The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program produces annual national- and state-level data on the number of prisoners in state and federal prison facilities living with HIV. Findings are released in the HIV in Prisons and Jails series.
The NCVS measures violent and property crime experienced by victims in the United States. This includes—
- violent crimes of rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated or simple assault
- personal theft
- property crimes of burglary/trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other theft.
Routine supplements address identity theft, financial fraud, stalking, school crime, and contacts between the police and the public.
Applicants are limited to senior-level social science researchers and/or statisticians in the fields of statistics, survey methodology, mathematics, criminology, demography, economics, behavioral science, and other related fields. Applicants should have an established research record in their field and considerable expertise in their area of proposed research. Applicants must be willing to commit a substantial portion of their time (typically 6 to 18 months) to undertake analyses of existing BJS data and produce a report that both summarizes their analyses and meets BJS publication and data quality standards.
Fellowship applications are awarded based on the qualifications of the applicant and the intrinsic value of the proposed research. When evaluating proposed research, BJS typically uses the following criteria to weigh project cost against anticipated output:
- relevance of the research to the criminal justice field (research should address significant substantive issues facing the criminal justice system)
- methodological validity of the proposed plan
- rationale for analysis of BJS data (or BJS data in combination with other relevant local, state, or national data)
- degree of interest that BJS or BJS data users might have in the topic
- value relative to other ongoing research (the possibility of exploiting, expanding, or enhancing the value of other studies)
- validity of the application’s problem statement and whether the proposal is reasonable, understandable, and consistent with the current solicitation.
For more information about the selection process and specific requirements for applications, please review the annual solicitations on the BJS website. Interested applicants are encouraged to contact BJS prior to applying to discuss their research concepts.
Current projects include—
- researching issues related to the National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) screening process and development of a modular crime incident report
- addressing repeat victimization measured by the NCVS
- developing weighting and record-linking methods to improve the use of National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) data for statistical purposes.
Past projects include—
- comparing crime and justice in England and the United States
- developing graphical and geographical methods for analyzing criminal justice data
- investigating how different police departments classify assaults and homicides for statistical purposes
- describing differences in punishment cross-nationally with special emphasis on the use of incarceration
- creating easy-to-use, incident-based police datasets for analysis of diverse topics related to crime.
The total award for a BJS visiting fellowship ranges from about $50,000 to $200,000, depending on the project requirements. Indirect costs may be allowable. BJS may award one or more BJS visiting fellows under a solicitation. All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law.
Fellowship appointments typically range from 6 to 18 months, but may extend beyond 18 months, depending on project requirements. Appointment terms are flexible and can be full-time, part-time, or split into multiple terms. Applicants should specify approximate dates for proposed projects.
No, there is flexibility regarding work and travel arrangements. BJS visiting fellows may, at their discretion, work on-site at BJS for the duration of their project or make occasional visits to accommodate their schedules. Travel expenses may be allowed to make site visits with other BJS or OJP staff, to attend conferences and meetings (both local and outside of the Washington Metropolitan Area), and to participate in training. While in Washington, fellows have the benefit of access to BJS staff and an office space as well as the bureau's rich array of datasets and software. Further, some BJS datasets can only be accessed on site.
Possible projects are identified in the solicitation for the fiscal year of the fellowship. In addition, applicants may want to contact BJS staff before submitting a proposal to identify a mutually agreeable project and discuss how to best focus their work to meet BJS research needs. Although not required, this early collaboration is very helpful in ensuring that the proposed project effectively addresses the complexities often encountered in BJS data. Please note, such a consultation does not guarantee, in any way, that an application will be chosen. Applicants who want to know if their area of expertise might contribute to the work at BJS should email [email protected].
Budgets submitted for fellowships may include—
- salary
- benefits, such as life, health, and disability insurance; state workers’ compensation; retirement plan; FICA; and a public transportation stipend that does not exceed $125.00 monthly (based on actual expenses)
- travel to make site visits with other BJS or OJP staff, to attend conferences and meetings (both local and outside of the Washington Metropolitan Area), and to participate in training, including per diem expenses within the limitation of federal regulations
- indirect costs, if the applicant has an indirect rate approval with the federal government.
Budgets may not include—
- computer hardware or software (these are provided while at BJS)
- books or other reference materials
- fees for dissemination of research
- per diem expenses for meals and incidentals when traveling to Washington, DC.
In addition, fellows have access to resources at BJS, including technical support and library facilities, in-house databases and computer facilities, a laptop computer or stationary workstation, and statistical software. Limited funds are available to accommodate specialized needs for software and hardware. Salaries are commensurate with qualifications and experience. Benefits, travel, and relocation support are negotiable.
