CONTINUING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION:
FINAL 1994-1998 Report

April 1999  NCJ  179768
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

Note to readers of the ASCII version:
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. 
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format 
(.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in
.pdf format are available from: 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cchrie98.htm.





Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by Queues Enforth 
Development, (Q.E.D.) Inc.  The project director of the report was 
James M. Tien, Ph.D, Vice President; other authors include Michael F. 
Cahn, Vice President, and Robin C. Neray, Senior Analyst.  The 
Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History 
Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreements #95-
RU-RX-K002 and #98-RU-VX-K003 awarded to Q.E.D., 432 
Columbia Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141-1048.  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/1999 by Queues Enforth Development, Inc. 
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 Q.E.D.

Foreword

Since 1995, with support from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 
Queues Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.) has been evaluating the impact 
of three federal programs on state criminal history records; the BJS-funded 
Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI) Program, the BJS-funded 
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), and the five-
percent set-aside of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Program, funded by the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance.

This report brings Q.E.D.’s evaluation findings current through 1998 and 
addresses the extent to which the efforts funded under the records 
improvement programs have brought the states closer to meeting the 
mandates of the federal statutes concerning the quality and uses of criminal 
history records.

In the course of their evaluation, Q.E.D. has analyzed over 1,500 federally 
funded criminal history records improvement activities undertaken by the 
states.  State responses to questions on data quality and improvement 
strategies, and user perceptions of record accessibility, timeliness and utility 
are reported herein.  The evaluation findings identify areas of progress, 
including promising approaches for continued records improvement.
BJS hopes that the information contained in this report will inform state 
officials about records improvement initiatives across the nation and assist 
them in their future planning efforts.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director


Highlights

1. Making the Case

The importance of accurate and complete criminal history records to a 
smoothly functioning and secure society cannot be overstated.  These 
records are critical to decision making at virtually every juncture in the 
criminal justice system, and beyond. 

Police officers, prosecutors, defenders, judges, and other court officials, 
corrections officers, probation officers, and parole officers depend on 
timely, complete, consistent, and accurate criminal history information. 
This information provides the glue for holding together a coordinated 
and effective criminal justice system.  Moreover, criminal justice 
records are being accessed increasingly for official purposes outside the 
criminal justice system, including establishing qualifications for 
employment, volunteer programs, and professional licensing.

Each state maintains criminal history records in a central repository, 
coordinating and providing them in response to requests from legitimate 
users.  Repositories process hundreds of thousands of fingerprint and 
arrest records from local arresting agencies, identify offenders, process 
disposition reports, and attempt to match disposition reports to arrests 
in their databases.

Federal, state, and local criminal justice officials have long recognized 
problems in the quality of criminal history records.  This issue was first 
widely discussed in 1967, with publication of the Report of the 
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of 
Justice, which noted that these records were frequently inaccurate, 
incomplete, and inaccessible. 

Over the past three decades, numerous workshops have been held and 
reports published on the quality of such records, and strategies have 
been devised for improving them.  Further, federal and state statutes 
have increased the importance of criminal history records in such areas 
as eligibility to buy firearms, felony convictions of illegal aliens, 
sentencing guidelines, employment, and licensing.  Federal agencies–in 
particular, the former Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
(BJS)–have funded state programs designed to enhance data quality.  
Key efforts include the BJS-funded Criminal History Records 
Improvement (CHRI) program, the BJA-funded Byrne 5% set-aside 
program, and the National Criminal History Improvement Program 
(NCHIP).

In 1995, BJS, in conjunction with BJA, authorized Queues Enforth 
Development (Q.E.D.) Inc., to continue the BJA-funded Criminal 
History Records Improvement Evaluation (CHRIE) effort. 
Q.E.D’s current project, entitled “Continuing Criminal History Records 
Improvement Evaluation” (C-CHRIE), assesses the CHRI program, the 
Byrne 5% set-aside program, and the NCHIP through 1998.  Findings 
in this report point to areas where progress in records improvement has 
been substantial, as well as those requiring greater effort, and identify 
promising approaches for improving data quality.  Justice Department 
officials should find the report useful in assessing how federal funds are 
being spent; state officials can use it to find out what’s going on in other 
states.

Federally Funded Programs

The CHRI, Byrne 5% set-aside, and NCHIP programs seek to improve 
the quality of criminal history records. In 1989, the US Attorney 
General recommended using $9 million of Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
Discretionary Funds in each of fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992 to 
fund the CHRI program.  The three overall objectives of this program 
are to:

* enhance state criminal history records to accurately identify convicted 
felons;
* meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards for identifying 
such individuals; and
* improve quality and timeliness of criminal history records 
information.

An amendment to the Crime Control Act of 1990 required that states 
spend at least five percent of their annual Edward Byrne Memorial 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance formula grant funds–
ordinarily intended for initiatives to control violent and drug-related 
crime–on improving quality of criminal history records.  This amounts 
to a total of approximately $156 million from fiscal years 1992-98.  The 
objectives of the Byrne 5% program are similar to those of the CHRI 
program–specifically, to:

* enhance completeness of criminal history records, especially 
including final disposition of all felony arrest offenses;
* fully automate all criminal justice histories and fingerprint records;
* improve frequency and quality of criminal history reports to the FBI;
* improve state record systems and sharing with the Attorney General 
of all records described above, in order to implement the Brady Act; 
and
* improve state record systems and sharing with the Attorney General 
of all records described above, in order to implement the National Child 
Protection Act.

Three key federal statutes were also enacted–the Brady Handgun 
Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the National Child Protection Act of 
1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994; these three have led 
to certain pertinent actions.

* First, the Brady Act–in an effort to identify ineligible prospective 
firearm purchasers–requires establishing a National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS), to be contacted by dealers before 
they sell any firearm.  States are to make criminal history records 
available to NICS through the Interstate Identification Index (III), a 
decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI, and 
containing personal identifiers of offenders and “pointers” to states that 
maintain criminal history records on these offenders.  (NICS checks can 
also access records maintained by the FBI.)  NICS, which became 
operational on November 30, 1998, also includes limited data on 
persons other than felons who are ineligible to purchase firearms.  (Of 
the $100 million appropriated for Brady in Fiscal Year 1995, BJS 
transferred $6 million to the FBI for NICS development.)

* Second, the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) of 1993 requires 
that records of child abuse be transmitted to the FBI’s national records 
system and encourages states to adopt legislation requiring background 
checks on individuals before they assume responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled.  In the context of NCPA, 
background checks are restricted to prospectively disqualified care 
providers, but state legislation varies and may have a broader scope, 
including the performance of routine background checks of many 
categories of potential employees, volunteers, and licensees.

* Third, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996 added the eighth and ninth firearm ineligibility 
categories–namely, persons who are “subject to a civil restraining order 
arising out of domestic or child abuse” and those convicted of 
“domestic violence misdemeanors.”  The seven other categories of 
persons ineligible to purchase firearms under the Gun Control Act are: 
people under indictment for or convicted of a felony, fugitives from 
justice, unlawful drug users or addicts, mental defectives, illegal aliens, 
those dishonorably discharged from the military, and those who have 
renounced US citizenship.

To implement these statutes, BJS established the National Criminal 
History Improvement Program (NCHIP); from its inception through 
fiscal year 1998, the program has awarded $206 million to fund state 
activities in records improvement.  

NCHIP implements grant provisions of these statutes and thereby 
improves the nation’s public safety by:

* facilitating accurate and timely identification of people ineligible to 
purchase a firearm;
* ensuring that people responsible for the care of children, the elderly, 
or the disabled do not have disqualifying criminal records;
* improving access to protection orders and records of people wanted 
for stalking and domestic violence; and
* enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation’s 
criminal history records systems and the extent to which such records 
can be used for criminal justice-related purposes.

More specifically, NCHIP helps states:

* expand and enhance participation in the FBI’s Interstate Identification 
Index (III) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System (NICS);
* meet timetables for achieving criminal history records completeness 
and participating in III, as established for each state by the Attorney 
General;
* improve level of criminal history records automation, accuracy, 
completeness, and flagging; 
* develop and implement procedures for accessing records of people 
other than felons who are ineligible to buy firearms;
* identify–through interface with the National Incident-Based Reporting 
System (NIBRS), as necessary–records of crimes involving use of a 
handgun and/or abuse of children, the elderly, or the disabled;
* identify, classify, collect, and maintain–through interface with the 
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and III, as necessary–
protection orders, warrants, arrests, and convictions of individuals 
violating protection orders (to protect stalking and domestic violence 
victims), and support development of state sex offender registries and 
an interface with a national sex offender registry); and
* ensure that states develop the capability to monitor and assess state 
progress in meeting legislative and program goals.

Common Goals

Many states view the various federal grant programs for improving the 
quality of criminal history records as one large pool of funds.  This 
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to separate “CHRI data quality 
impact” from “Byrne 5% data quality impact” or from “NCHIP data 
quality impact.”  Still, each program plays a synergistic and 
complementary role in improving criminal history records, and as such 
must be part of the overall evaluation.  Fortunately, the substantial 
overlap among goals makes it possible to formulate one set of common 
improvement goals for federally supported criminal history records.  
These six goals make it easy to discern how well federally funded 
activities undertaken by the state align with program goals to:
 
* provide resources to establish the infrastructure for 
improving criminal history records and related systems;

* improve criminal history records quality (completeness, 
accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and accessibility)

* improve interstate, intrastate, and federal criminal history 
records-related reporting; 

* automate systems for creating, storing, and sharing 
criminal history records;

* identify ineligible firearms purchasers; and 

* identify individuals disqualified from caring for children, 
the elderly, or the disabled.

Study Approach

This report is the third major deliverable in a multi-year Q.E.D. effort 
to evaluate the impact of federally funded criminal history records 
improvement programs.  The first and second deliverables, Preliminary 
Assessment and 1994-96 Report, built upon a 1994 Q.E.D. study 
evaluating the Bureau of Justice Statistics-funded Criminal History 
Records Improvement (CHRI) Program. 

To accomplish our study objectives, Q.E.D used the two-pronged 
evaluation approach, conducting both an overall impact evaluation of 
all states and a more focused evaluation of a handful of states.  The 
overall evaluation should benefit Justice Department officials and 
members of Congress (who need to know how well program funds have 
been spent) and individual states committed to improving their current 
criminal history records.  The focused evaluation enables a deeper 
analysis of selected issues.

After reviewing 56 states’ and territories’ NCHIP plans and their 
Criminal Justice Record Improvement (CJRI) plan updates, we 
developed a scaleable classification scheme to categorize the 1,552 
identified record improvement activities.  This scheme categorizes 
activities that mirror the flow of data as they are captured, updated, and 
used throughout the criminal justice system, and identifies funding 
sources and expected and actual schedules, as available.  The scheme is 
designed to accommodate diverse activities and help understand 
relationships among activities, funding sources, and timeframes.
Based on a model we developed and then fed sample state data, we 
examined issues of linking arrests and dispositions, including 
appropriateness of national linkage goals.  We concluded with the 
design of a set of measures which can be used to objectively assess 
overall data quality over time.

The scheme is three-tiered: categories 1-19 constitute what we refer to 
as “Level 1” and are subdivided into 50 more specific Level 2 sub-
categories.  Level 3 is a further sub-division of Level 2, and offers the 
greatest specificity; it contains 171 subcategories which ultimately 
“house” the specific improvement activities.  For example, Level 1. 
System Improvements consists of 1.1 Conduct study/develop plan, 1.2 
Conduct audit, and 1.3 Establish infrastructure.  Continuing the 
example, 1.2 Conduct audit, in turn, consists of 1.2.1 Audit criminal 
history data quality, 1.2.2 Conduct legislative audit, 1.2.3 Audit 
superior court.  In this way, the classification scheme permits a 
consistent comparison of activities across states.

The table below shows the number of activities in each of the 19 Level 
1 categories.  More than half the activities fall into the System 
Improvements and Criminal History Records categories; this is 
understandable, since they reflect the initial two stages of developing an 
effective criminal history records system.  Interestingly, these types of 
activities are as prevalent under NCHIP as they were under CHRI; 
however, fingerprinting-related activities such as AFIS or livescan 
implementation (not funded by CHRI) also prevail.

The number of activities undertaken by a state ranges from two to 63, 
with an average of 28.2 per state.  The variability in number of 
activities indicates that some states engage in a small number of costly 
improvements, while others undertake less-expensive activities.

Activity Categories by Prevalence
 
While both viable and robust enough to permit an expanding C-CHRIE 
effort, the classification scheme is limited in several respects, as with all 
such schemes or taxonomies.  Two limitations merit discussion.

First, the scheme categorizes improvements by choosing the one 
category–from a hierarchical list of categories–that best represents that 
activity.  This approach is somewhat analogous to the Uniform Crime 
Reporting (UCR) system, which captures only the most serious charge 
for each arrest.  Classifying information in this way biases results 
towards those categories at the top of the hierarchy.

Second, activities are not comparable in either cost or benefit and 
should not be weighted as such.  While we count each activity as if all 
activities were equivalent, they are not; thus, an audit activity, while 
critical, is less costly than the purchase of an AFIS system.  However, 
notwithstanding these typical limitations, the classification scheme and 
the resultant findings form a sound basis for understanding the status of 
criminal history records and for funding their improvements.

2. Findings

To evaluate the impact of the three federally funded programs on 
criminal history records improvement, we considered the extent to 
which state efforts have helped accomplish the six common goals. 
While it would be ideal to assert that each goal has or has not been met, 
this is not yet possible.  Improving criminal history records is a lengthy 
process, best assessed with the aid of national aggregate measures, 
which can quantify the state of data quality over time.  Until these 
measures are established (see Remaining Issues, below), an evaluation 
must be based on activities being undertaken by the states. 

Goal 1: Provide Required Resources

Provide resources to establish the necessary infrastructure for 
improving criminal history records and related systems.
By providing ongoing funding since the beginning of the CHRI 
program, the Department of Justice has demonstrated a commitment to 
improving criminal history records.  Between FY 90 and FY 98, the 
federal government awarded a total of $389M–$27M through the CHRI 
program, $156M through the Byrne 5% program, and $206M through 
the NCHIP program.  This represents an annual average of $0.77M in 
federal funds awarded to each state, over the past nine years.  The chart 
below depicts the level of awards over time.


Total Federal Program Awards by Year
 

Specific financial assistance has also been targeted to states at both 
ends of the criminal history records automation spectrum.  “Priority” 
states (Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia) 
each received a supplementary grant of up to $l million in NCHIP funds 
to spend on basic activities to enhance automation of criminal history 
records.  Similarly, the 18 NCHIP “advanced” states, a subset of III 
states, were eligible, under the Advanced State Award Program 
(ASAP), to collectively spend an additional $5 million on extended 
core activities that would enhance the interface of their computerized 
criminal history systems with databases of persons other than felons 
who are ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Finding 1.1:	The establishment of federal programs has helped 
states place a high priority on criminal history records 
improvement.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP program requirements have heightened 
awareness of the importance of improving criminal history records.  As 
part of the Byrne 5% requirement, states must: (1) develop a Criminal 
Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan and update it annually in 
order to expend their 5% funds, (2) convene a multi-agency criminal 
justice records improvement task force and, (3) as part of NCHIP, 
coordinate Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds.  In addition, states have target 
dates for meeting the Attorney General’s timetable for current and 
sharable records as well as dates for III participation, where applicable.  
Further, federal funds have helped leverage state and local funds, 
targeted at improving the quality of criminal history records.
One-third of the states expended more Byrne funds for criminal justice 
records improvement than the federally mandated 5% set-aside–
evidence that states recognize the need for improving criminal history 
records.  Moreover, states indicate that flexibility in the administration 
and use of Byrne 5% funds is helpful: it does not require that all 
projects be equally subsidized and allows the states to put funds to best 
use.

Finding 1.2:	The amount of available federal funds is not 
excessive. 

The question of whether some states may be unable to handle additional 
workloads associated with a large infusion of funding–precipitating a 
so-called “saturation phenomenon”–has been raised; for example, 
between FY 95 and FY 98 states drew down only 36% of their NCHIP 
awards, on average.  There are, however, other possible explanations. 
First, the typical NCHIP-and Byrne- funded activities (e.g., an AFIS 
effort) take considerable time to complete; this is to be encouraged, 
since states may otherwise be unsuccessful in undertaking such major 
efforts and explains why funds are not being spent.  Second, some states 
strategically accumulate their Byrne funds over several years to 
purchase “big ticket” items.  Third, no state has requested to waive 
compliance with the requirement to allocate at least 5% of its Byrne 
funds for improving criminal history records.  Finally, new programs, 
such as the State Identification Systems, come into existence, 
necessitating additional funding.

Finding 1.3:	While there is synergy among the CHRI, Byrne, and 
NCHIP programs, an attempt should be made to improve 
coordination with the newer DOJ initiatives and with other federal 
and state programs that have implications for criminal history.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds are coordinated, in the sense that they 
complement each other in related efforts, rather than supplement one 
another in the same efforts.  A state may fund improvement activities in 
the judicial branch with one of these two sources, while activities in the 
executive branch could be underwritten by the other source.  Although 
logically, the Byrne and NCHIP funds could be commingled to 
implement an interface between a courts information system (judicial) 
and a computerized criminal history records system (executive), this 
does not occur because Byrne, unlike NCHIP, requires a match and 
local pass through.  Commingling the two sources would introduce 
complexities in administrative and funds tracking.

CHRI and NCHIP also complement each other in related efforts.  While 
any leveraging of NCHIP and CHRI funds to support the same activity 
is negligible, the two funding sources overlap in the kinds of activities 
they support, namely, those falling into the System Improvements and 
Criminal History Records categories.  Interestingly, these types of 
activities are as prevalent under NCHIP as they were under CHRI, 
implying a continuing need for funding these initiatives.

The difference in allocation of NCHIP and CHRI funds is also 
understandable.  Because the average NCHIP award is much greater 
than the average CHRI award, only 16% of NCHIP-funded activities 
leverage state and/or local funds, compared to over 41% of CHRI-
funded activities.  By the same token, 41% of all activities are partially 
funded by NCHIP, whereas the analogous percentage for CHRI is only 
17%; this can be attributed to the narrower CHRI focus.  

Some state officials feel the greatest barrier to effective coordination of 
the increasing number of records-related programs is institutional.  At 
the federal level, programs are administered by multiple organizational 
units within BJA and BJS; this occurs more disparately at the state 
level, where the respective administrators may be not only in separate 
agencies but even in different branches of government (i.e., executive 
vs. judicial).  As new programs emerge (e.g., State Identification 
Systems, which supports AFIS development) and integration initiatives 
proliferate across agency lines (e.g., Health and Human Services 
programs requiring selective access to criminal history information), it 
will become more crucial than ever to coordinate the various federal 
and state criminal justice programs with federal and state non-criminal 
justice programs.  Organizational changes are being considered at the 
state level to address this need.

Finding 1.4:	The majority of records improvement activities are 
initiated and completed on schedule.  

An overwhelming 75% of activities start on time, and some 70% of 
activities are completed on time, based on an analysis of activities that 
included planned and actual start and completion dates.  This is 
commendable, given myriad possible delays–attributed to contractor 
problems, personnel changes, and political difficulties–not within the 
control of the department implementing the initiatives.  Ongoing 
activities–including training and auditing–comprise 7% of the total.  
Only 19 activities experienced starting lags exceeding two years, while 
only 14 activities experienced completion lags of two years or more.  
The average criminal history records improvement activity takes 2.7 
years to complete.  These statistics should help guide states through 
future planning efforts.

Goal 2: Improve Records Quality

Improve the quality (i.e., completeness, accuracy, consistency, 
timeliness, and accessibility) of criminal history records.

To gain insight into the states’ perspective, we administered a 
questionnaire to state officials, requesting their views on the relative 
importance of data quality issues and data quality improvement 
activities.  We also conducted telephone interviews with 50 users of 
criminal history information in both the criminal justice and non-
criminal justice communities and asked for their views on changes in 
the quality of records between 1992 and 1997.  While our sample is 
limited and somewhat biased–38% of criminal justice users were from 
local law enforcement–we find that these users are generally content 
with records quality; although, to the degree they could recollect, they 
believe that improvements since 1992 have been modest.  Our findings 
indicate that while federal funds have been instrumental in progress 
towards improving the quality of criminal history records, more work 
needs to be done.

Finding 2.1:	The automation of criminal history records systems–
especially their interfaces–has made records available on a more 
timely basis. 

Eighty-eight percent of users interviewed see access to criminal history 
records as either being timely or very timely; 30% perceive that access 
was either more timely or much more timely in 1997, compared to 
1992.  Attribution for the improvement was evenly split between 
improvements in automated systems and in data entry protocol.
Reduction in disposition submission times is one factor contributing to 
the greater timeliness of record accessibility.  Responses to our 
questionnaire indicate that disposition submission times–deemed 
problematic by the states in 1994–are no longer a concern.  Thanks to 
the CHRI emphasis on increased automation of disposition reporting, 
submission times have been successfully reduced.  In cases where there 
is no difficulty linking a disposition to its arrest, the improved 
disposition submission times lead to the timely availability of a 
complete record.  However, the troubling fact that arrest-to-disposition 
linking problems remain suggests that automation alone is insufficient 
to alleviate poor linkage, which is usually a symptom of a more 
structural problem (e.g., pertinent tracking or control numbers not 
entered on the arrest/disposition record).
  
Finding 2.2:	More federal funds are needed to substantially 
improve the quality, and particularly the completeness, of criminal 
history records. 

While availability of federal funds has enhanced quality of criminal 
history records, there is still substantial room for improvement. 
Completeness–the extent to which the criminal history record contains 
available disposition information–remains an acute problem. The 
degree to which arrests in the criminal history database have a final 
disposition was cited by states as being the most critical and most 
problematic issue they face, in both 1994 and 1997.  The past decade 
has witnessed a major increase in automated disposition reporting, but 
states still find it challenging to link dispositions to associated arrests 
and charges.  While automated disposition reporting has accelerated the 
rate at which dispositions are received at the repository, this does not 
necessarily guarantee the linking of a disposition to its corresponding 
arrest.

The linking task can be especially difficult in states where dispositions 
are matched to corresponding charges, since charges can be often 
dropped or modified anytime following an arrest.  One manifestation of 
this linking problem is the increase in suspense files–that is, repository 
files containing dispositions that cannot be linked to arrests.  A 
procedural change, such as implementing unique identifiers, or 
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) numbers, should be 
encouraged, since it has been shown to help states alleviate the 
problem.  States should also continue to locate and process disposition 
reports not submitted to the repository–an activity which many states 
have cited as improving the quality of records, and which should be 
implemented on a wider scale. 

States assert that upgrading the AFIS and CCH systems and 
implementing livescan will yield the greatest improvement in data 
quality, and as such, are among the most frequently undertaken 
activities.  Federal funds have played a key role in subsidizing these 
costly initiatives (see Finding 4.2).  The importance of these efforts is 
understandable, since the AFIS and CCH are necessarily the two critical 
components of an efficient repository.  Further, legacy AFIS and CCH 
systems installed in the 1980s need to be replaced with state-of-the-art 
hardware and software.  Livescan, on the other hand, is a newer 
technology that should be fostered, since it improves arrest reporting 
and helps build towards a paperless system.  The timely focus on 
livescan and automated arrest reporting is likely related to the fact that 
automated disposition reporting has made major strides since CHRI, 
allowing more emphasis on the front end of the records process.  
The fact that the average time to complete an improvement activity 
exceeds two-and-one-half years explains why the need for supplemental 
funding can also be expected.

Finding 2.3:	Records are more accessible and more useful as a 
result of improvements to criminal history records.
 
Eighty-five percent of users interviewed feel that records were either 
accessible or very accessible in 1997; 34% feel that they were either 
more or much more accessible in 1997, compared to 1992.  This latter 
low percentage may be due to the fact that local law enforcement–a 
third of the users we interviewed–traditionally has had greatest access 
to the records, and hence no substantial difference is apparent to them.  
The majority attributed the improvement to changes in their automated 
systems, which, as in Goal 5, has been a focal point of federal funds. 
Seventy-nine percent find records information useful or very useful, and 
34% feel it was either more useful or much more useful in 1997, 
compared to 1992.  The predominant reason for increased usefulness 
was seen to be the greater completeness of the information. 

Goal 3: Improve Reporting

Improve interstate, intrastate, and federal criminal history records-
related reporting.

Finding 3.1:	Linking dispositions to their associated arrests poses 
a number of lingering problems.
  
Four issues inherent in linking arrests and their dispositions are:

* The delay in rendering a disposition pursuant to a felony arrest could 
be due to prosecutor or defense postponements, and/or to court 
backlogs.

* The delay in entering a rendered final court disposition could be due 
to a communication delay between the court and the central repository 
and/or processing backlogs at the central repository.

* The long-term difficulty in obtaining dispositions for 100 percent of 
felony arrests could be due to problems in tracking arrest cases through 
the criminal justice system as charges are modified and plea bargaining 
occurs.  Prosecutorial dispositions may also not be readily available to 
the repository.

* The long-term difficulty in entering all rendered final dispositions 
could be due to problems in linking dispositions to appropriate arrests. 

National goals of making arrest-to-disposition linkage raise concern 
about state-to-state comparability and data availability.  A preliminary 
list of questions that should be addressed:

* Is a disposition required for every charge, or is one per arrest enough?  
States which post dispositions for every charge–compared to those that 
post one disposition for each arrest–are at a disadvantage in attempting 
to dispose of an arrest. 

* How does a state determine whether a disposition is linked to an 
arrest (or charge)?  Is there a field indicating that the disposition has 
been received and entered, or is a proxy used, such as the date of entry 
of the disposition?  If neither of these data elements exists, how does 
the state know this information?

* Does the criminal history records database identify disposed 
arrest/charges?  In some states, prosecutorially disposed arrests are not 
consistently reported, if at all, to the repository.

* Does the state expunge old, undisposed arrest records?  There may be 
points in time after which “old” arrests whose dispositions have not yet 
been received by the repository are no longer counted in the arrest base 
against which the degree of linkage is measured.  States that engage in 
this practice would obviously have better arrest/disposition linking 
track records than states that do not. 

Finding 3.2:	Setting realistic standards for linking arrest and 
disposition records remains a challenge.

On average, states continue to view the linking of a disposition to an 
arrest as problematic.  Not only is this troubling for the states, which 
require complete and accurate records to make informed decisions on 
bail setting and sentencing, for example, but also because standards 
helpful in measuring record completeness are difficult to establish.  For 
example, the National Child Protection Act and the Brady Act’s 
Attorney General’s timetable each refers to objectives in linking 
dispositions to their corresponding arrests, but a statistical model we 
formulated showed these to be unrealistic. 
 
Specifically, our model examined the relationship between the average 
percent linkage required and the average elapsed time (in weeks) 
between arrest and disposition linking.  An assumption of even modest 
variability in the elapsed time between arrest and linkage to a 
disposition suggests that a typical objective of having 80% of criminal 
history records be “current and shareable” is in practice unattainable.  
Moreover, our model showed that for that goal to be achievable under 
even a modest variability assumption would require the average elapsed 
time between arrest and disposition linking to be less than 10 weeks.

Finding 3.3:	The infusion of federal program funds has increased 
the ranks of III membership, albeit slowly.
 
In contrast to CHRI and Byrne 5% efforts, a key goal of NCHIP in 
support of NICS is participation in the FBI’s Interstate Identification 
Index (III).  As such, since the start of the program ten states have 
become III members under NCHIP–Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico and 
West Virginia–bringing the total to 39.

While states report that they do not believe that a major effort in III 
participation will improve data quality, they continue to use federal 
funds to accomplish this goal, suggesting the importance of federal 
funds as an incentive for III participation.  From a records quality 
perspective, joining III should be encouraged, since state-supported 
records are more complete than FBI-supported records.  

Goal 4: Automate Systems

Automate systems for creating, storing, and sharing criminal history 
records.

Finding 4.1:	Federal funds are responsible for major automation 
improvements in criminal history records throughout the states. 

The importance of automation in improving data quality cannot be 
overemphasized; the states obviously concur.  The three highest ranked 
federally funded improvement activities are upgrading CCH software, 
installing livescan, and electronically transmitting dispositions to the 
repository.  Each of these activities falls into the category of 
automation; collectively, they account for over 11% of all activities.  In 
particular, livescan implementation and electronic disposition reporting 
are critical in helping states in their efforts to achieve “data entry at the 
source”–and ultimately a paperless record system.  
In addition, the number of NCHIP-funded flagging activities is up over 
50%, as compared to those funded by CHRI.  This is clearly beneficial, 
and not only for identifying felons.  Eighteen percent of activities focus 
on flagging disqualifying crimes, such as child abuse, which may 
include misdemeanors.

Finding 4.2:	Without federal funding, the states would not have 
achieved their current levels of AFIS and livescan implementation. 

In 1994, states asserted that livescan implementation was the activity 
with the greatest potential for improving criminal records.  Since then, 
federal funds have played a major role in the increased levels of 
livescan implementation.  In addition to improving quality of 
fingerprints, livescan also improves arrest reporting.  Implementation of 
livescan, especially at high-volume arresting agencies and central 
booking sites, should be fostered.  

AFIS-related activities undertaken by 50 states account for over 8% of 
all activities; NCHIP funds half of these.  This level of interest is 
evidence of the rapidly burgeoning pace of AFIS technology.  The large 
number of AFIS-related activities also reflect the greater-than-ever need 
in states to store civilian prints in their AFIS, in response to the 
proliferation of fingerprint-based background checks.  In some states, 
the volume of civilian fingerprint checks surpasses criminal checks.  
As noted earlier, future planning of these initiatives should leverage 
other DOJ funding sources, such as SIS.

Finding 4.3:	Integration of automated justice systems is becoming 
increasingly important in improving data quality. 

While integration poses formidable challenges, it is critical as we move 
toward a paperless system, in which data is entered only once at the 
source (thus reducing the possibility of human error and inconsistent 
data).  Because integration efforts cross agency, and often 
jurisdictional, lines, their success depends on a top-down commitment 
from heads of participating agencies.  Consensus building is also 
needed to overcome “turf” issues and to coordinate resource utilization.  
The most prominent shift towards integration shows up in the increase 
in new prosecutor information systems, coupled with an increase in 
prosecution/repository interface activities.  Traditionally, court 
dispositions have been the funding focus for disposition reporting, and 
rightfully so.  Moreover, in some states prosecutors are elected and may 
not be eager to report cases that are not being prosecuted because their 
constituents would be displeased.  Tracking prosecutorial declinations, 
which will improve completeness of criminal history records, should be 
fostered. 

Goal 5: Identify Ineligible Firearm Purchasers

Identify persons ineligible, for criminal and non-criminal reasons, to 
purchase firearms. 

Finding 5.1:	More firearm sales to ineligible purchasers may occur 
under NICS than during the interim provisions of Brady. 
During the interim provisions of Brady from 1994-1998, all states 
checked their own records when performing firearm eligibility checks.  
Under NICS, however, which began in November 1998, state-level 
checks are performed only by states serving as so-called Points of 
Contact (POCs)–in which case, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) 
contacts the state prior to the sale of a firearm.  Unfortunately, the 
majority of states are not POCs–in which case the FFL contacts the 
FBI, whose criminal records are not as complete as state records.  This 
is particularly an issue in non-POC and non-III states.  Further, NICS 
may not be able to verify certain non-felon information: some state 
repositories may be permitted access to mental health information for 
the purpose of conducting a firearm eligibility check, but that same 
information would be prohibited from being passed on to populate the 
NICS index. 

Another artifact of NICS is the absence of a “cooling-off” period prior 
to the purchase of a firearm.  The interim Brady five-day “waiting 
period” was effectively a “cooling off” period for an individual who 
wished to buy a gun with the intent to harm.  For the state, it was a 
“maximum response” period, since a firearm purchaser did not have to 
wait five days before buying a handgun, but had to allow up to five days 
for the CLEO to check his/her records to determine purchase eligibility.  
Interestingly, even with NICS, there is a feeling in the current federal 
administration that the five-day waiting period should be reinstated to 
allow law enforcement officials more time to check noncomputerized 
records and to help prevent rash acts of violence.

Finding 5.2:	The identification of non-felons ineligible to purchase 
firearms is expected to remain problematic.

As noted earlier, the seven categories of individuals prohibited from 
purchasing a firearm listed in the Gun Control Act, the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act, and the Brady Act are: (i) persons under indictment for or 
convicted of a felony; (ii) fugitives from justice; (iii) unlawful drug 
users or addicts; (iv) mental defectives; (v) illegal aliens; (vi) 
dishonorably discharged; and (vii) citizenship renunciates.  The eighth 
and ninth firearm ineligibility categories–namely, persons who are 
“subject to a civil restraining order arising out of domestic or child 
abuse” and those convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors”–were 
added as part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the 
Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, respectively.

Identifying non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms is challenging 
since non-felon information is not readily available to state criminal 
history record repositories.  Also, the dissemination of mental health 
and drug abuse information raises legal and ethical questions about the 
rights to privacy and presents new security challenges.  It is 
understandable, therefore, that two of the three dominant NCHIP-
funded Advanced State Award Program (ASAP) activities aimed at 
identifying non-felons are establishing access to mental health records 
and establishing access to drug abuse records, undertaken by nine and 
seven states, respectively.  (The third most popular ASAP activity, 
undertaken by 12 states, is incorporating civil protection orders in the 
repository database, as discussed below.)  The challenges include 
determining whether databases maintaining this type of non-criminal 
information exist and, if so, the feasibility and legality of accessing 
them, especially if they belong to private institutions.  New enabling 
statutes may be required to overcome these obstacles.

Two other ineligibility categories present unique implementation 
challenges: subjects of restraining orders and domestic violence 
misdemeanants.  States cannot reliably identify individuals for whom 
Gun Control Act-compliant restraining orders–among the plethora of 
restraining order categories–have been issued.  For this reason, some 
states deny firearms to subjects of all restraining orders.  The challenge 
with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions is that the law is 
retroactive; but domestic violence incidents have historically been 
categorized as assaults, making it difficult to segregate them from other 
criminal history records. 

Goal 6: Identify Disqualified Care Providers

Identify individuals disqualified from caring for children, the elderly, 
and the disabled.

Finding 6.1:	The passage of federal and state legislation has 
precipitated growth in the volume of requests for background 
checks of employees, volunteers and licensees–the challenge is 
how to meet the subsequent demand placed on the resources of 
state repositories.

Although practices (e.g., statutory mandates and regulations concerning 
inquiries) vary from state to state regarding background checks, careful 
planning and explicit procedures are needed to support the high volume 
of such inquiries, which in some cases surpasses that of criminal 
checks.  The volume of civilian fingerprints is now overwhelming AFIS 
storage capacities.  Moreover, the volume of inquiries can be expected 
to increase as states continue to pass laws that increase the scope of 
background checks.  In addition, the Volunteers for Children Act, 
passed as part of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, 
amends NCPA to authorize qualified volunteer organizations to contact 
authorized state agencies (e.g., the repository) to request national 
criminal fingerprint background checks, in the absence of state 
procedural requirements.

Not surprisingly, the increased volume of fingerprint-based applicant 
background checks has resulted in longer response times in a number of 
states.  Based on our interviews, we noted a heightened frustration on 
the part of agencies waiting for responses.  Obviously, the demand 
placed on state repositories for background checks must be 
appropriately met.

Finding 6.2:	There are problems associated with acquiring and 
interpreting information needed to disqualify prospective care 
providers.

Incomplete records are especially a problem in states that release 
conviction-only data to authorized agencies requesting background 
checks.  For example, if the subject of a background check has been 
arrested and convicted of a disqualifying offense, but the disposition 
has not yet been received at the repository or has not been linked to its 
arrest, the conviction will not appear on the record.  The repository will 
not release any information, and the agency will not know that there has 
been a conviction.  The agency will not even know that there has been 
an arrest, which could otherwise be followed up with the court of 
jurisdiction.  

In addition, agencies requesting background checks do not always know 
if a particular conviction is disqualifying for employment.  Agencies are 
not necessarily qualified to understand the plethora of violation and 
conviction codes contained in the reports they receive.  For example, 
sometimes they cannot distinguish whether a felony violation involved a 
child, and hence whether it is disqualifying. 

3. Remaining Issues

Future evaluation efforts should build on findings in this report, seeking 
closure on outstanding issues and assessing more recent BJS and BJA 
initiatives to further improve criminal history records.  More 
specifically, they should: 

1. Continue to assess the impact of federally funded activities. 

This report’s timeframe precedes the FY 98 NCHIP and Byrne 5% 
awards and many of the CHRI-, Byrne 5%-, and NCHIP-funded 
activities are still in progress.  Moreover, an evaluation of the State 
Identification Systems (SIS) and National Sex Offender Registry 
(NSOR-AP) programs should be initiated.  SIS and NSOR-AP are new 
programs which have yet to be assessed–SIS enhances states’ ability to 
identify offenders by upgrading their information systems and DNA 
analysis capability, and NSOR-AP promotes establishment of a national 
sex offender registry.  Thus, formal monitoring of all federally funded 
activities should be ongoing. 

2. Continue to develop a measures framework.

Measures must continue to be identified, building on the C-CHRIE 
study, in which we develop a framework that incorporates a core set of 
input, process, and outcome measures with which to assess records 
quality, over time.  A related issue is the identification of a set of 
desirable attributes for pertinent records quality measures which, in the 
aggregate, can be used to assess the state of records quality over time.  
As part of the C-CHRIE study, we have identified such attributes as 
understandability, measurability, availability, consistency, validity, 
reliability, stability, accuracy, independence, robustness, and 
completeness. 

3. Create a computer-based simulation model of the criminal history 
records process from arrest-to-disposition linkage. 

Building on the measures framework, a simulation model of the arrest-
to-disposition linkage process should be developed, using actual system 
data from a set of focus states.  Results would shed light on the 
interaction and relevance of measures, as well as their impact on 
national goal setting.  

4. Define a set of pertinent measures to assess the aggregate 
improvement of records quality, over time.  

In partnership with BJS, develop a set of pertinent measures to 
determine the nation’s progress in improving criminal history records.  
These measures should reflect common goals of federally funded 
criminal history records improvement programs, capture progress over 
time, and to the extent possible, have the above-mentioned attributes.  
Once developed and tested–perhaps using the simulation model 
described above–measures should be updated regularly to determine the 
extent to which federal goals are being met, to indicate where 
deficiencies lie, and to point to activities which could mitigate such 
deficiencies.  

5. Expand the assessment of user perceptions about the value of 
criminal history records. 
 
We have learned a great deal about the ultimate usefulness of criminal 
history records by speaking with a small group of records users.  They 
were anxious to share current perceptions of the quality of the records, 
as well as expectations and concerns for the future.  Data quality 
improvement will benefit from interviews with a larger, more diverse 
set of users from both the criminal justice and non-criminal justice 
communities.  Ultimately, user perceptions are key to understanding the 
true value of criminal history records and thus the ultimate success of 
federally funded improvement programs.




Table of Contents
Foreword	iii
Highlights	v
List of Exhibits	xxvii
1. Background	1
1.1 Criminal History Records	2
1.2 Federally Funded Programs	5
1.3 Scope of Report	20
2. Study Approach	21
2.1 Study Considerations	21
2.2 Activity-Based Classification Scheme	28
2.3 Study Conduct	41
3. Current Findings	45
3.1 Background Analysis	45
3.2 Activity-Based Analysis	67
3.3 Goal-Based Analysis	85
4. Additional Issues	131
4.1 Measures Framework	131
4.2 Remaining Issues	142
References	145
Appendix A: Glossary	149
Appendix B: State-by-State Activity Summaries	155





List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1  State-Based Criminal History Records System	4
Exhibit 1-2  Federally Funded Efforts: Enabling Legislation	13
Exhibit 1-3  Federally Funded Efforts: Common Goals	17
Exhibit 2-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Program Characteristics	25
Exhibit 2-2  Distribution of Byrne Plan Approval Dates	27
Exhibit 2-3  Improvement-Focused Criminal History Records System	30
Exhibit 2-4  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Classification Scheme	31
Exhibit 2-5  C-CHRIE: Study Tasks and Schedule	43
Exhibit 2-6  State Activity Summary: Sample State	44
Exhibit 3-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Funding Levels	57
Exhibit 3-2  Correlation of 1995 State Population with Number of Criminal History Records	59
Exhibit 3-3  Distribution of Criminal History Records Improvement Activity Duration	60
Exhibit 3-4  III Participation and Attorney General’s Timetable	61
Exhibit 3-5  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady State	62
Exhibit 3-6  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady-Alternative State	63
Exhibit 3-7  Firearm Purchase Procedure: NICS	64
Exhibit 3-8  Data Sources Checked for Firearm Sales Eligibility	65
Exhibit 3-9  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Distribution by Level	72
Exhibit 3-10  Level 1 Activities by State	76
Exhibit 3-11  Level 3 Activities: Distribution by Intensity	78
Exhibit 3-12  Level 1 Activities by Jurisdictional Impact	81
Exhibit 3-13  Level 1 Activities by Funding Source	82
Exhibit 3-14  Activity Starting and Completion Lag Times	83
Exhibit 3-15  Intensity of Activity Initiation Over Time	84
Exhibit 3-16  Questions on Data Quality Issues	107
Exhibit 3-17  Rank-Ordered Responses to Questions on Data Quality Issues	108
Exhibit 3-18  Questions on Approaches to Improving Data Quality	109
Exhibit 3-19  Rank Ordered Responses to Questions On Approaches to Improving Data Quality	110
Exhibit 3-20  Changes in State Responses to Questions from 1994 to 1997	111
Exhibit 3-21  III Activities by State and Funding Source	112
Exhibit 3-22  Event Sequence from Arrest to Arrest/Disposition Record Linkage	113
Exhibit 3-23  Issues in Linking Arrest and Disposition Records	114
Exhibit 3-24  Impact Analysis of Average Percent of Arrest Records Within Preceding Five Years 
Containing Dispositions	115
Exhibit 3-25  Livescan Activities by State and Funding Source	116
Exhibit 3-26  AFIS Activities by State and Funding Source	118
Exhibit 3-27  AFIS Vendors by State	121
Exhibit 3-28  Arresting Agencies Interface Activities by State and Funding Source	122
Exhibit 3-29  Prosecution/Repository Interface Activities by State and Funding Source	123
Exhibit 3-30  Flagging Activities by State and Funding Source	124
Exhibit 3-31  Firearm Check Activities by State and Funding Source	126
Exhibit 3-32  ASAP Activities by State and Ineligibility Category	129
Exhibit 3-33  Background Check Activities by State and Funding Source	130
Exhibit 4-1  Input, Process, and Outcome Measures for C-CHRIE	134
Exhibit 4-2  Attributes of Pertinent Data Quality Improvement Measures	141
Exhibit B-1  Alabama	156
Exhibit B-2  Alaska	157
Exhibit B-3  American Samoa	159
Exhibit B-4  Arizona	160
Exhibit B-5  Arkansas	162
Exhibit B-6  California	163
Exhibit B-7  Colorado	165
Exhibit B-8  Connecticut	166
Exhibit B-9  Delaware	168
Exhibit B-10  District of Columbia	170
Exhibit B-11  Florida	171
Exhibit B-12  Georgia	173
Exhibit B-13  Guam	174
Exhibit B-14  Hawaii	175
Exhibit B-15  Idaho	176
Exhibit B-16  Illinois	177
Exhibit B-17  Indiana	178
Exhibit B-18  Iowa	179
Exhibit B-19  Kansas	180
Exhibit B-20 Kentucky	181
Exhibit B-21  Louisiana	182
Exhibit B-22  Maine	183
Exhibit B-23  Maryland	184
Exhibit B-24  Massachusetts	185
Exhibit B-26  Minnesota	187
Exhibit B-27  Mississippi	189
Exhibit B-28  Missouri	190
Exhibit B-29  Montana	192
Exhibit B-30  Nebraska	193
Exhibit B-31  Nevada	195
Exhibit B-32  New Hampshire	196
Exhibit B-33  New Jersey	197
Exhibit B-34  New Mexico	199
Exhibit B-35  New York	201
Exhibit B-36  North Carolina	203
Exhibit B-37  North Dakota	204
Exhibit B-38  Northern Mariana Islands	205
Exhibit B-39  Ohio	206
Exhibit B-40  Oklahoma	208
Exhibit B-41  Oregon	209
Exhibit B-42  Pennsylvania	210
Exhibit B-43  Puerto Rico	212
Exhibit B-44  Rhode Island	213
Exhibit B-45  South Carolina	214
Exhibit B-46  South Dakota	215
Exhibit B-47  Tennessee	216
Exhibit B-48  Texas	217
Exhibit B-49  Utah	218
Exhibit B-50  Vermont	220
Exhibit B-51  Virgin Islands	222
Exhibit B-52  Virginia	223
Exhibit B-53  Washington	224
Exhibit B-54  Wisconsin	226
Exhibit B-55  West Virginia	227
Exhibit B-56  Wyoming	228

1. Background

On May 18, 1995, Queues Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.) was 
authorized by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in conjunction with 
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to continue our effort to 
evaluate the impact of federally funded criminal history records 
improvement programs. 
 
Our current multi-year evaluation effort, entitled C-CHRIE–Continuing 
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation–represents the 
continuation of our previously completed, BJA-funded effort, called the 
CHRIE study [Tien and Rich, 1994] which evaluated the Criminal 
History Records Improvement (CHRI) program administered by BJS.  
The focus of the C-CHRIE study is to complete the CHRI evaluation, to 
initiate evaluation of the Byrne 5% set-aside program and the National 
Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)–funded by BJA and 
BJS, respectively–and to identify promising approaches for improving 
data quality.  As the title suggests, this report updates the CHRI study 
and brings the evaluation findings through calendar year 1998. 

It is not only critical that this effort be considered a continuing 
evaluation, but also that it simultaneously focuses on the three federally 
funded records improvement programs cited above.  In fact, when BJS 
Director Dr. Jan M. Chaiken was asked in early 1996 how long NCHIP 
had been going on, he said, “From our perspective, this program has 
been going on for five or six years.  It started with the BJS CHRI 
program and then transferred over to the Byrne 5% set-aside criminal 
records improvement program, which had a one-year overlap with 
CHRI–now the Byrne program continues to run in tandem with 
NCHIP.” 

From the states’ perspective, some CHRI-initiated activities are now 
funded by Byrne 5% moneys and may eventually be supported by 
NCHIP.  This healthy perspective should be encouraged; federal funds 
should contribute to fundamental long-term improvements in the quality 
of the criminal history records, rather than one-shot, short-term 
activities.  Additionally, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
distinguish the impact of one federal program versus that of another 
closely related federal program which may focus on the same activity.  
The situation is further complicated by the fact that most moneys spent 
on records improvement activities have come from the states 
themselves. 

C-CHRIE focuses on the overall impact of federal programs on the 
quality of state criminal history records and on how these efforts have 
brought states closer to meeting the mandates of federal statutes that 
initiated and expanded these programs–namely, the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, Crime Control Act of 1990, Immigration Act of 1990, 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, National Child 
Protection Act of 1993, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994, Violence Against Women Act of 1994, National Stalker 
and Domestic Violence Reduction Act of 1995, and Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996.  Moreover, the study benefits Justice Department 
officials who need to know how well federal funds are spent, as well as 
state officials, who need to know about successful and innovative 
activities implemented in other states.  Throughout this report, the term 
“states” refers collectively to 56 jurisdictions: the 50 United States, 
American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana 
Islands, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

The remainder of this section is organized as follows: Section 1.1 
provides an overview of criminal history records; Section 1.2 details 
federal criminal history records improvement efforts; and Section 1.3 
discusses the scope of the report.  Exhibits are located at the end of the 
section in which they are first referenced and, where appropriate, data 
presented in the exhibits are accompanied by “as of” dates.  For 
clarification of acronyms and/or abbreviations contained in the report, 
refer to the Glossary in Appendix A.

1.1 Criminal History Records

The importance of criminal history records cannot be overstated.  These 
records are used to aid decision making at virtually every juncture in 
the criminal justice system.

Police officers, prosecutors, judges, and other court officials, 
corrections officers, probation officers, and parole officers all depend 
on timely, complete and accurate criminal history information.  
Information provides the glue for holding together the criminal justice 
components as a coordinated system.  Moreover, criminal history 
records are being used increasingly for other, non-criminal justice 
purposes, including employment, volunteer programs, and licensing. 

Each state maintains criminal history records in a central repository. 
Repositories are different–each employs different forms, different 
procedures, different terminologies, and different technologies.  
Understanding and comparing state-to-state differences is one of the 
most challenging aspects of both the CHRIE and C-CHRIE studies.  
Nevertheless, state repositories are alike in a more aggregate sense.  
Each processes fingerprints and arrest records from various local 
arresting agencies; each determines whether the arrestee associated with 
the fingerprints and arrest report is a new arrestee or one who already 
has a record; and each processes disposition reports and attempts to 
correctly match a disposition report to an arrest in its database. 
 
Conceptually, one might consider the process of reporting and updating 
criminal records as a chain, since data and records are passed from 
agency to agency.  Exhibit 1-1 identifies the criminal justice 
components that constitute a state-based criminal history records 
system, the heart of which is typically the central repository, serving 
both as a coordinator of records within a state and as a provider of 
records for legitimate users.

Many factors contribute to the overall quality of criminal history 
records.  Briefly, they include:

* Statutory Issues.  Does the state have statutes specifying 
which criminal justice events must be reported to the 
central repository?  Does it have statutes specifying which 
agencies are responsible for reporting those events, and 
the deadlines by which the events must be reported?

* Policies, Procedures, and Practices.  Does each 
contributing agency have effective policies, procedures, 
and practices that carry out the legislatively mandated 
reporting laws?  Does the central repository have effective 
policies, procedures, and practices for processing the 
records it receives and for responding to requests for 
criminal history information?

* Improvement Plans.  Does the state have an overall 
criminal history records improvement plan?  Does the 
state have an active improvement-related technology 
plan?  Does the state have active firearm purchase 
eligibility and background checking plans?

* Agency Cooperation.  Does the state have one or more 
active multi-agency committees with a data quality 
improvement charter?  Do key agency personnel work 
cooperatively to promote data quality?

* Top-Down Commitment.  Are the heads of participating 
agencies and the state legislature’s leadership visibly 
committed to improving data quality?

* Technological Resources.  Is the degree of automation 
appropriate at the contributing agencies (e.g., case 
management systems with reporting modules that facilitate 
electronic transfer of records to the central repository) and 
the central repository (e.g., Computerized Criminal 
History [CCH] and Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System [AFIS] systems) to ensure complete, accurate, and 
timely reporting?  Are there electronic interfaces that link 
major contributing agencies to the repository?

* Human Resources.  Are staffing levels at contributing 
agencies and the repository appropriate to ensure that 
work can be processed in a timely manner?  Are agency 
personnel sufficiently trained and educated for their tasks? 

This section provides but an overview of criminal history records.  
More complete descriptions are available in Q.E.D.’s final CHRIE 
report [Tien and Rich, 1994] or in the BJS reports listed in the 
References.

Exhibit 1-1  State-Based Criminal History Records System

 
1.2 Federally Funded Programs

Federal and state statutes have heightened the importance of criminal 
history records in areas such as firearm eligibility (e.g., Section 6213(a) 
of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act of 1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994), felony convictions of illegal aliens (e.g., the 
Immigration Act of 1990), and employment licensing (e.g., the National 
Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended). 

Federal, state, and local criminal justice officials have long recognized 
problems associated with the quality of their criminal history records.  
This issue was first widely discussed in 1967, with the publication of 
the Report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the 
Administration of Justice, which noted that criminal history records 
were frequently inaccurate, incomplete, and inaccessible.  Over the past 
three decades, workshops have been held and reports published on the 
status of criminal history records quality, as well as strategies for 
improving that quality.  As indicated earlier, federal agencies–in 
particular the former Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
BJA, and BJS–have funded programs at the state level designed 
specifically to enhance data quality. 

From a historical perspective, two major acts were passed in 1968: the 
Gun Control Act, establishing seven categories of individuals 
disqualified from purchasing firearms, which followed on the heels of 
the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. 

Between 1988 and 1998, more than a dozen criminal history-related 
acts were passed amending the Gun Control and Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Acts and enacting the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which until 1998 has been the most 
comprehensive crime bill in the history of the country.  (See Exhibit 1-
2.)  (The passage in 1998 of the Crime Identification and Technology 
Act (CITA) authorizes $250 million in each of FY 99 through FY 03 to 
improve interstate criminal justice identification, information 
communication, and forensics; it is anticipated that the program 
established to carry out mandates of this act will succeed NCHIP and be 
even broader in scope.)  The laws driving criminal history records 
improvement address the identification of persons ineligible to purchase 
firearms and the establishment of procedures for background checks on 
providers of services to children, the elderly, and the disabled.  With 
substantive criminal provisions, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act distinguishes itself by addressing criminal history 
records issues related to domestic abuse and firearms, and the 
registration of sexually violent offenders.  

Exhibit 1-2 shows the relationship between relevant legislation and 
subsequent federal programs.  Some legislation authorizes new 
federally funded programs, such as the Crime Control Act of 1990 and 
the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, which established the 
Byrne 5% Set-Aside Program and NCHIP, respectively.  Others amend 
earlier legislation, increase the scope of a program, and in some cases, 
authorize funding to support an existing program.  This is the case with 
the Lautenberg Amendment–passed in 1996 to amend the Gun Control 
Act–which stipulates that persons convicted of domestic violence 
misdemeanors are prohibited from purchasing a handgun.  The 
amendment not only increased the scope of NCHIP–by requiring the 
identification of domestic violence misdemeanants–but raises questions 
about the challenges in identifying them (versus persons convicted of 
assault) and the law’s constitutionality, since it is retroactive.  These 
and other issues are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.1. 

Other programs are also being introduced, including the $9M, FBI-
funded, BJA-administered State Identification Systems (SIS) Formula 
Grant Program announced in July 1997.  SIS enhances the ability of 
states to identify offenders by upgrading their information systems and 
DNA analysis capability.  The National Sex Offender Registry 
Assistance Program (NSOR-AP), initiated during the writing of this 
report, is a $25 million effort under the NCHIP umbrella.  It promotes 
establishment of a national sex offender registry by helping state 
registries improve the quality of their information and by creating 
appropriate interfaces with the FBI’s national system.  (The SIS and 
NSOR-AP programs are referenced in the report inasmuch as they 
further the improvement and use of criminal records.)

The federal approach to assisting criminal history records improvement 
has been both piecemeal–note the short duration of the CHRI and 
NSOR programs–and strategic–note that the Byrne 5% set-aside is 
ongoing and that efforts are being made to coordinate several programs.  
Moreover, the Brady Act and National Child Protection Act not only 
authorized funding for NCHIP, but they also amend the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act to ensure that Byrne funds are used to 
implement these acts.  In fact, each NCHIP application requires that the 
state demonstrate how the NCHIP award will be coordinated with 
Byrne 5% funds.  

However, a greater effort is needed to leverage other DOJ funding 
sources.  For example, while SIS supports development of automated 
fingerprint identification systems compatible with the FBI’s IAFIS, as 
does NCHIP, the two grants are administered by different agencies and 
may have different individuals administering them–making strategic 
planning difficult.  Similarly, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants 
Program (LLEBG), administered by BJA, provides approximately $500 
million annually to fund units of local government to underwrite 
projects to reduce crime and improve public safety.  Procuring 
equipment and technology, such as livescan for basic law enforcement 
functions, is covered but is also not formally coordinated with NCHIP.  
Part of the problem is that different organizations within DOJ are 
responsible for administering the awards, as are different organizations 
within a given recipient state.  The federal government and states alike 
are aware of these inefficiencies.  

Before detailing their characteristics, it is helpful to summarize the 
goals, funding, and timeframes of the individual federal programs.  The 
CHRI program authorized $27M from 1990-1992, predominantly to 
improve criminal history records quality and reporting.  The Byrne 5% 
set-aside effort, which went into effect in 1992 on the heels of CHRI, 
requires that states set aside at least 5% of their annual Byrne formula 
grant funds–approximately $20M annually for all states–and provide a 
25% match of those funds to improve records quality and reporting, and 
to automate systems.  In addition to these goals, identifying ineligible 
firearm purchasers and disqualified care providers is an integral part of 
NCHIP, which has thus far been authorized at more than $220M and 
spans the period from 1995 to 1999. 

CHRI

Section 6213(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 requires the 
Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to 
develop a system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons 
who attempt to purchase firearms.  Pursuant to this mandate, the 
Attorney General appointed a Task Force on Felon Identification in 
Firearm Sales.  In May 1989, the Task Force published in the Federal 
Register its Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying 
Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms [BJS, 1989].  In a related 
effort, Q.E.D. was contracted to undertake a complementary study on 
Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase 
Firearms: A Feasibility Study [Tien and Rich, 1990]; this report is 
especially pertinent to the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 
1993.

In his comments on the May 1989 report, then-Attorney General 
Thornburgh noted several obstacles to immediate and accurate 
identification of felons who attempt to purchase firearms.  One 
obstacle: many criminal history records are incomplete, particularly in 
the case’s final disposition, another concerns inaccurate data.  To 
address these data quality issues, as well as to facilitate implementation 
of the felon identification system, the Justice Department embarked on 
a multifaceted effort to improve the quality of state criminal history 
records.  Most important, the Attorney General recommended using $9 
million of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act Discretionary Funds in each of 
Fiscal Years 1990, 1991, and 1992 to fund the CHRI program.
As stated in the CHRI Program Announcement [BJA and BJS, 1990], 
CHRI’s three overall objectives were to:

* enhance state criminal history records to accurately 
identify convicted felons;

* meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards for 
identifying such individuals; and 

* improve the quality and timeliness of criminal history 
records information.

Based on these objectives, the CHRI Program Announcement also 
indicated specific activities for which CHRI funds would be allocated.  
As noted earlier, BJA awarded a two-year grant to Q.E.D. in March 
1992 to conduct an evaluation of the CHRI program.  The resultant 
report, Early Experiences With Criminal History Records, published by 
BJA in May 1997, is based on Q.E.D.’s Criminal History Records 
Improvement Program: Evaluation Report, issued in April 1994. 

Byrne 5% Set-Aside

In November 1990, two additional and related statutes were enacted.  
First, the Immigration Act of 1990 requires that states furnish 
conviction records of aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service within 30 days of conviction.  Second, the Crime Control Act of 
1990 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
to require that states spend at least 5% of their annual BJA-
administered Byrne formula grant funds (totaling approximately $131 
million from FY 92 through FY 97) on improving the quality of their 
criminal history records.  Under certain conditions, the states might 
reduce or obtain a waiver from this amount.  Individual exceptions can 
be approved if the BJA Director determines that the quality of a 
particular state’s criminal justice records does not warrant the 5% 
expenditure.  For example, one such criterion requires that 95% of a 
state’s current felony arrest records contain disposition information, if a 
disposition has been reached.  (The feasibility of achieving this and 
other similarly stated national objectives is discussed in Section 3.3.)  
Other criteria for complying with the waiver can be found in the Byrne 
Formula Grant Program Guidance [BJA 1996].  

The Byrne 5% set-aside program is, of course, also the focus of the C-
CHRIE study.  The objectives of the Byrne 5% program are similar to 
those of the CHRI program–specifically:

* to enhance completeness of criminal history records 
especially in regard to the inclusion of final dispositions 
of all felony arrests;

* to automate all criminal justice histories and fingerprint 
records; 

* to improve the frequency and quality of criminal history 
reports to the FBI;

* to improve the state record systems and the sharing with 
the Attorney General of all the records described above, 
as are required for the purposes of implementing the 
Brady Act; and

* to improve the state record systems and the sharing with 
the Attorney General of all the records described above, 
as are required for the purposes of implementing the 
National Child Protection Act. [BJA, 1996].

These last two goals, set forth in the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act and the National Child Protection Act, respectively, 
further amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968. 

Given similar program goals, it is not surprising that the same types of 
data quality improvement activities are being implemented in both the 
CHRI and Byrne programs.  This observation is discussed further in 
Section 3.

Additionally, since 1990, a number of other activities have taken place 
in response to the Attorney General’s recommendations and the above 
described federal legislation, including:

* in February 1991, BJS and the FBI jointly published 
Recommended Voluntary Standards for Improving the 
Quality of Criminal History Record Information [FBI and 
BJS, 1991];

* in March 1991, BJS published results of a comprehensive 
survey of data quality in the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia [SEARCH, 1991];

* in June 1991, BJS and SEARCH convened a national 
conference on improving quality of criminal history 
records [BJS, 1992];

* in December 1991, BJA promulgated guidelines for 
improving quality of criminal history records [BJA, 
1991(b)];

* in January 1992, BJS published an audit guide designed to 
help states assess data quality [SEARCH, 1992(a)];

* in June 1992, BJS published findings of the National Task 
Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting 
[SEARCH, 1992(b)];

* in November 1993, BJS published a comprehensive 
description of criminal history records systems [SEARCH, 
1993];

* in February 1994, BJS and SEARCH convened a national 
conference on criminal history records, with emphasis on 
the Brady Act [SEARCH, 1995];

* in April 1997, BJS published its fourth data quality survey 
of the states [SEARCH, 1997]; and

* in September 1997, BJS published its second survey of 
state procedures related to firearm sales [REJIS, 1997]. 

NCHIP

Three key federal statutes–the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 
of 1993, the National Child Protection Act of 1993, and the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994–have initiated three 
actions pertinent to the C-CHRIE effort.  

First, the Brady Act–in an effort to identify ineligible, prospective 
firearm purchasers–requires establishment of a National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), to be contacted by firearm 
dealers before selling a firearm.  States are to make criminal history 
records available to NICS through the Interstate Identification Index 
(III), a decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI and 
containing personal identifiers of offenders and “pointers” to states that 
maintain criminal history records on these offenders.  (NICS checks can 
also access records maintained by the FBI.)  The FBI-developed NICS 
became operational on November 30, 1998; its backbone is III, and it 
also includes limited data on persons other than felons who are 
ineligible to purchase firearms.  (Of the $100 million appropriated for 
Brady in FY 95, $6 million was transferred by BJS to the FBI for NICS 
development.)

Second, the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) of 1993 requires 
that records of child abuse be transmitted to the FBI’s national records 
system and encourages states to adopt legislation requiring background 
checks on individuals prior to assuming responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled.  In the context of NCPA, 
background checks are restricted to prospectively disqualified care 
providers, but state legislation varies and may have a broader scope, 
including the performance of routine checks of backgrounds of many 
categories of potential employees, volunteers, and licensees.
Third, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996, added the eighth and ninth firearm ineligibility 
categories, respectively–namely, persons who are “subject to a civil 
restraining order arising out of domestic or child abuse” and those 
convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors.”  The other seven 
categories listed in the Gun Control Act are: (i) persons under 
indictment for or convicted of a felony; (ii) fugitives from justice; (iii) 
unlawful drug users or addicts; (iv) mental defectives; (v) illegal aliens; 
(vi) those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military; 
and (vii) those who have renounced U.S. citizenship.
To implement these statutes, BJS was given the task of establishing the 
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), from its 
inception through FY 98, the program has awarded $206 million to 
fund state activities in records improvement.

The goal of NCHIP [BJS, 1997] is to improve the nation’s public safety 
by:

* facilitating the accurate and timely identification of 
persons who are ineligible to purchase a firearm;
* ensuring that persons with responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled do not have 
disqualifying criminal records;
* improving access to protection orders and records of 
people wanted for stalking and domestic violence; and
* enhancing the quality, completeness and accessibility of 
the nation’s criminal history records systems and the 
extent to which such records can used and analyzed for 
criminal justice related purposes.

More specifically, NCHIP assists states to:

* expand and enhance participation in the FBI’s Interstate 
Identification Index (III) and the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS);

* meet timetables for achieving criminal history records 
completeness and participation in the FBI’s Interstate 
Identification Index (III), as established for each state by 
the Attorney General;

* improve the level of criminal history records automation, 
accuracy, completeness and flagging;

* develop and implement procedures for accessing records 
of persons other than felons who are ineligible to purchase 
firearms;

* identify–through interface with the National Incident-
Based Reporting System (NIBRS) where necessary–
records of crimes involving use of a handgun and/or abuse 
of children, elderly or disabled persons;

* identify, classify, collect and maintain–through interface 
with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and 
the III where necessary–protection orders, warrants, 
arrests and convictions of persons violating protection 
orders (intended to protect victims of stalking and 
domestic violence and to support the development of state 
sex offender registries and their interface with a national 
sex offender registry); and 

* ensure that states develop the capability to monitor and 
assess state progress in meeting legislative and 
programmatic goals.

To ensure that all NCHIP-funded efforts support development of NICS, 
BJS works closely with the FBI, BJA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).  Funding under NCHIP is available to 
states that are subject to the pre-NICS, interim Brady provision of a 
five-day waiting period (“Brady states”) and to those states that operate 
under an alternative system, pursuant to BATF approval (“Brady-
Alternative states”).  NCHIP hopes to carry out the mandates of the 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the National Child 
Protection Act of 1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. 

In actuality, the following three components comprise NCHIP: 

1. The NCHIP priority states (Maine, Mississippi, New 
Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia) are each eligible to 
receive a supplementary grant of up to $l million to spend 
on basic activities such as improving quality of criminal 
history records (with emphasis on automation and 
disposition reporting), increasing participation in the 
FBI’s III, and upgrading accessibility of records for 
presale of handguns and pre-employment checks 
(primarily through records flagging).

2. The NCHIP core states focus on core activities such as 
participation in III; database enhancement; improved 
disposition reporting; records automation; records 
flagging; AFIS/livescan; interface with NIBRS; research, 
evaluation, monitoring, and audits; conversion of juvenile 
records to the adult system; missing dispositions backlog 
reduction; equipment upgrade; training, participation in 
seminars and meetings; and expenditures related to 
presale handgun background checks.

3. The NCHIP advanced states are a subset of III states. 
They are eligible, under the Advanced State Award 
Program (ASAP), to collectively spend an additional $5 
million on extended core activities that would enhance the 
interface of their computerized criminal history systems 
with databases on individuals other than felons who are 
ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Common Goals

Many states view the various federal grant programs for improving the 
quality of criminal history records as one large “pool of funds.”  This 
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to separate the “CHRI data quality 
impact” from the “Byrne 5% data quality impact” from the “NCHIP 
data quality impact.”  Still, each program plays a synergistic and 
complementary role in the improvement of criminal history records, and 
as such, must be part of the overall evaluation.  Fortunately, the 
substantial overlap among goals of the three programs makes it possible 
to formulate a synthesized set of common, federally supported criminal 
history records improvement goals.  These six goals make it easy to see 
the extent to which the federally funded activities undertaken by the 
states are aligned with the program goals

Exhibit 1-3 restates the goals/subgoals of the CHRI, Byrne 5%, and 
NCHIP programs and introduces those of the SIS and NSOR-AP 
programs, matching each goal/subgoal with one or more of six common 
federal criminal history records improvement goals.  The common goals 
are shown to span the goals of the individual programs. 

Goal 1 is implicit in all programs; certainly, planning and establishing 
an infrastructure to support improvement initiatives contribute greatly 
to the success of any program.  As for Goal 6, as noted in Section 3.3, 
while NCHIP focuses on checking backgrounds of prospectively 
disqualified care providers, the states also routinely perform 
background checks on many categories of prospective employees, 
volunteers, and licensees.  

The common goals are not equally weighted: aspects of CHRI, Byrne, 
and NCHIP can be found in the first four goals, whereas the last two 
goals have no basis in CHRI.  Furthermore, the common goals overlap, 
as can be understood from the NCHIP subgoal, “improve the level of 
criminal history records automation, accuracy, completeness, and 
flagging,” which impacts both Goal 1 and Goal 3.  
In Section 3.3, we employ this synthesis as a framework for presenting 
our interim goal-based findings.

Exhibit 1-2  Federally Funded Efforts: Enabling Legislation

Exhibit 1-2 (page 2 of 4)

Exhibit 1-2 (page 3 of 4)

Exhibit 1-2 (page 4 of 4)

Exhibit 1-3  Federally Funded Efforts: Common Goals

Exhibit 1-3 (page 2 of 3)

Exhibit 1-3 (page 3 of 3)
 

1.3 Scope of Report

As the third major deliverable of the C-CHRIE effort, this report 
consists of four major sections and two appendices.  Section 1 describes 
the importance of criminal history records and the emergence of federal 
funding programs intended to help states meet provisions of federal 
statutes pertaining to improvement of criminal history records.

Guided by several critical considerations, our study approach is 
outlined in Section 2.  We present the underpinning of our analytical 
work–a classification scheme based on past, current, and planned state 
and local criminal history records improvement activities. 

Section 3 highlights relevant findings to date.  Background information 
is analyzed, with an emphasis on funding and timetable issues, as well 
as improvement initiatives being undertaken by the states.  Results are 
presented in the context of the common goals.  User perceptions about 
quality of criminal history records, together with issues concerning the 
linkage of arrest and disposition records, are addressed.  

A measures framework is proposed and appropriate measurement 
methods are identified in Section 4.  We conclude with an overview of 
remaining issues. 

Finally, Appendix A provides a glossary of relevant terms and 
Appendix B contains a state-by-state information summary, designed to 
allow states to know what improvement activities are being undertaken 
across the nation. 

2. Study Approach

The study approach is detailed in terms of study considerations, an 
activity-based classification scheme, and study conduct.

2.1 Study Considerations

A number of considerations have shaped our study approach, including 
the goals of the C-CHRIE study, the characteristics of the federal 
programs, several critical implementation issues, and the framework 
within which we have developed our evaluation design.  We address 
each of these considerations below.

C-CHRIE Study Goals

The primary C-CHRIE study goals are to: 

1. assess the impact of the BJS-administered NCHIP effort; 

2. assess the impact of the BJA-administered Byrne 5% set-
aside program;

3. complete the impact assessment of the BJS-administered 
Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI) program; 
and 

4. identify promising approaches for improving data quality.

To accomplish these goals, we continue the two-pronged evaluation 
approach that was successfully employed in our Criminal History 
Records Improvement Evaluation study–that is, conducting both an 
overall impact evaluation of all states and a more focused evaluation of 
a handful of states.  The impact evaluation benefits Justice Department 
officials, who need to know how well program funds are spent.  Given 
the large sums of federal funds involved in both the NCHIP and Byrne 
5% efforts, Congress is no doubt interested in knowing what was 
accomplished with these funds.  On the other hand, we view the 
individual states as the primary beneficiaries of both the broad impact 
evaluation and the focused evaluation.  As one state official 
appropriately sums it up: “We are very interested in knowing what other 
states are doing to improve their criminal history records.”  

Program Characteristics

In Section 1.2, we highlight the similarity of the goals of the CHRI and 
Byrne 5% programs; understandably then, several activities that they 
fund should overlap.  At the same time, it is important to recognize their 
differences.  Exhibit 2-1 lists a number of key characteristics of each 
program.  As noted in the exhibit, the Byrne 5% program is ongoing 
and is a formula, rather than discretionary, program.  In addition, the 
federal government mandates the “pass-through” of a portion of each 
state’s Byrne funds to its local units of government.  This pass-through 
must equal the ratio of local criminal justice costs to total criminal 
justice costs for the state.  Also required is a 25% cash match in 
nonfederal funds.  The CHRI program stipulates no such requirements.

The program requirements also differ significantly.  For the CHRI 
program, states were simply required to submit a proposal that 
addressed the overall program objectives.  For the Byrne 5% program, 
however, states are required to convene a multi-agency task force, 
assess the status of data quality in the state, identify reasons for under-
reporting, and submit a strategic data quality improvement plan to BJA 
for approval.  These plans are helpful in understanding the process the 
states use to prioritize data quality improvement efforts.

The CHRI and Byrne 5% programs differ most significantly in funding 
focus.  The focus of the CHRI program, as noted in Section 1.2, is on 
the central repositories–specifically, on enhancing the degree of 
automation and on improving disposition reporting.  Consequently, 
most activities which states initiated with CHRI funds center on the 
repository (see Section 3.2).  In contrast, the Byrne 5% program is 
much broader in focus, involving state, county, and local units of 
government. 

In some respects, NCHIP is more like CHRI (it is BJS-administered, it 
is a discretionary program, its awards are not based on state size, and no 
matching funds are required), while more like Byrne 5% in other 
respects (it is moderately broad in funding focus, it must be strongly 
coordinated with the Byrne 5% program, and its total funding level is 
comparable to that of the Byrne 5%).

Although NSOR-AP has a narrow focus–directly targeting the 
improvement of sex offender registries–it nonetheless appropriates $25 
million in FY 98, a sum comparable to the total annual formula funds of 
the more broadly focused Byrne 5% program.  Similarly, the annual 
appropriation of the formula-based SIS program is comparable to that 
of CHRI, which is discretionary. 

Exhibit 2-2 represents distribution of Byrne plans approved over time; 
to date, only the Virgin Islands has not received approval of its Byrne 
plan.  In fact, BJA approved approximately half of the plans by the end 
of Q3 93, and 90% by the end of Q2 95.  Three jurisdictions–Guam, 
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands–did not participate in the CHRI 
program, but are participating in both the Byrne and NCHIP efforts. 
 
Implementation Issues

As with our undertaking of CHRIE and other criminal justice-related 
studies, we have encountered a number of obstacles, or implementation 
issues, conducting the C-CHRIE study.

One issue concerns delays in completion of data quality improvement 
activities.  This was common during the CHRI program; indeed, most 
states applied for extensions to their projects.  At the time of our final 
CHRIE study report in April 1994, some 22 states were still working on 
their CHRI projects.  Delays most frequently occurred if the activity 
involved release of a Request for Proposal (e.g., for conduct of a 
baseline audit) or design and implementation of a computer system 
(e.g., an electronic interface between two computer systems).  
Implementation delays could have posed a threat to the general validity 
of the C-CHRIE study, had we not been sensitive to their existence.  
Recognizing the potential domino effect of a delay in one activity, we 
examine delays in greater detail in Section 3.2.  

More serious than delays in implementation of data quality 
improvement activities is a state’s cancellation of one or more 
activities.  This occurred when, for example, Hawaii intended to use 
NCHIP funds to post data from the Honolulu prosecutor, but the 
activity was canceled because of inadequate resources and the immature 
status of the prosecutor information system.  In another instance, North 
Dakota planned to implement a firearm instant check system to perform 
background checks on potential firearm purchasers, but then chose to 
have the firearms dealers contact the FBI directly when NICS became 
operational.  Sometimes a critical activity costs more than had 
originally been budgeted: one state planned to conduct a baseline audit, 
and with remaining project funds, implement two or three additional 
activities.  However, bids from private contractors proposing to conduct 
the audit were higher than expected, and the other activities could not 
be undertaken.  Still another reason for delays or cancellations is the 
states’ channeling of software programmers to resolve outstanding Y2K 
issues–that is, the software bugs that affect date fields and threaten to 
adversely impact a program’s ability to perform reliably beginning 
January 1, 2000.  In all, however, we have found that fewer than 2% of 
federally funded activities had been canceled.

Another implementation consideration that could have impacted the 
success of our study: changes in state and local personnel involved in 
data quality improvement activities.  In sworn departments, such as law 
enforcement, where personnel are routinely transferred to other 
divisions within the department, this problem can be acute.  Such 
transfers disrupt not only activities but also our assessment, as new 
personnel need to become familiar with the goals and methods of our 
study.  As we are aware of this threat, we routinely strive to establish 
multiple contact points for each activity of concern.

Q.E.D. is aware that delays, cancellations, or even inactivity may be the 
result of a state’s inability to spend the federal funds because it is 
“saturated” and cannot handle the extra workload.  This situation may 
become more problematic as federal moneys are significantly increased, 
with the added $205 million in NCHIP funds and the continuing $20 
million per year of Byrne 5% funding.  This issue is discussed further in 
Section 3.1. 

Finally, from an evaluation perspective, three points should be made on 
the complexity of the study:  

* Inasmuch as delays and cancellations to improvement 
initiatives are potentially disruptive, we are mindful of 
them.  

* The fact that activities are dispersed across many county 
and local agencies obviously increases the difficulty of the 
evaluation–to meet this challenge, we try to work with 
each state’s multi-agency criminal records improvement 
task force.  

* Legislation introduced during the course of our study, 
such as the Lautenberg Amendment which affects the 
federal grant programs, contributes to the study’s 
complexity and increases its scope.

Evaluation Framework

A final C-CHRIE study consideration is the framework within which we 
have developed our evaluation design.  Q.E.D. has conducted 
evaluations of criminal justice programs for over twenty years.  During 
that period, our personnel have also contributed to the evaluation 
literature.  In particular, the evaluation framework advanced by Tien 
[1979; 1990] and used in Q.E.D.’s CHRIE and numerous other studies 
has again guided our current evaluation.  In that approach, the 
characteristics of the program being evaluated influence both the design 
and the conduct of the evaluation.  Hence, the preceding discussions in 
this section and in Section 1 focus on CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP 
program characteristics.

The application of this evaluation framework to our current effort is 
evidenced throughout this report.  The measures framework developed 
in Section 4.1, for example, is explicitly based on Tien’s work [1979; 
1990]. 

Exhibit 2-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Program Characteristics

Exhibit 2-1 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit 2-2  Distribution of Byrne Plan Approval Dates


2.2 Activity-Based Classification Scheme

As part of the CHRIE evaluation effort [Q.E.D., 1997], we developed 
an activity-based classification scheme which proved effective in 
understanding the range of activities undertaken by the states and 
identifying data quality improvement strategies.  Because of the nature 
of the CHRI program, the scheme focused largely on the repository and 
on disposition reporting.  For this study, we develop an analogous, 
scaleable classification scheme that includes the NCHIP and Byrne 5% 
activities, in addition to the CHRI activities.  The scheme can 
accommodate new activities as well as potentially new funding sources.  
It is designed to incorporate diverse activities and to help us understand 
relationships among activities, funding sources, and time frames.  The 
scheme represents Q.E.D.’s effort to consistently classify activities 
across all states; as a result, states may not immediately “recognize” 
their activities since they are categorized in accordance with the 
classification scheme.  States may view their respective activity 
descriptions in Appendix B. 

As we consider activities which could improve criminal history records, 
it is helpful to detail the components in Exhibit 1-1.  In particular, the 
detailing should highlight where improvements could be made within 
each component.  This is done in Exhibit 2-3, where primary data flows 
are also indicated.  Exhibit 2-3 is generally true for all states, as we are 
interested only in functional responsibilities of these system 
components–whereas, organizationally, they may differ from state to 
state.  For example, in some states, probation is a part of the corrections 
organization, while in others, it is a part of the courts organization. 

The C-CHRIE classification scheme has three levels and categorizes 
improvement activities that mirror the flow of data as they are captured 
and used throughout the criminal history records system.  Exhibit 2-3 
represents this system: the lettered boxes provide context for the model 
and represent both criminal justice and non-criminal justice data 
sources and users.  The numbered boxes correspond to specific points 
in the system where these data are either generated or required.  For 
example, Booking (Box 3) includes the transfer of booking data to a 
fingerprint card or to the receipt of rapsheet data from the repository at 
an arresting agency.  Categories 1-19 constitute what we refer to in our 
classification scheme as “Level 1.”

Exhibit 2-4 demonstrates how the 19 Level 1 categories are subdivided 
into 50 more specific Level 2 subcategories.  For example, 1. System 
Improvements consists of 1.1 Conduct study/develop plan, 1.2 Conduct 
audit, 1.3 Establish infrastructure, etc.  Continuing with this approach, 
Level 3, a further sub-division of Level 2, offers the greatest specificity.  
It contains 171 subcategories which ultimately “house” the 
improvement activities.  To illustrate, 1.2 Conduct audit, in turn, 
consists of 1.2.1 Audit criminal history data quality, 1.2.2 Conduct 
legislative audit, 1.2.3 Audit superior court, etc.

It is important to note that Levels 1-3 are categories of activities, and 
not the actual state-planned improvement activities.  The actual 
activities are housed in Level 3; any such Level 3 category will most 
likely contain several improvement activities.  However, for the sake of 
brevity and convenience, when we refer to Level 1, 2, or 3 activities, we 
are referring to categories. 

In addition to providing the means to classify each activity according to 
potential impact on the criminal history records system, the scheme 
furnishes a consistent basis for comparing the range of improvement 
efforts undertaken in the states.  Furthermore, we capture each activity’s 
funding sources (CHRI, Byrne 5%, NCHIP, state, and/or local), as well 
as its planned and actual start and completion dates, when available.

The classification scheme is the result of several refinements; it is both 
viable and robust enough to permit an expanding C-CHRIE effort.  
However, as is the case with all classification schemes or taxonomies, it 
is limited in several respects.  Two such limitations merit discussion.

First, the scheme categorizes improvements by choosing the one 
category–from a prioritized list of categories–that best represents that 
activity.  This approach is somewhat analogous to the Uniform Crime 
Reporting (UCR) system, which captures only the most serious charge 
for each arrest.  Classifying information in this way biases the results 
towards those categories at the top of the hierarchy (which, in our case, 
is the lowest numbered activity, beginning with 1.1.1).

Second, activities are not comparable in either cost or benefit.  While 
we count each activity as if all activities were equivalent, they are not; 
thus, an audit activity, while critical, is less costly than the purchase of 
an AFIS system.  Notwithstanding these typical limitations, the 
classification scheme and the resultant findings form a sound basis for 
understanding the status of criminal history records and for funding 
their improvements.

Exhibit 2-3  Improvement-Focused Criminal History Records System
 
Exhibit 2-4  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Classification Scheme

Exhibit 2-4 (page 2 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 3 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 4 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 5 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 6 of 10)
 

Exhibit 2-4 (page 7 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 8 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 9 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 10 of 10)
 

2.3 Study Conduct

The C-CHRIE tasks and schedule are summarized in Exhibit 2-5.  We 
initiated the study by reviewing all documentation–including Byrne 5% 
plans, NCHIP grant applications, data quality improvement plans, and 
other memoranda–forwarded by the states to BJS and BJA.  Since our 
previous contacts with the states took place in early 1994, when we 
completed the CHRIE effort, we reestablished telephone contact with 
each state in mid-1995, specifically with the designated CHRI, Byrne 
5%, and NCHIP grant administrators.  We also obtained lists of key 
personnel and agencies involved in administering the Byrne 5% 
program.  As such, Q.E.D.’s first major deliverable, Preliminary 
Assessment, provided an initial perspective on both the federal 
programs and the extent of activities.  To better comprehend the 
relationship between activities, their funding sources, and timeframes, 
our second major deliverable, Continuing Criminal History Records 
Improvement Evaluation: 1994-1996 Report, “dug more deeply” and 
provided valuable insights and hypotheses which became the focus of 
this third major deliverable.  

As noted in Exhibit 2-5, our fourth major deliverable will be in the 
second quarter of 2001 and it will focus on the ’98-’00 period.  
Additionally, Q.E.D. has undertaken several special studies at the 
request of BJS; for example, in cooperation with SEARCH, we have 
recently completed a study on the efficacy of name-based–versus 
fingerprint-based–background checks. 

To monitor hundreds of activities effectively at state, local, and county 
levels, we remained in contact with each state’s NCHIP grant 
administrator, as well as representatives of the state’s multi-agency task 
force convened under a Byrne requirement.  In addition, visits to state 
repositories and criminal justice agencies nationwide played a key role 
in enhancing our understanding of the states’ activity planning and 
implementation.  In preparation for these site visits, we created 
information portfolios that include current and earlier improvement 
activities, NCHIP-related progress reports, firearm check capabilities, 
organizational structure, overall criminal justice system statistics, and 
recent grant activities (e.g., whether they received ASAP funds, and for 
what purpose). 

In addition to speaking or corresponding with over 200 individuals, we 
met with more than 70 officials from 17 states (California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Texas, 
Vermont, Virginia, and Washington), the FBI, Morpho (now “Sagem 
Morpho”), and Printrak.  The selection of states to visit was based on 
several criteria, including the nature of activities, location, size, 
urban/rural population mix, degree of technology implementation, NFF 
and III status, and regional AFIS participation. 

Inasmuch as our effort focuses on activities supported by CHRI, Byrne 
5%, and NCHIP funding, the extent to which state and local funds 
contribute to these federally funded activities is also noted in this 
report.  Of course, many other criminal history records improvement 
activities are underway using only state or local funds.

As noted earlier, we took a two-pronged approach to the evaluation, 
involving both an overall impact evaluation of all states and a more 
focused evaluation of a few states.  As part of the impact evaluation 
during our 1993 CHRIE study, we conducted a questionnaire of all 
states, which addressed issues and approaches to improving data 
quality.  At that time, we learned a great deal about states’ views on 
critical issues and weak links within their criminal records information 
systems.  Leveraging that work, we redesigned and conducted a similar 
questionnaire.  As part of our focused evaluation, we collected arrest 
and disposition data from a small number of states to test critical 
hypotheses concerning arrest record/disposition linkage issues, and we 
interviewed users regarding their perceptions of criminal history 
records.  The resultant findings are presented in Section 3.3.  We wish 
to emphasize that during our effort, states have been cooperative in 
responding to our requests and in discussing their activities.

Finally, as alluded to in Section 2.2, one of the most challenging aspects 
of this study has been the early development of our activity-based 
classification scheme, and the subsequent construction of a database for 
maintaining activity information, on a state-by-state basis.  To enhance 
our knowledge of individual state activities, we designed an “activity 
summary” for each state which includes background characteristics, 
information about funding sources (CHRI, Byrne 5%, NCHIP, state, or 
local), and available activity start and completion dates, both planned 
and actual.  Activities based on information in NCHIP grant 
applications are as of FY 97, since any activities proposed in the FY 98 
application would hardly have begun.  An example of such a summary 
is given in Exhibit 2-6, which describes our “Sample State” as using 
federal funds to implement 17 improvement activities, ranging from 
auditing criminal history data quality (1.2.1) to processing disposition 
backlog (6.4.7).  To keep our database current, we twice requested that 
states update their information–in June 1997 and again in February 
1998.  When reviewing these summaries, note that a “blank” indicates 
that the information was not available at the time we wrote this report; 
we will incorporate the information in our database if and when it 
becomes known.  A complete summary for each state, included in 
Appendix B, should be beneficial to state administrators as they learn 
about improvement activities under way in other states. 

Exhibit 2-5  C-CHRIE: Study Tasks and Schedule
 
Exhibit 2-6  State Activity Summary: Sample State
Background Characteristics

3. Current Findings

The evolution of federal legislation and programs to address records 
improvement is presented in Section 1, and our approach to assessing 
the programs is detailed in Section 2.  The first two sections provide the 
necessary backdrop for the impact and focused evaluations, whose 
findings are contained in this section.  The findings are the result of a 
background analysis, an activity-based analysis, and a goal-based 
analysis. 

3.1 Background Analysis

The activity- and goal-based findings of Sections 3.2 and 3.3, 
respectively, are best understood within the context of federal and state 
background factors considered in this section. 
 
Level of Federal Funding 

Exhibit 3-1 highlights CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP funds awarded 
and drawn down, or spent, by state.  As of December 1998, CHRI, 
Byrne 5%, and NCHIP have awarded $27M, $156M, and $206M, 
respectively, for a total of $389M.  This averages $0.77M in federal 
funds awarded annually to each state, over the past nine years.  The 
average state award under CHRI was $504K, under Byrne 5% is $2.8M 
(thus far), and under NCHIP is $3.9M (thus far), for an average total of 
$6.9M.  Records indicate that some $300K of CHRI program funds has 
not been expended, which is surprising, since the CHRI program ended 
in FY 92.  If in fact they have been spent, the accounting error is 
probably the result of a miscommunication between state and federal 
offices.  As expected, neither the Byrne 5% nor NCHIP funds have 
been totally expended, since these funds were awarded as recently as 
FY 98.  

Assessing the individual impact of any one of the federal programs may 
be impossible, as noted earlier, since the states view the awards as one 
large pool of funds, and the programs strive to coordinate their efforts.  
Still, assessing the impact of Byrne 5% funds is especially complex 
because of the manner in which these grants are administered and 
targeted for local or state use which varies widely from state to state.  
While at least 25% of the formula grant must be matched, the matching 
can be accomplished on a project-by-project basis (as in Florida), or it 
can be the result of a statewide match (as in Connecticut).  The federal 
government requires that the state pass through a portion of the funds to 
local units of government, equal to the ratio of local criminal justice 
costs to total criminal justice costs for the state.  In Florida, 2/3 of the 
Byrne funds pass through to local jurisdictions and 1/3 goes to the state; 
while in Connecticut, the reverse is true.  In addition, some states 
accrue Byrne 5% moneys in order to purchase “big-ticket” items.  
Nevada receives approximately $3.2M annually in Byrne funds, $160K 
of which comprises their 5% set-aside.  The state is accumulating its 
5% funds over four years–usually the maximum allowable–to purchase 
livescan fingerprint processing equipment for six of its 17 county jail 
facilities.  Florida, on the other hand, receives a proportionately larger 
grant of $21.4M annually, and expends all of its Byrne 5% funding 
within each fiscal year.

Another factor that complicates evaluation of the Byrne 5% program is 
determining how much of these funds is actually spent on criminal 
history records improvement.  According to BJA, considerably more 
Byrne funds are used for this purpose than the $156 million which 
constitute the mandated 5% set-aside; this is but a lower limit on actual 
Byrne funds that states spend.  The total is difficult to ascertain.  States 
report draw-down figures for all Byrne formula funds–including violent 
crime and drug-related initiatives–but do not differentiate the 5% funds.  
Only twice since inception of the 5% program in FY 92 have the states 
been asked to report 5% draw-down numbers separately.  To facilitate 
analysis of Byrne 5% funds, each state should report them regularly and 
separately from the entire annual Byrne award.

Still, BJA’s assertion may be correct.  Exhibit 3-1 shows that 74% of 
Byrne funds has been drawn down as of 12/97 (in fact, this number is a 
lower limit, since FY 98 awards are included in the exhibit); 
approximately one-third of the states drew down more than 5% of their 
funds for criminal history records improvement–in these cases, the 
amount drawn down by the state exceeds the amount of the 5% award.  
(Low draw-down figures may be misleading, since some states wait to 
accrue funds prior to drawing down for large purchases.)  Many state 
staff concede they are “grateful for the Byrne 5% provision because 
without it no Byrne moneys would be spent on criminal history 
records.”  In particular, a Missouri official comments that the state 
hopes to increase its set-aside to as much as 20%, and in 1994 and 
1995, Massachusetts utilized 40% and 20%, respectively, of its Byrne 
funds for records improvement.  From this we can infer that states 
endorse the need for improving criminal history records and wish the 
federal funding to continue for such purposes.

Overall, more than half of the $389M in federal program awards has 
been drawn down, implying that the funds are in active use.  The fact 
that only slightly more than one-third of the NCHIP funds have been 
drawn down should not be discouraging–this can be attributed to its 
being the newest of the three federal records improvement initiatives.  

Existence of a Saturation Phenomenon?

Exhibit 3-1 shows that the average NCHIP draw-down per state (i.e., 
total drawn down as a fraction of its total award) is only 36%.  The 
question has been raised as to whether states are unable to handle 
additional workloads associated with a large infusion of funding, 
precipitating a so-called “saturation phenomenon”.  We believe there 
are other explanations.  First, improvement activities initiated during 
CHRI occurred over a long time frame–as noted earlier, 22 states had 
still not completed CHRI activities in April 1994.  Second, typical 
Byrne and NCHIP awards are substantially larger than CHRI, resulting 
in larger-scale, more complex activities, especially when states 
accumulate their Byrne funds over many years to purchase “big-ticket” 
items.  Finally, inasmuch as new programs such as SIS come into 
existence, there is a need for additional funding–to preclude 
promulgation of unfunded mandates. 

Basis for Formula Grants 

Awarding federal dollars on a formula grant basis–as in the case of the 
Byrne moneys–gives the more populous states proportionately larger 
grants.  Presumably, the larger the population, the more criminal 
records there are, and perhaps, the larger the cost to create, store, and 
disseminate records.  Exhibit 3-2 substantiates the assumption that the 
number of records in a state correlates highly with its population–the 
correlation coefficient is 81%, based on data from 53 states.

Investigating the “urban” influence on such a correlation, although 
beyond the scope of this report, can be a worthwhile endeavor.  An 
even stronger correlation might result if only urban populations within 
the states were correlated with the sizes of their criminal history records 
databases.

Completion Time of an Improvement Activity

On average, how long does it take to complete an improvement 
activity?  Answering this question sets proper expectations and aids in 
planning future funding efforts.  Obviously, some activities, such as 
processing a fingerprint card backlog, could take weeks, while others, 
such as computerizing corrections data, may take months.  Based on 
activities in our database which have actual completion dates, Exhibit 
3-3 estimates the average activity completion time to be 2.7 years.  (Of 
the 1,552 activities in our database, 108, or 7%, are “ongoing” and have 
no planned or actual end date, as with continuing training programs.)  
As our discussion of implementation issues in Section 2.1 suggests, 
many explanations for this length of completion time exist, including 
contractor delays, personnel changes, political difficulties, and even 
possible cancellations.  

III Participation and the Attorney General’s Timetable

Joining III is a priority under NCHIP because III states respond to out-
of-state inquiries for criminal history information based on their own 
record files, whereas the FBI responds to such inquiries on behalf of 
non-III states using FBI-supported records.  In general, state records are 
more complete than FBI-maintained records, since many states mandate 
reporting criminal history information to the repository, whereas 
reporting the same information to the FBI is voluntary.  As such, ten 
states have become III members under NCHIP–Alabama, Arizona, 
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, and West Virginia–bringing the total III membership to 39 
states. 

To expedite III participation, the Attorney General was assigned two 
major tasks under the Brady Act, namely:

1. accelerating the upgrading and indexing of state criminal history 
records in the FBI-maintained federal criminal records system (the 
Interstate Identification Index, or III); and 

2. determining a timetable for each state to be able to provide 
criminal records on an on-line capacity basis to the national system 
(referred to below as “current and shareable records”).

What is the significance of these tasks?  To begin with, they directly 
facilitate implementation of the Brady Act, whose primary purpose is 
establishing a national instant criminal background check system, 
NICS, to determine the eligibility of a prospective purchaser of a 
firearm.  Most important, the NICS Index will be made up of III 
criminal records–as well as non-criminal justice files (e.g., substance 
abusers) and NCIC hot files (e.g., wanted persons file).  Since III will 
be the source of criminal history records information for NICS, 
increasing its membership is critical to the integrity of NICS.  

The following four subsections address the III.

How III Works: Record Availability and Completeness

Following an arrest, states are requested to send fingerprint cards to the 
FBI for “criterion” offenses.  States send fingerprint cards for 
misdemeanor and felony arrests, as defined by the individual states; a 
criterion offense generally refers to a crime punishable by imprisonment 
for a term exceeding one year.  Not all fingerprint cards, however, are 
sent to the FBI.  In some states, such as Massachusetts, FBI reporting 
may be spotty because the central repository is not the “sole source of 
submission”–one reason why the state is not yet a III member–and 
fingerprint cards are submitted by local law enforcement, if at all.

Once the FBI receives the fingerprint card of an offender, the name, 
date of birth, and other demographic information is entered in III, 
regardless of whether the state is an III member or not.  Put simply, the 
III is a decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI and 
containing the personal identifiers of criterion offenders, and “pointers” 
to states that maintain criminal history records on the offenders.  If a 
state is not a III member or does not support a particular criminal 
record, the pointer points to the FBI, which maintains the record.  States 
become III members by meeting stringent requirements covering record 
content, maintenance, response, and accountability. 

III Member State Response to a III Inquiry

States that are III members respond to out-of-state criminal justice 
information requests–called purpose code C–for records for which they 
are responsible.  A state is “responsible” for, or “supports,” a particular 
record if the record has been “synchronized” with its FBI record.  
Synchronization is a regular process, whereby either the FBI sends a 
magnetic tape of records to a state, or vice versa, and each field of 
every record is matched between state and FBI records.  If the record 
cannot be reconciled completely, it is not synchronized, and the FBI 
continues to support it.  Some states synchronize periodically, 
especially when new arrests occur for a prior record and that record is 
updated.  

Any state can inquire into the III system.  For example, if following an 
arrest, the New Jersey State Police wish to ascertain if the arrestee has a 
record in another state, it inquires into III.  III might uncover the fact 
that the arrestee has a record in Wyoming and in Massachusetts, and as 
such, the III response “points” to Wyoming and the FBI.  (If no record 
is found, a negative response is indicated.)  If New Jersey wants to see 
the records, it will request the Wyoming record from that state and the 
Massachusetts record from the FBI, since Massachusetts is not an III 
state and is not capable of responding to III inquiries (see next 
subsection).  The responding entities–Wyoming and the FBI–return 
criminal histories or “rapsheets” to New Jersey.  While the process 
usually takes only a few minutes, it requires an individual capable of 
interpreting rapsheets–often a trooper–because the format and the 
violation and conviction codes in the rapsheets are complex and vary 
from state to state.  (States have long recognized the need for improved 
readability–consistency and uniformity–of rapsheets, as documented in 
Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the 
National Task Force [BJS, 1995]). 

If the inquiry is for a firearm check, it is called purpose code F and the 
process is the same as for purpose code C, except that the information 
released about a record can differ.  In South Dakota, for example, 
sealed records can be released for purpose code C but not for purpose 
code F. 

FBI Response to a III Inquiry 

The FBI responds to an inquiry to III that results in a “hit” in a non-III 
state (e.g., Massachusetts) or in a III state that is not responsible for a 
particular record.  FBI information is based on the record maintained 
by the FBI, and, as noted earlier, FBI-supported records are frequently 
less complete than state records. 

Currently, the FBI sometimes does not receive a fingerprint card for an 
arrest that results in a felony conviction or it may receive one or some 
(but not all) fingerprint cards for an offender who has been arrested 
more than once.   (If and when the National Fingerprint File (NFF) goes 
into effect nationally, the FBI will receive only the first fingerprint 
card for an offender, but this is not yet the case. To date, four states 
have NFF status: Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon.)
Under NICS, if a fingerprint card was never received, 
the FBI might mistakenly allow the sale of a firearm to an individual 
who has been convicted of a felony.  Similarly, if the FBI received one 
fingerprint card only for an offender based on a misdemeanor, but never 
received a subsequent fingerprint card for the same offender based on 
an arrest that resulted in a felony conviction, the FBI would permit the 
sale.  

Because of such scenarios, the federal government wants to accelerate 
III participation and expand the states’ responsibility for their own 
records.  

Exhibit 3-4 sheds light on the scope of these issues.  As column 1 
indicates, there are 53.7 million criminal history records in the United 
States.  Thirty-nine states are III members; ten joined during NCHIP 
(columns 2 and 3).  Columns 4-6 refer to the 32.7 million records that 
are available via an III inquiry; the FBI is responsible for 12.6 million 
of these, and the states support 20.1 million.
  
States will surely never support all III records; some records pre-date 
membership and/or may be inactive and not warrant synchronization.  
Nevertheless, the twin goals of expanding III participation and 
increasing the number of state-supported records will improve record 
availability and record completeness.  

Attorney General’s Timetable: Current and Shareable Records

Driving the Attorney General’s timetable is the federal goal of current 
and shareable records.  Records are considered “current and shareable” 
if: (i) they come from an III state, and (ii) the records of arrests made 
within the preceding five years–with at least one criterion offense–
contain dispositions of those arrests.  

Columns 6 and 7 of Exhibit 3-4 indicate that as of 1995, 21 states had 
reached the federal goal of 80% for records within the previous five 
years.  However, since six of these states are not yet III members 
(Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 
Wisconsin), their records cannot be considered current and shareable.  
Furthermore, the feasibility of achieving (ii) on a national level is 
questionable and is discussed in Section 3.3.

Firearm Purchase Procedure

There is a risk that firearm sales to ineligible purchasers will increase 
under NICS.  During the interim provision of Brady, all states perform 
state-level firearm eligibility checks; under NICS, these checks are 
performed only by states serving as Points of Contact (POCs)–all others 
are conducted by the FBI, using FBI records which are not as complete.  
This is especially an issue in non-POC/non-III states, where the FBI 
will be checking FBI-supported records.

Interim Brady Provision: Checking Records at the State Level

The permanent provision of the Brady Act calls for establishment of a 
national instant criminal background check system by November 30, 
1998, to be contacted by FFLs before the transfer of any firearm.  
Nevertheless, an interim provision was established, requiring a waiting 
period prior to the purchase of a handgun, during which the state’s 
Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) would perform a background 
check on the prospective purchaser.  This is the key Brady amendment 
to the Gun Control Act of 1968; prior to the amendment, no 
background check or waiting period was federally mandated, although 
states may have implemented the procedure on their own.  It is 
instructive to review the procedure for purchasing a handgun during the 
interim provision, which varies somewhat from state to state.  (The 
waiting period is addressed in Section 3.3.)

Under Brady, states that already had legislation mandating that handgun 
purchasers undergo a background check, and that had state laws 
encompassing at least the same categories of individuals prohibited 
from purchasing a handgun as specified in the federal law, were not 
subject to the federal waiting procedure.  These “Brady-Alternative” 
states made up approximately half of the states.  In most cases, they had 
either a state-mandated permit or other approval-type system.  A few 
had “instant” (i.e., automated) check systems that FFLs could contact to 
obtain information immediately on whether the sale of a handgun would 
violate the law.  (The notion of “instant” check systems and 
“immediate” responses is discussed below.) 

If, however, the state had a permit system based on procedure alone and 
not on state law, or the state laws on handgun purchase were more 
lenient than the federal law (e.g., some felons were not prohibited from 
buying), then the state was not classified as Brady-Alternative.  The 
other half were referred to as “Brady” states because they did not 
previously have state-enforced background checks and were thus 
required to comply with the Brady Act and were subject to the waiting 
period.  During the interim Brady provision, the status of several states 
changed from “Brady” to “Brady-Alternative,” as states enacted 
qualifying legislation. 

Exhibit 3-5 describes the procedure for purchasing a handgun in a 
Brady state.  There are three possible scenarios:

1. Standard Procedure;
2. Approval by Secretary of Treasury; or
3. Threat to Life.

The standard procedure is by far the most prevalent and therefore of 
greatest interest; the other two require pre-approval by the Secretary for 
purchasing certain specified firearms, or by the CLEO, in the event that 
an individual demonstrates a threat to his/her life.  In any case, the 
prospective purchaser must complete ATF form 4473 in any state to 
purchase a firearm, and form 5300.35, created by the Brady Act, and 
required only in Brady states.  Form 5300.35 is formally called the 
“Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun(s)” and requires the 
purchaser to certify that he/she does not fall into any categories that 
would prohibit the handgun sale.  The FFL verifies the buyer’s 
identification, completes the forms, and notifies and forwards a copy of 
the forms to the CLEO.  The CLEO conducts a background check, 
presumably checking state records, and has five days to notify the FFL 
as to whether sale of the handgun would violate federal, state, or local 
law.  If the CLEO does not respond within five days, the FFL may sell 
the handgun. 

Exhibit 3-6 describes the procedure for purchasing a handgun in a 
Brady-Alternative state.  In this case, there are four possible scenarios:

1. Permit Procedure;
2. Point-of-Sale Check;
3. Approval by Secretary of Treasury; or
4. Threat to Life.

The permit procedure and point-of sale checks are the most prevalent; 
once again, the other two require either pre-approval by the Secretary, 
or by the CLEO, when an individual demonstrates a threat to his/her life
The prospective purchaser must complete form 4473 only and present 
valid identification, which is verified by the FFL.  In a state where a 
permit system is used, the individual will have already undergone an 
official background check in order to obtain the permit and, provided 
that it has been issued within the last five years, the sale can be 
consummated immediately.  In a state with a point-of-sale procedure, 
one of two things can happen: the FFL forwards the information to the 
CLEO via mail or fax and, depending on whether a record match is 
found, may sell the handgun.  Otherwise, an instant check system is in 
place, whereby the FFL contacts the repository by telephone or 
computer terminal, a record check is conducted immediately, and a 
response is returned to the FFL in real time.  In either case, presumably, 
state records are verified.  

Permanent Brady Provision: NICS, POCs, and Gaps in Record Availability

With NICS operational in November 1998, the terms “Brady” and 
“Brady-Alternative” become obsolete, and the above-cited procedures 
change, as indicated in Exhibit 3-7.  The FBI operates a national center, 
called the NICS Operations Center, to conduct background checks 
making record inquiries into NCIC (“hot files”), III (criminal histories), 
and the NICS Index–a system that contains files on non-felons 
prohibited from purchasing firearms.  States exercise one of four 
options:

1. State governments serve as a “point-of-contact” (POC) for 
the system.  FFLs query NICS through the POC for all 
firearm transfers.  From a conceptual point of view, the 
POC replaces the CLEO as liaison between the FFL and 
the FB,I and performs the NICS check and determines 
whether the sale would violate state or federal law; or

2. State governments do not serve as the POC, and FFLs 
contact the NICS Operations Center, either by telephone 
or other electronic means, thereby initiating a background 
check for all firearm transfers.  The FBI performs the 
background check and determines whether the sale would 
violate state or federal law; or

3. State governments serve as the POC for handgun 
purchases but not for long gun purchases.  In this case, 
FFLs query NICS through the POC for handgun purchases 
and contact the NICS Operations Center for all long gun 
purchases; or

4. In states where a firearm purchaser has a valid permit to 
carry a concealed weapon, or a permit to purchase a 
firearm, an NICS check is not required if the permit was 
issued not more than five years earlier in the state where 
the sale will take place.  Permits issued on or after 
November 30, 1998 will be valid alternatives under the 
permanent provision of the Brady Act only if state 
officials conduct NICS checks on all permit applicants.  If 
the prospective purchaser does not have a valid permit, 
and the state does not agree to serve as the POC, the FFLs 
contact the FBI. 

Whereas during the interim provision, states were designated “Brady” 
or “Brady-Alternative” by virtue of state laws, during the permanent 
provision, they have the choice to operate as a POC or not.  From the 
FBI’s point of view, the NICS Operations Center staffing requirements 
are a function of the number of non-POC states; the fewer the POCs, 
the greater the number of incoming queries to the FBI from individual 
FFLs. 

How does a state choose whether to become a POC?  The decision is 
based on a number of factors, one of them, available resources.  Can the 
state afford to set itself up as a POC, install an instant check system, 
and provide the FFLs with access?  Although operating an instant check 
system during the interim provision, Idaho will not serve as a POC, 
citing cost as a factor because of the added expense of performing 
background checks for long guns.

A state’s attitude toward gun ownership also influences the decision.  If 
it advocates gun ownership, the state is inclined to have FFLs contact 
the FBI directly, since it is not overly concerned with screening 
prospective buyers and checking its files.

Still another factor concerns FFL transaction fees.  In FY 98, Congress 
appropriated $40 million to the FBI to waive the fees FFLs would 
normally have to pay.  While POCs would welcome the idea of the 
FFLs’ paying the required firearm transaction fee to the state, they may 
be forced to become non-POCs over the fee issue.  Why would an FFL 
want to pay a fee to the POC if it can make a NICS request to the FBI 
for free? 

What fraction of the states are POCs?  As of December 1998, 16 states 
serve as POCs for all firearm transactions; 11 states are POCs for 
handgun transactions only, with the FBI performing checks for long 
guns; and 26 states are not POCs for any firearm transactions (see 
Exhibit 3-8).  However, this number will change if POCs decide to let 
their FFLs go directly to the FBI.  If the FBI is forced to conduct NICS 
checks for yet a greater number of states, this could increase its 
operating costs.  On the other hand, if the states were offered a federal 
appropriation of funds to convert to POCs and thus offset the cost to the 
FFLs, this would have the twin benefit of allowing more records to be 
checked at the state level and reducing the FBI’s workload and 
operating costs.

Scope and Impact of Record Availability and Record Completeness Problem

As during the interim Brady provision, when states checked their 
criminal history files for disqualifying information, a POC presumably 
verifies all available records including its own state records–some of 
which may not be in III–while conducting a firearms eligibility check 
under NICS.  On the other hand, the FBI-conducted NICS checks 
(referred to as FBI transactions) are at a disadvantage because they 
cannot access state records that are not in III.  The problem is that it is 
possible for a record to be disqualifying even if it isn’t in III.  As a 
result, under NICS, FBI transactions are less likely to uncover 
prohibiting information than either through POC transactions or through 
states transactions under the interim provision.  This would result in 
potentially more sales to ineligible purchasers. 
 
Another record availability problem concerns the NICS Index and 
NCIC hot files.  Just as with III, these files are only as good as the 
extent to which they are populated by state (and federal) data.  For 
example, the Protection Order File is part of the NCIC Hot File, and not 
all states have started to contribute to it.  As a result, when conducting a 
firearms eligibility check, NICS will not “hit” upon a valid protection 
order if the state where it was issued has not transmitted it to the NCIC 
Protection Order File.  If no other prohibiting information exists, the 
sale would go through.  (Again, a POC-conducted firearm inquiry 
checks its state protection orders and denies the sale if a valid 
protection order exists, but faces the same problem with the NCIC 
Protection Order File.) 

While the NCIC Protection Order File is expected to increase in size as 
more and more states contribute to it, the future of other files, such as 
the Mental Defectives/Commitment file, is less certain.  As for state 
mental health files, some repositories are not allowed to access them 
because of privacy and security concerns (see subsection below on Data 
Sources Checked to Ascertain Firearms Purchase Eligibility), let alone 
obtain the information and relinquish it to the federal government to 
populate FBI files of Mental Defectives.  To sidestep this issue, one 
state will supply names only of individuals adjudicated to be mentally 
defective–i.e., no mental health information–to the NCIC Denied 
Persons File.  The latter file contains names of individuals who have 
already been denied firearms because they were determined to be 
ineligible. 

The record availability and record completeness problem is most 
pronounced in non-POC/non-III states, of which there are currently 
nine, namely District of Columbia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Massachusetts, Maine, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and the Virgin 
Islands.  As one state official pointed out: “If every non-III state were a 
POC for all firearm transactions, it would at least alleviate the problem 
of records not being checked at the state level.”  It is especially 
important that these states accelerate their participation in III.

What is an “Immediate” Response?

NICS produces an immediate response to the FFL, indicating that the 
firearm sale may proceed, that it may not proceed, or that a review of a 
matched record is pending.  When there is no prohibiting information 
about the firearm purchaser, there is “instant” approval.  Of course, the 
response may be “instant” to the FFL, even if a review is pending on a 
record; but the firearm purchaser may be told to wait–up to three days 
for a final determination. 

Data Sources Checked for Firearm Sales Eligibility

There are potentially insurmountable problems in determining whether 
databases maintaining noncriminal information for ascertaining firearm 
purchase eligibility exist and, if so, in determining the feasibility and 
legality of accessing them, especially if they belong to private 
institutions.  Two firearm purchase ineligibility categories present 
unique implementation challenges: persons subject to court restraining 
orders, and domestic violence misdemeanants.  

Whether firearm checks are being conducted under the interim 
provision of the Brady Act, or whether NICS is operational, the 
integrity of the response depends on the quality of information.  This, in 
turn, is a function of which data sources are verified, and whether data 
are timely, accurate, and complete.  An arrest involving a criterion 
offense for which no disposition is available is problematic.  Not only is 
the capacity for making well-informed bail, sentencing, and other 
criminal justice decisions compromised, but the capacity for making 
non-criminal justice decisions, as in the case of firearm purchase 
eligibility, is similarly diminished.

Exhibit 3-8 identifies the POC states and highlights which state criminal 
data sources (e.g., Warrants) and which non criminal data sources (e.g., 
Mental Health), in addition to a NICS inquiry, are accessed to ascertain 
eligibility of a prospective firearm purchaser.  For non-POC 
transactions, the FBI checks NICS, as noted above, and not the state 
files. 

The question of which data sources are accessed is significant given the 
disqualifying categories, which have expanded from seven, as originally 
stipulated in the Gun Control Act of 1968, to nine at present: 

1. Persons under indictment for or convicted in any court of 
a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 
one year
2. Fugitives from justice 
3. Unlawful users of controlled substances
4. Adjudicated mental defectives
5. Illegal aliens
6. Persons dishonorably discharged from the military
7. Citizen renunciates 
8. Persons subject to court restraining orders
9. Domestic violence misdemeanants

With respect to the eighth and ninth categories, the Violence Against 
Women Act legislated in 1996 denies individuals the right to purchase a 
firearm if they are subject to certain civil restraining orders, and the 
Lautenberg Amendment disqualifies persons convicted of domestic 
violence misdemeanors.

These two categories pose unique problems.  To begin with, several 
types of restraining orders exist, and states may not be able to identify 
individuals for whom Gun Control Act-compliant restraining orders 
have been issued.  The amendment’s problem is that it is retroactive, 
and in the past, domestic violence incidents were often categorized in 
criminal history records as assaults; thus, such incidents are difficult to 
extract from criminal history records.  Complicating matters, the 
amendment applies to everyone–even law enforcement officials, FBI 
agents, and the military.  

The preponderance of criminal data sources accessed and their 
disparity, compared to non-criminal justice data sources, is evident.  In 
particular, non-criminal justice categories, such as mental defectives 
and unlawful users of controlled substances, present special, if not 
insurmountable, problems.  As indicated by Tien and Rich [1990], the 
challenges inherent in identifying ineligible noncriminals include 
whether there are databases maintaining the information and, if so, 
determining the feasibility, as well as the legality, of accessing them, 
especially if they belong to private organizations.  Ultimately, 
procedures will need to be developed for making this information 
available to the NICS Index, while ensuring privacy and confidentiality. 
In fact, as noted in Section 3.3, over $3.7M was awarded to 18 III states 
in May 1996 under NCHIP’s Advanced State Award Program (ASAP) 
to assist them in addressing issues around identifying individuals 
ineligible to purchase firearms for non-criminal justice reasons.

That some of the nine disqualifiers are permanent and others are not is 
worth noting.  On the criminal side, while a felony conviction would 
permanently render one ineligible to purchase a firearm (unless one 
receives a gubernatorial pardon), an indictment resulting in a dismissal 
of the charge or an acquittal would leave one only temporarily 
ineligible.  Similarly, on the noncriminal side, restraining orders expire, 
and only current users of controlled substances are precluded from 
being eligible to purchase firearms.

Exhibit 3-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Funding Levels

Exhibit 3-1 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit 3-2  Correlation of 1995 State Population with Number of Criminal History Records
 
Sources: SEARCH [1997]; US Census Bureau population estimates [1996]

Exhibit 3-3  Distribution of Criminal History Records Improvement Activity Duration

Exhibit 3-4  III Participation and Attorney General’s Timetable
 
Exhibit 3-5  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady State
 
Exhibit 3-6  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady-Alternative State

Exhibit 3-7  Firearm Purchase Procedure: NICS

Exhibit 3-8  Data Sources Checked for Firearm Sales Eligibility

Exhibit 3-8  (page 2 of 2)


3.2 Activity-Based Analysis

At the core of the C-CHRIE effort is the records improvement activity 
classification scheme and corresponding database that maintains state-
by-state activity information.  Together, they constitute a powerful tool 
for analyzing activity trends.

Not surprisingly, more than half of all recorded activities involve 
planning and establishing infrastructure and enhancements at the 
repository–the initial two stages of developing an effective criminal 
history records system.  The four top-ranking activities are upgrading 
CCH software, installing livescan equipment, electronically transmitting 
dispositions to the repository, and auditing data quality.  Other 
fingerprinting-related activities–such as AFIS implementation–not 
funded by CHRI also prevail.  The average number of activities in each 
state is 28.2. 

As expected, fewer NCHIP-funded activities leverage state or local 
funds, compared to CHRI-funded activities–because the average 
NCHIP award is much greater than the average CHRI award, obviating 
the need for additional non-NCHIP funds.  Byrne- and NCHIP-funded 
activities complement each other in related efforts rather than 
supplement one another in the same efforts. 

In spite of contractor delays and personnel changes, an overwhelming 
75% of activities start on time, and some 70% of activities are 
completed on time–based on activities with planned and actual dates.  
This information can be used to help guide decision-makers in future 
planning efforts.

Prevalence 

Which activities prevail?  Prevailing activities necessarily correspond to 
key areas that the states view as needing improvement, provided they 
coincide with federal program goals.  Exhibits 3-9 through 3-13 provide 
answers from different perspectives.  

The two most prevalent Level 1 activities, System Improvements 
(32.3%) and Criminal History Records (22.7%), together account for 
over half of all activities, as indicated in Exhibit 3-9, which shows the 
distribution of improvement activities by Levels 1, 2, and 3.  This 
makes sense, since they comprise mainly planning and procedural 
initiatives and improvement efforts at the repository, which together are 
the first two steps necessary for an effective criminal history records 
system. 

Fingerprint Search (9.0%) and Disposition/Record Link (8.3%) are the 
next most prevalent Level 1 activities.  The former incorporates AFIS 
and fingerprint file activities and, as discussed later in this section, is 
more active than it was under CHRI.  Besides addressing the Byrne 
goal of fully automating criminal histories and fingerprint records, these 
efforts are consistent with striving for “data entry at the source” and for 
ultimately having a paperless records system, which minimizes human 
error.  Disposition/Record Link covers activities that provide an 
electronic interface between the repository and other criminal justice 
agencies (excluding law enforcement that is classified under Booking 
for data flow reasons), thereby supporting the second common goal of 
improved records.  

By contrast, the least prevalent categories are Federal Non-Criminal 
Justice Data Sources (only three activities) and Private Non-Criminal 
Justice Data Sources (none).  As noted in Section 3.1, the ability to 
access private mental health or drug abuse data sources may be 
impossible, because of privacy and security issues.  POC states have a 
greater incentive to access data sources because they conduct firearms 
checks directly.  While the need remains to identify non-felons who are 
ineligible to purchase firearms, how much progress can be made in this 
area is difficult to predict. 

It is worth noting that as of December 1998, only 1.6% of the activities 
had actually been canceled.

Activity Distribution and Rank

Exhibit 3-10 shows how Level 1 activities are distributed among the 
states.  The number of activities undertaken by each state ranges from 
two to 63, with an average of 28.2 per state.  The variability in number 
of activities reflects the fact that some states engage in a small number 
of costly improvements, while others undertake less expensive 
activities.  The number of activities in a state is not proportional to 
population, geographic size, or funding levels; thus, no conclusions 
about funding amounts can be drawn based on the number of activities 
in a state.

Overall, the individual states mirror aggregate behavior, with a few 
exceptions.  Georgia, for example, has disproportionate efforts 
concentrated in State Non-Criminal Justice Data Sources, and New 
Jersey has a greater-than-average interest in Incarceration.

Exhibit 3-11 demonstrates how Level 3 activities rank relative to one 
another.  The 171 Level 3 activities contain 37 rankings, since many 
activities are ranked equally, such as the 13 activities that share the 37th 
rank.  The four highest-ranked activities are Upgrade CCH software, 
Install livescan, Establish electronic connection for transfer of court 
disposition data to repository, and Audit criminal history data quality.  
Only one of these–Install livescan–is not associated with one of the 
most prevalent Level 1 activities; but it responds to the federal goal of 
automating fingerprint records, which is explicitly stated in the Byrne 
and NCHIP programs.  

In addition, the activities are not uniformly distributed among the ranks: 
the top 24 Level 3 activity categories house over 50% of all 
improvement activities but account for only 14% (i.e., 24/171) of Level 
3 categories.  In contrast, the 59 lowest-ranking Level 3 categories–
comprising the 5% least-implemented activities–account for 35% (i.e., 
59/171).  These are not limited to any one area, but are distributed 
among virtually every Level 1 activity.  These facts are consistent with 
our analysis of prevalent activities and have neither negative nor 
positive connotations, but simply reflect past and current state needs.  
Over time, the distribution of the intensity of activities will change as 
these goals are met and new goals are set.

Jurisdictional Impact

Do activities impact largely at local, county, and/or state levels?  As 
Exhibit 3-12 indicates, 85% of activities impact the state, either alone 
or with other jurisdictions.  This is not surprising, since only the Byrne 
program requires a funding pass through to local units of government.  
Activities affecting local jurisdictions emphasize Booking, 
Fingerprinting, and Supervised Release, which are associated with local 
arrest, booking, and custody events.  As one might anticipate, since 
courts are frequently organized along county lines and district attorneys 
often elected or appointed by the county, Arraignment- and 
Prosecution-related activities are emphasized at state and at county 
levels.  

Funding Sources

Do the CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP funds leverage each other?  Does 
one funding source dominate a particular area?  What can be said about 
the timing of activity initiation and funding?

Leverage

Exhibit 3-13 demonstrates that only 17% of activities with known 
funding sources are partially funded by CHRI, whereas the analogous 
percentages for the Byrne and NCHIP programs are much higher–31% 
and 41%, respectively.  This anticipated difference is attributed to the 
narrower focus of CHRI and its smaller average state award.  While one 
would expect the sum of these three figures to exceed 100%, their 
actual total is only 89%.  This is because 16% of activities with known 
funding sources have no federal funding, i.e., they receive state and/or 
local funds only.  Although not federally supported, such activities are 
included in the database because they are explicitly described in the 
states’ criminal history records improvement plans. 

Only 16% of all NCHIP-funded activities leverage other state and 
federal moneys, whereas previously, CHRI dollars were used to 
leverage state and federal moneys in 41% of CHRI-funded activities.  
This is not surprising because the average NCHIP award is much 
greater than the average CHRI award and thus frequently precludes the 
need for additional non-NCHIP funds.  While Exhibit 3-13 shows that 
any leveraging of NCHIP and CHRI funds to support the same activity 
is negligible, the two funding sources overlap in the kinds of activities 
they support; namely, System Improvements, Criminal History Records, 
FBI Records, and Disposition/Record Link.  In other words, CHRI and 
NCHIP complement each other in related efforts.

Of all activities with known funding sources, fewer than one-third 
(31%) have more than one funding source.  Mostly due to the 
substantial fraction (34%) of activities funded solely by NCHIP, this 
number may change as activities progress to completion.  Alternative 
funding sources are sometimes required–in addition to the original 
source–to complete an activity: for example, Alabama initiated 
installation of court case management systems in its circuit courts, using 
CHRI funds, and completed the effort with Byrne moneys.  Given that 
the average time to complete an activity exceeds two-and-one-half 
years, as noted in Section 3.1, the need for supplemental funding can be 
expected.  

Coordination of NCHIP and Byrne 5% Funds

Exhibit 3-13 demonstrates that Byrne and NCHIP funds hardly leverage 
each other–only 5% of activities having either Byrne or NCHIP funds 
are funded by both sources.  At first, one might be surprised, given that 
NCHIP and Byrne 5% activities are required to be coordinated.  
However, this means that they complement each other in related efforts 
rather than supplement one another in the same effort.   In Idaho, for 
example, Byrne pass-through funds were employed to study and pilot 
the feasibility of a records management system (RMS)/livescan 
interface, and the state will create the interface with NCHIP funds.  
Other states are coordinating livescan and AFIS efforts similarly.

For practical reasons, a state may also fund improvement activities in, 
say, the judicial branch with one of these two sources, while funding 
activities in the executive branch with the other source.  Logically, the 
Byrne and NCHIP funds could be commingled to implement an 
interface between a courts information system (judicial) and a 
computerized criminal history records system (executive).  However, 
realistically, this doesn’t happen, because Byrne, unlike NCHIP, 
requires a match and local pass-through.  Commingling the two sources 
would introduce administrative and funds tracking complexities.

Although Byrne-funded activities must have a 25% state match, some 
129 activities are supported solely with Byrne funds.  This occurs 
because Byrne funds are not always matched on an activity-by-activity 
basis; some can be over-matched in one activity, while other activities 
have no match.  As previously noted, this flexibility helps the states and 
should be continued.

Finally, 72% of all Firearm activities are funded by NCHIP alone.  
Given the Brady Act and the subsequent impetus to identify persons 
ineligible to purchase firearms, this is expected. 

Time Frames

In Section 2.1, the potential adverse impact of implementation issues on 
an evaluation effort is discussed.  One such issue concerns activity 
delays, or lags, and the extent to which they occur when starting or 
completing an activity.

Activity Start and Completion Results

Activities with both planned and actual start dates are compared when 
the dates are available.  The result for 602 activities in Exhibit 3-14 
shows that an overwhelming 75% start on time.  Similarly, actual 
completion dates are compared to planned completion dates.  In this 
case, 70.7% of the 369 activities providing both dates are completed on 
time.  The lower number of activities with recorded completion dates 
can be explained by the fact that 7% of activities are ongoing and thus 
have no completion dates, while other activities are still in progress.  
These results are encouraging, because states can be faced with 
implementation issues frequently beyond their control, most notably, 
contractor delays, or even a lack of sufficient funds to see an activity 
through to completion if unexpected costs are incurred along the way.  
Only nineteen activities (3.2%) experienced starting lags exceeding two 
years, and only 14 activities (3.8%) experienced completion lags of two 
years or more. 
 
Activity Initiation

Exhibit 3-15 shows the intensity of activity initiation over time, for the 
four most prevalent Level 1 activities.  System Improvements and 
Criminal History Records reveal the most dramatic increases since 
CHRI, and as noted earlier, are the first two necessary steps towards an 
effective criminal history records system.  The dip in activity from 1992 
to 1994 is explained by the diminution of CHRI funds during that time, 
and by the fact that NCHIP funds began to flow only in 1995.  The 
drop-off after 1997 of activity intensities in all categories is due to the 
fact that the exhibit captures only those activities funded by Byrne as of 
12/97 and by NCHIP as of 12/97, even though it reflects all activities 
funded by CHRI.  Since the Byrne and NCHIP programs are ongoing, 
the apparent 1997 drop-off will vanish when other ensuing activities are 
added to our database.  Of course, a more distant drop-off must 
eventually occur.  

Exhibit 3-9  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Distribution by Level
 
Exhibit 3-9 (page 2 of 4)
 
Exhibit 3-9 (page 3 of 4)
 
Exhibit 3-9 (page 4 of 4)
 
Exhibit 3-10  Level 1 Activities by State
 
Exhibit 3-10  (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit 3-11  Level 3 Activities: Distribution by Intensity
 
Exhibit 3-11 (page 2 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-11 (page 3 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-12  Level 1 Activities by Jurisdictional Impact

Exhibit 3-13  Level 1 Activities by Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-14  Activity Starting and Completion Lag Times

Exhibit 3-15  Intensity of Activity Initiation Over Time
 

3.3 Goal-Based Analysis

While it would be ideal to assert that every one of the six common 
federal goals has or has not been met, this is not yet possible.  
Improving criminal history records is a lengthy process, best assessed 
with the aid of national aggregate measures which can quantify the state 
of data quality over time (see Section 4).  Until these measures are 
established, an evaluation of the impact of the three federally funded 
programs must be based on activities undertaken by the states to 
achieve the desired goals. 

Goal 1: Provide Required Resources

Provide resources to establish the necessary infrastructure for 
improving criminal history records and related systems.

Whereas common Goals 2 through 6 are derived from the explicit goals 
of the CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP programs, Goal 1 underpins all 
three programs, as indicated in Section 1.2.  Certainly, funding is the 
most basic resource for improving criminal history records.
  
By providing ongoing funding since the beginning of the CHRI 
program, the Department of Justice has demonstrated a commitment to 
improving criminal history records.  Between FY 90 and FY 98, the 
federal government awarded a total of $389M–$27M through the CHRI 
program, $156M through the Byrne 5% program, and $206M through 
the NCHIP program.  This represents an annual average of $0.77M in 
federal funds awarded to each state, over the past nine years. 

Specific financial assistance has also been targeted to states at both 
ends of the criminal history records automation spectrum.  “Priority” 
states (Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia) 
each received a supplementary grant of up to $l million in NCHIP funds 
to spend on basic activities to enhance automation of criminal history 
records.  Similarly, the 18 NCHIP “advanced” states, a subset of III 
states, were eligible, under the Advanced State Award Program 
(ASAP), to collectively spend an additional $5 million on extended 
core activities that would enhance the interface of their computerized 
criminal history systems with databases of persons other than felons 
who are ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Finding 1.1:	The establishment of federal programs has helped 
states place a high priority on criminal history records 
improvement.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP program requirements have heightened 
awareness of the importance of improving criminal history records.  As 
part of the Byrne 5% requirement, states must: (1) develop a Criminal 
Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan and update it annually in 
order to expend their 5% funds, (2) convene a multi-agency criminal 
justice records improvement task force and, (3) as part of NCHIP, 
coordinate Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds.  In addition, states have target 
dates for meeting the Attorney General’s timetable for current and 
sharable records as well as dates for III participation, where applicable.  
Further, federal funds have helped leverage state and local funds, 
targeted at improving the quality of criminal history records.

One-third of the states expended more Byrne funds for criminal justice 
records improvement than the federally mandated 5% set-aside–
evidence that states recognize the need for improving criminal history 
records.  Moreover, states indicate that flexibility in the administration 
and use of Byrne 5% funds is helpful: it does not require that all 
projects be equally subsidized and allows the states to put funds to best 
use.

Finding 1.2:	The amount of available federal funds is not 
excessive. 

The question of whether some states may be unable to handle additional 
workloads associated with a large infusion of funding–precipitating a 
so-called “saturation phenomenon”–has been raised; for example, 
between FY 95 and FY 98 states drew down only 36% of their NCHIP 
awards, on average.  There are, however, other possible explanations. 
First, the typical NCHIP-and Byrne- funded activities (e.g., an AFIS 
effort) take considerable time to complete; this is to be encouraged, 
since states may otherwise be unsuccessful in undertaking such major 
efforts and explains why funds are not being spent.  Second, some states 
strategically accumulate their Byrne funds over several years to 
purchase “big ticket” items.  Third, no state has requested to waive 
compliance with the requirement to allocate at least 5% of its Byrne 
funds for improving criminal history records.  Finally, new programs, 
such as the State Identification Systems, come into existence, 
necessitating additional funding.

Finding 1.3:	While there is synergy among the CHRI, Byrne, and 
NCHIP programs, an attempt should be made to improve 
coordination with the newer DOJ initiatives and with other federal 
and state programs that have implications for criminal history.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds are coordinated, in the sense that they 
complement each other in related efforts, rather than supplement one 
another in the same efforts.  A state may fund improvement activities in 
the judicial branch with one of these two sources, while activities in the 
executive branch could be underwritten by the other source.  Although 
logically, the Byrne and NCHIP funds could be commingled to 
implement an interface between a courts information system (judicial) 
and a computerized criminal history records system (executive), this 
does not occur because Byrne, unlike NCHIP, requires a match and 
local pass-through.  Commingling the two sources would introduce 
complexities in administrative and funds tracking.

CHRI and NCHIP also complement each other in related efforts.  While 
any leveraging of NCHIP and CHRI funds to support the same activity 
is negligible, the two funding sources overlap in the kinds of activities 
they support, namely, those falling into the System Improvements and 
Criminal History Records categories.  Interestingly, these types of 
activities are as prevalent under NCHIP as they were under CHRI, 
implying a continuing need for funding these initiatives.

The difference in allocation of NCHIP and CHRI funds is also 
understandable.  Because the average NCHIP award is much greater 
than the average CHRI award, only 16% of NCHIP-funded activities 
leverage state and/or local funds, compared to over 41% of CHRI-
funded activities.  By the same token, 41% of all activities are partially 
funded by NCHIP, whereas the analogous percentage for CHRI is only 
17%; this can be attributed to the narrower CHRI focus.  

Some state officials feel the greatest barrier to effective coordination of 
the increasing number of records-related programs is institutional.  At 
the federal level, programs are administered by multiple organizational 
units within BJA and BJS; this occurs more disparately at the state 
level, where the respective administrators may be not only in separate 
agencies but even in different branches of government (i.e., executive 
vs. judicial).  As new programs emerge (e.g., State Identification 
Systems, which supports AFIS development) and integration initiatives 
proliferate across agency lines (e.g., Health and Human Services 
programs requiring selective access to criminal history information), it 
will become more crucial than ever to coordinate the various federal 
and state criminal justice programs with federal and state non-criminal 
justice programs.  Organizational changes are being considered at the 
state level to address this need.

Finding 1.4:	The majority of records improvement activities are 
initiated and completed on schedule.
 
An overwhelming 75% of activities start on time, and some 70% of 
activities are completed on time, based on an analysis of activities that 
included planned and actual start and completion dates.  This is 
commendable, given myriad possible delays–attributed to contractor 
problems, personnel changes, and political difficulties–not within the 
control of the department implementing the initiatives.  Ongoing 
activities–including training and auditing–comprise 7% of the total.  
Only 19 activities experienced starting lags exceeding two years, while 
only 14 activities experienced completion lags of two years or more.  
The average criminal history records improvement activity takes 2.7 
years to complete.  These statistics should help guide states through 
future planning efforts.

Goal 2: Improve Records Quality

Improve the quality (i.e., completeness, accuracy, timeliness, 
consistency, accessibility) of criminal history records.

To gain insight into the states’ perspective, we administered a 
questionnaire to state officials, requesting their views on the relative 
importance of data quality issues and data quality improvement 
activities.  Two pairs of Q.E.D.-designed questions on data quality 
issues and improvement activities, respectively, were sent to the states 
in 1994 as part of the CHRIE effort.  Because of the excellent response 
rate and the information we learned about states’ views, the questions 
were reissued in December 1997 and supplemented with recent 
concerns about individuals disqualified from buying firearms and 
working as care providers (see Exhibits 3-16 and 3-18).  One state 
official made this remark about the questionnaires: “I use them to think 
about where we’re putting our money and ask myself if we’re 
effectively addressing weaknesses in our system.”

Analysis of the questionnaires led to the following findings.

Finding 2.1:	The automation of criminal history records systems–
especially their interfaces–has made records available on a more 
timely basis. 

Eighty-eight percent of users interviewed see access to criminal history 
records as being either timely or very timely; 30% perceive that access 
was either more timely or much more timely in 1997, compared to 
1992.  Attribution for the improvement was evenly split between 
improvements in automated systems and in data entry protocol.

Reduction in disposition submission times is one factor contributing to 
the greater timeliness of record accessibility.  Responses to our 
questionnaire indicate that disposition submission times–deemed 
problematic by the states in 1994–are no longer a concern.  Thanks to 
the CHRI emphasis on increased automation of disposition reporting, 
submission times have been successfully reduced.  In cases where there 
is no difficulty linking a disposition to its arrest, the improved 
disposition submission times lead to the timely availability of a 
complete record.  However, the troubling fact that arrest-to-disposition 
linking problems remain suggests that automation alone is insufficient 
to alleviate poor linkage, which is usually a symptom of a more 
structural problem (e.g., pertinent tracking or control numbers not 
entered on the arrest/disposition record).

Finding 2.2:	More federal funds are needed to substantially 
improve the quality, and particularly completeness, of criminal 
history records.

While availability of federal funds has enhanced quality of criminal 
history records, there is still substantial room for improvement.
 
Completeness–the extent to which the criminal history record contains 
available disposition information–remains an acute problem. The 
degree to which arrests in the criminal history database have a final 
disposition was cited by states as being the most critical and most 
problematic issue they face, in both 1994 and 1997.  The past decade 
has witnessed a major increase in automated disposition reporting, but 
states still find it challenging to link dispositions to associated arrests 
and charges.  While automated disposition reporting has accelerated the 
rate at which dispositions are received at the repository, this does not 
necessarily guarantee the linking of a disposition to its corresponding 
arrest.

The linking task can be especially difficult in states where dispositions 
are matched to corresponding charges, since charges can be often 
dropped or modified anytime following an arrest.  One manifestation of 
this linking problem is the increase in suspense files–that is, repository 
files containing dispositions that cannot be linked to arrests.  A 
procedural change, such as implementing unique identifiers, or 
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) numbers, should be 
encouraged, since it has been shown to help states alleviate the 
problem.  States should also continue to locate and process disposition 
reports not submitted to the repository–an activity which many states 
have cited as improving the quality of records, and which should be 
implemented on a wider scale. 

States assert that upgrading the AFIS and CCH systems and 
implementing livescan will yield the greatest improvement in data 
quality, and as such, are among the most frequently undertaken 
activities.  Federal funds have played a key role in subsidizing these 
costly initiatives (see Finding 4.2).  The importance of these efforts is 
understandable, since the AFIS and CCH are necessarily the two critical 
components of an efficient repository.  Further, legacy AFIS and CCH 
systems installed in the 1980s need to be replaced with state-of-the-art 
hardware and software.  Livescan, on the other hand, is a newer 
technology that should be fostered, since it improves arrest reporting 
and helps build towards a paperless system.  The timely focus on 
livescan and automated arrest reporting is likely related to the fact that 
automated disposition reporting has made major strides since CHRI, 
allowing more emphasis on the front end of the records process.  

The fact that the average time to complete an improvement activity 
exceeds two-and-one-half years explains why the need for supplemental 
funding can also be expected.

Questions on Data Quality Issues

Overall perceptions of which issues are critical to operating an effective 
repository have not changed since 1994.  Exhibit 3-16 summarizes the 
average responses from the states (40 in 1994 and 51 in 1997) to the 
first pair of questions regarding data quality.  “N/A” refers to questions 
not asked in 1994. 

In 1997, several issues received high critical scores (e.g., issue #1, 
legibility of fingerprints) and others received high problematic scores 
(e.g., issue #46, degree to which mental health databases can be 
checked); these are ranked in Exhibit 3-17.  A more revealing statistic, 
however, is the difference between Q1, “critical score,” and Q2, 
“problematic score” for each issue, called the “alignment score,” which 
highlights how one data quality issue is viewed, relative to another.  
The greater the alignment score, the more the respondent feels that 
although the issue is critical, it is not a problem for the state, because 
the state has aligned its priorities to ensure that the critical issue is being 
addressed.  A low alignment score is generally cause for concern except 
when it pertains to a noncritical issue.  The two lowest alignment scores 
in 1997, for example–0.2 and 0.5–pertain to issues #46 and #45, 
respectively, each having a low criticality score.  Clearly, then, the 
concern lies with those issues that have high criticality scores and low 
alignment scores.  

