U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics


Privacy, Technology and Criminal
Justice Information

Public Attitudes Toward Uses of
Criminal History Information

Summary of Survey Findings


July 2001, NCJ 187663

------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and
tables. The full report including tables and
graphics in .pdf format is available from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pauchi.htm

------------------------------------------------ 

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
Acting Director

This report was commissioned by SEARCH, The
National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and
Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project
director was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive
Director. Opinion Research Corporation
International conducted the research and
prepared the main report presenting the survey
findings. Dr. Alan F. Westin, Columbia
University, wrote the Commentary section. Twyla
R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate
Communications, and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing
Specialist, provided editing, layout, and design
assistance. 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. 96-BJ-CX-K010 awarded to SEARCH
Group, Incorporated, 7311 Greenhaven Drive,
Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831.
Contents of this document do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of
Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of
Justice.

Copyright (c) SEARCH, The National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics, 2001

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 the publication with the exception
of those items indicating that they are
copyrighted by or reprinted by permission of any
source other than SEARCH, The National
Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics.


Contents
Background and purpose   

Methodology    
     Study design   
     Sampling  
     Data collection     
     Weighting 

Executive summary   
     Overview  
     General privacy issues   
     Attitudes toward the criminal 
        justice system   
     Criminal history records 
     Fair information practices    
     The role of the private sector     
     Juveniles, ex-offenders, and
        fingerprinting   

Commentary:  Balancing privacy and public uses
of criminal history
   information - what the survey tells us    
     The public's concerns about privacy,
         1970-1999  
     The privacy survey in context 
     Comparisons with other privacy surveys
     Patterns reflected in survey findings

Detailed findings   
     Reading notes  
     Foundations    
     Privacy concerns    
     Experience with invasions of privacy
     Internet usage 
     Perceptions of personal information
        available on the Internet  
     Experience with the American legal and
        criminal justice systems   
     Knowledge of the criminal justice system
     Attitudes toward the criminal justice
        system 
     Attitudes toward uses of criminal history
        record information outside the criminal
        justice system   
     Awareness and general attitudes    
     Access by employers and government
        licensing agencies    
     Access to criminal history records by
        organizations other than employers and
        licensing agencies    
     Fair information practices    
     Use and distribution of criminal justice
        records by commercial enterprises and
        other organizations   
     Juvenile records    
     Sealing the records of ex-offenders     
     Uses of fingerprinting   
     Posting of information on the Internet
     Summary of factors influencing attitudes
        toward the use of criminal history
        records     
     Overview  
     Experience/Attitudinal summary     
     Demographic profile 

Appendix 1: Sampling variations and tolerances
     Reliability of survey percentages
     Sampling tolerances when comparing two
        samples

Appendix 2: Questionnaire




Background and purpose

This report presents the findings of a telephone
survey conducted in February and March 2000
among a national probability sample of 1,030
adults 18 years of age and older, living in
private households in the continental United
States.

SEARCH, acting with Dr. Alan Westin, a
well-respected expert on issues of privacy and
the use of personal information, commissioned
Opinion Research Corporation International (ORC
International) to conduct this research. The
primary purpose of the study is to assess public
attitudes toward the availability and use of
individuals' criminal history records outside of
the criminal justice system.


Methodology

This report presents the findings of a telephone
survey conducted among a national probability
sample of 1,030 adults, comprised of 520 men and
510 women, 18 years of age and older, living in
private households in the continental United
States. Results based on the total population
have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus
3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
Included in the Appendixes, which follow the
body of this report, are tables of sampling
tolerances of survey results and a copy of the
survey questionnaire. ***Footnote 1: Appendix 1,
which contains tables of sampling variations and
tolerances, begins on Page 59. Appendix 2, which
contains the questionnaire, begins on Page
63.***

As required by the Code of Standards of the
Council of American Survey Research
Organizations, we will maintain the anonymity of
our respondents. No information will be released
that in any way will reveal the identity of a
respondent. ORC International has exercised its
best efforts in the preparation of this
information. In any event, ORC International
assumes no responsibility for any use that is
made of this information or any decisions based
upon it.

Study design

Dr. Westin, in consultation with SEARCH,
provided the basic design for the research and
for the survey instrument itself. ORC
International, drawing on its 6 decades of
experience in public opinion research, provided
input on methodology and questionnaire design.

Sampling

Probability sampling techniques were employed in
the selection of households for telephone
interviewing. ORC International utilizes an
unrestricted random sampling procedure that
controls the amount of serial bias found in
systematic sampling to generate its
random-digit-dial sample. The sample was fully
replicated and stratified by region. Only one
interview is conducted per household. All sample
numbers selected were subject to up to four
attempts to complete an interview.

ORC International's national probability
telephone sample is an efficient form of
random-digit-dialing (RDD). The sample is
designed to be a simple random sample of
telephone households. Unlike published
directories, ORC International's national
probability telephone sample includes both
unlisted numbers and numbers issued after
publication of the directories. The following
procedure was used to create the sample:

* ORC International has an annual license
for GENESYS, a custom RDD sample generation
system developed by Marketing Systems Groups.

* The methodology for generating RDD
telephone samples in the GENESYS system provides
for a single stage, Equal Probability of
Selection Method (EPSEM) sample of residential
telephone numbers. It is updated twice a year.

* When a national probability sample is
needed, a random selection is made from
approximately 40,000 exchanges in 2 million
working banks.

* Each telephone number is transferred to a
separate call record. The record shows the
computer-generated telephone number to be
called, as well as the county, State, and time
zone into which the telephone number falls. Our
computer-assisted telephone interviewing system
(CATI) uses this information to keep track of
regional quotas. The CATI interviewing program
also keeps track of the disposition categories
for each call attempt.

