U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report May 1997, NCJ-163918 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sschis The full text of this report is available through: * the BJS Clearinghouse, 1-800-732-3277 * on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ * on the BJS gopher: gopher://www.ojp.usdoj.gov:70/11/bjs/ * on the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Electronic Bulletin Board (set at 8-N-1, call 301-738-8895, select BJS). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Maj. James V. Martin, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director and author of the report was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director. Support was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant; Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications; and Teresa E. Nyberg, Executive Secretary. 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 views 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, 1997. 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 --------------------- ----------- Foreword ------------ ------------------- 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, 1995 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and 1995 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and 1995 5. Data required by State law to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993 and 1995 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993 and 1995 8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 9. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1995 10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1995 11. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1995 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1995 14. Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1995 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1995 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1995 17. Procedures followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information and arrest information in the criminal history database, 1995 18. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1995 19. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1995 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995 22. Fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1995 ********** Foreword ********** Three previous surveys in this series also were carried out by SEARCH for the Bureau of Justice Statistics and covered the years 1989, 1992 and 1993. This year's report is focused on updating the information collected in previous years. Computerized versions of fingerprint-based "rap" sheets are playing increasingly important roles in criminal justice processing of offenders; records are necessary for such purposes as identifying perpetrators of crimes from latent fingerprints, making bail and pretrial release decisions, determining which defendants are subject to "three strikes" laws, making appropriate sentencing decisions, and determining conditions of correctional supervision or release. Noncriminal uses of criminal history records include background checks for employment, licensing, security clearances, and determining eligibility to purchase firearms. Records are also used to assure that unsuitable persons are not given positions of trust involving children, the elderly, or the disabled. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandates a national instant criminal background check system, to be operational no later than November 1998. To achieve a workable and dependable national system requires that all States achieve high levels of coverage, completeness, accuracy, and accessibility of their criminal record systems. The results of this survey provide quantitative information for monitoring progress toward these goals, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics hopes they will help in developing comprehensive state plans that most effectively achieve the goals. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director ******************** 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) which 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 may in some States be maintained by the State Police or some other State agency. Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or Criminal History Record Information System: A record (or the system maintaining such records) which 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, but in most cases do not include data describing involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice system. All 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. 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 and the readability of criminal history records. 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 January 1997, 32 States participate in III and the system operates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responses are provided from FBI files when the State originating the record is not a participant Glossary viii Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 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. If extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as planned, the III system would eliminate the need for duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State level since it would no longer be necessary for the FBI to maintain records on State offenders. At present, III ensures higher quality criminal justice responses because, in most cases, reply data are supplied directly by the State from which the record originates. Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact 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 would be overseen by a policymaking council comprised of representatives of the Federal and State governments, as well as system users. The key concept underlying the compact is agreement among all 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 which is inquiring about the data" rather than the law of the State which 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 FBI cannot abandon the duplicate records without a formal compact, however, since subsequent failure of a State to continue participation after cessation of the FBI's State offender files would jeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the Federal and State agencies that now rely on those files. The compact has been approved by the U.S. Attorney General and it is expected that it will be considered by the U.S. Congress in 1997. After Congressional approval, the compact will be submitted for ratification by State legislatures. 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 are not required to submit such records to the FBI, however. Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by criminal record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for all persons about whom a record is held in the systems. As of 1992, almost all State MNIs were automated and included almost 100 percent of record subjects in the repositories. 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 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 will forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual to the FBI accompanied by other identification data such as name, date of birth, etc. Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would also be retained at the State repository and would not be forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic images when new technologies are implemented), the FBI will enter the individual's fingerprint impressions in the NFF and will enter the person's name and identifiers in the III, together with an FBI Number and a State Identification Number for each State maintaining a record on the individual. Charge and disposition information on State offenders will be maintained only at the State level and State repositories will be required to respond to all authorized record requests concerning these individuals for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. States would 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 concept is presently being tested in four States, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon. All of these States are in a position to conduct the test since they have nonrestrictive laws governing release of data for noncriminal justice purposes. Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using biometric characteristics which 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, etc., 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 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 survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in July-December 1996. Fifty-four jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses were received from 53 jurisdictions. Only Rhode Island did not submit a complete survey. Throughout this report, the 50 States will be referred to as "States"; American Samoa, 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 provided information relating to the number of fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the FBI during Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States. ***************** Major Findings ****************** ------------------------------------------------------------------ Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files ------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1995: * Forty-seven States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file. * Nineteen States (Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico have fully automated criminal history files and master name indexes. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1995: * Forty-four States and Puerto Rico have fully automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * Three States (Maine, Mississippi and Vermont) and two territories (American Samoa and the Virgin Islands) have no automated criminal history files. * Two territories (American Samoa and the Virgin Islands) maintain totally manual criminal history information. * 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 19 States. In five States (California, Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Ohio) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Pennsylvania, the prior manual record is automated only when a request for the record is made. ---------------------------------------- Level of disposition reporting -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1995: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Twenty States (Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia representing approximately 32% of the Nation's population (based on 54 jurisdictions) and 37% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 25 States and the District of Columbia, representing approximately 40% of the Nation's population and 48% 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 29 States and the District of Columbia, representing approximately 50% 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. * Overall, the figures are lower when arrests older than 5 years are considered. Fourteen States report that 80% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty States report that 70% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-six States report that 60% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1995 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thirty States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia provided data on the number of final dispositions reported to their criminal history repositories indicating that over 4.36 million final dispositions were reported in 1995. The responding jurisdictions represent approximately 69% of the Nation's population. --------------------------- Level of felony flagging --------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1995: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Thirty-seven States and Puerto Rico currently flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases. * Nineteen States collect sufficient data to permit them to flag at least some previously unflagged felony convictions. ---------------------------------------------------- Timeliness of trial court disposition data ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * An average 34 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from less than 1 day in Massachusetts and New York to 145 days in Missouri. The majority of repositories receive the data in 30 days or less. * An average 27 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 300 in Connecticut. Half of the jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Thirty-two States 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, 1995: --------------------------------------------------------------- * Over 49.8 million criminal history records were in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories on December 31, 1995. (An individual offender may have records in several States.) * Eighty-six percent of the criminal history records maintained by the State criminal history repositories are automated. Approximately 7.2 million records, or 14%, are not automated. * Five States (Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) and three territories (American Samoa, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) have fewer than 30% automated criminal history files. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1995: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * The 50 States and two territories have automated at least some records in either the criminal history record file or the master name index. In Maine, a portion of the master name index has been automated but was currently not available for use. * Two territories, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands, have no automated criminal history information. * Of the responding jurisdictions, 44 States and Puerto Rico have fully automated master name indexes. Eight jurisdictions do not have fully automated master name indexes. Of those eight jurisdictions, five States and the District of Columbia have partially automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index, and the master name index in American Samoa is manual. * Of those jurisdictions maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the record is automated in 20 States. In five States (California, Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Ohio) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Pennsylvania, the prior manual record is automated only when a request for the record is made. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Data required by State law to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995: ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Thirty-four States and American Samoa require prosecutors to report to State criminal history repositories their decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases. In Michigan, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor's decision to charge a crime punishable by over 92 days. * Forty-four States, American Samoa, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico require felony trial courts to report the dispositions of felony cases to the State criminal history repository. In North Dakota, the reports are made by the prosecutors' offices in lieu of the courts. * State prison admission on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 37 States and 2 territories. State prison release information on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 32 States and 2 territories. * Admission data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 25 States and 1 territory. Release data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 19 States. * The reporting of probation information is mandated in 30 States and the District of Columbia, while 32 States and the District of Columbia require the reporting of parole information. ------------------------------------------- Arrest records with fingerprints, 1995: ------------------------------------------- * During 1995, over 6.9 million arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic substitutes) were submitted to the State criminal history repositories. * Thirty-seven States, representing 71% of the Nation's population, have records that are 100% fingerprint-supported. In 10 States and 2 territories, some of the arrests in the criminal history files are fingerprint-supported. In Mississippi, Rhode Island and the Virgin Islands, the inquiry regarding fingerprint-supported criminal history files was either not applicable or the percentage was unknown. -------------------------------------------------------------- Completeness of data in State criminal history repository -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------- * More than half of the jurisdictions (33 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. In Michigan, police must charge a suspect prior to sending fingerprints to the State criminal history repository. ------------------ Disposition data ------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1995: --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Nineteen States (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia) and American Samoa report that criminal history repositories receive final felony trial court dispositions for 80% or more of the cases.Eight of those jurisdictions (American Samoa, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas and Utah) estimate that they receive notice in 100% of the cases. A. A total of 25 jurisdictions, or 4 additional States and 1 territory (California, Idaho, Kentucky, New York and Puerto Rico) report that final felony trial court dispositions in 70% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. B. A total of 30 jurisdictions, or 5 additional States (Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington), report that final felony trial court dispositions in 60% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. C. A total of 31 jurisdictions, or one additional State (Wyoming), report that final felony trial court dispositions in 50% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. * Of the respondents indicating that there is either a legal requirement for prosecutors to notify the State criminal history record repository of declinations to prosecute or where the information is reported voluntarily, nine States and one territory (Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Wyoming) estimate that they receive notice in 80% or more of such cases. Seven jurisdictions (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Wyoming) estimate that notice is received in 100% of the cases. All but Massachusetts report a legal requirement to notify the repository. * Twelve States were able to estimate the number of prosecutor declinations received. The numbers ranged from 200 in Wyoming to 195,000 in California. --------------------------------------------------------- Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1995 : --------------------------------------------------------- * Expungements: Twenty-four States and three territories have statutes that provide for the expungement of felony convictions. In eight States and Puerto Rico, the record is destroyed by the State criminal history repository. In Pennsylvania, the record is expunged only if there has been a pardon. In Washington, the record is returned to the court. In eight States and the Virgin Islands, the record is retained with the action noted on the record. Louisiana, Nevada (by practice), New Hampshire and Utah seal the record. In Delaware, only juvenile records are expunged. In Massachusetts, the record is retained with the action noted, and the record is sealed. * Setting aside of convictions: Forty States and two territories have statutes which provide for setting aside felony convictions. In two States, the record is destroyed. In 34 States and Puerto Rico, the record is retained with the action noted only. In Minnesota, the record is retained either with the action noted and sealed or is expunged. In New York, the fingerprints are destroyed, but the text is retained; and in Oregon, a manual record is retained. * Pardons: Almost all of the jurisdictions (48 States and four territories) have statutes that provide for the granting of a pardon. In 43 States and three territories, the criminal history record is retained with the action noted. In three States (Connecticut, South Dakota and Vermont), the record is destroyed. In Tennessee, although the State law provides for pardons, none have been received by the repository. * Restoration of civil rights: Forty-one States and three territories have legal provisions for the restoration of a convicted felon's civil rights. In the majority of those jurisdictions (34 States and two territories), the record is retained with the action noted. In two States (South Dakota and Vermont), the record is destroyed. Restoration of civil rights is not tracked in Alaska, and in Missouri, no action is taken. In Tennessee, although the State law provides for restoration of civil rights, none have been received by the repository. ----------------- Correctional data ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1995 : -------------------------------------------------------------------- * In 32 States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia, 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 21 States and the District of Columbia, have the same legal requirement for reporting by local jails. * In the 44 jurisdictions where State correctional facilities are legally required to report information or the information is reported voluntarily, the majority of jurisdictions (34 States) estimate that in at least 95% of the cases, admission information is reported to the State repository. Twenty-nine of those jurisdictions estimate that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. Five States estimate a reporting rate of less than 95%, ranging from 85% in Virginia to 0% in Florida. * For reporting from local jails where required by law or completed voluntarily, eight States report that 90% or more of the admissions are reported to the State repositories. Nine