BJS Visiting Fellows Program is announced in a solicitation made available on the Funding page. The solicitation contains more information about the application deadline, where to send your application, specific application requirements, and the selection process.
If you are interested in the program or have additional questions, send an email to [email protected]. In the subject of the email specify, BJS Visiting Fellows Program.
(Affiliation at time of fellowship)
Megan Kurlychek, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Criminal Justice
University at Albany, SUNY
Project: Assessing the immediate and longer-term outcomes of juveniles processed and sentenced in adult courts
Professor Janet L. Lauritsen
Associate Professor
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Project: Examining the methodological history of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Professor David P. Farrington
Lecturer in Criminology at Cambridge University
Former President of the British Society of Criminology
President-elect of the American Society of Criminology
Project: Comparison of crime and justice in England and the U.S.
Professor Michael D. Maltz
Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois
Editor of Journal of Quantitative Criminology
Project: Development of graphical and geographical methods for analyzing criminal justice data
Professor James A. Fox
Dean of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University
Project: Investigating how different police departments classify assaults and homicides for statistical purposes
Professor James P. Lynch
Associate Professor
Department of Justice, Law and Society
American University
Project: Describing differences in punishment cross-nationally with special emphasis on the use of incarceration
Professor Roland J. Chilton
Department of Sociology
University of Massachusetts
Project: Create easy-to-use incident-based police datasets for analysis of diverse topics related to crime
KiDeuk Kim
Senior Research Associate
Justice Policy Center
The Urban Institute
Project: Examining methods to measure the recidivism of youthful offenders
Christopher Wildeman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
College of Human Ecology
Cornell University
Project: Reviewing variations in the incarceration-mortality relationship by state and institution type
Heather Warnken, J.D., LL.M.
Legal Policy Associate
Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy
U.C. Berkeley School of Law
Project: Improving the use, dissemination, and translation of statistical data and social science findings for the crime victim assistance field
The number and percentage of unique persons who are victims of violent crime (prevalence of violent crime) and the number and percentage of unique households that are victims of property crime (prevalence of property crime) can be found using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). See the Criminal Victimization series for prevalence rates by year. See A New Measure of Prevalence for the National Crime Victimization Survey for more information on the measurement of prevalence using the NCVS.
Organizations eligible to participate in the IPA Mobility Program include—
- state and local governments
- domestic colleges and universities that are accredited
- Indian tribal governments
- federally funded research and development centers
- other eligible organizations
Under the revised IPA Mobility Program regulations (5 CFR part 334), OJP is responsible for certifying the eligibility of “other organizations” for participation in the IPA Mobility Program.
Other eligible organizations include national, regional, state-wide, area-wide, or metropolitan organizations, with a representing member from—
- state or local governments
- associations of state or local public officials
- nonprofit organizations that, as one of their principal functions, provide services, such as professional advisory, research, educational, and developmental to governments or universities concerned with public management
- federally funded research and development centers.
An employee of a nonfederal organization must be employed by that organization in a career position for at least 90 days before entering into an IPA agreement. The Department of Justice requires that participants be U.S. citizens. Individuals excluded from participating include—
- federal, state, or local government employees serving under noncareer, excepted service, noncompetitive, time-limited, temporary, or term appointments
- elected federal, state, or local government officials
- members of the uniformed military services and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- students employed in research, graduate or teaching assistant positions, or similar temporary positions.
Interagency Personnel Agreement (IPA) participants are selected by the BJS director or a designee and are based on the employee’s qualifications and interests, BJS needs, and the mutual benefits to BJS and the organization employing the candidate. IPA projects should focus on improving one or more of BJS’s statistical programs. BJS’s statistical programs and data collections are described on the BJS website at https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collections.
Recent BJS efforts to improve its statistical infrastructure have focused on survey design, the use of administrative records for statistical purposes, data quality assessments, and record linkage. There is a wide range of opportunities for an IPA within these general areas. For example, the survey design area includes sampling for continuous administration of establishment surveys and alternative sample designs for the National Crime Victimization Survey that address within-place explicit stratification to increase the number of victims who respond to the survey.
BJS is interested in developing survey instruments for new topical areas and aligning BJS’s surveys with other national survey instruments to facilitate comparisons. Within the area of using administrative records, BJS and the federal statistical system have interests in developing an administrative records analogue to the total survey error model for sample surveys.
