U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Highlights National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) Improving Criminal History Records for Background Checks May 2003 --------------------------------------------------------- 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/ichrbc.htm ---------------------------------------------------------- 1 NCHIP Objectives * The goal of the NCHIP Program is to insure that accurate records are available for use in law enforcement, including sex offender registry requirements, and to permit States to identify ineligible firearm purchasers, persons ineligible to hold positions involving children, the elderly, or the disabled, and persons subject to protective orders or wanted, arrested, or convicted of stalking and/or domestic violence. * The NCHIP Program consolidates criminal records improvement funding authorized under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (P.L. 103-159); the National Child Protection Act (P.L. 103-209); the Crime Identification Technology Act (P.L. 105-251); the Violence Against Women Act provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322); Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386); and various provisions of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, Megan's Law, and the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act. * NCHIP provides direct funding and technical assistance to the States to improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate accessibility of criminal history and related records. Funds and technical assistance are also provided to support the interface between States and the national record systems, including the FBI-operated National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) established pursuant to the permanent provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and the National Protection Order File which facilitates compliance with Federal full faith and credit requirements. 2. NCHIP Funding History * NCHIP was initiated in FY 1995 with total awards to the States of $391 million through FY 2002. Every State and territory has received funding under the program. California ($29.9 million or 7.6% of all funds), New York ($24 million or 6.1% of all funds), and Texas ($20.0 million or 5.1% of all funds) account for the largest amounts received under the program. Fund distribution is based upon need rather than population or other formula-based methodology. * BJS awarded approximately $37 million in NCHIP funds from FY 2002 appropriations to the States and territories to promote continued development of criminal records infrastructure. The FY 2003 appropriation from Congress includes $40 million to support continued assistance to the States and localities and an additional $3 million to support the development of anti-stalker databases (protection order files). The FY 2004 President’s Budget includes an upgrade to NCHIP to incorporate a court-directed component to improve disposition reporting -- a total of $61 million to support NCHIP and its consolidated approach to funding criminal records improvements. * The FY 2003 NCHIP Program Announcement, publicly released in March 2003, provides for the continued development of the criminal records infrastructure to support the NICS and other background check purposes. In addition, the announcement encourages States to coordinate their criminal records systems development with emergency management plans and antiterrorism activities within the State. 3. NCHIP Accomplishments * Improved Records: Since the inception of NCHIP, the number of criminal history records held nationwide grew 29% while the number of automated records increased 35%. Over the same period, the number of records available for sharing under the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III) climbed 75%. * III Participation: Since 1993, the number of States participating in III grew from 26 to 45. * New Identification Technologies: 43 States, 3 Territories, and the District of Columbia now participate in the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The system began operation in July 1999, but States had used their NCHIP funds to prepare to participate. * National Instant Criminal Back-ground Check System (NICS): The NICS is now supporting over 8 million checks annually at the presale stage of firearms purchases. The State NICS infrastructure, developed through NCHIP funding, seamlessly transitioned from the Interim Brady system of checks conducted by the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) to the current permanent system in which certain States have approved background check systems of their own (called Point- of-Contact States or POC States) while others rely exclusively on the FBI’s NICS. From the inception of the Brady Act on March 1, 1994, to December 31, 2001, about 38 million applications for firearm transfers were subject to background checks. About 840,000, or 2.2% of all applications, were rejected, primarily for the presence of a prior felony conviction history. State and local agencies maintain a significant role in background checks, conducting checks on almost half of the applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2000, while the FBI was responsible for the remainder. NCHIP funds have facilitated the integration of databases within States: the number of rejections for reasons other than felonies increased 256% from the beginning of the Brady Act to yearend 2001. * Sex Offender Registries: NCHIP funds have assisted the States in building sex offender registries and participating in the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) which became operational in July 1999. As of February 2003, all 50 States plus 3 Territories and the District of Columbia have provided more than 280,000 records to the NSOR. * Domestic Violence and Protection Orders: States have used NCHIP funds to initiate the flagging of criminal history records evidencing convictions for domestic violence or the issuance of a protection order. Forty-two States and the Virgin Islands now submit data to the NCIC Protection Order File, which became operational in May 1997 and included over 754,000 records of protection orders in February 2003. 