States report rates of less than 90% ranging from 70% in New Hampshire to less than 5% in Pennsylvania. * In 41 States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia, 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, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * Of the 34 jurisdictions where reporting of probation data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 8 estimate that 100% of the cases in which probation is ordered are reported to the State criminal history repository. An additional six States report that in at least 75% of the cases, the State criminal history repository receives probation information. Five States report that information is received in 50% or less of the cases. California and Massachusetts receive admission to probation information in 100% of the cases, but do not receive release from probation information. * Seventeen jurisdictions where reporting of parole data is legally required or voluntarily reported, estimate that parole information is reported in 90% of the cases. Three States and the District of Columbia report receiving parole information in less than 90% of the cases, ranging from 75% in Illinois to 0% in the District of Columbia and Idaho. In California, 100% of admission to parole information is received; release from parole is not reported. -------------------------------------------------------------- Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository -------------------------------------------------------------- --Arrests -------------------------------------------------------------------- Average number of days to process arrest information submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * The average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and fingerprints by the State criminal history repositories is 12, ranging from 0 in American Samoa to 48 days in Missouri. The majority (30) receive the data in 14 days or less. *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 23, ranging from 0 in American Samoa and Delaware to 300 days in Connecticut. Since Connecticut's system conversion in 1996, the time to enter the information is one day. The majority of jurisdictions (29) enter the data in 10 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of fingerprints and entry of arrest data into the criminal history databases is 24, ranging from less than one day in American Samoa, Delaware, the District of Columbia and North Dakota to 300 days in Connecticut. Since Connecticut's system conversion in 1996, the time to enter the information is one day. The majority of jurisdictions (28) enter the data in 10 days or less. * Thirty-three jurisdictions 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 Colorado, Maine and Wyoming to 1,200 person-days to clear an estimated 52,000 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards in Texas. Initial fingerprint classification is a more time-consuming task than entry of disposition data into the database. ------------------- --Disposition data ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1995: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * The average number of days between the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories is 34, ranging from less than one day in Massachusetts and New York to 145 days in Missouri. The majority of jurisdictions receive the data in 30 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases is 27, ranging from 0 in States where dispositions are entered either directly by the courts or by tape to 300 in Connecticut. One half of the jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Thirty-two States indicate that they have, or had at the end of 1995, backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database. ------------------------------------------ --Admission to correctional facilities ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995 : ------------------------------------------------------------- * 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 26, ranging from less than 1 day in American Samoa and New York to 200 days in California. Most jurisdictions (20) receive the information in 15 days or less. * The average number of days between the admission of offenders to local jails and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 33,ranging from less than 1 day in New York to 200 days in California. Almost half of the reporting jurisdictions (7) receive the information in 15 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of correctional admissions information by the State criminal history repository and entry into the criminal history databases is 24, ranging from 1 day in Delaware, to approximately 200 days in California. (California currently processes forms within 30 days.) The majority of the jurisdictions (26) enter the information in 15 days or less. * Fifteen States indicate that they had backlogs in entering the correctional information into the criminal history databases. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 2 in North Dakota to clear an estimated 50-100 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms to 169 person-days to clear an estimated 8,900 forms in Hawaii. California had a backlog of 250,000 forms, but anticipated currency by January 1997. ------------------------------------- Procedures to improve data quality --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1995: --------------------------------------------------------------------- * The method most used to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting is telephone calls conducted by 37 States and 3 territories. * Twenty States and two territories generate lists of arrests with missing dispositions as a means of monitoring disposition reporting. * Thirty-three States and two territories report using field visits to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Twenty-seven States and American Samoa generate form letters as a method of encouraging complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Other jurisdictions report using such methods as training, audits, special projects, electronic contact, pursuing legislative and administrative changes, and returning the information to the submitting agency 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, 1995: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Thirty-three States and three territories 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 reporting jurisdictions but Mississippi 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-three States and three territories employ a unique tracking number for the individual subject. * Thirty-eight States and two territories use a unique arrest event identifier. * Twenty-three States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico utilize a unique charge identifier. * Thirty-eight States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia use the arrest date; thirty-eight States and four territories use the subject's name. * Thirty-one States and three territories report using the subject's name and the reporting agency's case number. * Individual jurisdictions also report using the court case number, the Criminal Justice Information System case number, and unique combinations of numbers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Procedures followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information