Data collection

Interviewing for this survey was completed
during the period February 22-March 9, 2000. All
data collection efforts took place at ORC
International's Central Telephone Facilities in
Tucson, Arizona, and Tampa, Florida. All ORC
International's interviewers complete an
intensive training and test period.
Additionally, they attend follow-up training
classes that cover advanced screening
techniques, in-depth probing, and the art of
refusal avoidance. Interviewers are continuously
supervised, monitored, and reviewed in order to
maintain the highest quality interviewing
standards.

All interviews were conducted using ORC
International's CATI system. The system is
state-of-the-art and offers several distinct
advantages, such as: full-screen control that
allows multi-question screens, fully
programmable help and objection screens to aid
interviewing, an extremely flexible telephone
number management system, and powerful
data-checking facilities. CATI ensures that
interviews are conducted in the most efficient
manner and allows interviewers easy response
recording. This interviewing method also allows
for the most accurate form of data entry by
guiding the interviewer through the programmed
question flow and by providing on-screen
interviewer instructions.

Weighting

Completed interviews were weighted by four
variables: age, sex, geographic region, and
race, to help ensure reliable and accurate
representation of the total population, 18 years
of age and older. The raw data were weighted by
a proprietary program that automatically
develops a weighting factor for each respondent.
In this program, each respondent is assigned a
single weight derived from the relationship
between the actual proportion of the population
with its specific combination of age, sex,
geographic characteristics, and race, and the
proportion in the sample. Proportional targets
for the population were based on the 1998
Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
The tables included in this report show
unweighted bases.


Executive summary

Overview
There is substantial public (that is, adult)
support for making certain types of criminal
justice records available outside the criminal
justice system when there is a perceived
rationale of public benefit and/or safety.
Support declines noticeably when the goal is
purely private. In general, American adults tend
to favor making individual conviction records
available to employers, governmental licensing
agencies, and other entities. They are far more
reluctant, however, to support access to
arrest-only (or arrest without conviction)
records.


General privacy issues
Turning first to underlying attitudes toward
privacy, the results indicate that the misuse of
personal information is a major concern. Nearly
all (90%) of adult Americans are concerned about
the possible misuse of personal information,
with 64% expressing a high level of concern
("very concerned") and 25% saying they are
"somewhat" or moderately concerned. Ten percent
express either little or no concern about
possible misuse of personal information.

When asked if they have ever been victims of an
improper invasion of privacy by specific types
of organizations, a total of 38% say that they
have been victimized by at least one of the
following:
*a business collecting and using information
(25%)
*a charitable, political, or nonprofit
organization (13%)
*a law enforcement agency (12%)
*a government tax, social service, welfare, or
license agency (10%).

Fifty-two percent of adults believe that
anyone's credit reports or criminal conviction
record (49%) may be purchased via the Internet.
Approximately 4 in 10 adults believe that they
can obtain anyone's Social Security number
(42%), credit card number (39%), or arrest
record (38%). Thirty-six percent believe that
bank balances are for sale on-line.


Attitudes toward the criminal justice system
Thirteen percent of the adult public say that
they "know a great deal" about the American
criminal justice system - defined as the way
police, prosecutors, courts, and defense counsel
work. Most adults (57%) report that "they know
the basics." The balance either "don't know very
much"(23%) or "don't know anything at all" (6%).

Overall, Americans give the criminal justice
system fair grades in executing key functions.

*Majorities rate the system as "very or somewhat
effective" in:
     --investigating and arresting persons
        suspected of committing crimes (79%)
     --prosecuting accused persons (73%)
     --reaching a just outcome in criminal
        trials (68%).

*However, fewer than 2 out of 10 adults rate the
system as very effective in any of these areas,
and a substantial group of adults --
approximately one-quarter of the population --
sees the criminal justice system as not very
effective. About one-half (53%) give the system
a "very or somewhat effective" rating in all
three areas, 24% gave that rating in two areas,
while another 24% said the system is very or
somewhat effective in either only one (10%) or
none (14%) of these areas.

The proportions are similar when it comes to
perceptions about how well the system respects
the civil liberties and constitutional rights of
suspects. Seventy percent say the system does
either very well (24%) or somewhat well (46%),
while about one-quarter say it does not do very
well (19%) or not well at all (8%).

Six out of 10 adults report having had their
fingerprints taken for some sort of
identification purpose, such as military service
or a job application or government license. Most
(87%) felt that fingerprinting was an
appropriate requirement.

Criminal history records

Conviction records
Americans view individuals' criminal history
records as confidential information and favor
some restriction in access.

* 47% prefer what was labeled as a
"partially open system," where only conviction
records are freely available to everyone.
Another 37% favor a restricted system, where
access is limited only to selected users. Only
12% favor a completely open system -- one with
both arrest and conviction records freely
available.

* Most adults (90%) say they prefer that
State agencies not use the Internet to post
criminal history information that is already a
matter of public record.

A substantial majority of the public supports
access to conviction records by various
organizations outside the criminal justice
system where there is some public safety and/or
crime prevention interest. Where private
interests are at stake, support for access to
conviction records drops to about the 40% level.

* Approximately 9 out of 10 adults would
allow some access to conviction records by
potential employers or to government
occupational licensing agencies. However, a
majority (11 out of 20) believes that right of
access should be linked to whether the position
involves sensitive work, such as handling money,
dealing with children, or serving as security
guards.

* Large majorities favor at least some
access to conviction records for private
organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of
America, that work with children (88%), for the
military to evaluate potential recruits (82%),
and for insurance companies investigating fraud
(76%). Support drops for reporters wanting to
find out about political candidates (44%), banks
deciding on personal loan applications (41%),
individuals wanting to learn if a neighbor has
any criminal record (38%), and companies that
issue credit cards (38%).