4. Efforts to Promote Involvement of the Courts and Systems Integration to Improve Disposition Reporting * Among the most important priorities of the NCHIP Program is to insure that each State implements compatible and integrated records systems. Annually, the NCHIP Program Announcement to the States has indicated that the first priority of the program is to exhibit in the grant application a "commitment to support court efforts relating to development of record systems." All State applications are "required to demonstrate that court needs have been considered, and, if no funds for upgrading court systems capable of providing disposition data are requested, applicants should include a statement from the State Court Administrator or Chief Justice indicating that the courts have been consulted in connection with the application." In FY 2002, approximately 18% of the $37 million in NCHIP funds distributed to the States provided direct funding to the courts and another 18% assisted in court-related activities and disposition reporting. To further stimulate courts involvement in the program, the BJS Director has formally encouraged each State repository director to dedicate NCHIP funds for disposition reporting or for identification efforts consistent with State anti-terrorism plans. Some examples of court improvement projects under NCHIP include: Alabama, through its Administrative Office of the Courts, is conducting a test project for municipal courts. The project is testing a variety of data collection efforts that will enhance misdemeanor disposition reporting from municipal courts (especially domestic violence misdemeanors). Florida, as of February 2002, has 61 of 67 clerks of court submitting disposition data online which means that criminal history records are being updated and disseminated in a more timely and accurate manner. As a result of working closely with the Clerks of Court, Florida has added over 4.1 million dispositions to the State's criminal history system since 1995. Georgia, through its Superior Court clerks, are entering protection order files populated with images and NCIC data into its web-based protection order registry. All relevant data are sent to the National Protection Order File. Maine, through its Administrative Office of the Courts, is using a combination of State, Byrne, VAWA, and NCHIP funds to update the court case management system. This update allows electronic reporting of dispositions to the State Police. Currently, the State reports receiving 100% reporting of dispositions from the Courts. Mississippi is providing workstations to courts in all 82 counties in the State. These workstations will be used to supply disposition data to the Administrative Office of the Courts' central server. Software currently being developed will extract information from the central server and forward final dispositions to the State's central repository. South Carolina is conducting a joint initiative between the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the South Carolina Judicial Department (SCJD) to restructure the system for delivery of dispositions from the courts to the State Identification Bureau (SIB). Plans include providing new Internet connectivity for Clerks of Court and Magistrates in each county and allowing direct linkage of dispositions with records already in SIB. Illinois, through its State Police, is initiating a pilot program that will use single fingerprints to create a fingerprint-based link between arrest, final disposition, and custodial information. The State Police are working with local courts and county sheriffs to test and implement this system. Ohio is using NCHIP funds as a pro-rata share of costs to automate the last eight manual-based courts. These courts will then possess the capability to electronically transmit dispositions to the central criminal history records repository. Rhode Island is identifying missing dispositions and the courts to locate and forward them to the central criminal history repository, as well as pay overtime for data entry by repository personnel, to reduce a backlog of dispositions. Pennsylvania will use funds to continue pilot testing and implementation of the live posting (electronic) of dispositions by all courts in the State to the Administrative Office of the Courts records system and the State Police criminal history repository. Virginia will use funds to conduct a needs analysis to determine what changes to the system infrastructure will improve the completeness of court disposition reporting, particularly as it relates to NICS. Funds will also be used to provide for the electronic submission of protection orders from the courts for use by the Virginia State Police and local law enforcement agencies. 