and arrest information in the criminal history database, 1995: --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Forty-one jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive final court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The jurisdictions vary in the percentage of court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database from less than 1% in Nevada and Virginia to 55% in California. Seven jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Puerto Rico, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming) report that all final court dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * Thirty-one 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 less than 1% in Nevada to 100% in North Carolina, where correctional information is not linked to arrest information. Fifteen jurisdictions report that all correctional dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * The jurisdictions use a variety of procedures when a linkage cannot be established. Ten States create "dummy" arrest segments from court disposition records; seven States create "dummy" court segments from custody records. Twelve States enter court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest; and 23 States enter custody information into the database without any linkage to a prior court disposition. Twenty-one States and the Virgin Islands do not enter the unlinked court information. Six jurisdictions do not enter unlinked custody information. Nine States utilize other procedures, such as contacting or 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, 1995 : -------------------------------------------------------------------- * To prevent the entry and storage of inaccurate data and to detect and correct inaccurate entries in the criminal history database, a large majority of the jurisdictions, a total of 44 States and three territories complete a manual review of incoming source documents or reports. * Other methods used most frequently include computer edit and verification programs employed by 42 States and three territories. Manual review of transcripts before dissemination is performed in 30 jurisdictions. * Manual double-checking before data entry is completed in 26 jurisdictions. * Eighteen States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia perform random sample comparisons of the State criminal history repository files with stored documents. * Sixteen States and three territories generate error lists which are returned to the reporting agencies. * Twelve jurisdictions use various methods, such as audits and comparison of data in the criminal history database to other sources of information. ---------- Audits ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1995: ---------------------------------------------------------------- * Forty-six States and three territories maintain transaction logs to provide an audit trail of all inquiries, responses and record updates or modifications. * Slightly more than half of the repositories, a total of 29 jurisdictions 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, 1995: --------------------------------------------------------------------- * 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 32 States and 2 territories to determine the level of accuracy and completeness of the criminal history file. * Of the jurisdictions where audits were performed, in 26 States, American Samoa and the District of Columbia, another agency conducted the audit; in 4 States the repository conducted its own audit; and in 2 jurisdictions the audit was conducted with a combination of an outside agency and the repository. * Twelve jurisdictions in 1995 reported not having conducted an audit during the previous 5 years and not planning to audit in the coming 3 years. * In 31 of the jurisdictions where audits were conducted, changes were made as a result of the audit to improve data quality of the records. In three jurisdictions, changes were underway prior to the audit or were in the planning stage at the time of the survey. * Twenty-nine States and three territories had data quality audits planned or scheduled for the next 3 years. * Forty-five States and four territories had initiatives underway at the repository or contributing agencies to improve data quality. Initiatives included audit activities (31); automation changes (40); disposition or arrest reporting enhancements (41); felony flagging (24); fingerprint enhancements (39); agency interfaces (37); legislation (21); plan development (30); establishment of task forces/advisory groups (23); implementation or improvement of tracking numbers (26); and training (35). ------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995: ------------------------------------------------------------- * As of 1995, approximately 15.2 million III records are indexed with the State's identification (SID) pointers. Over 10.2 million records are maintained by the FBI for the States. ------------------------------------------------------------ Fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1995: ------------------------------------------------------------ * Over 4.8 million fingerprints were received by the FBI in 1995. Of that number, over 4.4 million were for criminal justice purposes, and 379,400 were for noncriminal justice purposes. California submitted the highest number of both criminal justice (738,000) and noncriminal justice (56,700) fingerprints. Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon were participants in the National Fingerprint File in 1995, and therefore submitted only the first fingerprint card of an individual to the FBI. * Almost 5.2 million final dispositions were received by the FBI in 1995, with California submitting the highest number (3,110,500). ---------------- Methodology ---------------- This report is based upon the results from a survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in July -December 1995. A total of 54 jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses were received from 53 jurisdictions. Rhode Island did not submit a complete survey response. The five-part survey instrument consisted of 235 questions, having several parts. The survey was designed to collect comprehensive data in five major subject areas: criminal history information systems; searching methods and policies regarding firearms purchases; the maintenance and use of civil justice information for purposes other than determining firearms eligibility; the National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended; and States' participation in the Interstate Identification Index (III) and the National Fingerprint File (NFF). The 14 topical areas covered in this report are 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 criminalhistory 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. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also provided information in two areas. The information reported by the FBI relates to the number of fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the FBI during FY 1995 and the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States. Following the receipt of the responses, all data were automated. 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 1989 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991). Data reported for 1993 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995). END OF FILE