Arrest records

A large majority (66%) of Americans distinguish
between access to conviction records and access
to records of persons arrested but not
convicted.

* Approximately 3 out of 10 adults would bar
any access to arrest-only records to any
employer or governmental licensing agency. About
one-half would allow limited access based on the
sensitivity of the position, while only 15%
would grant all employers or government
licensing agencies access to arrest-only
records.

* Turning to nonemployment-related entities,
only when it comes to organizations that work
with children does a majority (59%) favor any
access to arrest records. About one-half (49%)
would allow the military to see arrest -- only
records of potential recruits, and 45% would
allow access to insurance companies
investigating fraud. Fewer than one-quarter of
adults favor access to arrest-only records for
reporters wanting to find out about political
candidates (23%), banks deciding on personal
loan applications (22%), individuals wanting to
learn if a neighbor has any criminal record
(23%), and companies that issue credit cards
(21%).

Fair information practices

The study reveals extremely strong support for
the implementation of three "fair information
practices" governing maintenance and use of
criminal history records.

* Eighty-nine percent of adults consider it
very important to have a right to review their
records, coupled with the right to have
suspected errors investigated and, if indeed
erroneous, corrected.

* Seventy-four percent see it as very
important that there be an impartial procedure
to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints
concerning misuse of one's criminal history
records, and/or the failure of the relevant
agency to follow appropriate policies.

* Fifty-five percent believe it very
important that each person be informed when a
criminal history record is created, how it will
be used within the criminal justice system, and
the policies governing the record's availability
outside the system.

The role of the private sector

Most adults (85%) feel that commercial companies
maintaining and distributing criminal history
records should follow the same rules and
procedures regarding fair information practices
as would bind government criminal history
agencies. One out of 10 adults (11%) feels that
"such rules are not important for private
businesses."

* There is a high level of concern about the
system of collecting, maintaining, and
distributing criminal history records by private
companies. Asked which statement best reflects
their own views:
     --Sixty-nine percent of the respondents
chose, "It worries me that this is
being done by commercial organizations and I
favor this being done only by the government."

     --Twenty-two percent said their views
are best reflected by the statement, "This
commercial system provides relevant information
from public record sources for many important
business, social, and governmental purposes and
is OK."
     --Nine percent declined to choose
between these two points of view.


Juveniles, ex-offenders, and fingerprinting
Opinion is divided when it comes to the access
and publication of juvenile court records. About
one-half of adults (53%) favor keeping
disclosure restrictions, "because giving
juvenile offenders the chance to overcome a bad
record is a sound approach." Four out of 10
(40%) favor opening juvenile records to the same
entities that have access to adult records,
"since protecting society and the public should
be the primary concern."

In the case of ex-offenders, the majority (52%)
favors keeping criminal records available to
employers and licensing agencies regardless of
the length of time that has passed since the
individual's conviction or release. Forty-three
percent believe access should not be granted if
a person convicted of a crime serves his or her
sentence and then does not violate the law for a
period, such as 5 years.

Overall, American adults appear to consider
fingerprinting for certain governmental purposes
acceptable. However, once private-sector
entities require fingerprinting, attitudes
become more ambiguous.

* Approximately three-quarters of adults
find fingerprinting "very acceptable" when a
person is arrested (78%) and when someone is
applying for a sensitive job, such as teacher,
nursing home worker, or security guard (77%).
Ninety-four percent and 93%, respectively, think
these practices are either very or somewhat
acceptable.

* Six out of 10 think it a very acceptable
practice to fingerprint welfare program
recipients (62%) or to require a thumbprint on
drivers' licenses (60%), with 86% and 80%,
respectively, responding very or somewhat
acceptable.

* On the other hand, fewer than one-half of
adults find it very acceptable to require
fingerprints to cash a check (45%), buy an
airline ticket (45%), or apply for a job (37%).


Commentary: Balancing privacy and public uses of
criminal history information -- what the survey
tells us

Since 1978, I have been the academic advisor to
a steady stream of national opinion surveys
dealing with the public and privacy. ***Footnote
2: This Commentary section was written by Dr.
Alan F. Westin, Professor Emeritus, Public Law
and Government, Columbia University.*** Thirty
of these were done with Louis Harris and
Associates (now Harris Interactive) and 15 with
ORC International. A major benefit of such
continuous surveying is that, if you ask good
questions early on and then ask them year after
year, you get valuable data on changing public
perceptions and attitudes. I can illustrate this
with two important privacy trend lines we have
tracked.

The public's concerns about privacy, 1970-1999
In 1970, Harris asked respondents to one
national survey how concerned they were about
their personal privacy, with "very concerned,"
"somewhat concerned," "not very concerned," and
"not concerned at all" as the response
categories. Thirty-four percent of the public in
1970 said it was concerned (a combination of the
"very" and "somewhat" respondents).

By the time I started doing privacy surveys with
Harris in 1978, Watergate had intervened, along
with social protest movements on the Vietnam
War, racial justice, and gender discrimination.
Reflecting the social mood, fall of confidence
in institutions, and fears about technology
abuse that marked the 1970s, 66% of the American
public said in our 1978 "Dimensions of Privacy"
survey that they were concerned about threats to
privacy. By 1990, we found that the same
question produced a 78% level of concern. And at
the end of the 1990s, a survey I advised,
conducted by Harris in 1999 and sponsored by
IBM, found that 94% of the American public now
said they were concerned about privacy threats.

Equally important with the dramatic 60% rise in
overall-privacy-concern between 1970 and 1999
was the rise in the "very concerned" responses.
In the 1999 IBM survey, 77% - three-fourths of
American adults - said they were "very
concerned" about the misuse of their personal
information and threats to their privacy.

A second major trend finding is the shift from
the 1970s to today in terms of what the public
perceives as the principal threat to its
privacy. In the post-Watergate era, the
government was overwhelmingly perceived as the
threat. About 75% of survey respondents would
identify the government as being the source for
potential threats to privacy. When we last asked
this question in the mid-1990s, sentiment had
already shifted to the point where roughly the
same number of respondents identified business
and government as equal threats to privacy. The
public was divided roughly in half, with half
saying the government was the greatest threat,
and almost half saying business poses the
greatest threat.

The privacy survey in context

In this Commentary, I am not going to repeat the
main findings, which are presented quite
thoroughly in the main report. My goal is to put
these in a larger context, and to offer my
interpretation of their meaning. I start by
asking two questions.

First, how representative is this survey of
other privacy surveys conducted over the last 20
or 30 years? Second, what did those surveys
teach us about how the public makes up its mind
about the balance between privacy and public
interest? Answers to these questions should
allow us to project how the public is likely to
react to the developing reconsideration of
public records in general, and to uses of
criminal history information outside the
criminal justice system in particular.

At the outset, we should note the environment in
which this survey took place. Our survey
reflects the public's general sense that there
are major changes in the uses of criminal
history information in our society as a result
of advanced information technology. ***Footnote
3: An overview of these "change drivers" is
documented in "Report of the National Task Force
on Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice
Information," a companion report to this survey
that will be published in Fall 2001 by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of
Justice.*** The criminal justice system is
deepening the records it collects, combining
them inside the criminal justice system, and
moving into deeper retrieval capacities, for
example in the record systems of both civil and
criminal courts. Many of these trends are driven
by statutes that require the production of
criminal history information for various kinds
of noncriminal justice uses, such as for
providing licensing standards for people who
deal with senior citizens, children, school
systems, and so forth. 

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is a
good example. ***Footnote 4: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922
et. seq.*** The mandatory licensing and checks
for firearm purchases illustrates the public's
passionate concern that criminal history
information be used in this particular
noncriminal justice focus. We also see the rise
of commercial distribution systems that have
developed into an industry of substantial size,
collecting database information and making it
available to a wide set of users -- employers,
government agencies, lawyers, insurance
companies, and so forth. Some of these services
are now on the Internet, advertising that you
can locate anyone and find out all about them,
including checking for a criminal record.

When examining a survey, it is also useful to
ask whether it is dealing with well-developed
policy questions -- where the public feels it
understands the issue, the players, and the
options -- or is it a survey that is trying to
get people to think about some new and
unfamiliar issues and to draw on their
experiences and attitudes in order to express
some broad preferences? In that perspective, our
survey is clearly an anticipative rather than a
reactive survey. That is, we know from our
survey results that only 10% of the sample says
it has been arrested for a nontraffic offense.
This represents about 20 million adults. Of
those arrestees, 57% say their arrest resulted
in a conviction, which gives us a database of
12.4 million persons who would have personal
experiences with conviction records in the
criminal justice system. While that is a big
number, it is still a very small percentage of
the total adult population of the United States.
On the other hand, when you deal with issues of
employment screening, occupational licensing,
and so forth, it is clear that a majority of our
respondents can identify with those situations
and probably have had experiences in having
record checks made for these noncriminal justice
purposes.

It is also important in understanding our survey
results to note that use of criminal history
records outside the criminal justice system is
not as salient a social issue today as it was in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. That was the
period many children of the Nation's economic
and social elites were being arrested - for
social protest, for racial demonstrations, for
anti-war demonstrations. These were often the
children of government officials, business
executives, and academics. The idea that you
could have an arrest or a conviction record for
demonstrations or protests that would stigmatize
you - so that you wouldn't get into Princeton,
or get a job at the brokerage house, or couldn't
be appointed to Federal or State government
employment - was obviously a great threat to the
progress of the children of the ruling class.
How large-scale arrest and conviction records
for social protest were going to be used became
a political issue in the late 1960s and early
1970s, which it is not today.

But there are still populations that feel
adversely impacted by the social uses of
criminal history information. Race is the
predominant factor here, as the main report
documents. Minority populations feel that the
criminal justice record's stigmatizing effect on
their opportunities for employment, credit,
licensing, and other kinds of functions in this
society is deeply impacted by what the rules
will be and the treatment made of such
information. This race context should be
understood as an important aspect of what the
survey is exploring.

Finally, our survey is anticipative because
members of the public are not, as the phrase
goes, "policy wonks." They do not thrill to
ideas such as whether a legislative solution
would take an opt-in or an opt-out approach, or
whether notice has to be cast in a certain way.
Those issues are for the experts. They are very
important in terms of policy, but we stayed away
from posing those kinds of questions in our
survey. Instead, we tried to frame issues in
terms of broad attitudes, and broad policy and
social choices.

Comparisons with other privacy surveys
How did our sample compare with the results of
other privacy surveys in this decade? We clearly
had a representative sample in terms of how the
public approaches balancing public interest and
privacy. There is high comparability in the
figures we compiled on overall privacy concern,
for example. As in other surveys, our sample
judged information technology uses as positive,
but also as threatening. We also found heavy
support for fair information practices; the list
of rules that people want for the handling of
criminal history information match the high
support for those kinds of principles in many of
the surveys. 

Of great importance was confirmation of the
segmentation of the public on privacy issues
found over 2 decades of privacy survey research.
In looking at the pattern of the public's
privacy attitudes, this research shows that the
public broadly divides into three continuing and
consistent segments:

* First are what we call the "privacy
fundamentalists." These people view privacy as a
passionate and deep concern. They generally will
reject a consumer benefit or social value as
being not as important as protecting their
privacy. When it comes to consumer privacy
issues, they want the government to pass
legislation or have regulatory oversight,
because they think that is the only way that
consumer privacy will be adequately protected.