5. Directive by the Attorney General to BJS On June 28, 2001, the Attorney General issued directives which require BJS to -- * obtain data from the FBI on missing dispositions and their effect on NICS checks * conduct a survey of the States to identify major impediments to disposition completeness, with a primary focus on the linkage between criminal records repositories and the courts and prosecutors * assess the NCHIP program as currently designed and recommend changes which will improve record completeness * review the availability of records which could be used for presale checks for other classes of prohibited firearms purchasers enumerated in the 1968 Gun Control Act, as amended. BJS has been working closely with FBI Criminal Justice Information Services staff to implement the first element in the directive. The FBI drew a sample of NICS checks which could not be completed instantly due to "open arrests" and, at the request of BJS, examined the age distribution of the most recent arrest transaction on the RAP sheet. More than three-quarters of the "open arrests" dated to years prior to 1995 when the NCHIP program began. Half the "open arrests" were from 1984 and earlier. This assessment indicates that a major "clean-up" of older records would be necessary to reduce the number of dispositions missing from the databases checked by NICS. BJS, in collaboration with DOJ's Office of Legal Policy (OLP), the FBI, and the State criminal records repositories developed a questionnaire for collecting data on the second requirement of the Attorney General's Directive. The survey was fielded in early September with data for all States now complete. The survey sought information on: (1) procedures for transmission of arrest and disposition data from law enforcement agencies and the courts to the repository (2) processes for integrating justice systems records in terms of disposition capture and linking of dispositions to arrest records (3) participation in national programs of the FBI such as the Interstate Identification Index and the National Fingerprint File (4) NICS and POCs inquiries and record accessibility (5) an analysis of the age of records and their completeness. Survey findings will assist BJS in assessing such concerns as "default-proceed sales," participation in the FBI's "denied persons" file, and the extent to which retrievals of firearms for which an erroneous clearance occurred are a consequence of record inadequacies. Preliminary findings from the AG Survey of the State Criminal Records Repositories include: Repository databases * There were 64.3 million records in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories at yearend 2001. Approximately 90% of these criminal history records were automated. Since 1995, the number of criminal history records held nationwide grew 29% while the number of automated records increased 35%. * The States have made significant improvements in automating their records in recent years. In 2001, 30 States had over 90% of their criminal history records automated, compared to 22 states in 1995. * The number of States with relatively low levels of automation (defined as having less than 70% of records automated) declined from 13 States in 1995 to 6 States in 2001. * Over 29 million III records (60% of all III records) are supported by the State rather than the FBI. The FBI maintains another 19.2 million records for States which are accessible under the III system. Some States have significantly increased the number of III records that are supported by the State. From 1999 to 2001, the number of State-supported III records increased by nearly 7 times in West Virginia, quadrupled in Maryland, and more than quadrupled in Arizona. * Of those States that maintain partially automated criminal history files, 21 have a policy to automate the offender’s entire record if an offender with a prior manual record is arrested. Four States and the District of Columbia only automate the new information on the record. Identifying dispositions in the criminal history file * There was considerable variation among the States in the method they use to measure a missing final disposition by using an arrest event or an arrest charge. Twenty-one States measure a final disposition by an arrest event, 17 States identify it by an arrest charge, and 10 States and the District of Columbia measure a missing final disposition by both an arrest event and an arrest charge. * There is considerable variation among the States’ definitions of a “missing disposition.” Thirty-four States and the District of Columbia consider any arrest event or charge without a disposition to be a “missing disposition,” while 16 States require a specified amount of time to pass before an arrest event or charge will be officially considered a "missing disposition." * Of the 16 States requiring a specified time period to pass, 6 States require that 1 year pass before a missing disposition is considered a final missing disposition, 2 States require that more than 1 year elapse, and the remaining 7 States use another time interval. In some States, the time period depends on the offense. * The source of missing dispositions varies among the States. The court is the primary source in 25 States and the District of Columbia; a statewide court administrator system is the primary source in 12 States; and the prosecutor is the primary source in 5 States. * By far, the most common method for obtaining a missing disposition -- used by 45 States -- is to make a manual inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator after receiving a query. Twenty-seven States make a manual inquiry to the prosecutor’s office upon receipt of a criminal history inquiry. Twenty-six States made manual inquiries to both the prosecutor and the courts. * Only 11 States used automated inquiries to obtain missing dispositions. Upon receipt of a query, eight States made an automated inquiry only to the courts, and three States made automated inquiries to the courts as well as the prosecutor’s office. One State (Pennsylvania) reported that they rely only on automated inquiries in order to obtain missing dispositions. One State (Michigan) made automated inquiries to the prosecutor on a monthly basis. Six States made automated inquiries to the courts on a regular basis (typically on an annual basis). Capabilities of State repository databases to detect missing dispositions * There were 41 State databases that could distinguish between new arrests (less than 1 year