Examples of other areas of interest include—
- National Crime Victimization Survey—
- -Small area estimation, using both sample data collected directly within states and model-based approaches
-Interviewing juveniles and persons younger than age 12 on sensitive topics related to criminal victimization.
- -Small area estimation, using both sample data collected directly within states and model-based approaches
- Law enforcement statistics—
- -Demonstrating the utility of incident-based crime statistics (such as the National Incident-Based Reporting System) for statistical, research, and evaluation purposes.
- Recidivism statistics—
- -Assessing the quality of criminal history records (also known as records of arrest and prosecution, or RAP sheets) for completeness and operational and statistical uses
-Imputation for item nonresponse
-Research designs for comparing the recidivism outcomes for groups of offenders.
- -Assessing the quality of criminal history records (also known as records of arrest and prosecution, or RAP sheets) for completeness and operational and statistical uses
- Federal justice statistics—
- -Assessing the quality of imputation and using the “dyad link” file in the Federal Justice Statistics Program.
- Indian country statistics—
- -Designing and conducting surveys of criminal justice systems in Indian country with assistance from experts on Indian country issues.
- Juvenile justice statistics—
- -Using existing BJS statistical program data to develop statistics on juvenile victims and offenders, and on contact of juveniles with adult criminal justice agencies.
Because the range of topics is potentially wide, individuals interested in considering an IPA arrangement should talk with BJS about their ideas.
Interested applicants should discuss their ideas with BJS staff, in particular the Unit Chief responsible for a statistical program area. Discussions can be facilitated by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “IPA” and a brief statement of interest.
BJS accepts, on an ongoing basis, ideas and concept papers for projects from potential applicants for an IPA mobility assignment. Individuals may submit concept papers to BJS at any time by emailing the documents to [email protected] with the subject line “IPA.” Papers will be routed to the appropriate BJS staff for follow-up. Concept papers should be no more than 3 pages in length and should discuss the nature of a proposed project. BJS will contact all persons who submit concept papers for IPAs.
BJS may also solicit concept papers from individuals who have been identified as qualified for a particular project.
Applicants to the IPA Mobility Program will have to demonstrate that they have the requisite skills, capabilities, and experience to conduct a project under the IPA Mobility Program. The skill level should be commensurate with the scope, content, and focus of a project. Applicants may demonstrate skills and capabilities by submitting a resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Letters of reference may also be required, if a CV does not sufficiently demonstrate skills.
When a potential candidate has been identified, BJS will contact the management of the candidate’s organization to confirm that an IPA mobility assignment is feasible and in the interests of the organization.
The projects performed under an IPA will focus on a specific BJS statistical program. However, when several programs are closely related, a project may address issues common to several programs.
The level of support is conditional on the nature of the project, skills, and expertise of the IPA. Under the IPA, BJS will provide support for salary, benefits, and travel costs associated with the project.
The duration of an IPA is variable, depending on the nature of the project. It may last up to 2 years, and an extension for an additional 2 years may be granted if the extension benefits both BJS and the IPA’s home host agency. An IPA can be full-time, part-time, or intermittent.
It is not necessary that an IPA relocated to the Washington, D.C., area. However, if an IPA is off-site, routine travel to BJS will be required to discuss the project and meet with BJS staff. If an IPA is structured so that a person relocates to Washington, D.C., to work at BJS, BJS will not pay relocation expenses.
BJS periodically collects data on pregnancy at admission and maternal health services received since admission in its Survey of Prison Inmates and Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. BJS released a prison and jail report on this topic. BJS also publishes an annual report based on data collected from the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the First Step Act. Additionally, BJS conducted a study to assess the feasibility of collecting maternal health data at the state, federal, local, and tribal levels and released a report.
BJS does not hold copyrights on the suggested information; it may be freely distributed, copied, or reprinted. We encourage the appropriate citation: The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. If the data were acquired from a published report, please provide the report title, NCJ number, and release date. If acquired from the website, please provide the correct URL: https://bjs.ojp.gov/.
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in NCVS reports to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. A confidence interval around the estimate can be generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around an estimate is the estimate ± (the standard error X 1.96). In other words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population, 95% of the time the estimate would fall within that confidence interval. See the NCVS Methodology for an example.
These data are archived with the rest of the arrest-related and custody deaths collected from federal agencies at the National Archives of Criminal Justice Data.
The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), Pub. L. 110-180, was signed into law by the President on January 8, 2008. The NIAA amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady Act") (Pub. L. 103-159), under which the Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact the NICS before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person for information on whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The NIAA was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records accessible to the system.
The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NICS is a critical tool in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, but it is only as effective as the information entered into the databases upon which it relies. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.