Exhibit 3-17 indicates the highest ranking “Low Alignment and Highly 
Critical Issues,” in 1994 and 1997.  The highest rank is “13,” reflecting 
the fact that higher ranks 1-12 do not meet the criteria for highly critical 
and lowest alignment.  The issues are: 

1. Degree to which arrests in database have a final 
disposition (#31; 1994 and 1997); 

2. Degree to which cards are submitted to the repository (#4; 
1997);

3. Delays in entering disposition data in criminal history 
database (#18; 1994 and 1997);

4. Degree to which final dispositions are submitted to 
repository (#14; 1994 and 1997);

5. Size of disposition report backlog (#43; 1997);

6. Delays in entering arrest data in criminal history database 
(#9; 1997);

7. Delays in submitting disposition reports to repository 
(#15; 1994);

8. Degree to which each offender’s felony conviction status 
can be determined (#33; 1994).

Each of the 1994 issues addresses quality of criminal history records in 
terms of the linking of arrest and disposition reports.  In fact, it is 
troubling that the disposition issues problematic in 1994 were still 
problematic in 1997–except for issue #15 because CHRI emphasis on 
increased automation of disposition reporting has successfully reduced 
disposition submission times.  This is noted in Section 3.2, where one 
of the most prevalent activities is establishing an electronic connection 
for transfer of court disposition data to the repository.  (At the same 
time, felony flagging, resulting from FIFS, has minimized the felony 
conviction status problem, and so issue #33 is no longer a problem.) 
 
Questions on Approaches to Improving Data Quality

Exhibit 3-18 summarizes the average responses to the second pair of 
questions on approaches to improving data quality.  Here, the difference 
between Q3, “improvement score,” and Q4, “implementation score,” is 
called the ”need score.”  The greater the need score, the more the state 
feels that although the activity might be important, it is not being 
implemented at a level commensurate with its importance.  The highest-
ranking “High Need and High Improvement Potential Approaches” are 
shown in Exhibit 3-19; these include (for 1997):

1. Locate and process disposition reports not submitted to 
the repository (#49); and

2. Upgrade/install new information systems at local arresting 
agencies (#32).

Compare these to the top-ranking approaches from 1994:

3. Implement livescan fingerprint systems at local arresting 
agencies (#33);

4. Upgrade/install new electronic interface between arresting 
agencies and prosecutors (#39);

5. Upgrade/install new electronic interface between 
prosecutors and repository (#41); and

6. Upgrade/install new electronic interface between arresting 
agencies and courts (#40).

In the case of questions Q3 and Q4, there is no overlap between 1994 
and 1997, as there is for Q1 and Q2.  Nevertheless, in both years, states 
recognize the need for automating systems and reporting among 
agencies, though the focus on specific systems has changed.  Also, in 
1997 there is a greater focus on missing dispositions. 

Are the states implementing activities that they believe yield the 
greatest improvement in data quality?  In the case of 1997 activities, for 
upgrading/installing new AFIS systems (#27) and upgrading/installing 
new computerized criminal history system (#25), this is obviously true; 
that is, while they have high improvement scores, they have low need 
scores, implying that they are being extensively implemented.  Given 
the increased demand for non-criminal background checks, AFIS 
systems require updating to support additional workloads, especially in 
cases where the state is storing civilian fingerprint cards on the AFIS.  
Personnel in non-criminal justice agencies express frustration in waiting 
for background check results, which frequently take twice as long as 
they did even two years ago.  Many CCH systems are becoming 
outdated, having been installed in the 1980s; upgrading or installing 
new ones is necessary.  Indiana and Nevada are using federal funds for 
completely rewriting their criminal history systems.  Both AFIS and 
CCH activities also support Goal 4: Automate Systems.

However, the states do not believe that a major effort with respect to III 
participation would improve data quality: although the implementation 
effort is high, the need value is low.  Still, becoming a III participant is 
a key goal of the NCHIP program, and as discussed earlier, central to 
the effective operation of the NICS.  This explains the importance of 
federal funds as an incentive to becoming an III participant.

In 1994, the two activities implemented most frequently were 
developing a long-term data quality improvement plan (#4); and 
improving inter-agency cooperation and commitment to data quality 
(#17).  Given the requirements of the Byrne 5% program to convene a 
multi-agency task force and to develop a data quality improvement 
plan, this implementation finding is not surprising, especially since the 
Byrne 5% program commenced in 1992, and CHRI funding drew to an 
end in 1993. 

Changes in State Responses

The changes in state responses to the questionnaires between 1994 and 
1997 are evidence that perceptions of a number of data quality issues 
and improvement approaches have evolved.  Overall, changes in 
perceptions mirror shifts in emphasis of the federally funded records 
improvement programs.  Exhibit 3–20 describes score increases that are 
summed over the 39 states that responded to both rounds of 
questionnaires.  A negative sign indicates a decrease.

Delays in responding to requests by non-criminal justice agencies 
(#21)–an anticipated result of the increased number of background 
checks fostered by NCPA–are expected and are shown to be both more 
critical to an effective repository and more problematic.  This matter is 
discussed further under Goal 6.  The most striking results are dramatic 
increases in the implementation of livescan and AFIS, and increases in 
the commitment to improving data quality.  Leadership commitment is 
essential for successful, sustained progress in records improvement.  
Activities, such as conducting needs assessments and developing long-
term plans, have fallen off because these tasks have largely been 
accomplished.

User Perceptions

We conducted telephone interviews with 50 users of criminal history 
information in both the criminal justice and non-criminal justice 
communities and asked for their views on changes in the quality of 
records between 1992 and 1997.  While our sample is limited and 
somewhat biased–38% of criminal justice users were from local law 
enforcement–we find that these users are generally content with the 
state of records quality, although, to the degree they could recollect, 
they believe that improvements since 1992 have been modest.  
Conducting similar interviews in the future with a greater number of 
users across agencies would be beneficial.  

Finding 2.3:	Records are more accessible and more useful as a 
result of improvements to criminal history records. 

Eighty-five percent of users interviewed feel that records were either 
accessible or very accessible in 1997; 34% feel that they were either 
more or much more accessible in 1997, compared to 1992.  This latter 
low percentage may be due to the fact that local law enforcement–a 
third of the users we interviewed–traditionally has had greatest access 
to the records, and hence no substantial difference is apparent to them.  
The majority attributed the improvement to changes in their automated 
systems, which, as in Goal 5, has been a focal point of federal funds. 
Seventy-nine percent find records information useful or very useful, and 
34% feel it was either more useful or much more useful in 1997, 
compared to 1992.  The predominant reason for increased usefulness 
was seen to be the greater completeness of the information.

Goal 3: Improve Reporting

Improve interstate, intrastate, and federal criminal history records-
related reporting.

Finding 3.1:	Linking dispositions to their associated arrests poses 
a number of lingering problems.  

National goals of making arrest-to-disposition linkage raise concern 
about state-to-state comparability and data availability.  A preliminary 
list of questions that should be addressed:

* Is a disposition required for every charge, or is one per 
arrest enough?  States which post dispositions for every 
charge–compared to those that post one disposition for 
each arrest–are at a disadvantage in attempting to dispose 
of an arrest. 

* How does a state determine whether a disposition is 
linked to an arrest (or charge)?  Is there a field indicating 
that the disposition has been received and entered, or is a 
proxy used, such as the date of entry of the disposition?  If 
neither of these data elements exists, how does the state 
know this information?

* Does the criminal history records database identify 
disposed arrest/charges?  In some states, prosecutorially 
disposed arrests are not consistently reported, if at all, to 
the repository.

* Does the state expunge old, undisposed arrest records?  
There may be points in time after which “old” arrests 
whose dispositions have not yet been received by the 
repository are no longer counted in the arrest base against 
which the degree of linkage is measured.  States that 
engage in this practice would obviously have better 
arrest/disposition linking track records than states that 
have no such requirement. 

In addition, since submission timeliness and completeness of criminal 
history records are important indicators of data quality, the various 
delays, or time lags, from the making of an arrest to the entry of the 
associated final disposition(s) in the criminal history repository 
database are indeed critical process measures (see Exhibit 4-1).  More 
specifically, as depicted in Exhibit 3-22, the key linkage-related events 
that typically follow an arrest include: (i) its receipt at the repository 
and subsequent entry in the database; (ii) the rendering of the final 
disposition which, if court based, is entered in the court information 
system; and finally, (iii) the receipt of the disposition by the repository 
and subsequent linkage with the appropriate arrest record. 

Graphically, one can visualize a number of issues inherent in the linking 
of arrests and their dispositions, as illustrated in Exhibit 3-23.  The 
cumulative distribution of disposition entry time lags is based on actual 
arrest samples collected from states participating in the focused 
component of the evaluation, while the cumulative distribution of time 
from arrest to disposition rendered is hypothetical, since sample data 
are unreliable.  As depicted in Exhibit 3-23, four important issues can 
be identified.

* Issue A:	The delay in rendering a disposition pursuant 
to a felony arrest could be due to prosecutor or 
defense postponements, and/or to court 
backlogs.

* Issue B:	The delay in entering a rendered final court 
disposition could be due to a communication 
delay between the court and the central 
repository and/or processing backlogs at the 
central repository.

* Issue C:	The long-term difficulty in obtaining 
dispositions for 100 percent of felony arrests 
could be due to problems in tracking arrest 
cases through the criminal justice system as 
charges are modified and plea bargaining 
occurs.  Prosecutorial dispositions may also 
not be readily available to the repository.

* Issue D:	The long-term difficulty in entering all 
rendered final dispositions could be due to 
problems in linking dispositions to appropriate 
arrests. 

Finding 3.2:	Setting realistic standards for linking arrest and 
disposition records remains a challenge.

On average, states continue to view the linking of a disposition to an 
arrest as problematic.  Not only is this troubling for the states, which 
require complete and accurate records to make informed decisions on 
bail setting and sentencing, for example, but also because standards 
helpful in measuring record completeness are difficult to establish.  For 
example, the National Child Protection Act and the Brady Act’s 
Attorney General’s timetable each refers to objectives in linking 
dispositions to their corresponding arrests, but a statistical model we 
formulated showed these to be unrealistic.  

Specifically, our model examined the relationship between the average 
percent linkage required and the average elapsed time (in weeks) 
between arrest and disposition linking.  An assumption of even modest 
variability in the elapsed time between arrest and linkage to a 
disposition suggests that a typical objective of having 80% of criminal 
history records be “current and shareable” is in practice unattainable.  
Moreover, our model showed that for that goal to be achievable under 
even a modest variability assumption would require the average elapsed 
time between arrest and disposition linking to be less than 10 weeks.

Legislative Objectives

The National Child Protection Act, the Attorney General’s timetable, 
and the Byrne Formula Grant Program Guidance each refers to national 
objectives of linking dispositions to their corresponding arrests.  Are 
these objectives, in fact, attainable? 

The Brady Act required that the Attorney General “investigate the 
criminal records system of each state and determine for each state a 
timetable by which the state should be able to provide criminal records 
on an on-line capacity basis to the national system….”  The Attorney 
General established such a timetable indicating when states would join 
III and when they would have 80% of their records “current and 
shareable.”  Records are considered current and shareable if they come 
from states that are III members, and if the records of arrests made 
within the preceding five years–with at least one criterion offense–
contain dispositions of those arrests. 

The National Child Protection Act required that the Attorney General 
“determine for each state a timetable by which the state should provide 
child abuse crime records on an on-line basis through the national 
criminal history background check system.”  It also indicated that the 
states must have in a computerized criminal history file, by December 
1996, at least 80% of the final dispositions that have been rendered in 
all “identifiable child abuse crime cases in which there has been an 
event of activity within the last 5 years.” 

Finally, the Byrne Formula Grant Program Guidance [1996] specifies 
criteria for receiving a waiver from having to apply 5% of those funds 
towards criminal history records improvement.  To qualify for the 
waiver, ninety-five percent of current felony arrest records must contain 
disposition information, in cases where a disposition has been reached. 
Further, “a reasonable attempt should be made to improve the 
availability of disposition information in past records with a goal of 
achieving disposition information for 90 percent of felony arrest 
records for the past five years.”

Relevant Issues

Three questions merit examination.

* First, what is actually meant by the linking of a disposition 
to a corresponding arrest?  Some states link one 
disposition to one arrest record, while others strive to link 
a disposition to every charge associated with an arrest.  It 
is relatively straightforward to distinguish which states 
seek to track separately the charges for every arrest and 
hence link dispositions to every charge (e.g., Missouri, 
Nevada), as compared to those states which simply track 
arrests and their dispositions (e.g., California, New 
Mexico).  What remains unclear is how to draw 
meaningful conclusions at the national level about 
disposition linking, when some states track arrests, while 
others track charges.  Those states which post dispositions 
for every charge will appear to have a poorer disposition 
linking record than those states which post only one 
disposition for each arrest.

* Second, in determining the extent to which a state’s 
dispositions and arrests can be considered linked, one 
must take into account the implications of time elapsed 
from the arrest, to the rendering of the disposition, to the 
arrival of the disposition at the repository, and to its 
ultimate match with the appropriate arrest/charge and 
entry into the criminal history database.  There may be 
points in time after which “old” arrests whose dispositions 
have not yet been received by the repository would no 
longer be counted in the arrest base or pool.  In fact, some 
states have precise criteria for categorizing undisposed 
arrests.  If no disposition has been received 13 months 
following an arrest, the state of Connecticut designates 
such an arrest as being “nolle prosequi” (i.e., not 
processed); if, after 26 months from the date of arrest, the 
repository has still not received a disposition, the arrest is 
expunged entirely from the database.  Clearly, the 
existence of such procedures would impact computation 
of percentage compliance criteria, as in the case of the 
Byrne 5% waiver.  Determining “real time” status of an 
arrest as it progresses from arrest through its prosecutorial 
and judicial phases, moreover, may exceed the capability 
of a state’s current criminal justice information system. 

* Third, are the 80%, 90%, and 95% goals for linking 
dispositions to arrest records, in fact, realistic?  Exhibit 3-
3 identifies states that have already achieved the 80% 
standard.  Massachusetts claims that 100% of their arrest 
records are linked to dispositions and Vermont claims 
96%.  However, these two states have criminal history 
records systems that are arraignment-based, meaning that 
records originate in the courts–very effective for linkage 
purposes, but problematic with respect to fingerprint-
support.  That Vermont is one of the least-automated 
states suggests that automation is not essential to 
improving disposition reporting and linking, contradicting 
conventional wisdom.

A Statistical Model Underscores the Importance of Variability

To address the second question, we developed a model to examine the 
relationship between the average percent linkage required and the 
average elapsed time (in weeks) between arrest and disposition linking, 
E(t), for a range of values of the coefficient of variation, or variability, 
k, of the elapsed time (see Exhibit 3-24). 
 
The model shows that for a given value of k, as the average elapsed 
time increases, the average proportion of arrest records within the 
previous five years, containing dispositions, decreases.  For example, 
for k=0.5, a low level of variability, in order to achieve an average 
percent linkage of 80%, the average elapsed time must be 45 weeks.  
For k=1.0, a modest level of variability, to average 80% linkage, the 
average elapsed time between arrest and disposition linking must be 
only 10 weeks!  The question is whether a disposition can be rendered 
and linked in just 10 weeks–certainly, a very challenging and probably 
unrealistic goal.  A 100% goal would require that E(t)=0, or the 
disposition would be required immediately, at the time of arrest–an 
impossibility for the U.S. system of justice, under which an accused 
person has the right to an appearance in court, and this is scheduled 
weeks, if not months, following the arrest. 

Thus, the model highlights the impact of the natural variability inherent 
in the process, demonstrating that it is a key factor in determining 
whether the elapsed average number of weeks between arrest and 
disposition linking even permits an average percent to be achieved.  
Approaching the linkage issue in this way is realistic because it does not 
attempt to arbitrarily determine which events need to occur to achieve a 
particular average. 

Finding 3.3:	The infusion of federal program funds has increased 
the ranks of III membership, albeit slowly. 

In contrast to CHRI and Byrne 5% efforts, a key goal of NCHIP in 
support of NICS is participation in the FBI’s Interstate Identification 
Index (III).  As such, since the start of the program ten states have 
become III members under NCHIP–Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico and 
West Virginia–bringing the total to 39.

While states report that they do not believe that a major effort in III 
participation will improve data quality, they continue to use federal 
funds to accomplish this goal, suggesting the importance of federal 
funds as an incentive for III participation.  From a records quality 
perspective, joining III should be encouraged, since state-supported 
records are more complete than FBI-supported records.  

Participation in III

The federal government understands that increased state participation in 
III will improve the integrity of a response to a III inquiry because 
state-held records are more complete than FBI-held records.  NCHIP 
objectives emphasize III participation as an important goal, and NCHIP 
funds are used by 26 states in two-thirds of the III activities, as shown 
in Exhibit 3-21.  That the Byrne program does not specifically 
emphasize III-related activities explains why only six states are using it 
as a funding source.

What is the states’ current view of III participation?  To begin with, 
their attitude has changed substantially since 1994.  In that year, their 
responses (see Exhibit 3-18) indicate that they thought that becoming a 
participant in III (#28) would moderately improve data quality in their 
state and modest efforts were under way.  That year’s zero need value 
says that states, on average, believed that the effort was commensurate 
with the level of importance.  In 1997, however, the III implementation 
score increased, affirming a significant increase in III activity 
implementation and suggesting that federal funds have since been 
instrumental in encouraging these initiatives.  This is reinforced in 
Exhibit 3-21, which shows that state funding supports a mere 6 of 61 III 
activities. 

Reporting to the FBI

“Reporting to the FBI” is covered by questionnaire issues #26-#29 in 
Exhibit 3-16 and addresses submission levels and delays in reporting 
fingerprint cards and dispositions to the FBI.  
States view all these issues as more critical to an effective state 
repository in 1997 than they did in 1994, but better aligned with state 
efforts than in 1994–although fingerprint-related matters are better 
aligned than those related to dispositions.  The most critical issue is the 
degree to which fingerprint cards are submitted to the FBI (#26); not 
surprisingly, states are aware that fingerprint cards must be submitted in 
order to become an III participant. 

Goal 4: Automate Systems

Automate systems for creating, storing, and sharing criminal history 
records.

Finding 4.1:	Federal funds are responsible for major automation 
improvements in criminal history records throughout the states. 

The importance of automation in improving data quality cannot be 
overemphasized; the states obviously concur.  The three highest ranked 
federally funded improvement activities are upgrading CCH software, 
installing livescan, and electronically transmitting dispositions to the 
repository.  Each of these activities falls into the category of 
automation; collectively, they account for over 11% of all activities.  In 
particular, livescan implementation and electronic disposition reporting 
are critical in helping states in their efforts to achieve “data entry at the 
source”–and ultimately a paperless record system.  

In addition, the number of NCHIP-funded flagging activities is up over 
50%, as compared to those funded by CHRI.  This is clearly beneficial, 
and not only for identifying felons.  Eighteen percent of activities focus 
on flagging disqualifying crimes, such as child abuse, which may 
include misdemeanors.

Record Flagging 

Record flagging is deemed an important NCHIP activity that 
incorporates not only the flagging of felony records, but also the 
flagging of persons convicted of specific disqualifying crimes.  During 
the CHRI program, in 21 states, felony flagging activities were under 
way, explaining why the “degree to which each offender’s felony 
conviction status can be determined” improved from 1994 to 1997 
(Exhibit 3-16, # 33).

The degree to which each offender’s conviction status can be 
determined relative to domestic violence misdemeanors (#38), disabled 
abuse (#36), elderly abuse (#35), and child abuse (#34), all are 
described as problematic in Exhibit 3-18.  As Exhibit 3-30 indicates, 
such activities now comprise 18% of all flagging activities. 

Finding 4.2:	Without federal funding, the states would not have 
achieved their current levels of livescan and AFIS implementation. 

In 1994, states asserted that livescan implementation was the activity 
with the greatest potential for improving criminal records but 
implemented the least.  Since then, federal funds have played a major 
role in the increased levels of livescan implementation.  In addition to 
improving quality of fingerprints, livescan also improves arrest 
reporting.  Implementation of livescan, especially at high-volume 
arresting agencies and central booking sites, should be fostered. 

AFIS-related activities undertaken by 50 states account for over 8% of 
all activities; NCHIP funds half of these.  This level of interest is 
evidence of the rapidly burgeoning pace of AFIS technology.  The large 
number of AFIS-related activities also reflect the greater-than-ever need 
for storage in states storing civilian prints in their AFIS, in response to 
the proliferation of fingerprint-based background checks.  In some 
states, the volume of civilian fingerprint checks surpasses criminal 
checks.  

Future planning of these initiatives should leverage other DOJ funding 
sources such as SIS (which funds the development of automated 
fingerprint systems compatible with the FBI’s IAFIS) and LLEBG 
(which supports procurement of equipment and technology for basic 
law enforcement functions).

Livescan

During the CHRI program, livescan implementation was noted as the 
activity with the greatest potential, but implemented the least.  This is as 
expected; CHRI focused on records improvement at the repository, and 
livescan is implemented mostly at arresting agencies. 
 
Exhibit 3-25 demonstrates that states are now actively acquiring 
livescan technology; 43 are engaged in 72 activities related to its 
acquisition and training.  As noted in Section 3.2, Install livescan is one 
of the most prevalent activities, which explains why its need rank has 
dropped from #1 in 1994 to #21 in 1997.  This major increase in 
livescan implementation–supported predominantly by federal funds and 
addressing federal goals of increasing levels of arrest reporting, 
accuracy, and timeliness–is not restricted to large states. 

Undoubtedly, increased livescan implementation will address state 
concerns about arrest record receipt and entry issues at the repository, 
noted under Goal 2.  However, it will be necessary to continue 
educating personnel in the use of livescan, and persuading them of its 
value as a tool for improving criminal history records.  Some practices 
die hard; ink-rolled fingerprints are no exception.  “Jailers who have 
been rolling ink prints for twenty years are often reluctant to switch to a 
new technology,” comment many state officials.  Also, in states where 
livescan equipment is installed in central booking facilities, personnel 
do not want to travel to those sites if it means leaving their own office 
unattended. 

AFIS

“A fingerprint and a jumped turnstile lead to a confession spree,” read 
The New York Times on June 14, 1996.  A 22-year old man, whose 
only criminal record was for jumping a turnstile, confessed to the 
killing of a dry cleaner owner, the near-fatal beating of a woman in 
Central Park, and two other brutal assaults on women.  How did this 
happen?  By jumping a subway turnstile–a seemingly minor event–John 
Royster nevertheless had his fingerprints taken; these were subsequently 
matched with latent fingerprints, lifted from a window and a plastic bag 
outside the dry cleaning store where the woman was killed, and entered 
into an AFIS.  

Because of its significance and high cost, two AFIS issues–storage 
capacity and multi-state AFIS consortia–merit discussion.  For states 
that store civilian fingerprints for background checks on their AFIS, 
storage capacity is fast becoming a concern.  In California, 60% of 
stored fingerprints are civilian, and they are beginning to overwhelm the 
criminal prints.  To exacerbate the storage problem, some arresting 
agencies that currently do not submit juvenile fingerprint cards, due to 
restrictions on the dissemination of non-conviction juvenile 
information, may do so in the future. 
 
Multi-state AFIS agreements are in various phases of development in at 
least three regions across the nation; given the increasing mobility of 
offenders and the high cost of the technology, these regional agreements 
should become commonplace.  North and South Dakota entered into an 
agreement with Minnesota to access its AFIS–now referred to as the 
Midwest Automated Fingerprint Identification Network (MAFIN).  
Other regional, multi-state AFIS consortia are being planned; 
specifically, the Tri-State AFIS is to include Maine, New Hampshire 
and Vermont, while Rhode Island is piggybacking on Connecticut’s 
AFIS.  These AFIS agreements are, of course, in addition to the first 
interstate AFIS agreement, in which six states (Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) formed the Western 
Identification Network (WIN).  

AFIS activities are targeted as an area of prime interest.  Exhibit 3-26 
indicates that 50 states have been or will be undertaking 129 such 
activities.  Indeed, Fingerprint Search is noted in Section 3.2 as being 
one of the most prevalent activity categories.  Due to the rapidly 
burgeoning pace of AFIS technology, states that have had an AFIS 
installed for a number of years are now upgrading their systems by 
installing new versions of the software, and by adding hardware 
components, such as new workstations or disk capacity. 
 
Prior to NCHIP, almost all AFIS activities were supported by state 
funds; certainly limited CHRI money did not play a major AFIS role.  
Now, 50% of AFIS activities use NCHIP funds.  As noted in Section 
3.2, Byrne- and NCHIP-funded activities tend to complement each 
other rather than supplement one another in the same effort–
underscored by the fact that Byrne funds 35 AFIS activities, but only in 
six cases are they co-funded by NCHIP.  

Exhibit 3-27 lists AFIS vendors by state and shows that Printrak, which 
dominates the Midwestern market, and NEC are incumbent in 20 and 
21 states, respectively. 

Finding 4.3	 Integration of automated justice systems is becoming 
increasingly important in improving data quality. 

While integration poses formidable challenges, it is critical as we move 
toward a paperless system, in which data is entered only once at the 
source (thus reducing the possibility of human error and inconsistent 
data).  Because integration efforts cross agency, and often 
jurisdictional, lines, their success depends on a top-down commitment 
from heads of participating agencies.  Consensus building is also 
needed to overcome “turf” issues and to coordinate resource utilization. 
 
The most prominent shift towards integration shows up in the increase 
in new prosecutor information systems, coupled with an increase in 
prosecution/repository interface activities.  Traditionally, court 
dispositions have been the funding focus for disposition reporting, and 
rightfully so.  Moreover, in some states, prosecutors are elected and 
may not be eager to report cases that are not being prosecuted because 
their constituents would be displeased.  Tracking prosecutorial 
declinations, which will improve completeness of criminal history 
records, should be fostered.

Interfaces Between Criminal Justice Agencies

In 1994, states believed there was a need for improving interfaces 
between arresting agencies and both prosecution and courts (Exhibit 3-
19, #39 and  #40, respectively), making it surprising that little new 
activity for either is shown in Exhibit 3-28.  However, while it would be 
desirable from the point of view of automating a generic criminal 
justice information system, it is not critical in the context of criminal 
history records improvement.  

In 1997, two new automation efforts emerged as the most significant: 
installing information systems at local arresting agencies (#32) and 
installing new prosecutor information systems (#31).  

The substantial increase in activity at the prosecution/repository 
interface (#41), as shown in Exhibit 3-29, reflects the importance of 
tracking prosecutorial declinations; this activity, in conjunction with 
installing prosecutor information systems, is gaining momentum in 11 
of the 12 states utilizing federal funds. 

Prosecutorial reporting to the repository is traditionally spotty, as 
prosecutors are elected or appointed officials who do not wish to 
publicize that they are dropping charges or declining to prosecute 
offenders.  At the same time, they also “think in terms of legal briefs, 
not in terms of their contribution to criminal history records,” notes one 
repository official.  Clearly, electronically transmitting prosecutor 
dispositions to the repository will help complete arrest records that 
would otherwise lack such information.  Efforts to improve cooperation 
between the repository and prosecution would also be beneficial. 

The prosecutor-related activities are primarily Byrne-funded, consistent 
with the Byrne program’s objectives of “full automation of criminal 
history records” and “completion of criminal histories to include the 
final disposition of all arrests for felony offenses.”  Although one of its 
key goals is “to improve the level of criminal history records 
automation,” NCHIP funds only six prosecutor-related activities–
probably a consequence of the states’ use of NCHIP funds for 
fingerprint-related automation activities.
 