old) that lack a disposition and older arrests. Nine States and the District of Columbia reported that their databases cannot make this distinction. * Of the States with databases that are capable of making the distinction, 14 States indicated that the information is available without needing special computer programming. Twenty-seven States reported that special programming would be needed to generate this information. * Forty-five States and the District of Columbia have databases that are able to distinguish between felony arrests/charges and misdemeanor arrests/charges. Of these, 27 States are able to retrieve this information without special programming, and 18 States and the District of Columbia are not. Integrating Justice System Decisions into Criminal Records At each decision-point in the criminal justice system -- determinations by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, and trial courts -- decisions are made with respect to further case-processing. A case may terminate further processing or continue to move through the justice system. In order to address the problem of "open arrests," the results of a case passing through a decision-point or the disposition of the case must be entered into the criminal record. The Survey queried States about their ability to associate decisions or case dispositions made by justice system components back to an arrest transaction on an individual’s criminal history record. Thirty-two States reported that they received prosecutor dispositions during the year which could not be linked to arrest information on a criminal history record; 45 States and the District of Colombia said they had received final court dispositions which could not be linked; and 34 States said they had received correctional disposition information which was insufficiently identifiable to enter on a criminal record. For the year ending on July 1, 2001, some States indicated substantial numbers of dispositions which could not be initially linked to a record -- about half the States indicated that they had received correctional information for individuals for whom no prior conviction record existed. The link between the State repository and law enforcement State criminal history repositories receive final disposition information from law enforcement in a variety of ways. Twenty-six States receive final disposition information from law enforcement agencies. Twelve of these States rely only on the mail to receive disposition information. One State repository (Hawaii’s) receives disposition information only in an electronic format from law enforcement. Pennsylvania’s repository only receives this information by fax. The remaining States receive disposition information from law enforcement agencies by some combination of electronic transmission, fax transmission, and the mail. The link between the State repository and prosecutors Thirty-six States receive final disposition information from prosecutors. Nearly half of these States (16) only receive this information through the mail. There are four States that rely solely on the electronic transmission of this information. The remaining States receive final disposition information from prosecutors by some combination of mail, fax, and electronic transmission. The link between the State repository and trial courts Forty-five States and the District of Columbia receive final disposition information from the trial courts, and 15 of the States receive this information only through the mail. Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia relied on the electronic transmission of disposition information from either the trial court or the State court administrator’s office. Of these States, there were 19 States that relied exclusively on the electronic transmission of final disposition information from the trial courts or from the State court administrator’s offices. 6. Protecting Records from Terrorism Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, BJS determined that a major concern for the adequacy of criminal records was the ability of States to insure the backup maintenance of records in the event of the destruction of primary record holdings. In early October, BJS conducted a special survey of the States to learn more about the backup procedures in place across the States. Findings All States (but not the District of Colombia) responded to a BJS special survey addressing records redundancy and the findings are: * All of the States maintain a backup of their criminal history record systems. * All States except three (New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New Mexico) have their backups located offsite from the repository. * The data in the backup systems are updated frequently. Six States update their backup systems in real time, and 24 States update on a daily basis. Fifteen States have a policy to update their systems on a weekly basis. The remaining five States update their backup systems on some other time interval. The content of the backup systems varied among the States: * Seventeen States reported that their backup systems contained automated criminal history records, hard copies of criminal history records, and electronic fingerprint images. * Twenty-four States reported that their backup systems contained automated criminal history records and electronic fingerprint images. * Seven States reported that their backup systems contained only automated criminal history records. * One State reported that its backup systems contained automated criminal history records and hard copies of criminal history records. * One State reported that its backup system contained only electronic fingerprint images. * Among the States that include hard copies of criminal history records in their backup systems, four States update those records by creating an automated version and six States add updated information in a non-automated fashion. 