The NICS is a national system that checks available records in three databases to determine if prospective transferees are disqualified from receiving firearms. It is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A NICS check includes a check of the following three databases that are maintained by the FBI:
- Interstate Identification Index (III), a database of criminal history record information,
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and arrest warrants
- NICS Indices, which includes the information contributed by federal and state agencies identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms who are not included in the III or NCIC, such as persons with a prohibiting mental health history or who are illegal or unlawful aliens.
When the transferee is not a U.S. citizen, a separate query is run to confirm the transferee's immigration status. If a NICS check identifies a person as falling within a prohibited category, the FBI advises the FFL that the transfer is "denied." Individuals can appeal denials and seek correction of information in the FBI databases by either applying to the FBI or the federal or state agency that contributed the information to the FBI.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., establishes the following categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm: Any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n) who—
- has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions)
- has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship
- is subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements
- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under indictment for or has been charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.
(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease—
- is a danger to himself or to others
- lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —
- a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case
- those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily and a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
No. The NICS does not maintain a database of medical records or information on mental health diagnoses or treatment plans. When a record of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of mental health issues (i.e., a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated a "mental defective" by a court, board, or other lawful authority) is entered in the NICS Indices, the entry contains only a name, other biographic identifiers (e.g., date of birth), and codes for the submitting entity and prohibited category. The NICS Indices does not contain medical records or medical information.
When information about such adjudications and commitments is provided to the NICS, the FBI can deny firearm transfers to persons with disqualifying mental health histories, both in the state where the record was created and in other states to which the individual may have subsequently moved.
The information in the NICS is subject to the Privacy Act and the privacy of the information is protected in a number of ways. The only responses provided by the NICS to a request for a NICS check is "Proceed," "Denied," or "Delayed." In cases of a "Denied" response, neither the general prohibiting category nor information about the specific event that places an individual in that prohibited category is provided to the FFL. The individual, however, is able to request information about the reason for the denial from the FBI and can appeal the denial and seek to correct incomplete or inaccurate information in the system upon which the denial is based.
In addition, as noted above, the information identifying mental health adjudications or commitments contributed by federal and state agencies is maintained in the NICS Indices. The regulations governing the NICS limits the use of the NICS Indices to (1) checks under the Brady Act by FFLs of proposed firearms transferees; (2) checks by federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearms-related or explosives-related license or permit; and (3) requests by ATF in connection with civil or criminal law enforcement relating to the federal Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53). Checks of the NICS Indices for general law enforcement purposes are not permitted under the regulations. See 28 CFR. 25.6(j).
The NIAA seeks to improve the information available to the NICS, so that the system can more accurately identify prohibited persons, by—
- enhancing the Brady Act requirement that federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the NICS
- providing incentives to states to submit complete information to the Attorney General on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms through—
- authorizing new grant programs for state executive and judicial branch agencies to improve information available to the NICS
- providing for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program penalties for states that do not comply with the Act's record completeness goals.
FOR STATES: The NIAA has provisions that encourage states to meet specified goals for completeness of the records submitted to the Attorney General on individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. The records covered include automated information needed by the NICS to identify felony convictions, felony indictments, fugitives from justice, drug arrests and convictions, federally prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments, domestic violence protection orders, and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The Act provides for a number of incentives for states to meet the goals it sets for greater record completeness.
- First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the National Criminal History Improvement Program's (NCHIP) state matching requirement for NCHIP grants, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying the specified prohibited persons.
- Second, the Act authorizes a separate grant program to be administered consistent with NCHIP, for state executive and judicial agencies to establish and upgrade information automation and identification technologies for timely submission of final criminal record dispositions and other information relevant to NICS checks. Up to 5% of the grants may be reserved for Indian tribal governments and judicial systems.
- Finally, the Act provides for discretionary and mandatory Byrne grant penalties for non-compliance with record completeness requirements: During the 2-year period beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 3% may be withheld in the case of less than 50% completeness; during the 5-year period beginning 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 4% may be withheld in the case of less than 70% completeness; thereafter, 5% must be withheld in the case of less than 90% completeness (although the mandatory reduction can be waived if there is substantial evidence of the state making a reasonable effort to comply).
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM: The NIAA creates an independent statutory obligation for federal agencies to report records identifying prohibited persons to the Attorney General no less than quarterly. It also requires federal agencies that issue prohibiting mental health adjudications or commitments establish a program under which a person subject to such an adjudication or commitment can apply for relief from his or her firearms disability according to standards under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Additionally, the Act provides that a prohibiting adjudication or commitment issued by a federal agency or department may be nullified in certain instances by a qualified set aside, expungement, release from mandatory treatment, or other specified means.
