U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 April 1999, NCJ 175041 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sschis Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director and author of the report was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director. Support for the project was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant, Corporate Communications. The Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 95-RU-RX-K001, awarded to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright (c) SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics 1998. The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. Contents List of data tables Foreword Glossary of terms Introduction Major findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Level of disposition reporting Level of felony flagging Timeliness of trial court disposition data Detailed findings Status of State criminal history files Completeness of data in State criminal history repository Disposition data Correctional data Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository -Arrests -Disposition data -Admission to correctional facilities Procedures to improve data quality Linking of arrests and dispositions Other data quality procedures Audits Data tables Methodology List of data tables 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1997 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1993, 1995, and 1997 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 9. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1997 10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1997 11. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1997 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1997 14. Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1997 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1997 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1997 17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 1997 18. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1997 19. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1997 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997 22. Fingerprint cards processed and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997 23. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 1997 Foreword SEARCH conducted four previous surveys in this series for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 1989, 1992, 1993, and 1995. This year's report largely updates the information collected in previous years. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became operational November 30, 1998. This survey provides a summary of quantitative information at the end of 1997. The levels of coverage, completeness, accuracy, and accessibility of the State criminal history information systems directly affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the NICS. The Bureau of Justice Statistics hopes that the information contained in this report will assist States as they continue to improve their systems and to remain vigilant in maintaining the goals they have already achieved. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Glossary of terms Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS): An automated system for searching fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint images. AFIS computer equipment can scan fingerprint impressions (or utilize electronically transmitted fingerprint images) and automatically extract and digitize ridge details and other identifying characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the computer's searching and matching components to distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or even millions of fingerprints previously scanned and stored in digital form in the computer's memory. The process eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint files and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment also can be used to identify individuals from "latent" (crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint images generated by AFIS equipment can be transmitted electronically to remote sites, eliminating the necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and providing remote access to AFIS fingerprint files. Central Repository: The database (or the agency housing the database) which maintains criminal history records on all State offenders. Records include fingerprint files and files containing identification segments and notations of arrests and dispositions. The central repository is generally responsible for State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly serves as the central control terminal for contact with FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a national record check (for criminal justice or firearm check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central repository. Although usually housed in the Department of Public Safety, the central repository may in some States be maintained by the State Police or some other State agency. Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or Criminal History Record Information System: A record (or the system maintaining such records) which includes individual identifiers and describes an individual's arrests and subsequent dispositions. Criminal history records do not include intelligence or investigative data or sociological data such as drug use history. CHRI systems usually include information on juveniles if they are tried as adults in criminal courts, but in most cases do not include data describing involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice system. All data in CHRI systems are usually backed by fingerprints of the record subjects to provide positive identification. State legislation varies concerning disclosure of criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes. Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history records are complete, accurate and timely. The key concern in data quality is the completeness of records and the extent to which records include dispositions as well as arrest and charge information. Other concerns include the timeliness of data reporting to State and Federal repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the repositories and the readability of criminal history records. Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category of offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history information are accepted by the FBI and entered in the Bureau's files, including the III system. Serious misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor offenses such as drunkenness or minor traffic offenses. Interstate Identification Index (III): An "index-pointer" system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an identification index to persons arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. The index includes identification information, (such as name, date of birth, race, and sex), FBI Numbers and State Identification Numbers (SID) from each State holding information about an individual. Search inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide are transmitted automatically via State telecommunications networks and the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications lines. Searches are made on the basis of name and other identifiers. The process is entirely automated and takes approximately five seconds to complete. If a hit is made against the Index, record requests are made using the SID or FBI Number, and data are automatically retrieved from each repository holding records on the individual and forwarded to the requesting agency. As of December 1998, 39 States participate in III and the system operates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responses are provided from FBI files when the State originating the record is not a participant in III. Participation requires that the State maintain an automated criminal history record system capable of interfacing with the III system and capable of responding automatically to all interstate and Federal/State record requests. If extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as planned, the III system would eliminate the need for duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State level since it would no longer be necessary for the FBI to maintain records on State offenders. At present, III ensures higher quality criminal justice responses because, in most cases, reply data are supplied directly by the State from which the record originates. Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal history record systems do not accept such records, which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and which usually are confidential under State law. Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the same basis as adult records. States are not required to submit such records to the FBI, however. Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by criminal record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for all persons about whom a record is held in the systems. As of 1992, almost all State MNIs were automated and included almost 100 percent of record subjects in the repositories. The automated name index is the key to rapidly identifying persons who have criminal records for such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminal investigations or bailsetting. MNIs may include "felony flags," which indicate whether record subjects have arrests or convictions for felony offenses. National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An automated database of criminal justice and justice-related records maintained by the FBI. The database includes the "hot files" of wanted and missing persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is through central control terminal operators in each State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI. Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the State control terminal via the State law enforcement network. Inquiries are based on name and other nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC telecommunications system. NCIC data may be provided only for criminal justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history searches, this includes criminal justice employment, employment by Federally chartered or insured banking institutions or securities firms, and use by State and local governments for purposes of employment and licensing pursuant to a State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presale firearm checks are included as criminal justice uses. National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact designed to facilitate the exchange of criminal history data among States for noncriminal justice purposes and to eliminate the need for the FBI to maintain duplicate data about State offenders. Under the compact, the operation of this system is overseen by a policymaking council comprised of representatives of the Federal and State governments, as well as system users. The key concept underlying the compact is agreement among all States that all criminal history information (except sealed records) will be provided in response to noncriminal justice requests from another State - regardless of whether the information being requested would be permitted to be disseminated for a similar noncriminal justice purpose within the State holding the data. (That is, the law of the State which is inquiring about the data - rather than the law of the State which originated the data - governs its use.) In some States, ratification of the compact will have the effect of amending existing State legislation governing interstate record dissemination, since most States do not currently authorize dissemination to all of the Federal agencies and out-of-State users authorized under the compact. At present, noncriminal justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates of State records and generally results in less complete records being provided, since FBI files of State records are not always complete due to reporting deficiencies. The FBI cannot abandon the duplicate records without a formal compact, however, since subsequent failure of a State to continue participation after cessation of entry of data into the FBI's State offender files would jeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the Federal and State agencies that now rely on those files. The compact was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in October 1998. The compact will now be submitted for ratification by State legislatures. National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and procedures designed as a component of the III system, which, when fully implemented, would establish a totally decentralized system for the interstate exchange of criminal history records. The NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders and a single set of fingerprints on State offenders from each State in which an offender has been arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF concept, States will forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual to the FBI accompanied by other identification data such as name and date of birth. Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would also be retained at the State repository and would not be forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic images), the FBI will enter the individual's fingerprint impressions in the NFF and will enter the person's name and identifiers in the III, together with an FBI Number and a State Identification (SID) Number for each State maintaining a record on the individual. Charge and disposition information on State offenders will be maintained only at the State level, and State repositories will be required to respond to all authorized record requests concerning these individuals for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. States would have to release all data on record subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries regardless of whether the data could be released for similar purposes within the State. The NFF concept is presently being tested in Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oregon. These States are in a position to conduct the test since they have nonrestrictive laws governing release of data for noncriminal justice purposes. Positive Identification: Identification of an individual using biometric characteristics that are unique and not subject to alteration. In present usage, the term refers to identification by fingerprints but may also include identification by retinal images, voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive identification is to be distinguished from identification using name, sex, date of birth, or other personal identifiers as shown on a document subject to alteration or counterfeit such as a birth certificate, Social Security card, or driver's license. Because individuals can have identical or similar names, ages, etc., identifications based on such characteristics are not reliable. ------------------------------------------------------ Note to Readers: This is a report of the results of the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems. In some of the tables that follow, data from earlier data quality surveys are included. Caution should be used in drawing comparisons between the results of earlier surveys and the survey reported here. Since the last national data quality survey, the U.S. Justice Department has continued to implement assistance programs dedicated to improving criminal history records. As a result, some States are focusing new or additional resources on the condition of their records and in many cases, know more about their records today than in the past. For these and other reasons, trend comparisons may not as accurately reflect the status of the Nation's criminal history records as the current data considered alone. ------------------------------------------------------ Introduction This report is based on the results from a two-part survey of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in January -November 1998. The report is largely based upon data as of December 31, 1997. Fifty-three jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses were received to at least one part of the survey from 52 jurisdictions. Only Puerto Rico did not complete either part of the survey. Throughout this report, the 50 States will be referred to as "States"; the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands will be referred to as "territories," consistent with prior surveys; "Nation" refers collectively to both the States and territories. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided information relating to the number of fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the FBI during Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States. Major Findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1997 (Table 1): * Forty-nine States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file. * Twenty States (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) have fully automated criminal history files and master name indexes. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1997 (Table 4): * Forty-five States have fully automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * Maine and the Virgin Islands have no automated criminal history files. * Of those States maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the prior manual record is subsequently automated in 23 States. In two States (California and Minnesota) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. Level of disposition reporting Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1997 (Table 1): * Twenty-one States (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia representing approximately 40% of the Nation's population (based on 53 jurisdictions) and 40% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 25 States representing approximately 47% of the Nation's population and 45% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 70% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 29 States representing approximately 60% of the Nation's population and 62% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 60% or more arrests within the past 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * Overall, the figures are lower when arrests older than 5 years are considered. Eleven States report that 80% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-two States report that 70% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-six States report that 60% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 3): Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia provided data on the number of final dispositions reported to their criminal history repositories indicating that over 4.6 million final dispositions were reported in 1997. The responding jurisdictions represent approximately 58% of the Nation's population. Level of felony flagging Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1997 (Table 1): * Forty-two States and Puerto Rico currently flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases. * Twenty States collect sufficient data to permit them to flag at least some previously unflagged felony convictions. Timeliness of trial court disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 13): * An average 42 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from less than 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and New Jersey to 360 days in Pennsylvania. The majority of responding repositories receive the data in 30 days or less. * An average 33 days separates the receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases, ranging from less than 1 day in States where dispositions are entered either directly by the courts or by tape to 180 days in Indiana and Minnesota. Half of the responding jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Twenty-six States indicate having backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database. Detailed findings Status of State criminal history files Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1997 (Table 2): * Over 54.2 million criminal history records were in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories on December 31, 1997. (An individual offender may have records in several States.) * Eighty-seven percent of the criminal history records maintained by the State criminal history repositories are automated. Approximately 6.8 million records, or 13%, are not automated. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1997 (Table 4): * All of the reporting States and the District of Columbia have automated at least some records in either the criminal history record file or the master name index. In Maine, a portion of the master name index has been automated but is not in use. * Of the responding jurisdictions, 45 States have fully automated master name indexes. Six jurisdictions do not have fully automated master name indexes. Of those six jurisdictions, four States and the District of Columbia have partially automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * Of those jurisdictions maintaining partially automated criminal history files, when an offender with a prior manual record is arrested, the record is automated in 23 States. In California, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. Data required by State law to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 5): * Thirty-three States require prosecutors to report to State criminal history repositories their decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases. In Michigan, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor's decision to charge a crime punishable by over 92 days. * Forty-four States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands require felony trial courts to report the dispositions of felony cases to the State criminal history repository. * State prison admission of felons must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 35 States and the District of Columbia. State prison release information on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 30 States and the District of Columbia. * Admission data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 22 States and the District of Columbia. Release data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 15 States and the District of Columbia. * The reporting of probation information is mandated in 26 States and the District of Columbia, while 27 States and the District of Columbia require the reporting of parole information. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1997 (Table 6): * During 1997, over 7.6 million arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic substitutes) were submitted to the State criminal history repositories. * Thirty-six States, representing 69% of the Nation's population, have records that are 100% fingerprint-supported. In 10 States and the District of Columbia, some of the arrests in the criminal history files are fingerprint-supported. In New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the inquiry regarding fingerprint-supported criminal history files was either not applicable or the percentage was unknown. In Massachusetts and Mississippi, there are no fingerprint-supported criminal history records. Completeness of data in State criminal history repository Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1997 (Table 7): * More than half of the States (32) require law enforcement agencies to notify the State criminal history repository when an arrested person is released without formal charging but after the fingerprints have been submitted to the repository. Disposition data Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 8): * Twenty-three States (Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia report that criminal history repositories receive final felony trial court dispositions for 80% or more of the cases. Seven States (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and South Carolina) estimate that they receive notice in 100% of the cases. A. A total of 25 jurisdictions, or 1 additional State (Arkansas) report that final felony trial court dispositions in 70% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. B. A total of 30 jurisdictions, or 5 additional States (Illinois, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, and Utah), report that final felony trial court dispositions in 60% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. C. A total of 31 jurisdictions, or 1 additional State (Washington), report that final felony trial court dispositions in 50% or more of the cases in their jurisdictions are received by the State criminal history repositories. * Of the respondents indicating that there is either a legal requirement for prosecutors to notify the State criminal history record repository of declinations to prosecute or where the information is reported voluntarily, 10 States and one territory (Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming) estimate that they receive notice in 80% or more of such cases. Six States (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wyoming) estimate that notice is received in 100% of the cases. All but Massachusetts report a legal requirement to notify the repository. (See Table 5.) * Twelve States were able to estimate the number of prosecutor declinations received. The numbers ranged from 100 in Wyoming to 200,000 in California. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1997 (Table 9): * Expungements: Twenty-five States and the District of Columbia have statutes that provide for the expungement of felony convictions. In 10 States and the Virgin Islands, the record is destroyed by the State criminal history repository. In Washington, the record is returned to the court. In eight States, the record is retained with the action noted on the record. Six States seal the record. In Alaska, the sealed record is removed from the automated system and becomes a manual record. * Setting aside of convictions: Thirty-nine States have statutes that provide for setting aside felony convictions. In two States, the record is destroyed. In 34 States, the record is retained with the action noted only. In Nevada, the record is sealed. * Pardons: Almost all of the jurisdictions (48 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) have statutes that provide for the granting of a pardon. In 45 States, the criminal history record is retained with the action noted. In three jurisdictions (South Dakota, Vermont, and the Virgin Islands), the record is destroyed. * Restoration of civil rights: Forty States and the District of Columbia have legal provisions for the restoration of a convicted felon's civil rights. In the majority of those jurisdictions (35 States), the record is retained with the action noted. In two States (South Dakota and Vermont), the record is destroyed. Restoration of civil rights is not tracked in Alaska, and in Missouri, no action is taken. Correctional data Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 10): * In 36 States and the District of Columbia, there is a legal requirement (State statute or State administrative regulation having the force of law) that the State prison system must fingerprint admitted prisoners and send the fingerprints to the State criminal history repository. * A total of 25 States and the District of Columbia, have the same legal requirement for reporting by local jails. In Minnesota, the requirement applies only to juveniles. * In the 45 jurisdictions where State correctional facilities are legally required to report information or the information is reported voluntarily, the majority of jurisdictions (35 States) estimate that in at least 95% of the cases, admission information is reported to the State repository. Twenty-seven of those jurisdictions estimate that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. Seven jurisdictions estimate a reporting rate of less than 95%, ranging from 85% in Virginia to 0% in the District of Columbia, Florida, and Kansas. * For reporting from local jails where required by law or completed voluntarily, nine States report that 95% or more of the admissions are reported to the State repositories. Seven States report rates of less than 95% ranging from 75% in Indiana to 0% in the District of Columbia and New Hampshire. * In 41 States, fingerprints received from State and local correctional facilities are processed by the State criminal history record repository to establish positive identification of incarcerated offenders and to ensure that correctional information is linked to the proper records. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 11): * Of the 38 jurisdictions where reporting of probation data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 12 estimate that at least 90% of the cases in which probation is ordered are reported to the State criminal history repository. An additional three States report that in at least 75% of the cases the State criminal history repository receives probation information. Five States report that information is received in 50% or less of the cases. * Nineteen jurisdictions where reporting of parole data is legally required or voluntarily reported estimate that parole information is reported in 90% of the cases. Five States report receiving parole information in less than 90% of the cases, ranging from 80% in Texas to 0% in Florida and Idaho. In Colorado, 100% of admission to parole information is received; release from parole is not reported. Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository -Arrests Average number of days to process arrest information submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 12): * The average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and fingerprints by the State criminal history repositories is 13, ranging from less than 1 day for automated reports in California to up to 60 days in Nebraska. The majority (27) receive the data in 14 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of fingerprints by the State criminal history repository and entry into the master name index by the State criminal history repositories is 23, ranging from 0 in Delaware to up to 120 days in Michigan. The majority of jurisdictions (29) enter the data in 10 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of fingerprints and entry of arrest data into the criminal history databases is 26, ranging from less than 1 day in Delaware the District of Columbia and Georgia to up to 120 days in Connecticut and Nebraska. The majority of jurisdictions (29) enter the data in 14 days or less. * Twenty-nine States indicate that they had at the time of the survey backlogs in entering arrest data into the criminal history database. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 4 days in Minnesota to 1,600 person-days to clear an estimated 250,000 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards in Massachusetts. Initial fingerprint classification is a more time-consuming task than entry of disposition data into the database. -Disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1997 (Table 13): * The average number of days between the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories is 42, ranging from less than 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia and New Jersey to 360 days in Pennsylvania. The majority of responding jurisdictions receive the data in 30 days or less. * The average number of days between receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases is 33, ranging from less than 1 day in States where dispositions are entered either directly by the courts or by tape to 180 in Indiana and Minnesota. Half of the responding jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Twenty-six States indicate that they had at the end of 1997 backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database. -Admission to correctional facilities Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 14): * The average number of days between the admission of offenders to State correctional facilities and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 16, ranging from 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New York and Rhode Island to 56 days in Virginia. * The average number of days between the admission of offenders to local jails and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 20, ranging from 5 days in Colorado to 30 days in California, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming. * The average number of days between receipt of correctional admissions information by the State criminal history repository and entry into the criminal history databases is 37, ranging from less than 1 day in New York and Virginia to approximately 365 days in Michigan. The majority (19) enter the information in 15 days or less. * Sixteen States indicate that they had backlogs in entering the correctional information into the criminal history databases. Procedures to improve data quality Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1997 (Table 15): * The method most used to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting is telephone calls conducted by 36 States and the District of Columbia. * Twenty-two States and the District of Columbia generate lists of arrests with missing dispositions as a means of monitoring disposition reporting. * Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia report using field visits to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Twenty-eight States generate form letters as a method of encouraging complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Other jurisdictions report using such methods as training, audits, and electronic contact as methods to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. Linking of arrests and dispositions Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1997 (Table 16): * Twenty-nine States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands utilize methods for linking disposition information to particular charges and/or specific counts. * All responding jurisdictions report using at least one method for linking disposition information and arrest/charge information on criminal history records, and nearly every jurisdiction indicates multiple mechanisms to ensure linkage: - Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia employ a unique tracking number for the individual subject. - Thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia use a unique arrest event identifier. - Twenty-three States and the District of Columbia utilize a unique charge identifier. - Thirty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands use the arrest date; thirty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands use the subject's name. - Thirty States and the District of Columbia report using the reporting agency's case number. - Individual jurisdictions also report using other methods, such as the court case number, the originating agency (ORI) number, the booking number, and unique combinations of numbers. Procedures followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information and arrest information in the criminal history database, 1997 (Table 17): * Forty-one jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive final court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The jurisdictions vary in the percentage of court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database from less than 1% to 70%. Eight jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming) report that all final court dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * Although most jurisdictions cannot quantify the number of cases in which correctional information cannot be linked to arrest information, 34 jurisdictions report that this does occur. Of the 10 reporting jurisdictions, the percentage of correctional dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database range from less than 1% in Nevada to 15% in New Mexico. * The jurisdictions use a variety of procedures when a linkage cannot be established. Nine States create "dummy" arrest segments from court disposition records; five States create "dummy" court segments from custody records. Ten States and the Virgin Islands enter court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest; and 13 States enter custody information into the database without any linkage to a prior court disposition. Eighteen States do not enter the unlinked court information. Seven jurisdictions do not enter unlinked custody information. Fifteen States utilize other procedures, such as contacting or returning the information to the originating or contributing agency or using temporary or pending files until a match can be established. Other data quality procedures Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1997 (Table 18): * To prevent the entry and storage of inaccurate data and to detect and correct inaccurate entries in the criminal history database, a large majority of the jurisdictions, a total of 45 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, complete a manual review of incoming source documents or reports. * Other methods used most frequently include computer edit and verification programs employed by 43 States and the District of Columbia. * Manual double-checking before data entry is completed in 29 jurisdictions. Manual review of transcripts before dissemination is performed in 28 jurisdictions. * Nineteen States and the District of Columbia perform random sample comparisons of the State criminal history repository files with stored documents. * Fifteen States and the District of Columbia generate error lists that are returned to the reporting agencies. * Fifteen States use various methods, such as audits and contacting contributing agencies for additional information. Audits Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 19): * Forty-seven States and the District of Columbia maintain transaction logs to provide an audit trail of all inquiries, responses, and record updates or modifications. * More than half of the repositories, a total of 31 jurisdictions report that the State criminal history repository or some other agency performed random sample audits of user agencies to ensure accuracy and completeness of repository records and to ensure that the agencies comply with applicable laws and regulations. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1997 (Table 20): * During the 5 years before the survey, an audit of the State criminal history repository's database (other than ongoing systematic sampling) was conducted in 27 States and the District of Columbia to determine the level of accuracy and completeness of the criminal history file. * Of the jurisdictions where audits were performed, in 23 States and the District of Columbia, another agency conducted the audit; in 3 States the repository conducted its own audit; and 1 State did not indicate the auditing entity. * Thirteen jurisdictions in 1997 reported not having conducted an audit during the previous 5 years and not planning to audit in the coming 3 years. * In 25 of the jurisdictions where audits were conducted, changes were made as a result of the audit to improve data quality of the records. In three jurisdictions, changes were underway prior to the audit or were in the planning stage at the time of the survey. * Twenty-four States and the District of Columbia had data quality audits planned or scheduled for the next 3 years. * Forty-six States and four territories had initiatives underway at the repository or contributing agencies to improve data quality. Initiatives included audit activities (29); automation changes (39); disposition or arrest reporting enhancements (35); felony flagging (19); fingerprint enhancements (30); agency interfaces (31); legislation (20); plan development (26); establishment of task forces/ advisory groups (19); implementation or improvement of tracking numbers (21); and training (26). Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997 (Table 21): * As of 1997, over 18.3 million III records are indexed with the State's identification (SID) pointers. Approximately 12 million records are maintained by the FBI for the States. Fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997 (Table 22): * Over 8.5 million fingerprints were received by the FBI in FY 1997. Of that number, over 5.5 million were for criminal justice purposes, and over 2.9 million were for noncriminal justice purposes. California submitted the highest number of criminal justice fingerprints (1,075,000). Florida submitted the highest number of noncriminal justice fingerprints (416,900). Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oregon were participants in the National Fingerprint File in 1997, and therefore submitted only the first fingerprint card of an individual to the FBI. * Final dispositions received by the FBI in 1997 totaled 527,300, with California submitting the highest number (123,100). Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes , 1997 (Table 23): * Almost all of the responding States (47), the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands currently charge fees for conducting criminal history record searches for noncriminal justice requesters. Mississippi and Vermont do not charge fees. * Fees for fingerprint-supported searches range from $7 in Maine to up to $52 in California. In some cases, California does not charge a fee for the search. * Fees for name searches range from $2 in Wisconsin in some cases to $25 in Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. Six States (California, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Wyoming) do not conduct name searches for noncriminal justice purposes. * Nine States (California, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming) and the Virgin Islands charge different fees for volunteer searches. Methodology This report is based upon the results from a two-part survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in January - November 1997. Fifty-three jurisdictions were surveyed, including the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses for at least one part of the survey were received from 53 jurisdictions. Puerto Rico did not submit a survey response to either part. The survey instruments consisted of 43 questions, having several parts. The survey was designed to collect comprehensive data relating to State criminal history information systems. Fifteen topical areas are covered in this report, as follows: * current quality and quantity of records in the criminal history databases; * level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history records maintained by the State repositories; * capacity of criminal history system to flag convicted felons in the database; * level of fingerprint-supported arrest reporting to the State repositories and the processing and timeliness of the information that is entered into criminal history record databases; * notice to the State repository of persons released without charging following submission of fingerprints to the State repository; * level of prosecutor-reported information in criminal history databases; * level and timeliness of disposition reporting by the courts to the State criminal history repositories; * types and timeliness of information reported to the State criminal history repositories by State and local correctional facilities; * level of probation/parole-related information in State criminal history databases; * extent to which the records in State criminal history databases contain final disposition information; * policies and practices of the State repository regarding modification of felony convictions; * ability of the State repositories to link reported disposition data to arrest data in State criminal history record databases; * level of audit activity in the States and the strategies employed the State repositories to ensure accuracy of the data in the criminal history record databases; and * participation of the States in III and NFF; and * fees charged by State criminal history repositories for conducting record searches for noncriminal justice requesters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also provided information in two areas. The information reported by the FBI relates to the number of fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the FBI during FY 1997 and the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States. Following the receipt of the responses, all data were tabulated. Survey respondents were requested to respond to particular questions relating to the current data compared to data from earlier surveys. Respondents also were permitted a final review of the data after it was placed in the tables that appear in this report. Numbers and percentages shown in the tables were rounded. In most cases, numbers were rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. In the analyses of the tables, averages and totals were calculated using the mid-point of the range where ranges appear in the underlying data. In instances where the result is .5, when it followed an even number, the number was rounded down to the even number (e.g., 4.5 became 4); in instances where the .5 followed an odd number, the number was rounded up to the next even number (e.g., 1.5 became 2). Data reported for 1989 were taken from BJS, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991). Data reported for 1993 were taken from BJS, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995). Data reported for 1995 were taken from BJS, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997). 4/13/99