* At the opposite end are what we call the
"privacy unconcerned." These are the folks who
do not know what the issue is all about, and
could not care less. As consumers, if you give
them 5 cents off, they will give you their
family histories and anything else you want to
know. They also generally feel that public order
and public safety is far more important, because
they do not think they have anything to hide. 

* In between those two are what we call the
"privacy pragmatists." They go through a very
special process. First, privacy pragmatists ask
themselves, "What is the benefit to me or to my
society? What do I get if you extract or require
me to give my personal information?" The second
question they ask is, "What are the privacy
risks and how serious are they? How is my
information going to be used, and is it going to
be used in ways that I am really very unhappy
about and that seem to be excessive?" Third,
they ask, "What safeguards or protections are
being offered for my privacy against those
privacy risks, and how will they be delivered?"
Finally, there is the "Do You Want to be a
Millionaire?" question: Do they trust the
industry or the sector to follow those
safeguards? And if they do, that ends the
discussion. If they do not, the question then
becomes, "Do we need legislation and regulatory
oversight before the privacy pragmatists will be
comfortable with their information being used in
this way?"

Our survey shows that the percentages in each
one of these three categories varies according
to the privacy issue involved. People do not
have one coherent, consistent view across all
the different dimensions of privacy - such as
consumer, citizen, and employee privacy issues.
And consumer issues subdivide into many
different sectors like financial affairs, health
and medical affairs, telecommunications, direct
marketing, and others. In general, we found on
consumer issues that 25% of the public are
privacy fundamentalists, 20% are privacy
unconcerned, and 55% fall into the privacy
pragmatists category. Not surprisingly, when you
shift to health and medical issues, the privacy
fundamentalists category expands; in 1994 it was
roughly 35%. Today, it might be up to 45%, in
terms of the increased sense of sensitivity and
risk involved in health and medical records. 

On citizen issues, we found in several surveys
we conducted that about 32% were in the privacy
fundamentalists category, 12% in privacy
unconcerned, and 50% in privacy pragmatists. Our
data in this survey suggest that the criminal
justice balance pretty much approximates the
citizen division. 

We see this reflected in the findings about
attitudes toward the criminal justice system.
From 68% to 79% rate the criminal justice system
as effective in the different dimensions that we
offered, and 70% say they feel the system
respects civil liberties. But the "very
effective" and the "very greatly respects civil
liberties" categories were not high. It is only
when you put "very" and "somewhat" together, as
is traditional in this kind of survey work, that
you get the overall positive numbers just cited.
However, it is also important to note that only
12% say their own privacy has been invaded or
has been lessened as a result of a law
enforcement agency action, compared to 25% to
30% of the public who regularly say on privacy
surveys that they feel their consumer privacy
has been violated by business actions.

It is useful to compare our findings with some
effectiveness or confidence ratings that we get
about other institutions. Over the years, the
Harris organization has maintained a "confidence
in institutions" index. Reading a list of
institutions, people have been asked how much
confidence they have in "the people running
those organizations." The choices given are: "a
great deal of confidence," "only some
confidence," or "hardly any confidence." The
numbers in our survey show that the skepticism
the American public feels toward a number of
other government institutions makes law
enforcement shine by comparison. Eighty-two
percent say they have "only some" or "hardly
any" confidence in the U.S. Congress, 79% for
the Federal executive branch, 76% for the White
House, 64% for the Supreme Court, and - the big
winner - 48% for the military. These are the
negative levels about these institutions. If
that is a fair comparison to law enforcement and
the criminal justice system, they are not
considered one of the bad boys of the
governmental process.

Patterns reflected in survey findings
With these observations in mind, then, we can
look at some of the specific findings and note
the general pattern reflected. Only 12% of our
sample favors a completely open State criminal
history records system. There is a sense that
there are too many privacy perils in absolute,
total access of this public record system for
more than 12% of the public to feel this is a
good solution. Eighty-four percent want some
kind of limits on either the type of criminal
history record that is disseminated or the type
of user. For example, 47% favor a system that is
completely open for conviction records, while
37% favor a selected-user system that could
provide access to both conviction and
arrest-only records.

What kind of access does the public think is
appropriate, based upon relevance or sensitivity
criteria? There were no majorities for open
access to all criminal history information to
all of the kinds of private organizations that
we listed, again suggesting a public desire to
see modulated systems. Fifty-five percent would
let an employer and 57% would let government
licensing agencies have access to conviction
records, if there is a sensitive job that makes
access an important criteria in protecting the
public. For arrest-only records, the sensitivity
of the job just drew under a majority for
employers and 50% for licensing agencies, while
respondents who would deny access to arrest-only
records rose to 31% and 29% in that category.

Another example is the way access was dealt with
in terms of need and relevance. As far as
conviction records were concerned, there was
very high support for groups that work with
children, the military, and insurers fighting
fraud. On the other hand, there was not a
majority for giving access to the media, to
banks for loan decisions, to neighbors checking
on criminal history conviction records, and to
credit card issuers. When we shifted to
arrest-only records, the center of gravity moved
dramatically, with only groups working with
children drawing majority support, and no others
getting a majority for access being provided.

Applying demographic analysis, we can see that
the groups that favor more limited or less
access are younger respondents who feel that
they are still coming up in the system, and that
there can be more harm done to them from some of
these criminal history information uses.
African-Americans, as compared to Whites, are
more critical of the criminal justice system.
Some of these demographic readings are not so
much separate categories as they may be
describing combinations of statuses or
attitudes. For example, if we look at the
attitudes of groups with the lowest education,
lowest income, and minority status, the same
individual may be represented in those three
different capacities. From 20% to 35% of the
total public shares those demographic
characteristics and, therefore, have those
attitudes.

When we turned to fingerprinting, heavy
majorities said that fingerprinting was
acceptable for all of the seven uses that we
tested. Not surprisingly, we received very high
numbers - 80% to 94% - of support for using
fingerprints to process arrests in the criminal
justice system, for issuing occupational
licenses for sensitive jobs, and for policing
welfare fraud. Those issues always draw heavy
support from the general public. Because
identity fraud has become an enormous problem,
there is high support for using a finger image
on a driver's license to prevent fraudulent use.
We even received 68% to 71% support for using
fingerprinting for check cashing. One response
that really struck me as astounding was majority
support for the use of fingerprints for buying
airline tickets. We may have enhanced that
response by connecting fingerprint use in this
fashion to fighting terrorism, but it reveals
the fragility of the "high privacy position" to
have a majority of Americans say it is
acceptable to fingerprint people who buy airline
tickets.

A few other findings are worth noting. Ninety
percent of the public say they would be opposed
to putting what were called "open public
records" on the Internet. Experts have
recognized that putting open records on-line
would increase access to the addresses of law
enforcement officers, judges, mayors, and others
in a potentially harmful way, and posting
bankruptcy records would reveal things like
Social Security numbers and risk identity
thefts, and so forth. Whether members of the
public had these or other aspects in mind, 9 in
10 Americans clearly feel that there is a
tremendous difference between putting open
records on the Internet and having them open
only at their source.

We saw slim majorities in support of keeping
restrictions on the disclosure of juvenile
records, and that records should not be sealed
but kept open for employers and licensing
agencies. Two out of three respondents believe
it would be better for the government to provide
criminal history information for socially
valuable uses than it would be to have this done
by commercial services. 

When we turn to privacy policies for
organizations collecting and using personal
information, it is clear that the public well
understands and gives extraordinarily high
support to what are known as fair information
practices -- the right to have information
procedures explained and policies followed; the
right to view records and have corrections made;
the right to have an impartial dispute
resolution procedure; and so on. That judgment
was verified here. The fair information
practices rules we presented for uses of
criminal history records were overwhelmingly
seen as "very important" or "important" (without
the "somewhat" category), and the public wants
commercial agencies to follow the same kinds of
practices.

To summarize, the findings here are well
supported by other privacy surveys that are
being done and that have been done in the past.
The survey shows that the majority of the public
starts out as privacy pragmatists. They want to
pick and choose what uses seem to be legitimate
or where the privacy risks seem to be too great.
In no sense is there a kind of carte blanche
attitude that "criminal history information is
okay; let's use it any place people want it."
The process of looking at the value, assessing
the risk, checking for safeguards, and deciding
whether they trust the people running the system
is the process by which people make up their
minds.

This leads me to draw two overarching
conclusions from the survey. First, the public
is indeed interested in these issues and will
support the development of new rules for
societal uses of criminal history information in
an information-rich age when people are actively
seeking more information on one hand, while also
being very worried about inappropriate or
dangerous uses of information. 

Second, where that debate will go will depend on
the process by which these issues are tested in
legislative arenas, in executive agencies, in
the media, and in public debate. What you have
in the survey findings are some underlying
attitude sets. How they will be focused depends
on the play of debate, and on whether horror
stories grip the public and drive
decisionmaking, or whether the feeling is that
there are workable solutions. We will have a
major debate in this decade over reshaping the
rules for criminal history information, both
inside the criminal justice system and in social
uses outside. The survey offers a baseline of
understanding about how the public will approach
these issues when the political system and the
media offer them up for general public response.

Detailed findings

Reading notes

The following pages present supporting
tabulations of survey results. The data are
percentaged vertically and, therefore, should be
read from top-to-bottom. The total number of
unweighted interviews appears at the top in
parentheses. Percentages, however, are
calculated on the weighted bases. Percentages
may not add to 100% due to weighting factors,
rounding or multiple responses. Where a double
asterisk (**) appears, it signifies any value of
less than one-half of 1 percent.

Comparisons of independent subgroups have been
made when those differences are mathematically
significant. Significance testing is done to the
95% confidence level. Note that any statistical
test becomes less reliable when the sample sizes
are small. Even though the test can be
mathematically performed on samples as low as
30, the reasonable lower boundary on the size of
the sample is 60 respondents.

Foundations

Privacy concerns

Nearly all (90%) of adult Americans are
concerned about the possible misuse of personal
information. Almost two-thirds (64%) say they
are "very concerned," while another one-quarter
(25%) report being "somewhat" or moderately
concerned. Ten percent express either little or
no concern about possible misuse of personal
information.

There are some variations of the intensity of
concern. Younger adults, Whites, those who are
more affluent, and college graduates are less
likely to report that they have a high level of
concern ("very concerned") about possible misuse
of personal information.

[See Q21]

Experience with invasions of privacy

The high level of concern about privacy invasion
is not, however, totally based on personal
experience. To the extent personal experience
influences concerns, perceived privacy invasions
by the private sector are most frequent.

* When asked if they have ever been victims
of an improper invasion of privacy by specific
types of organizations, a total of 38% say that
they have been victimized by at least one of
four entities.

     -- 25% of respondents said that they
have been victimized by a business collecting
and using information
     -- 13% had been victimized by a
charitable, political, or nonprofit organization
     -- 12% by a law enforcement agency
     -- 10% by a government tax, social
service, welfare, or licensing agency.

Not surprisingly, adults who have a high level
of concern about the possible misuse of personal
information are more likely to report having
been victims of an invasion.

African-Americans are nearly twice as likely to
feel that they have been victimized by a law
enforcement agency (21% vs. 11%).

More men than women perceive that they have been
a "privacy victim" of a law enforcement agency
(16% vs. 9%).

[See Q22]

Internet usage

Sixty percent of adults report using the
Internet from any location (home, work, school,
or some other place).

* In general, Internet users are more likely
to be men, younger, upper income, White, and
college graduates.