CHANGE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH PROHIBITOR: Prior to the NIAA, section 922(g)(4) was effectively a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms by any person "who had been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." The Act, however, provides that when relief is granted under a federal or state relief from disabilities program that meets the requirements of the Act, or when certain automatic relief conditions are met with respect to persons federally adjudicated or committed, the event giving rise to the mental health disability is "deemed not to have occurred" for purposes of the federal firearm prohibition.
There are two conditions that each state must satisfy before being eligible to receive grants:
- First, a state must provide to the Attorney General a "reasonable estimate," based on a methodology established by the Attorney General, of records subject to the Act's completeness requirements.
- Second, a state must certify, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the state has implemented a program permitting persons who have been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution to obtain relief from the firearms disabilities imposed by law as a result of such adjudication or commitment. This relief must be granted, in accordance with principles of due process, by a state court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The relief must be based on a finding that the circumstances of the disability and the person's record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
Before the enactment of the NICS Improvement Act, a person's adjudication as a mental defective or commitment to a mental institution was effectively a lifetime prohibition. Concerns were expressed to Congress about the permanence of this prohibitor and the life-long effect it would have on persons whose mental health adjudication or commitment records would be provided to the NICS under the Act's provisions. To address these concerns, the Act included not only provisions to require or promote the sharing of the existence of information about this disability for use by the NICS, but also provisions that require or authorize the establishment of federal and state programs that allow individuals to seek relief from the federal mental health firearms disability if circumstances warrant. As of December 2017, 31 states have enacted relief programs that have been certified by the state and approved by ATF.
ATF is available to answer questions about whether existing state laws meet the standards contemplated for the state relief from disability programs contemplated in the NICS Improvement Act. ATF is also available to provide technical assistance to states seeking to establish such programs under the Act. Also see State Relief from Disabilities Program Criteria.
The Act requires the Attorney General to establish for use by the states a methodology to calculate estimates of the total number of records in each of the subcategories of records subject to the grant program's reporting requirements. The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice of Statistics (BJS) developed a data collection instrument setting forth this methodology to send to each state's NCHIP point of contact agency. In doing so, BJS coordinated with representatives of the state criminal justice information repositories, state court administrators, the National Center for State Courts, the National Association of State Mental Health Directors, and others to obtain input on state record-keeping practices to help inform the development of a methodology. The previous data collection, State Estimates of Available Records Information Collection, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was sent to each state for completion. To date, BJS has received estimates from 47 jurisdictions. A Frequently Asked Questions document was also available to assist respondents in completing the form. Three years of data have been collected to date. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act: State Records Estimates Development and Validation Project, Year Three Report provides information on the results of the third year of collection. BJS is continuing to work with state and federal partners to explore revised methodologies to assess record completeness and availability.
FOR STATE AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS: Section 103 of the Act, regarding implementation assistance to the states, provides that the grants "shall be used by the States and Indian tribal governments, in conjunction with units of local government and State and local courts, to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations."
The law provides that grant to states or Indian tribes may only be used to—
- create electronic systems, which provide accurate and up-to-date information that is directly related to checks under the NICS, including court disposition and corrections records
- assist states in establishing or enhancing their own capacities to perform NICS background checks
- supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney General concerning final dispositions of criminal records to databases accessed by NICS
- supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney General concerning the identity of persons who have a federally a prohibiting mental health adjudication or commitment
- supply accurate and timely court orders and records of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for inclusion in federal and state law enforcement databases used to conduct NICS background checks
- collect and analyze data needed to demonstrate levels of state compliance with the Act
- maintain the relief from disabilities program in accordance with section 105, but not less than 3% and no more than 10% of each grant shall be used for this purpose.
FOR STATE COURT SYSTEMS: Section 301 of the Act, regarding grants to state court systems for the improvement of automation and transmittal of disposition records, provides that grants shall be made to each state, consistent with state plans for the integration, automation, and accessibility of criminal history records, for use by the state court system to improve automation and transmittal to federal and state repositories of—
- criminal history dispositions
- records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or is the subject of a prohibiting domestic violence protection order
- prohibiting mental adjudications and commitments.
The law provides that the amounts granted shall be used by the state court system only to—
- carry out, as necessary, assessments of the capabilities of state courts to automate and transmit arrest and conviction records, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories
- implement policies, systems, and procedures to automate and transmit arrest and conviction records, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories.