U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003, 210297 This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sschis03.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#sschis Maureen A. Henneberg Acting Deputy Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Francis X. Aumand III, Chairman, and Ronald P. Hawley, Executive Director. The project directors and authors of the report were Owen M. Greenspan, Director, Law and Policy, and Eric C. Johnson, Justice Information Services Specialist. Support for the project was provided by Adonica McGarr, Administrative Assistant; Twyla R. Putt, Manager, Corporate Communications; and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, Corporate Communications. The Federal project monitor was Dr. Gerard F. Ramker, Chief, Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 2004-RU-BX-K005, 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 2005. 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 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 Missing dispositions Other data quality procedures Audits Data tables Methodology List of data tables 1. Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1999, 2001, and 2003 3. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 4. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2003 6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 7. Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 9. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2003 10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2003 11. Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 12. Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 13. Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 14. Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 15. Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2003 16. Methods used to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2003 17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2003 17a. Procedure followed to obtain missing dispositions, 2003 18. Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2003 19. Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 20. Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 2003 21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, October 1, 2004 22. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2003 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 is maintained in some States by the State Police or 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. 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 5 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 March 2005, 47 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 2003, only the U.S. Virgin Islands did not have at least a partially automated MNI; almost all jurisdictions (46 States and Puerto Rico) 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 that 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, 21 additional States have entered into the Compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida (June 1999); Colorado (March 2000); Iowa (April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); South Carolina (June 2000); Arkansas (February 2001); Kansas (April 2001); Alaska (May 2001); Oklahoma (May 2001); Maine (June 2001); New Jersey (January 2002); Minnesota (March 2002); Arizona (April 2002); Tennessee (May 2003); North Carolina (June 2003); New Hampshire (June 2003); Missouri (July 2003); Ohio (January 2004); Wyoming (February 2005); and Idaho (March 2005). 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 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 are not forwarded. Disposition data on the individual also is retained at the State repository and is not forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or electronic images), the FBI enters the individual's fingerprint impressions in the NFF and enters 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 are maintained only at the State level, and State repositories are required to respond to all authorized record requests concerning these individuals for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes. States 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 seven States: Colorado, Florida, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma 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. Department of Justice 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 survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in May-December 2004. 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 from all 53 jurisdictions. 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 (FBI) 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 March 1, 2003. Major findings Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal history files Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003 (Table 1): * Forty-nine reporting States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in the criminal history record file. * Twenty-four States (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico have fully automated criminal history files. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 2003 (Table 4): * All 50 reporting States and Puerto Rico have fully or partially 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 20 States. In four States (California, Delaware, Kansas, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Arizona, the new information is added to the manual file. Level of disposition reporting Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003 (Table 1): * Eighteen States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and Puerto Rico, representing approximately 44% 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 last 5 years in the criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. * A total of 21 States and Puerto Rico, representing approximately 49% 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 27 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, representing approximately 60% of the Nation's population and 58% 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 and Puerto Rico, representing 30% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 80% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-two States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, representing 53% of the Nation's records, report 70% or more arrests in the entire criminal history database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-six States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, representing 57% of the Nation's criminal history records, report that 60% or more arrests in the entire database have final dispositions recorded. Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 2003 (Table 3): * Thirty-eight States and the District of Columbia provided data on the number of final dispositions reported to their criminal history repositories, indicating that nearly 6.4 million final dispositions were reported in 2003. The responding jurisdictions represent approximately 71% of the Nation's population. Level of felony flagging Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003 (Table 1): * Thirty-two States and Puerto Rico currently flag some or all felony convictions in their criminal history databases. * Eight States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands collect sufficient data to permit them to flag at least some previously unflagged convictions. Timeliness of trial court disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 (Table 13): * An average of 21 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina, to 120 days in Illinois. * An average of 50 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 1,000 days in Mississippi. Twenty-three of the 40 reporting jurisdictions enter the data in fewer than 10 days. * Twenty-seven States, Puerto Rico, 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, 2003 (Table 2): * Over 71 million criminal history records were in the criminal history files of the State criminal history repositories on December 31, 2003. (An individual offender may have records in more than one State.) * Ninety-three percent of the criminal history records maintained by the State criminal history repositories are automated. Approximately 4.8 million, or 7%, are not automated. * The Virgin Islands has no automated criminal history files. Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 2003 (Table 4): * All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have automated at least some records in either the criminal history file or the master name index. * Forty-six States and Puerto Rico have fully automated master name indexes. The District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Tennessee have partially automated master name indexes. The Virgin Islands does not maintain a master name index. * 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 20 States. In four States (California, Delaware, Kansas, and Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia, only the new information is automated. In Arizona, the new information is added to the manual file. Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2003 (Table 5): * Thirty-one States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands require prosecutors to report to State criminal history repositories their decisions to decline prosecution in criminal cases. * Forty-six States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 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 34 States and Puerto Rico. State prison release information on felony cases must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 31 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. * Admission data on felons housed in local correctional facilities must be reported to the State criminal history repository in 23 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 16 States. * The reporting of probation information is mandated in 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, while 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico require reporting of parole information. Arrest records with fingerprints, 2003 (Table 6): * During 2003, almost 10.5 million fingerprint cards and livescan images were submitted to the State criminal history repositories. * Forty States, representing 92% of the Nation's population, have records that are 99- 100% supported. A total of 42 States, or an additional 2 States, and the District of Columbia, representing 94% of the Nation's population, have records that are at least 90% fingerprint-supported. In 6 States and the Virgin Islands, some of the arrests in the criminal history files, ranging from 25% to 85%, are fingerprint-supported. In Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, 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, 2003 (Table 7): * Twenty-five States and Puerto Rico 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, 2003 (Table 8): * Nineteen States (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands report that criminal history repositories receive final felony trial court depositions for 80% or more of the cases. Eight States (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Utah) estimate that they receive notice in 100% of the cases. A. A total of 22 States, or 3 additional States (Hawaii, Montana, and Virginia), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands report that dispositions in 70% or more of the cases are received by the State criminal history repositories. B. A total of 24 States, or 2 additional States (Arizona and Arkansas), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands report that dispositions in at least 57% of the cases in their States are received by the State criminal history repositories. * Of the respondents indicating that there is a legal requirement for prosecutors to notify the State criminal history record repository of declinations to prosecute, 5 States (California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and New Jersey) estimate that notice is received in 100% of the cases. * Thirteen States were able to estimate the number of prosecutor declinations received. The number of declinations received range from 147 in Puerto Rico to 162,300 in California. Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2003 (Table 9): * Expungements: Twenty-six States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have statutes that provide for the expungement of felony convictions. In 10 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the record is destroyed by the State criminal history repository. In 12 States and the District of Columbia, the record is retained with the action noted on the record. Three States seal the record. In Minnesota, although State law does not provide for destroying conviction data, the State does get orders issued pursuant to the inherent authority of the courts. In Mississippi, records that are expunged are deleted from the database; however, the State criminal history repository is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases. * Setting aside of convictions: Thirty-six States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have statutes that provide for setting aside felony convictions. In 33 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the record is retained with the action noted. In 2 States, South Dakota and Tennessee, the record is destroyed. In Nevada, the record is sealed. * Pardons: All reporting jurisdictions (50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have statutes that provide for the granting of a pardon. In 46 States and the District of Columbia, the criminal history record is retained with the action noted. In 3 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the record is destroyed. In Maine, the record is treated as a nonconviction. * Restoration of civil rights: Forty-three 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 (37 States and the District of Columbia), the record is retained with the action noted. In Vermont and Puerto Rico, the record is destroyed. In Alaska and Maryland, although there are legal provisions for restoration of civil rights, such actions are not reported to the State criminal history repository. In New Hampshire, the record is sealed with no action noted. Correctional data Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2003 (Table 10): * In 38 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 22 States have the same legal requirement for reporting by local jails. * In jurisdictions where State correctional facilities are legally required to report information or the information is reported voluntarily, the majority (31 States) reported that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. Two