[See Q27]

Perceptions of personal information available on
the Internet

About one-half of adults believe that anyone's
credit reports (52%) or criminal conviction
record (49%) may be purchased via the Internet.

Approximately 4 in 10 adults believe that they
can obtain anyone's Social Security number
(42%), credit card number (39%), or arrest
record (38%). Thirty-six percent believe that
bank balances are for sale on line.

* Internet users are significantly more
likely than nonusers to believe that it is true
that credit reports (56% vs. 47%) and criminal
conviction records (53% vs. 45%) are available
on-line.

[See Q20]

Experience with the American legal and criminal
justice systems

Seven percent report that they have had some
sort of legal training and/or exposure (lawyers,
work for a law firm or legal department, or have
had some sort of legal training). Nine percent
of adults report that they work or have worked
for some sort of criminal justice agency --
including police, prosecutors, courts, or a
corrections agency.

*Nearly half (48%) of those with legal
training work or have worked for some sort of
criminal justice agency.

Seven percent -- 16% of those working for a
criminal justice agency and 17% of those with
legal training -- have ever personally sought
the criminal conviction records of someone else,
excluding inquiries made as part of their
employment.

One out of 10 respondents reports having been
arrested for a criminal offense (other than
driving convictions) -- and of those persons,
57% admit to having been convicted.

Six out of 10 adults report having had their
fingerprints taken for some sort of
identification purpose, such as military service
or a job application or government license.

* Most (87%) felt that the fingerprinting
was an appropriate requirement.

[See Q23, Q24, Q25, Q26, Q28, Q29, Q30]

Knowledge of the criminal justice system

Thirteen percent say that they "know a great
deal" about the American criminal justice system
-- defined as the way police, prosecutors,
courts, and defense counsel work. Most adults
(57%) report that they "know the basics." The
balance either "don't know very much" (23%) or
"don't know about this area at all" (6%).

*Men claim to be more knowledgeable than do
women, with 17% of men asserting a high degree
of knowledge, as compared to 9% of women.

*Although age, education, and income
clearly have a relationship to knowledge about
the system, it is interesting that the primary
difference lies between the proportions claiming
"average" knowledge -- "knowing the basics"  --
and those claiming little or no knowledge.

[See Q1]

Attitudes toward the criminal justice system

Overall, Americans give the criminal justice
system fair grades in executing key functions.

* Majorities rate the system as "very or
somewhat effective" in:
     -- investigating and arresting persons
suspected of committing crimes (79%)
     -- prosecuting accused persons (73%)
     -- reaching a just outcome in criminal
trials (68%).

* Fewer than 2 out of 10 adults rate the
system as very effective in any of these areas.

A substantial group of adults -- approximately
one-quarter of the population -- sees the
criminal justice system as not very or not
effective at all.

* About one-half (53%) give the system a
very or somewhat effective rating in all three
areas; 24% gave that rating in two areas, while
another 24% said the system is very or somewhat
effective in either only one (10%) or none (14%)
of these areas.

As the accompanying table illustrates, race and
education tend to impact one's views on the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

[See Q2]

The proportions are similar when it comes to
perceptions about how well the system respects
the civil liberties and constitutional rights of
suspects.

* Seventy percent say the system does either
very well (24%) or somewhat well (46%), while
about one-quarter say it does not do very well
(19%) or not well at all (8%).

* Race (most notably), income, and education
influence views of how well rights and liberties
are respected.

[See Q3]

Attitudes toward uses of criminal history record
information outside the criminal justice system

Awareness and general attitudes

Slightly fewer than one-half of adults (45%) say
that they have read or heard about the criminal
history records system.

Overall, Americans view government criminal
history records as confidential information and
favor some restriction.

* When given a choice of three systems, 47%
prefer what was labeled as a "partially open
system," where conviction records are freely
available to everyone. Another 37% favor a
restricted system, where access is limited only
to selected users.

* Only 12% favor a completely open system --
one with both arrest and conviction records
freely available.

Race and education appear to be significant
demographic factors in determining attitudes
insofar as preference for a partially open
system (open access to conviction records)
versus a selected-user system.

* Whites favor a partially open system over
one limited to select users by 49% to 35%, while
African-American respondents favor the selected
user system by a similar margin of 47% to 35%.

* Those with at least a high school diploma
favor the partially open system, while those who
did not complete high school favor a
selected-user system to a partially open system
by 48% to 30%.

[See Q4]
[See Q5]

Access by employers and government licensing
agencies

Access to conviction records

Although most adults would allow some employer
access to the conviction records of job
applicants, a majority (55%) believes that right
of access should be linked to whether the
position involves sensitive work, such as
handling money, dealing with children, or
serving as security guards. Four out of 10 (40%)
would grant access to all employers, regardless
of the position, while only 1 out of 20 (4%)
would bar all employer access.

Attitudes are similar when it comes to
government occupational licensing agencies
having access to conviction records. A majority
(57%) believes that access should be limited to
occupations involving sensitive work and 35%
would grant access to all agencies. Again, only
4% would prohibit access to all occupational
licensing agencies.

As the accompanying tables illustrate, those
most likely to favor blanket access to either
employers or licensing agencies are persons aged
25 years and older, Whites, individuals in more
affluent households, those with at least some
college, those who feel the criminal justice
system respects civil rights, and those who
report never having been arrested.

[See Q6, 7]

Access to arrest-only records 

A large majority of Americans distinguish
between access to conviction records and access
to records of persons arrested but not
convicted.

* Sixty-six percent say that they would take
a different position regarding access to arrest
records than they do conviction records.

* While there is some fluctuation among
demographic groups examined, that fluctuation
lies only in the strength of the majority,
ranging from a low of 60% among those who did
not attend college and a high of 73% among
residents of the Northeast.