7. New NCHIP Initiatives to Improve Disposition Coverage and Address Terrorism Survey of Prosecutors BJS has recently awarded a grant to the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), which is the research arm of National District Attorneys Association, to field a survey of prosecutors’ offices across the Nation to see how they can work to improve the problem of missing dispositions in criminal history records. Of particular concern is measuring the extent to which prosecutors provide information identifiable to a particular criminal history record, on non-prosecution outcomes such as nolle prosequis. An examination of the “open arrest” problem clearly reveals that prosecutors may not be systematically providing such information. This survey will provide an improved understanding of the impact of this problem on disposition completeness. NCHIP supports antiterrorism efforts BJS has initiated changes to the NCHIP Program based upon our preliminary findings and, of course, the September 11 events. BJS recently published a program announcement to the States for FY 2003 and expects to make funds available to support the traditional records improvement activities such as improvements in disposition reporting, NICS, III participation, systems integration, IAFIS, sex offender registries, and protection order files. The 2003 program announcement asks the States to undertake new initiatives using criminal records to support anti-terrorism efforts. New concerns about the adequacy of redundant and backup records systems, building better ties between immigration and criminal records, and better coordination with homeland defense and emergency management agencies within the States are all matters where BJS would like to assist State efforts. However, it is important to reiterate that all of these efforts must be focused on the development of better records systems. Supporting the NICS Index One other potential area for funding in FY 2003 which BJS encourages the States to consider is the transmittal of rejected firearms purchasers and denied applicants to the FBI's NICS Index. The Denied Persons file in the NICS Index can be an important resource for improving the timeliness of NICS checks and insuring that repeated record research is not needed. The submission of data by POC States on persons prohibited from purchasing firearms due to non-felony background characteristics will also assist the NICS to conduct more comprehensive back-ground checks. Asking jurisdictions to research “open arrests” has become a very time-consuming and burdensome activity for localities when an “open arrest” is identified in the course of a background check. A more coordinated approach to building the national data-base will help ameliorate this problem. The FBI study of failed instant checks, noted earlier, was critical to determining that open arrest problems are most often occurring when an older record is being checked. Better development and use of the NICS Index files, particularly by POC States in submitting such data, should avert recurring checks of the same person and will help to alleviate the problem of insufficient access to databases on non- felony categories of denied persons. It is important to note that BJS survey data indicate that there are about 63 million criminal records in the United States, and there are still approximately 7 million manual criminal records among these holdings. There are also an estimated 16 million auto-mated records that are not accessible to III for background checks. Of the remaining 40.7 million records which are automated and accessible under III, the most recent BJS data indicate that perhaps 37% may not be fully useful for an instant check due to missing data on arrest dispositions. This may mean that as many 15 million additional criminal records will need to be evaluated for the presence or absence of sufficient information on dispositions if they are to be useable for the instant check. The BJS survey of the State criminal records repositories also revealed that NICS and other background checks will be conducted with far greater accuracy if justice system components provide improved data and identifiers to link arrest transactions to case-processing outcomes. The problem of disposition coverage in criminal records is not simply a problem of missing data; it is also a problem of data that have been received but cannot be properly associated with an individual or an arrest event. To address the record completeness problem with criminal records, the FY 2004 President’s Budget includes funds for a supplement for the Courts to the NCHIP Program. This funding initiative would focus upon the task of cleaning up the older criminal history records which, as our research reveals, are a large part of the problem associated with completing instant checks instantly. The funds will be distributed primarily to those States with high volume firearms sales and for whom a substantial fraction of older records have not been automated and may not be accessible under the III system. In addition, BJS NCHIP funds may also be devoted to system upgrades which allow justice system components to better link dispositions and case outcomes to the arrested individual and the arrest event. BJS has also funded the continued evaluation of NCHIP. The evaluators, at BJS's request, will construct an index of the key components of back-ground check systems and score States on their relative strengths and weaknesses to perform specific tasks associated with these checks. The Index will be a barometer of performance (i.e. time it takes to post a transaction to a record) that will permit BJS to target very specific problems and deficiencies in future funding at the individual State level. End of file 06/02/03 ih