U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Criminal Justice Information Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis99.htm 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 Specialist, 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 2000. 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, 1999 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1995, 1997 and 1999 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 1999 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1999 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1999 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 9. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1999 10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1999 11. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1999 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1999 14. Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1999 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1999 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1999 17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 1999 18. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1999 19. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1999 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 30, 1999 22. Estimated records with dispositions available through the Interstate Identification Index (III), June 30 1999 23. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 1999 Foreword SEARCH conducted five previous surveys in this series for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1997. 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 1999. 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) that 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 be maintained in some States 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) that 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. Most, however, 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. In addition, accessibility sometimes is considered a data quality factor. 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, the readability of criminal history records and the ability to have access to the records when necessary. 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 September 30, 2000, 41 States participate in III. 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. Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal history record systems do not accept such records, which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and which usually are confidential under State law. Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the same basis as adult records. States, however, are not required to submit such records to the FBI Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification index maintained by criminal history record repositories that includes names and other identifiers for each person about whom a record is held in the systems. As of 1999, only one State did not have at least a partially automated MNI; almost all States (45) had fully automated MNIs. 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 which establishes formal procedures and governance structures for the use of the Interstate Identification Index (III). It is 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 Federal and State officials. The key concept underlying the compact is agreement among all signatory 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 that is inquiring about the data - rather than the law of the State that originated the data - governs its use.) In some cases, ratification of the compact will have the effect of amending existing State legislation governing interstate record dissemination, since most States do not currently authorize dissemination to all of the Federal agencies and out-of-State users authorized under the compact. At present, noncriminal justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates of State records and generally results in less complete records being provided, since FBI files of State records are not always complete due to reporting deficiencies. The compact was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in October 1998. The compact became effective in April 1999, following ratification by two State legislatures, those being Montana on April 8, 1999 and Georgia on April 28, 1999. Since that time, six additional States have entered into the compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida (June 1999); Colorado (March 2000); Iowa (April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); and South Carolina (June 2000). 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 has been implemented in four States: Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon. 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. A number of State repositories have suffered fiscal cutbacks and have had to shift priorities away from certain criminal history information management tasks. For these and other reasons, trend comparisons may not as accurately reflect the status of the Nation's criminal history records as the current data considered alone. Introduction This report is based upon the results from a two-part survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in January -September 1999. 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 was the source for information relating to the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index (III) system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of records maintained by the FBI for the States, as of June 30, 1999. The number of dispositions available through III in each State also are reported. Major Findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999 (Table 1): * Fifty States and the District of Columbia have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file. * Twenty-one States (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) have fully automated criminal history files and master name indexes. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1999 (Table 4): * Forty-five States have fully automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * The Virgin Islands has 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 22 States. In four States (California, Delaware, Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Maine, the new information is added to the manual file. Level of disposition reporting Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999 (Table 1): * Eighteen States (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Virginia) and the District of Columbia representing approximately 38% of the Nation's population (based on 53 jurisdictions) and 41% 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 23 States and the District of Columbia representing approximately 46% of the Nation's population and 47% 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 32 States and the District of Columbia representing approximately 64% of the Nation's population and 66% 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. * When arrests older than 5 years are considered, 15 States, representing 25% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-three States, representing 43% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 70% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Thirty-two States, representing 66% of the Nation's criminal history records, 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, 1999 (Table 3): Forty-eight States provided data on the number of final dispositions reported to their criminal history repositories indicating that over 7.6 million final dispositions were reported in 1999. The responding States represent approximately 96% of the Nation's population. Level of felony flagging Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999 (Table 1): * Forty-two States currently flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases. * Eighteen States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, 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, 1999 (Table 13): * An average 30 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 1 day or less in Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia and New Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin. The majority of responding repositories receives the data in 30 days or less. * An average 39 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 365 days in Ohio. Half of the responding jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Twenty-eight States and the Virgin Islands 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, 1999 (Table 2): * Over 59 million criminal history records were in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories on December 31, 1999. (An individual offender may have records in several States.) * Eighty-nine percent of the criminal history records maintained by the State criminal history repositories are automated. Approximately 6.2 million records, or 11%, are not automated. * The Virgin Islands has no automated criminal history files. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1999 (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. * 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, three States and the District of Columbia have partially automated master name indexes. Maine's master name index is not automated, and 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 22 States. In four States (California, Delaware, Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Maine, the information is added to the manual file. Data required by State law to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1999(Table 5): * Thirty-five 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-seven States require felony trial courts to report the dispositions of felony cases to the State criminal history repository. * State prison admission on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 36 States. State prison release information on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 31 States. * Admission data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 25 States. Release data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 17 States. * The reporting of probation information is mandated in 26 States and the District of Columbia, while 28 States and the District of Columbia require the reporting of parole information. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1999 (Table 6): * During 1999, over 8.8 million arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic substitutes) were submitted to the State criminal history repositories. * Thirty-seven States, representing 72% of the Nation's population, have records that are 100% fingerprint-supported. A total of 42 States, or an additional 10 States, representing 92% of the Nation's population have records that are at least 90% fingerprint-supported. In 6 States and the District of Columbia, some of the arrests in the criminal history files, ranging from 35% to 85%, are fingerprint-supported. In Massachusetts, 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, 1999 (Table 7): * More than half of the States (31) and the District of Columbia require law enforcement agencies to notify the State criminal history repository when an arrested person is released without formal charging but after the fingerprints have been submitted to the repository. Disposition data Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1999 (Table 8): * Seventeen States (Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia) report that criminal history repositories receive final felony trial court dispositions for 80% or more of the cases. Seven States (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Utah) estimate that they receive notice in 100% of the cases. A. A total of 21 States, or four additional States (Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware and Hawaii) report that final felony trial court dispositions in 70% or more of the cases in their States are received by the State criminal history repositories. B. A total of 23 jurisdictions, or 1 additional State (Oklahoma) and 1 additional territory (Virgin Islands), 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. * 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, seven States and one territory (Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota and Utah) estimate that they receive notice in 80% or more of such cases. Three States (Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey) estimate that notice is received in 100% of the cases. All of the noted jurisdictions, except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, report a legal requirement to notify the repository. (See Table 5.) * Ten States were able to estimate the number of prosecutor declinations received. The numbers ranged from 100 in Mississippi to 213,000 in California. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1999 (Table 9): * Expungements: Twenty-one States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands 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 Minnesota, although State law does not provide for expungements, the State repository does receive orders issued pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, and records relating to such orders are destroyed. In eight States, the record is retained with the action noted on the record. Six States seal the record. In Virginia, although State law does not provide for the expungement of convictions, orders are received by the State repository, and the records are sealed. * Setting aside of convictions: Forty-two jurisdictions have statutes that provide for setting aside felony convictions. In three States, the record is destroyed. In 35 jurisdictions (33 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands), the record is retained with the action noted. In Nevada, the record is sealed. Three States did not indicate how the records are treated by the State repository. * Pardons: All of the reporting jurisdictions (49 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) have statutes that provide for the granting of a pardon. In 43 States and the District of Columbia, the criminal history record is retained with the action noted. In four jurisdictions (South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont and the Virgin Islands), the record is destroyed. In Massachusetts, the record is sealed. Two States did not indicate how pardons are treated by the State repository. * Restoration of civil rights: Forty-one 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 (33 States and the District of Columbia), the record is retained with the action noted. In three States (South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont), the record is destroyed. In Massachusetts, the record is sealed. Restoration of civil rights is not tracked in Alaska, and in Missouri, no action is taken. Two States that have laws providing for the restoration of civil rights did not indicate how the records are treated by the State repository. Correctional data Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1999 (Table 10): * In 39 States, 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 28 States have the same legal requirement for reporting by local jails. * In States where State correctional facilities are legally required to report information or the information is reported voluntarily, the majority of States (30) estimate that in at least 99% of the cases, admission information is reported to the State repository. Twenty-nine of those States estimate that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. Seven jurisdictions estimate a reporting rate of less than 99%, ranging from 85% in Virginia to 0% in Kansas. * For reporting from local jails where required by law or completed voluntarily, 11 States report that 95% or more of the admissions are reported to the State repositories. Three States report rates of less than 95% ranging from 40% in North Dakota to less than 5% in Pennsylvania. * In 45 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, 1999 (Table 11): * Of the 16 States where reporting of probation data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 11 estimate that at least 90% of the cases in which probation is ordered are reported to the State criminal history repository. One additional State reports that in at least 75% of the cases, the State criminal history repository receives probation information. Four States report that information is received in 60% or less of the cases. * Sixteen States where reporting of parole data is legally required or voluntarily reported, estimate that parole information is reported in 90% of the cases. Three States report receiving parole information in less than 90% of the cases, ranging from 75% in Minnesota to 0% in 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, 1999 (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 1 day or less in California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia (most due to livescan) to up to 93 days in Mississippi. 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 21, ranging from 0 in Delaware to up to as many as 150 days in Texas. The majority of jurisdictions (28) 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 one day in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, New Mexico, New York and Virginia to up to 180 days in Tennessee. The majority of reporting jurisdictions (24) enter the data in 14 days or less. * Twenty-nine States indicate that they have, or had at the time of the survey, backlogs in entering arrest data into the criminal history database. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 1-2 days in New Hampshire to 3,600 person-days to clear an estimated 84,000 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards in Washington. 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, 1999 (Table 13): * An average 30 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 1 day or less in Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia and New Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin. The majority of responding repositories receives the data in 30 days or less. * An average 39 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 365 days in Ohio. Half of the responding jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Twenty-eight States and the Virgin Islands indicate having 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, 1999 (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 15, ranging from 1 day in Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Tennessee to 60 days in North Carolina. * 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 17, ranging from 1 day in New Jersey and South Dakota to 30 days in California, Idaho, Maryland, 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 53, ranging from less than 1 day in Mississippi, New York and Virginia to approximately 365 days in Arkansas and Michigan. The majority of responding States (18) enter the information in 10 days or less. * Eighteen States indicate that they have or had backlogs in entering the correctional information into the criminal history databases. The number of person-days to clear the backlogs range from 2 in North Carolina and Oklahoma to clear an estimated 500-600 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms in each to 780 person-days to clear an estimated 35,900 forms in California. Procedures to improve data quality Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1999 (Table 15): * The method most used to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting is telephone calls conducted by 38 States and the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. * Twenty-six States and the District of Columbia generate lists of arrests with missing dispositions as a means of monitoring disposition reporting. * Thirty-one States and the District of Columbia report using field visits to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Twenty-nine 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, 1999 (Table 16): * Thirty-six States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands utilize methods for linking disposition information and arrest/charge information which also permit the linking of dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts. * All 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-one States and the District of Columbia employ a unique tracking number for the individual subject. - Thirty-nine States and the District of Columbia use a unique arrest event identifier. - Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia utilize a unique charge identifier. - Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands use the arrest date; thirty-five States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands use the subject's name. - Twenty-four States and the District of Columbia report using the reporting agency's case number. - Individual jurisdictions also report using other methods, such as 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, 1999 (Table 17): * Forty-three jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive final court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The jurisdictions vary in the percentage of court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database from less than 1% in Nevada to 70% in Maine. Three States (Massachusetts, Vermont and Wyoming) report that all final court dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * Twenty-seven jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive correctional information that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The percentage of correctional dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database range from less than 1% in Nevada to 60% in Tennessee. * The jurisdictions use a variety of procedures when a linkage cannot be established. Eight States create "dummy" arrest segments from court disposition records; four States create "dummy" court segments from custody records. Eight States enter court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest; and 16 States enter custody information into the database without any linkage to a prior court disposition. Twenty-five States do not enter the unlinked court information. Eight jurisdictions do not enter unlinked custody information. Fourteen 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, 1999 (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 46 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 42 States and the District of Columbia. * Manual double-checking before data entry is completed in 28 jurisdictions. Manual review of transcripts before dissemination is performed in 28 jurisdictions. * Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia perform random sample comparisons of the State criminal history repository files with stored documents. * Eighteen States generate error lists that are returned to the reporting agencies. * Eleven States use various methods, such as audits and contacting contributing agencies for additional information. Audits Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1999 (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 33 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, 1999 (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 22 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 20 States and the District of Columbia, another agency conducted the audit; in 1 State, the repository conducted its own audit; and 1 State indicated that auditing was conducted by both an outside agency and the repository. * Twenty-one jurisdictions in 1999 reported not having conducted an audit during the previous 5 years, and 17 responded that they are not planning to audit in the coming 3 years. Four States gave no indication of plans for the next 3 years. * In 17 of the jurisdictions where audits were conducted, changes were made as a result of the audit to improve data quality of the records. * Twenty States and the District of Columbia had data quality audits planned or scheduled for the next 3 years. * Forty-seven States and two territories had initiatives underway at the repository or contributing agencies to improve data quality. Initiatives included audit activities (28); automation changes (40); disposition or arrest reporting enhancements (43); felony flagging (21); fingerprint enhancements (33); agency interfaces (37); legislation (19); plan development (24); establishment of task forces/advisory groups (20); implementation or improvement of tracking numbers (21); and training (30). Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999 (Table 21): * As of June 30, 1999, over 21.3 million III records are indexed with the State's identification (SID) pointers. Approximately 12.3 million records are maintained by the FBI for the States. Estimated records with dispositions available through the Interstate Identification Index (III), June 30, 1999 (Table 22): * Over 21.5 million records with dispositions were available through III as of June 30, 1999. This number means that 64% of the total records in III had dispositions, as of June 30, 1999. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes , 1999 (Table 23): * Almost all of the responding States (46), 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 $6 in Arizona to up to $52 in California. In some cases, California does not charge a fee for the search. * Fees for name searches range from $1 in Texas to $25 in Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts and South Carolina. Nine States (California, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming) do not conduct names searches for noncriminal justice purposes. *Fourteen States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, 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 - September 1999. A total of 53 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 the source of information in two areas. The information includes the number of criminal history records of the States participating in the Interstate Identification Index (III) system that are maintained by the State criminal history repositories and the number of III records maintained by the FBI for the States. The number of III records containing dispositions also is taken from FBI data. 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 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991). Data reported for 1993 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995). Data reported for 1995 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999). mz 10/27/00