Goal 5: Identify Ineligible Firearm Purchasers

Identify persons ineligible, for criminal and non-criminal reasons, to 
purchase firearms.
 
To screen out felons from purchasing firearms, the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988 required the Attorney General to develop a system for 
immediate and accurate identification of felons who attempt to purchase 
firearms.  To meet this mandate, the FBI implemented the Felon 
Identification in Firearms Sales (FIFS) Program, which flags state 
criminal history records with felony convictions and arrests. 

States are working towards bringing these flags over to III (see Exhibit 
3-21).  NICS–by accessing III criminal records–and FIFS should then 
work together to determine if a potential firearm purchaser has a felony 
conviction or a pending felony arrest, eliminating the need to 
investigate details of a criminal history record.

The Brady Act, however, requires identification of several groups of 
non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms, in addition to the 
identification of convicted felons.  Although all states will eventually be 
faced with addressing these issues, 18 III states have already received 
additional funding totaling $3.7M, under the ASAP component of 
NCHIP, to study and to develop plans in this area. 

While the task of ascertaining eligibility has become more complex, 
each of the nine disqualifying criteria is itself a sufficient ineligibility 
condition.  That is, if a potential firearm purchaser fits in any one of the 
nine categories, he/she would be disqualified from purchasing a 
firearm.  Moreover, it takes only a single felony conviction for a 
prospective buyer to be declared ineligible.

Finding 5.1:	More firearm sales to ineligible purchasers may occur 
under NICS than during the interim provisions of Brady. 

During the interim provisions of Brady from 1994-1998, all states 
checked their own records when performing firearm eligibility checks.  
Under NICS, however, which began in November 1998, state-level 
checks are performed only by states serving as so-called Points of 
Contact (POCs)–in which case, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) 
contacts the state prior to the sale of a firearm.  Unfortunately, the 
majority of states are not POCs–in which case the FFL contacts the 
FBI, whose criminal records are not as complete as state records.  This 
is particularly an issue in non-POC and non-III states.  Further, NICS 
may not be able to verify certain non-felon information: some state 
repositories may be permitted access to mental health information for 
the purpose of conducting a firearm eligibility check, but that same 
information would be prohibited from being passed on to populate the 
NICS index. 

Another artifact of NICS is the absence of a “cooling off” period prior 
to the purchase of a firearm.  The interim Brady five-day “waiting 
period” was effectively a “cooling off” period for an individual who 
wished to buy a gun with the intent to harm.  For the state it was a 
“maximum response” period, since a firearm purchaser did not have to 
wait five days before buying a handgun, but had to allow up to five days 
for the CLEO to check his/her records to determine purchase eligibility. 
Interestingly, even with NICS, there is a feeling in the current federal 
administration that the five-day waiting period should be reinstated to 
allow law enforcement officials more time to check noncomputerized 
records and to help prevent rash acts of violence.

Finding 5.2:	The identification of non-felons ineligible to purchase 
firearms is expected to remain problematic.

As noted earlier, the seven categories of individuals prohibited from 
purchasing a firearm listed in the Gun Control Act, the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act, and the Brady Act are: (i) persons under indictment for or 
convicted of a felony; (ii) fugitives from justice; (iii) unlawful drug 
users or addicts; (iv) mental defectives; (v) illegal aliens; (vi) 
dishonorably discharged; and (vii) citizenship renunciates.  The eighth 
and ninth firearm ineligibility categories–namely, persons who are 
“subject to a civil restraining order arising out of domestic or child 
abuse” and those convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors”–were 
added as part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the 
Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, respectively.

Identifying non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms is challenging 
since non-felon information is not readily available to state criminal 
history record repositories.  Also, the dissemination of mental health 
and drug abuse information raises legal and ethical questions about the 
rights to privacy and presents new security challenges.  It is 
understandable, therefore, that two of the three dominant NCHIP-
funded Advanced State Award Program (ASAP) activities aimed at 
identifying non-felons are establishing access to mental health records 
and establishing access to drug abuse records, undertaken by nine and 
seven states, respectively.  (The third most popular ASAP activity, 
undertaken by 12 states, is incorporating civil protection orders into the 
repository database, as discussed below.)  The challenges include 
determining whether databases maintaining this type of non-criminal 
information exist and, if so, the feasibility and legality of accessing 
them, especially if they belong to private institutions.  New enabling 
statutes may be required to overcome these obstacles.

Two other ineligibility categories present unique implementation 
challenges: subjects of restraining orders and domestic violence 
misdemeanants.  States cannot reliably identify individuals for whom 
Gun Control Act-compliant restraining orders–among the plethora of 
restraining order categories–have been issued.  For this reason, some 
states deny firearms to subjects of all restraining orders.  The challenge 
with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions is that the law is 
retroactive; but domestic violence incidents have historically been 
categorized as assaults, making it difficult to segregate them from other 
criminal history records.

Waiting Period: Response or Cooling Off Period?

Prior to passage of the Brady Act in 1993, an individual wishing to 
purchase a firearm was required only to complete federal BATF Form 
4473, certifying his/her name and place of residence and attesting that 
he/she did not fall into one of the seven ineligibility categories.  
(Subsequently, the seven categories have been expanded to nine, as 
noted in Section 3.1.)  Until then, this had been the sole federal 
requirement designed to prevent felons and other ineligible individuals 
from purchasing firearms.  In an attempt to screen out disqualifying 
individuals more effectively, the interim provision of the Brady Act 
legislated a five-business-day “waiting” period. 
 
Under the interim provisions of the Brady Act, a firearm dealer informs 
the local CLEO, usually a police chief or sheriff, of a prospective 
handgun purchaser, and the CLEO makes a “reasonable” effort to 
determine whether that buyer’s purchase of a handgun would violate the 
law.  This is accomplished by checking local, state, and national 
criminal and non-criminal records, to the extent possible.  (See Exhibits 
3-4 and 3-5 for purchase procedures and Exhibit 3-6 for a state-by-state 
identification of data sources checked.)  If the CLEO does not respond 
by the end of the five-day period, then the dealer is permitted to sell the 
handgun.  (“Brady Alternate” states, in which permits are required to 
purchase a handgun or point-of-sale check systems are in place, are 
exempt from the five-day “waiting” period.)

Whether or not the five-day period is truly a “waiting period” depends 
on both point of view and circumstance.  From the perspective of the 
handgun purchaser, who presumably has to wait the full five days only 
if results of the record check are inconclusive, the wait may be 
perceived as a “cooling-off” period if it exceeds a day or two.  If the 
purchaser is ineligible, that fact would be disclosed immediately.  
Moreover, if the check is completed in less than five days–as would be 
the case in instant check states–and it is determined that the buyer is 
eligible, then the sale would be consummated at that time (i.e., in less 
than five days).

From the perspective of the state, the five-day period is the longest time 
that a prospective handgun purchaser may be kept waiting for a 
response while eligibility checks are carried out.  In practice, therefore, 
the “waiting” period is effectively a “response” period; that is, a firearm 
purchaser does not literally have to wait five days before purchasing a 
gun, but must allow up to five days for the CLEO to check his/her 
records to determine purchase eligibility.  

The Brady “waiting” period, however, is but an interim provision 
preceding implementation of the proposed permanent national instant 
background check system, NICS.  When NICS went into effect in 
November 1998, the FFLs contacted either POCs in their state or the 
NICS Operations Center directly so that instant checks would be 
performed and the “waiting” or response period would cease to exist 
(Exhibit 3-7).  

The “cooling off” period would also cease to exist under NICS.  This 
becomes problematic when an individual with no prior disqualifying 
record wants to buy a gun with intent to harm.  Under the interim 
provision, there was the chance that the waiting period would serve to 
cool off the individual; under NICS, this is virtually impossible.  This 
plausibly explains why incorporating civil protection orders in the 
repository accounts for the majority of firearm-specific activities 
(Exhibit 3-31).  The challenge of identifying individuals whose court 
restraining orders are subject to the Gun Control Act (since not all are) 
is examined in Section 3.1. 

As expected, firearm-specific activities are predominantly supported 
with NCHIP funds.

ASAP activities aimed at identifying non-felons are summarized in 
Exhibit 3-32.  As Dr. Jan Chaiken, BJS Director, stated upon awarding 
the first ASAP funds: “These grants will help make sure that people 
who pose a threat to their families or their community cannot legally 
purchase firearms.  It’s important to deny easy access to firearms to 
spouse abusers and mentally unstable individuals who may act on 
impulse and cause further harm to their families and the community.” 
[BJS Press Release, 1996]  

The dominant ASAP activities are Incorporate civil protection order 
(12 states), Establish access to mental health records (9 states), and 
Establish access to drug abuse records (7 states).  With these funds, 
California is establishing an automatic interface between its domestic 
violence restraining order system (DVROS) and the FBI’s NCIC.  To 
educate law enforcement officials who contribute to the system, the 
state will also distribute a User’s Manual.  Massachusetts, although not 
an ASAP state, developed the first-ever statewide civil restraining order 
registry in 1992, which has since become a model for other states.  
Goal 6: Identify Disqualified Care Providers
Identify individuals disqualified from caring for children, the elderly, 
and the disabled.

The National Child Protection Act, as amended, calls for each state to 
establish procedures for national criminal background checks on 
individuals caring for children, the elderly, and the disabled.  The 
states, however, engage in background checking with a much broader 
purview, including performing routine background checks of numerous 
categories of prospective employees and licensees.  The extent of 
background checks is a function of the laws in effect in a specific state.

Finding 6.1:	The passage of federal and state legislation has 
precipitated growth in the volume of requests for background 
checks of employees, volunteers and licensees–the challenge is 
how to meet the subsequent demand placed on the resources of 
state repositories.

Although practices (e.g., statutory mandates and regulations concerning 
inquiries) vary from state to state regarding background checks, careful 
planning and explicit procedures are needed to support the high volume 
of such inquiries, which in some cases surpasses that of criminal 
checks.  The volume of civilian fingerprints is now overwhelming AFIS 
storage capacities.  Moreover, the volume of inquiries can be expected 
to increase as states continue to pass laws that increase the scope of 
background checks.  In addition, the Volunteers for Children Act, 
passed as part of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, 
amends NCPA to authorize qualified volunteer organizations to contact 
authorized state agencies (e.g., the repository) to request national 
criminal fingerprint background checks, in the absence of state 
procedural requirements. 

Not surprisingly, the increased volume of fingerprint-based applicant 
background checks has resulted in longer response times in a number of 
states.  Based on our interviews, we noted a heightened frustration on 
the part of agencies waiting for responses.  Obviously, the demand 
placed on state repositories for background checks must be 
appropriately met.

Finding 6.2:	There are problems associated with acquiring and 
interpreting information needed to disqualify prospective care 
providers.

Incomplete records are especially a problem in states that release 
conviction-only data to authorized agencies requesting background 
checks.  For example, if the subject of a background check has been 
arrested and convicted of a disqualifying offense, but the disposition 
has not yet been received at the repository or has not been linked to its 
arrest, the conviction will not appear on the record.  The repository will 
not release any information, and the agency will not know that there has 
been a conviction.  The agency will not even know that there has been 
an arrest, which could otherwise be followed up with the court of 
jurisdiction.  

In addition, agencies requesting background checks do not always know 
if a particular conviction is disqualifying for employment.  Agencies are 
not necessarily qualified to understand the plethora of violation and 
conviction codes contained in the reports they receive.  For example, 
sometimes they cannot distinguish whether a felony violation involved a 
child, and hence whether it is disqualifying. 

III Compact

Unlike the laws and policies regarding dissemination of criminal history 
information for criminal justice purposes, which allows unrestricted 
access for authorized users, statutes governing the dissemination of 
such information for non-criminal justice purposes vary widely from 
state to state.  This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a 
nationwide consensus on dissemination of data.  As a result, the FBI has 
called for a uniform standard for interstate dissemination and access 
with which all state repositories would comply, referred to as the “III 
Compact.”  In 1998, Subtitle A (“Exchange of Criminal History 
Records for Non-Criminal Justice Purposes”) of the National Criminal 
History Access and Child Protection Act was passed as part of the 
Crime Identification Technology Act, enacting the III Compact and 
preparing the way for it to be ratified by any party states. 

Exhibit 3-33 highlights background check activities addressing NCPA 
requirements and points to proposed efforts, ranging from planning for 
issues related to children, the elderly, and the disabled, to providing 
users with direct access to background check information.  While 
earlier CHRI efforts focused explicitly on felony flagging, NCPA 
requires each state to report criminal child abuse information to the 
FBI; therefore, crimes against children, the elderly, and the disabled 
would be identified through record flags.  Also, provisions of newer 
legislation–such as the Jacob Wetterling Act (requiring states to 
establish sex offender registries)–under the auspices of NCHIP funding, 
suggest that we can expect to see these and other types of offenders 
flagged as well. 

Exhibit 3-16  Questions on Data Quality Issues
 
Exhibit 3-17  Rank-Ordered Responses to Questions on Data Quality Issues
 
Exhibit 3-18  Questions on Approaches to Improving Data Quality
 
Exhibit 3-19  Rank Ordered Responses to Questions On Approaches to Improving Data 
Quality
 
Exhibit 3-20  Changes in State Responses to Questions from 1994 to 1997
 
Exhibit 3-21  III Activities by State and Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-22  Event Sequence from Arrest to Arrest/Disposition Record Linkage

Exhibit 3-23  Issues in Linking Arrest and Disposition Records
 
Exhibit 3-24  Impact Analysis of Average Percent of Arrest Records Within Preceding 
Five Years Containing Dispositions

Exhibit 3-25  Livescan Activities by State and Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-25 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit 3-26  AFIS Activities by State and Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-26 (page 2 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-26 (page 3 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-27  AFIS Vendors by State

Exhibit 3-28  Arresting Agencies Interface Activities by State and Funding Source

Exhibit 3-29  Prosecution/Repository Interface Activities by State and Funding Source

Exhibit 3-30  Flagging Activities by State and Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-30 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit 3-31  Firearm Check Activities by State and Funding Source
 
Exhibit 3-31 (page 2 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-31 (page 3 of 3)
 
Exhibit 3-32  ASAP Activities by State and Ineligibility Category
 
Exhibit 3-33  Background Check Activities by State and Funding Source

 
4. Additional Issues

The broad spectrum of records improvement activities undertaken by 
the states has been classified, as described in Section 2.2, and subjected 
to ongoing analyses, as reported in Section 3.  To appropriately 
measure the long-term impact of these activities, a three-part measures 
framework is detailed in Section 4.1.  Section 4.2 identifies issues that 
remain to be addressed regarding criminal history records.

4.1 Measures Framework

Based on Tien [1979; 1990], the data quality measures can be 
meaningfully grouped into three sets; input, process, and outcome 
measures, respectively.

* Input measures describe the support elements, or the 
basic building blocks, of data quality.  From an evaluation 
perspective, input measures reflect how funds are being 
used (e.g., an audit, new reporting procedures, new AFIS, 
additional resources, etc.) and from a programmatic basis, 
they suggest a system’s potential for success.

* Process measures reflect a system’s actual performance 
and describe how arrest and disposition records are 
processed.  Process measures can identify symptoms, not 
necessarily underlying causes, of data quality problems; 
thus, for example, poor arrest/disposition linkage is 
usually a symptom of some structural problem (e.g., 
pertinent tracking or control numbers that have not been 
entered on the arrest/disposition record).  From an 
evaluation perspective, process measures, together with 
input measures, serve to explain the ultimate impact.

* Outcome measures reflect a system’s ultimate impact and 
describe how useful criminal history records are to the 
users of such records (e.g., criminal justice agencies, 
firearm dealers, employers, repository staff, etc.).  We 
believe that providing useful information is the ultimate 
goal of maintaining quality records, even though the 
process measures of timeliness, accuracy, and 
completeness are seen as the basis for defining data 
quality.  From an evaluation perspective, outcome 
measures focus on the accessibility and usability of 
criminal history records.

Exhibit 4-1 identifies the proposed measures framework–that is, the 
core set of input, process, and outcome measures.  While it may not be 
possible to obtain or derive every measure, the framework could serve 
as a guideline for states seeking to measure data quality by clarifying 
which information is available and where gaps exist.  These measures, 
in conjunction with the desirable attributes of pertinent measures 
suggested in Exhibit 4-2, serve as a “springboard” for developing 
another set of measures–namely, pertinent measures for assessing the 
state of data quality of criminal history records at the national level 
over time, as discussed in Section 4.2.

Input Measures 

Starting with measure I1.1 in Exhibit 4-1, and continuing throughout 
the measures framework, we refer to “arrest reports” as those submitted 
by local and state law enforcement agencies to the state’s central 
repository.  It is recognized that in some cases, an arrestee’s fingerprints 
may be submitted separately from the arrest-related textual information 
(e.g., arrestee name, date of birth, and other demographic attributes; 
arrest charges; etc.).  This occurs when the reporting law enforcement 
agency has a computerized arrest and booking system, which transmits 
textual arrest information separately from, say, a scanned image of the 
associated fingerprint card.  Moreover, the prints and text could follow 
different paths, as they do in Massachusetts, where the state’s AFIS 
system is managed by the State Police, while the repository is located 
within the independent Criminal History Systems Board.  However, for 
the sake of clarity and simplicity, the term “arrest reports” refers to 
fingerprint cards–in use in most jurisdictions–containing both the actual 
prints and the textual information.

Input measures group I5, Human Resources, addresses the adequacy of 
agency staffing, at best a very subjective and elusive measure.  To avoid 
grappling with questions of prioritized workloads and worker 
productivity, we simply ask whether backlogs are increasing.

How big is the repository?  The important issue of database size is 
covered in group I8, Database Scope.  While we do ask for the number 
of all felony and misdemeanor records, for the sake of state-to-state 
comparability, we focus almost exclusively on felony arrests and 
dispositions.  The exception is domestic violence, where misdemeanors 
can render the offender ineligible to purchase a firearm.  With respect 
to firearm purchases, both felony convictions and pending felony arrests 
awaiting disposition are grounds for ineligibility; consequently, we 
explicitly assess the status of the repository in those terms.

Process Measures 

None of the process measures requires a state to furnish a percentage or 
derived quantity.  If it is important to know what fraction of the 
reported felony arrests is supported by fingerprints, we recommend 
asking for the number reported and the number supported by prints, and 
deriving the percentage.  Thus, the accuracy and reliability of the 
measures are enhanced; otherwise, when percentage estimates are 
offered with no supporting numbers, they are of limited use. 

To establish a common reference point for measuring submission of 
arrests and dispositions, we select a specific year as the baseline year; in 
the next year, the baseline year would advance by one.  Due to legal, 
court processing, and other delays, dispositions associated with a 
particular arrest may take many years to be rendered.  To allow for this 
eventuality and for consistency with the Attorney General’s timetable, 
we can choose, for example, 1993 as our initial baseline year and 
examine those dispositions which have occurred in the five intervening 
years since the 1993 arrest.  On the other hand, in measuring the 
accuracy and timeliness of the identification of arrestees, we can look at 
current or 1998 arrests, since there is no issue of lag time while 
disposition reports catch up with the originating arrest report.

Certain measures in Exhibit 4-1 call for sampling the baseline year (i.e., 
the current year minus five) and the current year arrest and disposition 
records to get at issues of timeliness and completeness.  If we make 
some simplifying but reasonable assumptions about the records in the 
repository (i.e., that the parameters associated with a particular record–
such as database entry delay or number of completed data elements–are 
independent of the parameters of the other records but characterized by 
the same statistical distribution), we can simply relate sample sizes to 
the desired accuracy of our parameter estimates and to the nature of the 
distributions.

Outcome Measures 

Finally, three groups of outcome measures, taken collectively, reflect 
the overall impact of the federally funded criminal history records 
improvement programs being evaluated.  Ultimately, it is the value of 
the information contained in the records, as determined by consumers 
of that information, that gauges how successfully the programs have 
met their goals. 
 
For the purposes of C-CHRIE, we assume that the records have value if 
they are accessible to their users; if that accessibility is timely; and if 
the information in the records, once obtained, is useful.  Unlike process 
measures of accuracy (e.g., correctness of information), timeliness (e.g., 
delay in submission), or completeness (e.g., percentage of total data 
elements), which can be reasonably well quantified, the outcome 
measures are subjective in nature.  For this reason, we assess outcome 
by measuring the accessibility, timeliness, and utility of the records, as 
determined by key criminal justice and non-criminal justice users of the 
records.  Indeed, as noted in Section 3.3, it was such a group of users 
from a small number of focused states that shared with us their opinions 
about record quality.

Exhibit 4-1  Input, Process, and Outcome Measures for C-CHRIE

Input Measures

I1:Enabling Legislation–Degree to which the state has enacted legislation
to address criminal history  records needs
I1.1–Arrest Reporting
Has the state enacted legislation which requires that arrest information
(i.e., fingerprint cards) be reported to the repository?
I1.2–Disposition Reporting
Has the state enacted legislation which requires that disposition
information be reported to the repository?
I1.3–Single Source Repository
Has the state enacted legislation which designates the repository as the
state’s single source of criminal history records for the FBI?
I1.4–Non-Criminal Justice Purposes
For which non-criminal justice purposes (e.g., teacher employment checks)
has the state enacted legislation which allows access to and/or use of
criminal history information?
I1.5–Juvenile Records
Has the state enacted legislation which stipulates whether and how juvenile
arrest/disposition records shall be maintained by the repository?
I1.6–Firearms Purchase Check
Has the state enacted legislation which mandates a firearm purchase
eligibility check system?
I1.7–Non-Criminal Information for Firearm Purchase
For which non-criminal information sources has the state enacted
legislation which requires that they must be checked for firearm
purchase eligibility?
I1.8–Record Retention
Has the state enacted legislation which affects retention of arrest
records for which the repository has not received dispositions within
a specified period of time subsequent to the arrest?

I2:Enabling Policies–Degree to which the state has implemented
policies/procedures to address criminal history records needs
I2.1–Records Improvement Studies
What policies does the state have on conduct of criminal history
records improvement studies?
I2.2–Arrest Reporting
What procedures does the state have for submitting fingerprint
cards to the repository?
I2.3–Disposition Reporting
What procedures does the state have for submitting disposition
reports to the repository?
I2.4–Non-Criminal Justice Purposes
What policies/procedures does the state have for allowing access
to and  use of criminal history information for non-criminal justice purposes?
I2.5–Repository Audits
What policies/procedures does the state have for requiring the conduct
of audits of repository records?
I2.6–Juvenile Records
What policies/procedures does the state have for governing whether and how juvenile arrest/disposition information shall be maintained by the repository?
I2.7–Interstate Identification Index Compact
What policy does the state have regarding joining the FBI Interstate Identification Index (III) compact? 
I2.8–Firearm Purchase Check
What policy does the state have on a firearm purchase eligibility check system?

Exhibit 4-1 (page 2 of 7)

I2.9–Non-Criminal Information for Firearm Purchase
What policies/procedures does the state have for governing access to and use of
non-criminal history information for firearm purchase eligibility checks?
I2.10–Civilian Fingerprints
What policy does the state have on storage and use of civilian fingerprints
by the repository?
I2.11–Record Retention
What policies does the state have affecting retention of arrest records for
which the repository has not received dispositions within a specified period
of time subsequent to the arrest?

I3:Appropriate Plans–Degree to which the state has appropriate criminal history records 
improvement plans to address criminal history records needs
I3.1–Overall Plan
Does the state have an active overall criminal history records improvement plan?
I3.2–Information Technology Plan
Does the state have an active criminal history records improvement-related
information technology plan?
I3.3–Telecommunications Plan
Does the state have an active criminal history records improvement-related
telecommunications plan?
I3.4–Training Plan
Does the state have an active criminal history records improvement-related
training plan?
I3.5–Firearms Plan
Does the state have an active plan for a firearm purchase eligibility
checking system?
I3.6–Non-Criminal Justice Checks Plan
Does the state have an active plan for responding to requests to check criminal
history backgrounds for non-criminal justice purposes?

I4:Agency Cooperation–Degree to which the various agencies within the state
work together to address criminal history records needs
I4.1–Multi-Agency Committees
Does the state have one or more active multi-agency committees/task forces with
a criminal justice data quality-related charter?
I4.2–Arrest Information Submission
How much cooperation exists between the agencies responsible for submission of
fingerprint cards and the central repository? 
I4.3–Disposition Submission
How much cooperation exists between the agencies responsible for submission of
dispositions and the central repository?

I5:Top-Down Commitment–Degree to which top administration consider criminal
history records a high priority issue
I5.1–Justice Management
Does the state have an active multi-agency records improvement/data quality
committee with participating agency heads?
I5.2–Legislative Leadership
Is the state legislature’s leadership visibly committed to improving
data quality?
I5.3–Information Technology Management
Are information technology agency directors visibly committed to computerizing
criminal history data and electronically interfacing relevant systems?

Exhibit 4-1 (page 3 of 7)

I6:Human Resources–Degree to which agencies within the state are
adequately staffed, given the current and anticipated volumes of
criminal history records improvement work 
I6.1–Arrest Recording
Is arrest data entry backlog growing?
I6.2–Disposition Recording
Is disposition entry backlog growing?
I6.3–Request Response
Is response backlog for criminal history information growing?

I7:Technological Resources–Which computer and related information
technology systems and equipment are available to address criminal
history records needs?
I7.1–Master Name Index
Does the state have an automated Master Name Index (MNI)? 
I7.2–Computerized Criminal History System
Does the state have a Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system?
I7.3–Booking Workstations
Does the state have booking workstations with fingerprint scanners
installed and operational in state and local law enforcement agencies?
I7.4–Automated Fingerprint Identification System
Does the state have an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)?
I7.5–Livescan
Does the state have livescan devices installed and operational in
state and local law enforcement agencies?
I7.6–Firearm Purchase Eligibility Checking System
Does the state have an automated system for checking firearm purchase
eligibility?

I8:Database Scope–Number of records in criminal history files
(which could be either automated or manual)
I8.1–All Criminal Records
Number of persons with one or more arrest records in the repository’s
criminal history files.
I8.2–Criminal Records with Dispositions
Number of persons with one or more arrest records in the repository’s
criminal history files with no missing dispositions.
I8.3–Felony Convicted/Pending Records
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files with
a felony conviction or a felony arrest with no final disposition.
I8.4–Felony Records with Dispositions
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files who
have felony arrests with no missing dispositions.
I8.5–Automated Felony Convicted/Pending Records
Number of persons in the repository’s CCH who have had a felony
conviction or a felony arrest with no final disposition.
I8.6–Automated Felony Records with Complete Dispositions
Number of persons in the repository’s CCH who have felony arrests
with no missing dispositions.


Exhibit 4-1 (page 4 of 7)

Process Measures

P1:Submission Extent–Degree to which reporting agencies submit
felony arrest/disposition reports
P1.1–Felony Arrests
Number of statewide felony arrests in baseline year.
P1.2–Felony Arrests Reported
Number of statewide felony arrests occurring in baseline year
that have been reported to the repository.
P1.3–Fingerprint Supported Felony Arrests
Number of reported statewide felony arrests occurring in baseline
year that are supported by fingerprints.
P1.4–Felony Dispositions Reported
Number of final dispositions reported to the repository associated with
reported statewide felony arrests occurring in baseline year.

P2:Submission Timeliness–Given felony arrest/disposition reports are
submitted, time lapse between event occurrence and receipt of report
P2.1–Felony Arrest Submission Delay
Time lapse between felony arrest event and submission of fingerprint
card to repository for a sample of N baseline year felony arrests.
(Let D be the number of final dispositions received for the sample of N 
reported baseline year felony arrests.)
P2.2–Final Felony Disposition Delay
Time lapse between rendering of final felony disposition and receipt
of final disposition by repository for the D baseline year dispositions.

P3:Submission Completeness–Degree to which felony arrest/disposition
reports have complete criminal history information
P3.1–Required Felony Arrest Data Elements
Number of data elements on the standard felony arrest reporting form
required to be completed.
P3.2–Completed Felony Arrest Data Elements
Number of completed felony arrest report data elements for the sample
of N baseline year arrests.
P3.3–Required Felony Disposition Data Elements
Number of data elements on the standard felony disposition reporting
form required to be completed.
P3.4–Completed Felony Disposition Data Elements
Number of completed felony disposition report data elements for the D
baseline year dispositions.

P4:Submission Accuracy–Degree to which arrest data, fingerprints, and
final court dispositions received at the repository are accurate
P4.1–Acceptable Felony Arrest Reports
Number of baseline year felony fingerprint cards received at the
repository and not rejected.
P4.2–Acceptable Felony Disposition Reports
Number of disposition reports for baseline year reported felony
arrests received at the repository and not rejected.

Exhibit 4-1 (page 5 of 7)

P5:Identification Timeliness–Time lapse between receipt of
fingerprints and identification of the arrestee
P5.1–Criminal Identification Delay
Time lapse between receipt by repository of felony fingerprints
and determination that arrestee is known or unknown to the
repository for a sample of M current year felony arrests.

P6:Identification Accuracy–Degree to which felony arrestees
are accurately identified
P6.1–Match Accuracy
Number of felony arrest fingerprints received by repository
for which determination that arrestee is known or unknown to
the repository is correct (i.e., true positives and true negatives)
for the sample of M current year arrests.

P7:Database Entry Timeliness–Given that felony arrest/disposition
reports are received at the repository, the time lapse between
receipt of the arrest /disposition reports and entry of the data
P7.1–Felony Arrest Entry Delay
Time lapse between the identification of arrestee, and entry of
fingerprint card information into criminal 
history database for the sample of N baseline year felony arrests
P7.2–Felony Disposition Entry Delay
Time lapse between receipt of felony dispositions by the repository
and entry into criminal history database for the D baseline
year dispositions.

P8: Database Entry Accuracy–Degree to which discrepancies exist
between arrest/disposition data received at the repository and
their entry into the criminal history database
P8.1–Felony Arrest Accuracy
Number of felony arrest reports received by the repository whose
associated database entries are consistent with the data in the
received reports for the sample of N baseline year arrests.
P8.2–Felony Disposition Accuracy
Number of felony disposition reports received by the repository
whose associated database entries are consistent with the data
in the received reports for the D baseline year dispositions.

P9: Record Linkage–Degree to which dispositions are linked to arrests
P9.1–Record Arrest Linkage Accuracy
Number of felony disposition reports received by the repository and linked to the correct arrest report for the D baseline year dispositions.
P9.2–Felony Charge Linkage Accuracy
Number of disposition reports received by the repository for which
all charge dispositions have been linked to the correct arrest
charge for the D baseline year dispositions.

P10: Automation–Which criminal justice information processes and
interagency interfaces are automated?
P10.1–Automated Felony Arrest Reporting
Is there automated reporting of felony arrest information between
law enforcement agencies and the repository?
P10.2–Automated Interface for Felony Dispositions
Is there an automated interface between the courts information
(or other) system(s) and the repository 
which allows automatic reporting of dispositions?
P10.3–Automated Felony Arrest/Disposition Linking
Are felony dispositions and arrests automatically linked?

Exhibit 4-1 (page 6 of 7)

P10.4–Automated Repository/Corrections Interface
Is there an automated interface between the repository and the
corrections agency?
P10.5–Automated Repository/Parole or Probation Interface
Is there an automated interface between the repository and the
parole or probation agency?
P10.6–Automated Sex Offender Registry
Is there automated access to sex offender registry information?
P10.7–On-Line Inquiries
Can an in-state law enforcement officer make an on-line name/date
of birth-based inquiry of the CCH?
P10.8–Non-Criminal Justice Information
Is there automated access to non-criminal information for firearms
purchase eligibility checking?

P11:Record Flagging–Are records of persons convicted of felonies,
child abuse, and/or sex offense flagged?
P11.1–Felony Flagging
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files
with a felony conviction or a felony arrest with 
no final disposition who are flagged as felons.
P11.2–Actual Sex Offense Records
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files
with a sex offense conviction or a sex offense arrest with no
final disposition.
P11.3–Sex Offense Flagging
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files with
a sex offense conviction or a sex offense arrest with no final
disposition who are flagged as sex offenders.
P11.4–Actual Child Abuse Offense Records
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files with
a child abuse offense conviction or a child abuse offense arrest
with no final disposition.
P11.5–Child Abuse Offense Flagging
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files
with a child abuse offense conviction or a child abuse offense
arrest with no final disposition who are flagged as child abusers.
P11.6–Actual Domestic Violence Offense Records
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files with
a domestic violence offense conviction or a child abuse offense
arrest with no final disposition.
P11.7–Domestic Violence Offense Flagging
Number of persons in the repository’s criminal history files with
a domestic violence offense conviction or a child abuse offense
arrest with no final disposition who are flagged as child abusers.

Exhibit 4-1 (page 7 of 7)

Outcome Measures 

O1:Record Accessibility–Accessibility of criminal history
record information to justice/non-justice users
O1.1–Criminal Justice Access
Perceived accessibility of criminal history information
by criminal justice users.
O1.2–Non-Criminal Justice Access
Perceived accessibility of criminal history information
by non-criminal justice users.

O2:Accessibility Timeliness–Given the existence of a
criminal history record in the database, timeliness of
criminal justice/non-criminal justice access to the record
O2.1–Criminal Justice Use
Perceived timeliness of repository’s response to current
year request for criminal history information by criminal justice users.
O2.2–Non-Criminal Justice Use
Perceived timeliness of repository’s response to current
year request for criminal history information by non-criminal justice users.
O2.3–Firearms Purchase Eligibility Checks
Perceived timeliness of response (i.e., approval, rejection,
pending) to current year request for eligibility information by FFLs.

O3:Record Utility–Degree to which criminal history records
information meets the needs of the criminal justice/non-criminal
justice users of the information
O3.1–Criminal Justice Users
Perceived usefulness of criminal history information by criminal
justice users.
O3.2–Non-Criminal Justice Users
Perceived usefulness of criminal history information by
non-criminal justice users.

Exhibit 4-2  Attributes of Pertinent Data Quality Improvement Measures
 
4.2 Remaining Issues

Future evaluation efforts should build on findings in this report, seeking 
closure on outstanding issues and assessing more recent BJS and BJA 
initiatives to further improve criminal history records.  More 
specifically, they should: 

1. Continue to assess the impact of federally funded activities. 

This report’s timeframe precedes the FY 98 NCHIP and Byrne 5% 
awards and many of the CHRI-, Byrne 5%-, and NCHIP-funded 
activities are still in progress.  Moreover, an evaluation of the State 
Identification Systems (SIS) and National Sex Offender Registry 
(NSOR-AP) programs should be initiated.  SIS and NSOR-AP are new 
programs which have yet to be assessed–SIS enhances states’ ability to 
identify offenders by upgrading their information systems and DNA 
analysis capability, and NSOR-AP promotes establishment of a national 
sex offender registry.  Thus, formal monitoring of all federally funded 
activities should be ongoing. 

2. Continue to develop a measures framework.

Measures must continue to be identified, building on the C-CHRIE 
study, in which we develop a framework that incorporates a core set of 
input, process, and outcome measures with which to assess records 
quality, over time.  A related issue is the identification of a set of 
desirable attributes for pertinent records quality measures which, in the 
aggregate, can be used to assess the state of records quality over time.  
As part of the C-CHRIE study, we have identified such attributes as 
understandability, measurability, availability, consistency, validity, 
reliability, stability, accuracy, independence, robustness, and 
completeness.

3. Create a computer-based simulation model of the criminal history 
records process from arrest-to-disposition linkage. 

Building on the measures framework, a simulation model of the arrest-
to-disposition linkage process should be developed, using actual system 
data from a set of focus states.  Results would shed light on the 
interaction and relevance of measures, as well as their impact on 
national goal setting.  

4. Define a set of pertinent measures to assess the aggregate 
improvement of records quality, over time.
  
In partnership with BJS, develop a set of pertinent measures to 
determine the nation’s progress in improving criminal history records.  
These measures should reflect common goals of federally funded 
criminal history records improvement programs, capture progress over 
time, and to the extent possible, have the above-mentioned attributes.  
Once developed and tested–perhaps using the simulation model 
described above–measures should be updated regularly to determine the 
extent to which federal goals are being met, to indicate where 
deficiencies lie, and to point to activities which could mitigate such 
deficiencies. 

5. Expand the assessment of user perceptions about the value of 
criminal history records. 

We have learned a great deal about the ultimate usefulness of criminal 
history records by speaking with a small group of records users.  They 
were anxious to share current perceptions of the quality of the records, 
as well as expectations and concerns for the future.  Data quality 
improvement will benefit from interviews with a larger, more diverse 
set of users from both the criminal justice and non-criminal justice 
communities.  Ultimately, user perceptions are key to understanding the 
true value of criminal history records and thus the ultimate success of 
federally funded improvement programs.

References

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).  Announcement of a Grant to Evaluate State and Local Government 
Criminal History Records Information.  Washington, DC, 1991(a).

BJA.  Guidance for the Improvement of Criminal History Records.  Washington, DC, NCJ-133015, 
December 10, 1991(b).

BJA.  Byrne Formula Grant Program Guidance.  Washington, DC, September 1996.

BJA and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).  “Notice of Program for Improvement of Criminal History 
Record Information and Identification of Convicted Felons”, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 100, May 23, 
1990.

BJS.  Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms.  
Washington, DC, October 1989.

BJS.  National Conference on Improving the Quality of Criminal History Records.  Washington, DC, NCJ-
133532, January 1992.

BJS, State Statistical Analysis Centers and Justice Research and Statistics Association.  State Justice 
Sourcebook of Statistics and Research.  Washington, DC, NCJ-137991, September 1992.

BJS.  National Criminal History Improvement Program: Program Announcement.  Washington, DC, 
November 1994.

BJS. Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force.  
Washington, DC, NCJ-156922, December 1995.

BJS.  Criminal History Record Improvement Programs Information Spreadsheet.  Washington, DC, 
updated, August 1996 and January 1998.

BJS.  National Criminal History Improvement Program: Program Announcement.  Washington, DC, 
November 1997.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and BJS.  “Voluntary Standards for Improving the Quality of 
Criminal History Records and Guidelines for Identifying Felony Convictions”, Federal Register, Vol. 56, 
No. 30, February 13, 1991.

National Center for State Courts.  State Court Organization.  Washington, DC, NCJ-148346, January 1995.

Public Law 100-690.  Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.  100th Congress, Washington, DC, November 1988.

Public Law 101-649.  Immigration Act of 1990.  100th Congress, Washington, DC, November 1990.

Public Law 103-159.  Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act.  103d Congress, 
Washington, DC, November 1993.

Public Law 103-209.  National Child Protection Act of 1993.  103d Congress, Washington, DC, December 
1993.

Public Law 104-132.  Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.  104th Congress, 
Washington, DC, April 1996.

Queues Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.)  Early Experiences With Criminal History Records 
Improvement.  Washington, DC, NCJ-152977, May 1997.

Regional Justice Information Service (REJIS).  Survey of State Procedures Related to Firearm Sales.  US 
Department of Justice, NCJ-160763, May 1996.

REJIS.  Survey of State Procedures Related to Firearm Sales.  US Department of Justice, NCJ-163918, 
September 1997.

SEARCH.  Data Quality of Criminal History Records.  U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ-98079, October 
1985.

SEARCH.  Strategies for Improving Data Quality.  U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ-111458, April 1988.

SEARCH.  Survey of Criminal History Information Systems.  U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ-125620, 
March 1991.

SEARCH.  Assessing Completeness and Accuracy of Criminal History Record Systems: Audit Guide.  U.S. 
Department of Justice, NCJ-133651, January 1992(a).

SEARCH.  Report of the National Task Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting.  U.S. 
Department of Justice, NCJ-135836, June 1992(b).

SEARCH.  Criminal History Record Information: Compendium of State Privacy and Security Legislation.  
U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ-137058, July 1992(c).

SEARCH.  Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report.  U.S. 
Department of Justice, NCJ-143501, November 1993.

SEARCH.  National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond.  US Department of 
Justice, NCJ-151263, January 1995.

SEARCH.  Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1995. US Department of Justice, NCJ-
163918, April 1997.

SEARCH.  Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997: Preliminary Data, 1998.

Tien, James M.  “Towards A Systematic Approach to Program Evaluation Design,” IEEE Transactions on 
Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Special Issue on Public Systems Methodology, SMC-9, 494-515, 1979.

Tien, James M. “Program Evaluation: A System and Model-Based Approach,” in Concise Encyclopedia of 
Information Processing in Systems and Organizations.  Edited by A.P. Sage, Pergamon Press, 382-388, 
1990.

Tien, James M. and Thomas F. Rich.  Identifying Persons, Other than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase 
Firearms: A Feasibility Study.  Washington, DC, NCJ-123050, May 1990.

Tien, James M., Thomas F. Rich and James H. Mallinger.  Criminal History Records Improvement 
Evaluation and Guide: Preliminary Assessment.  Cambridge, MA, Queues Enforth Development, May 
1994.

Tien, James M., Mark Bucciarelli and Robin C. Neray.  Continuing Criminal History Record Improvement 
Evaluation: Preliminary Assessment.  Cambridge, MA, Queues Enforth Development, March 1996.

Tien, James M., Michael F. Cahn and Robin C. Neray.  Continuing Criminal History Record Improvement 
Evaluation: 1994-1996 Report.  Cambridge, MA, Queues Enforth Development, August 1997.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  Report on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.  103rd 
Cong. H. Report No. 103-344, 1993.


Appendix A: Glossary

ACN	Arrest Control Number–a state-issued number used at the time of arrest to track 
the arrest throughout the criminal history records system–sometimes also 
referred to as arrest tracking number (ATN).

AFIS	Automated Fingerprint Identification System–an automated system for 
classifying, searching, and maintaining fingerprints.

ASAP	Advanced State Award Program–a part of the NCHIP program designed to help 
states identify persons other than felons who are prohibited from purchasing 
firearms; $3.7M was awarded to 18 III states under this program in FY 96.

ATF	See BATF

ATN	Arrest Tracking Number–see ACN.

BATF	Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms–an agency of the U.S. Department of 
the Treasury charged with administering federal firearm regulations. 

Brady Act	Federal law passed in November 1993 establishing a “waiting” or response 
period before anyone can buy a handgun, and calling for establishment of a 
national instant background check system (NICS) for firearms dealers to consult 
before selling any firearm.

Brady State	A state which must comply with the federal five-day “waiting” period before 
anyone can buy a handgun. 

Brady Alternate 	A state which meets one of the alternatives (e.g., permit, other approval-type 
system, or instant check) to the federal five-day “waiting” period before anyone 
can buy a handgun.

Byrne 5%	Byrne 5% set-aside program–a BJA-administered program established by an 
amendment to the Crime Control Act of 1990 which requires states to spend at 
least 5 percent of their annual Byrne formula grant funds on improving the 
quality of their criminal history records.

BJA	Bureau of Justice Assistance–an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BJS	Bureau of Justice Statistics–an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

CCH	Computerized Criminal History–an automated system used to maintain records 
on criminal activities of an offender.

CCN	Charge Control Number–a number assigned to each charge at the time of arrest 
to track the charge(s) and to facilitate linkage to disposition(s). 

CHRI	Criminal History Record Improvement Program–a BJS-administered $27 
million, three-year (1990-1992) program focused on improving the quality of the 
nation’s criminal history records.

CLEO	Chief Law Enforcement Officer–chief of police, sheriff, or an equivalent official, 
or the designee of any such individual.  One agency usually serves as CLEO in a 
given jurisdiction.

CITA	Crime Identification Technology Act–Passed in 1998, CITA authorizes $250 
million in each of FY 99 through FY 03 to provide for the improvement of 
interstate criminal justice identification, information, communications, and 
forensics.

DNA	Deoxyribonucleic acid–a nucleic acid that carries genetic information in the cell 
and can self-replicate and synthesize RNA (ribonucleic acid). RNA, whose 
structure is a determinant of protein synthesis and transmits genetic information, 
is a constituent of all living cells.  Found in blood, DNA–like fingerprints–can be 
used to positively identify an individual.

FBI	Federal Bureau of Investigation–an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

FFL	Federal Firearms Licensee–a federally authorized firearms dealer.

FIFS	Felon Identification in Firearm Sales–an FBI-supported system established for 
the immediate and accurate identification of felons who attempt to purchase 
firearms.  Under FIFS, state criminal history records with felony convictions and 
pending felony arrests are “flagged”.  In this way, felony conviction and pending 
felony arrest status are ascertained without looking at a criminal history record.  
These flags are carried over to III.  

FIST	Firearm Inquiry STatistical program–a BJS-supported program to develop 
national data on implementation of the Brady Act and, more specifically, on how 
firearm check procedures work in the various states.

IAFIS	Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System–an FBI-supported 
system, expected to become operational in 1999.  IAFIS will process criminal 
fingerprints that have been electronically transmitted from the state to the FBI 
through the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) network.  Results will 
be returned electronically to the originator.  The FBI will scan ten-print cards 
received by mail and convert them to an electronic format to be used in the 
IAFIS environment.  Civil ten-print cards will be submitted electronically, by 
mail or as machine-readable data on tape.  The IAFIS environment will support 
electronic and hard copy submittal of latent fingerprints.  IAFIS will maintain the 
III files, support the NFF program, and store complete criminal histories of 
federal offenders.  IAFIS will also offer document and image services and direct 
remote search capabilities to authorized users. 

III	Interstate Identification Index (Triple “I”)–a database system maintained by the 
FBI that contains personal identifiers of offenders and “pointers” to states which 
maintain criminal history records on these offenders.

III Record Responsibility	A state is responsible for, or “supports”, a particular record if the record has 
been “synchronized” with its FBI record.  Synchronization is a process whereby 
either the FBI sends a magnetic tape of records to a state, or vice versa, and each 
field of every record is matched between the state record and the FBI record.  If 
the record cannot be reconciled completely, it is not synchronized and the FBI 
continues to support it.  Some states synchronize periodically, especially when 
new arrests occur for a prior record and that record is updated

INS	Immigration and Naturalization Service–an agency of the U.S. Department of 
Justice.

Livescan	Device for obtaining inkless fingerprints.

LLEBG	Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program–a program administered by the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance.  LLEBG provides funds to units of local 
government to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. 

MNI	Master Name Index–a database, either manual or automated, containing personal 
identifiers of offenders with criminal history records.

NATMS	Networked AFIS Transaction Management System–see Store-and-Forward.

NCHIP	National Criminal History Improvement Program–a BJS-administered $200 
million program initiated in 1994 and focused primarily on improving the quality 
of the nation’s criminal history records.

NCIC 2000	National Crime Information Center 2000–an FBI developed system designed to 
provide law enforcement with enhanced and expanded NCIC information, (e.g., 
wanted, convicted but on supervised release, missing and unidentified persons 
files).  To improve identification of individuals who offer no identification or 
who are suspected of fraudulent identification, the NCIC 2000 system will 
provide a single fingerprint-matching capability. 

NCJ	Non-Criminal Justice

NCPA	National Child Protection Act–Federal law passed in December 1993; it 
established procedures for national criminal background checks for child care 
providers. 

NFF	National Fingerprint File–an FBI-supported system.  Designed as a component 
of the III system, the NFF system is intended to decentralize the interstate 
dissemination of criminal history records.  Under NFF, states submit to the FBI 
only the first set of offender fingerprints resulting from an arrest, together with 
basic identifying information.  The fingerprints are entered in the NFF; the name 
and identifying information, in the III system.  The FBI maintains records on all 
federal offenders and will continue to maintain an FBI number and S.I.D. 
numbers for all states in which the offender has a record.  No dispositions will be 
submitted to the FBI; rather, states are required to respond to all authorized 
criminal and non-criminal inquiries regarding an offender whether or not the 
release of such data within the state would be permitted for the same purpose. 

NIBRS	National Incident-Based Reporting System–an FBI-supported program designed 
to collect and analyze data for the purpose of reporting crime statistics.  To meet 
the growing diversity and complexity of crime, NIBRS enhances the Uniform 
Crime Reporting (UCR) system.  Some examples of these enhancements include: 
using “incident-based” versus “summary” reporting; expanding offense 
reporting; not implementing a “hierarchy rule”; providing greater correlation 
among offenses, property, victims, offenders, and arrestees; expanding victim-to-
offender relationship data; and providing greater specificity. 

NICS	National Instant Criminal Background Check System–a national system 
developed by the FBI in cooperation with BATF and state and local law 
enforcement agencies.  Operational by November 30, 1998, it checks available 
records for individuals disqualified from purchasing a firearm.  Both federal 
agencies and states are to contribute information to the following three databases 
that comprise the NICS and that are to be accessed either by an FFL or state 
Point of Contact (POC) to determine, virtually instantly in most cases, firearm 
purchase eligibility:

1. NCIC, e.g., Wanted Persons File, Protection Order File
2. III, i.e., criminal history records
3. NICS Index, e.g., Denied Persons File, Controlled Substance Abusers.

NIST	National Institute for Standards–an agency of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

NSOR-AP	National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program–$25 million effort initiated 
in 1998 as part of the BJS-administered National Criminal History Improvement 
Program (NCHIP).  Promotes establishment of a national sex offender registry 
by helping state registries improve quality of information and by creating 
appropriate interfaces with the FBI’s national system. 

OBTS	Offender-Based Transaction System–system designed to collect information by 
tracking adult offenders from point of entry into the criminal justice system 
through final disposition.  Researchers can then examine how the criminal justice 
system processes offenders by measuring the volume of offenders in different 
segments of the system, calculating processing times, etc.

POC	Point of Contact–a state-designated liaison that initiates NICS background 
checks on individuals to determine firearm purchase eligibility.  When NICS 
operational is operational, FFLs are either to contact the FBI directly or to 
contact a designated POC.  The FBI or the POC will then contact NICS.

Protection Order	As defined in 42 USC Sec. 14040, the term “protection order includes any 
injunction or any other order issued for the purpose of preventing violent or 
threatening acts or harassment against, or contact or communication with or 
physical proximity to, another person, including temporary and final orders 
issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders) 
whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in 
another proceeding so long as any civil order was issued in response to a 
complaint, petition, or motion filed by or on behalf of a person seeking 
protection.”

Q.E.D. 	Queues Enforth Development, Inc.–a Massachusetts-based consulting company 
currently conducting a BJS-funded study, entitled “C-CHRIE: Continuing 
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation,” which assesses the impact 
of federal funds on criminal history records improvement.

REJIS	Regional Justice Information Service–Under the NCHIP program, BJS has 
funded a grant to REJIS to conduct the Firearm Inquiry Statistics (FIST) 
program.  FIST is designed to collect annual data describing number of inquiries 
in connection with presale handgun and long gun checks, and the number and 
basis for rejection of such inquiries.

SAC	Statistical Analysis Center–By providing statistical services and conducting 
research, evaluations, and policy analyses, the state-based SACs contribute to 
effective policy development.  In addition, they address both statewide and 
system-wide criminal justice policy issues to help meet critical planning needs.  
Initiated in 1972, the SAC program began as a component of the National 
Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service.  Now, SACs are funded 
predominantly by their states, while special research is supported by BJS. 

SEARCH	The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics–under the 
NCHIP program, BJS has funded a grant to SEARCH Group, Inc. to help states 
that have received funds upgrade their record systems.

SID	State IDentification–A number assigned to uniquely identify an offender within a 
particular state. 

SIS	State Identification Systems–A BJA-administered, FBI-funded formula grant 
program initiated in 1997 to enhance the capability of state and local 
governments to identify and prosecute offenders by establishing or upgrading 
information systems and DNA analysis.  It is also intended to advance efforts to 
integrate these systems with national databases operated by the FBI.

Store-and-Forward	An umbrella term describing automated systems performing one or more of the 
following functions: (i) receiving electronic fingerprint images (i.e., from 
livescan systems); (ii) storing and managing the images; (iii) integrating image- 
and text-based arrest information; and (iv) interfacing electronic booking 
systems to the CCH and/or AFIS.

UCR 	Uniform Crime Reporting–an FBI-supported records system, established in 
1930, used to collect and analyze data about offenses and to report crime 
statistics.

Appendix B: State-by-State 

Activity Summaries

Appendix B presents 56 state-by-state summaries of past, current, and 
planned criminal history records improvement activities in the 50 
United States, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern 
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.  The summaries, 
which are contained in Exhibits B-1 through B-56, are designed to 
inform states about what other states are doing to improve their criminal 
history records.

Each summary begins with a list of 9 records-related state background 
characteristics, such as III membership status.  Improvement activities 
are listed in numerical order according to their Level 3 activity 
classifications.  Where possible, we identify, each activity’s planned 
and actual start and completion dates.  We also specify the federal 
funding sources supporting each activity and whether these are 
supplemented by state and/or local funds.

We have attempted to develop as complete and accurate a profile of the 
states’ records improvement activities as possible.  However, some 
information gaps remain (e.g., in the actual as well as planned start and 
completion dates), and some activities may not be captured or may be 
presented in an incomplete or inaccurate manner.  For this reason, we 
have requested that the states review our source data and make every 
effort to correct any deficiencies. 

Exhibit B-1  Alabama

Exhibit B-2  Alaska

Exhibit B-2 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-3  American Samoa

Exhibit B-4  Arizona

Exhibit B-4 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-5  Arkansas

Exhibit B-6  California

Exhibit B-6 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-7  Colorado
 
Exhibit B-8  Connecticut

Exhibit B-8 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-9  Delaware

Exhibit B-9 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-10  District of Columbia

Exhibit B-11  Florida

Exhibit B-11 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-12  Georgia

Exhibit B-13  Guam

Exhibit B-14  Hawaii

Exhibit B-15  Idaho

Exhibit B-16  Illinois

Exhibit B-17  Indiana

Exhibit B-18  Iowa

Exhibit B-19  Kansas

Exhibit B-20 Kentucky

Exhibit B-21  Louisiana 

Exhibit B-22  Maine

Exhibit B-23  Maryland

Exhibit B-24  Massachusetts

Exhibit B-25  Michigan

Exhibit B-26  Minnesota

Exhibit B-26 (page 2 of2)
 
Exhibit B-27  Mississippi

Exhibit B-28  Missouri

Exhibit B-28 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-29  Montana

Exhibit B-30  Nebraska

Exhibit B-30 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-31  Nevada

Exhibit B-32  New Hampshire

Exhibit B-33  New Jersey

Exhibit B-33 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-34  New Mexico

Exhibit B-34 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-35  New York

Exhibit B-35 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit B-36  North Carolina

Exhibit B-37  North Dakota

Exhibit B-38  Northern Mariana Islands

Exhibit B-39  Ohio
 
Exhibit B-39 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-40  Oklahoma

Exhibit B-41  Oregon 

Exhibit B-42  Pennsylvania

Exhibit B-42 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-43  Puerto Rico

Exhibit B-44  Rhode Island

Exhibit B-45  South Carolina

Exhibit B-46  South Dakota

Exhibit B-47  Tennessee

Exhibit B-48  Texas

Exhibit B-49  Utah

Exhibit B-49 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-50  Vermont
 
Exhibit B-50 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-51  Virgin Islands

Exhibit B-52  Virginia

Exhibit B-53  Washington

Exhibit B-53 (page 2 of 2)
 
Exhibit B-54  Wisconsin

Exhibit B-55  West Virginia

Exhibit B-56  Wyoming