States estimate a reporting rate of less than 100%, ranging from 10% in New Hampshire to 30% in Kansas. * For reporting from local jails, where required by law or completed voluntarily, 10 States report that 95% or more of the admissions are reported to the State repositories. Eight of those States reported that 100% of the admissions are reported to the repository. * In 44 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, 2003 (Table 11): * Of the 15 responding jurisdictions where reporting of probation data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 12 estimate that at least 95% of the cases in which probation is ordered are reported to the State criminal history repository by the probation authority. Nine of those states reported that 100% of the cases are reported to the State criminal history repository. Minnesota reports that in at least 75% of the cases, the State criminal history repository receives probation information. Two States (Nebraska and Oklahoma) report that information is received on less than 40% of the cases. * Of the 16 responding States where reporting of parole data is legally required or voluntarily reported, 15 estimate that parole information is reported in 95% or more of the cases. Oklahoma estimated that parole information is reported in 20% of its cases to the State criminal history repository. Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository -Arrests Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 (Table 12): * Based on the responses of 46 jurisdictions, the average number of days between arrest and receipt of arrest data and fingerprints by the State criminal repositories is 14, ranging from 1 day or less in 9 States and the District of Columbia to 105 days in Mississippi. The majority (32) receive the data in 10 days or less. * Based on the responses of 45 jurisdictions, 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 18.1, ranging from 0 days in Delaware to 210 days in Connecticut. The majority (34) of jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Based on the responses of 48 jurisdictions, the average number of days between receipt of fingerprints by the State criminal history repository and entry of arrest data into the criminal history databases is 18.3, ranging from 0 days in Delaware to 210 days in Connecticut. The majority (32) of jurisdictions enter the data in 10 days or less. * Nineteen 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 2 days in Maine to clear an estimated 100 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards, to over 1,100 days in Connecticut to clear an estimated 112,700 unprocessed or partially processed fingerprint cards. -Disposition data Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 (Table 13): * An average of 21.5 days separates the final court dispositions and receipt of that information by the State criminal history repositories, ranging from 0 days in Maine and New York to 80 days in Illinois. * An average of 50.2 days separates the receipt of final trial court dispositions and entry of disposition data into the criminal history databases, ranging from 0 days in New York and Oregon to 1,000 days in Mississippi. * Twenty-seven States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands indicate having backlogs in entering disposition data into the criminal history database, ranging from 7 days to clear a backlog of 500 dispositions in New Hampshire, to over 3,800 days to clear 382,600 dispositions in Kansas. -Admission to correctional facilities Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003 (Table 14): * Based on 32 applicable jurisdictions providing responses, 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 13, ranging from 1 day or less in 14 States, to 90 days in Kentucky. * Based on the responses of 21 applicable States, the average number of days between the release of offenders from State correctional facilities and receipt of the information by the State criminal history repository is 16, ranging from 1 day or less in 7 States, to 60 days in Iowa. * The responses from 31 applicable jurisdictions indicate that the average number of days between the receipt of correctional information and entry by the State criminal history repository into the criminal history database is 14.5, ranging from 1 day or less in 16 jurisdictions, to 730 days in Missouri. * Twelve jurisdictions 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 California to clear an estimated 17,700 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms, to 730 person-days in Missouri to clear an estimated 100,000 unprocessed or partially processed custody-supervision forms. Procedures to improve data quality Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2003 (Table 15): * The method most used to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting is telephone calls, conducted by 44 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. * Twenty-nine States and Puerto Rico generate lists of arrests with missing dispositions as a means of monitoring disposition reporting. Twenty-two of those States and Puerto Rico use the lists to provide notice to criminal justice agencies in order to obtain the missing dispositions. * Thirty-one States and the District of Columbia generate form letters to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Thirty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico report using field visits to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. * Other jurisdictions report using such methods as audits, training, and electronic contact as methods to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting. Linking of arrests and dispositions Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2003 (Table 16): * Thirty-eight States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 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-five States and the District of Columbia employ a unique tracking number for the individual subject. - Forty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico use a unique arrest event identifier. - Twenty-one States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands utilize a unique charge identifier. - Thirty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands use the arrest date to link disposition data. - Thirty-five States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands use the subject's name as a method to link disposition information to arrest information. - Twenty-four States and Puerto Rico report using the reporting agency's case number. - Individual jurisdictions also report using other methods, such as the originating agency (ORI) number, the Social Security number, date of birth, and other unique combinations of numbers. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2003 (Table 17): * Forty-seven jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive final court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history database. The jurisdictions vary in the number of court dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal database from 24 in Wyoming to 148,400 in Texas. Four States (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and Vermont,) report that all final court dispositions can be linked to the arrest cycle in the criminal history database. * Thirty jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive correctional information that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The number of correctional dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database range from 19,200 in Minnesota to 58,300 in Texas. * Thirty-four jurisdictions report that they sometimes receive prosecutor dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest information in the criminal history record database. The number of prosecutor dispositions that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in the criminal history database range from 400 in West Virginia to 71,000 in Indiana. * The jurisdictions use a variety of procedures when a linkage cannot be established. Four States create "dummy" arrest segments from court disposition records; three States create "dummy" segments from correctional data. Seven States and the Virgin Islands enter court information into the database without any linkage to a prior arrest, and 16 States enter correctional information into the database without any linkage to a prior court disposition. Twenty-three States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands do not enter the unlinked court information. Ten States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico do not enter unlinked correctional information. Fifteen jurisdictions utilize other procedures, such as returning the information to the originating or contributing agency or using temporary or pending files until a match can be established and more. Missing dispositions Procedure(s) followed to obtain missing dispositions, 2003 (Table 17a): * Two States (Maryland and New Jersey) report that they do an automated inquiry to the prosecutor upon a predetermined period of time. Ten States report that they do an automated inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator upon a predetermined period of time. * Nevada reports that an automated inquiry to the prosecutor upon a criminal history query is done to obtain missing dispositions. Eleven States report that they do an automated inquiry to a specific court or statewide court administrator system upon a criminal history query. * Thirty-one States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands report that a manual inquiry to the prosecutor upon a criminal history query is done to obtain missing dispositions. Thirty- eight States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands report that a manual inquiry is done to a specific court or statewide court administrator upon a criminal history query. Other data quality procedures Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2003 (Table 18): * To prevent the entry and storage of inaccurate data and to detect and correct inaccurate entries in the criminal history database, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands use at least one strategy to circumvent this problem. * The most-frequently utilized strategy is the use of computer edit and verification programs, which is employed by 43 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. * Forty-two States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands manually review incoming source documents or reports. * Twenty-nine States and the Virgin Islands perform manual double-checking before data entry. Manual review of criminal record transcripts before dissemination is performed in 26 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. * Twenty-six States and the District of Columbia perform random sample comparisons of the State criminal history files with stored documents. * Twenty-two States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands generate error lists that are returned to the reporting agencies. * Twenty States and Puerto Rico use various strategies, such as audits and contacting contributing agencies for more information. Audits Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 2003 (Table 19): * Forty-nine States and Puerto Rico 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 35 States and Puerto Rico, 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, 2003 (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 33 jurisdictions to determine the level of accuracy and completeness of the criminal history file. * Of the jurisdictions where audits were performed, 25 jurisdictions report that another agency conducted the audit; the repository conducted its own audit in 6 jurisdictions; and 2 States indicated that auditing was conducted by both an outside agency and the repository. * Twenty jurisdictions in 2003 reported that no data quality audit had been conducted during the previous 5 years, and 22 reported that they are not planning to audit in the coming 3 years. * In 27 jurisdictions where audits were conducted, changes were made as a result of the audits to improve the data quality of records. * Twenty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had data quality audits planned or scheduled for sometime in the next 3 years. * Forty-nine States and Puerto Rico had initiatives underway at the repository or contributing agencies to improve data quality. Initiatives included audit activities (33); automation changes (46); disposition or arrest reporting enhancements (46); felony flagging (14); fingerprint enhancements (38); agency interfaces (34); legislation (13); plan development (32); establishment of task forces (21); implementation of tracking numbers (23); and training (44). Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003 (Table 21): * As of October 1, 2004, over 33 million III records are indexed with the State's identification (SID) pointers. Approximately 19.4 million records are maintained by the FBI for the States. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2003 (Table 22): * Almost all of the responding States (49), the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands currently charge fees for conducting criminal history record searches for noncriminal justice requesters. Louisiana and Puerto Rico do not charge fees. * Fees for fingerprint-supported searches range from $5 in Arizona and Mississippi 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 for nonprofit organizations to $30 in North Dakota. Eleven States (Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming) do not conduct name searches for noncriminal justice purposes. * Twenty States (Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming) charge different fees for volunteer searches. Methodology This report is based upon the results from a survey conducted of the administrators of the State criminal history record repositories in May-December 2004. 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 to the survey were received from all 53 jurisdictions. The survey instruments consisted of 42 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 by the State repositories to ensure accuracy of the data in the criminal history record databases; * 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 FBI also provided information for the report. 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. 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 1997 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999). Data reported for 1999 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000). Data reported for 2001 was taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003). End of file 7/1/05 jb