user agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness of repository records and to ensure that the agencies comply with applicable laws and regulations. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 2001 (Table 20): * During the 5 years before the survey, an audit of the State criminal history repository's database (other than ongoing systematic sampling) was conducted in 27 States to determine the level of accuracy and completeness of the criminal history file. * Of the States where audits were performed, 21 States report that another agency conducted the audit; the repository conducted its own audit in 3 States; and 3 States indicated that auditing was conducted by both an outside agency and the repository. * Twenty-five jurisdictions in 2001 reported that no data quality audit had been conducted during the previous 5 years, and 24 reported that they are not planning to audit in the coming 3 years. * In 22 States where audits were conducted, changes were made as a result of the audits to improve the data quality of records. * Twenty-five States and Puerto Rico had data quality audits planned or scheduled for sometime in the next 3 years. * Forty-nine States and Puerto Rico had initiatives underway at the repository or contributing agencies to improve data quality. Initiatives included audit activities (31); automation changes (41); disposition or arrest reporting enhancements (42); felony flagging (18); fingerprint enhancements (30); agency interfaces (36); legislation (10); plan development (25); establishment of task forces (17); implementation of tracking numbers (19); and training (40). Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001 (Table 21): * As of March 1, 2003, over 29 million III records are indexed with the State's identification (SID) pointers. Approximately 19.1 million records are maintained by the FBI for the States. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2001 (Table 22): * Almost all of the responding States (49) and the Virgin Islands currently charge fees for conducting criminal history record searches for noncriminal justice requesters. Mississippi and Puerto Rico do not charge fees. * Fees for fingerprint-supported searches range from $6 in Arizona to up to $52 in California. In some cases, California does not charge a fee for the search. * Fees for name searches range from $1 in Texas to $25 in Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts and South Carolina. Ten States (Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming) do not conduct name searches for noncriminal justice purposes. * Eighteen jurisdictions (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming) charge different fees for volunteer searches. Methodology This report is based upon the results from a two-part survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in January - July 2002. A total of 53 jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses to the survey were received from all 53 jurisdictions. The survey instruments consisted of 63 questions, having several parts. The survey was designed to collect comprehensive data relating to State criminal history information systems. Fifteen topical areas are covered in this report, as follows: * current quality and quantity of records in the criminal history databases; * level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history records maintained by the State repositories; * capacity of criminal history system to flag convicted felons in the database; * level of fingerprint-supported arrest reporting to the State repositories and the processing and timeliness of the information that is entered into criminal history record databases; * notice to the State repository of persons released without charging following submission of fingerprints to the State repository; * level of prosecutor-reported information in criminal history databases; * level and timeliness of disposition reporting by the courts to the State criminal history repositories; * types and timeliness of information reported to the State criminal history repositories by State and local correctional facilities; * level of probation/parole-related information in State criminal history databases; * extent to which the records in State criminal history databases contain final disposition information; * policies and practices of the State repository regarding modification of felony convictions; * ability of the State repositories to link reported disposition data to arrest data in State criminal history record databases; * level of audit activity in the States and the strategies employed the State repositories to ensure accuracy of the data in the criminal history record databases; and * participation of the States in III and NFF; and * fees charged by State criminal history repositories for conducting record searches for noncriminal justice requesters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also provided information for the report. The information includes the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index (III) system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of III records maintained by the FBI for the States. Following the receipt of the responses, all data were tabulated. Survey respondents were requested to respond to particular questions relating to the current data compared to data from earlier surveys. Respondents also were permitted a final review of the data after it was placed in the tables that appear in this report. Numbers and percentages shown in the tables were rounded. In most cases, numbers were rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. In the analyses of the tables, averages and totals were calculated using the mid-point of the range where ranges appear in the underlying data. In instances where the result is .5, when it followed an even number, the number was rounded down to the even number (e.g., 4.5 became 4); in instances where the .5 followed an odd number, the number was rounded up to the next even number (e.g., 1.5 became 2). Data reported for 1993 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995). Data reported for 1995 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999). Data reported for 1995 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000). End of file 8/6/03 jb