[See Q9]

The shift in opinion when it comes to
arrest-only records is clearly in favor of less
access. Approximately 3 out of 10 adults would
bar any access to arrest-only records to any
employer or governmental licensing agency.

About one-half would allow limited access based
on the sensitivity of the position, while only
15% would grant all employers or government
licensing agencies access to arrest-only
records.

[See Q10, 11]

Access to criminal history records by
organizations other than employers and licensing
agencies

Substantial majorities favor at least some
access to conviction records for private
organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of
America, that work with children (88%), for the
military to evaluate potential recruits (82%),
and for insurance companies investigating fraud
(76%).

* Support drops below a majority, however,
for reporters wanting to find out about
political candidates (44%), banks deciding on
personal loan applications (41%), individuals
wanting to learn if a neighbor has any criminal
record (38%), and companies that issue credit
cards (38%).

When the subject turns to arrest-only records,
however, support for access again plummets. Only
when the interests of children are involved does
a majority (59%) favor access. About one-half
(49%) would allow the military to see
arrest-only records of potential recruits, and
45% would allow access to insurance companies
investigating fraud.

* Fewer than one-quarter of adults favor
access to arrest-only records for reporters
wanting to find out about political candidates
(23%), banks deciding on personal loan
applications (22%), individuals wanting to learn
if a neighbor has any criminal record (23%), and
companies that issue credit cards (21%).

[See Q8, 12]

Fair information practices

The study reveals extremely strong support for
the implementation of three "fair information
practices" governing maintenance and use of
criminal history records.

* Nearly 9 out of 10 adults (89%) consider
it very important to have a right to review
their records, coupled with the right to have
suspected errors investigated and, if indeed
erroneous, corrected.

* Approximately three-quarters (74%) see it
as very important that there be an impartial
procedure to receive, investigate, and resolve
complaints concerning misuse of one's criminal
history records and/or the failure of the
relevant agency to follow appropriate policies.

* Over one-half (55%) believe it very
important that each person be informed when a
criminal history record is created, how it will
be used within the criminal justice system, and
the policies governing the record's availability
outside the system. [One should be cautious in
interpreting the relatively low level of support
as lessening the importance of making
individuals aware of the policy(ies) governing
record use and availability outside the criminal
justice system. In light of the higher support
for an impartial review system to investigate
and correct the improper use of records, a
reasonable conclusion is that some respondents
focused more on the first two components of this
practice, which relate to record creation and
their use within the criminal justice system.]

* Ninety percent or more consider each of
these practices to be either very or somewhat
important.

[See Q13]


Use and distribution of criminal justice records
by commercial enterprises and other
organizations

A majority of adults are concerned about the
system of collecting, maintaining, and
distributing criminal history records by private
companies and would prefer that the government
maintain such a system.

* Asked which statement best reflects their
own view:

     --Sixty-nine percent of the
respondents chose, "It worries me that this is
being done by commercial organizations and I
favor this being done only by the government."

     --Twenty-two percent said their views
are best reflected by the statement, "This
commercial system provides relevant information
from public record sources for many important
business, social, and governmental purposes and
is OK."

     --Nine percent declined to choose
between these two points of view.

* Once again, while there are some
differences among demographic groups that rise
to the level of statistical significance, those
differences tend to be small and at least
partially attributable to variations in the
proportions of those unable to choose between
the two alternatives. Two of the more notable
variations -- between men and women and between
Whites and African-Americans -- are illustrated
in the following table.
     
[See Q14]

Eighty-five percent of adults feel that
commercial companies maintaining and
distributing criminal history records should
follow the same rules and procedures regarding
fair information practices as would bind
government criminal history agencies.

One out of 10 adults (11%) feels that "such
rules are not important for private businesses."

Again, the few demographic differences that
exist tend to be small. In this instance, two of
the starkest differences (illustrated below) are
between Internet users and nonusers and (again)
between Whites and African-Americans.

[See Q15]

Juvenile records

Opinion is more closely divided when it comes to
the access and publication of juvenile court
records. About one-half of adults (53%) favor
keeping disclosure restrictions, "because giving
juvenile offenders the chance to overcome a bad
record is a sound approach." Four of 10 adults
(40%) favor opening juvenile records to the same
entities that have access to adult records,
"since protecting society and the public should
be the primary concern."

Differences based on education, race,
perceptions of the system's respect for civil
rights, and employment within the criminal
justice system appear to affect views on
juvenile records.

* Individuals with at least some college
education are more likely to favor keeping
restricted access than those who have not
attended (56% vs. 50%). In addition,
African-Americans are more likely than Whites to
favor restrictions (69% vs. 51%).

* Similarly, individuals who have ever
worked for a criminal justice agency and those
who feel the criminal justice system does not do
well when it comes to respecting the civil
rights of suspects are more likely to favor the
current policy of keeping juvenile records
confidential (64% and 59%, respectively).

[See Q16]

Sealing the records of ex-offenders

Although a small majority favors sealed juvenile
records, a comparable proportion (52%) favors
keeping criminal records available to employers
and licensing agencies regardless of the length
of time that has passed since the individual's
conviction or release. Forty-three percent
believe access should not be granted if a person
convicted of a crime serves his or her sentence
and then does not violate the law for a period,
such as 5 years.

* In this case, some of the differences
among subgroups that do arise reverse the order
of preference. Favoring sealed records are
majorities of African-Americans (60%), of those
ever arrested (55%), and of those who feel the
criminal justice system does not respect civil
rights (52%).

* In addition, those residing in less
affluent households (under $50,000 annual
income) are evenly split, with 48% favoring
sealing the records of ex-offenders and 47%
favoring continued access.

[See Q17]

Uses of fingerprinting

Overall, American adults appear to consider
fingerprinting for certain governmental purposes
acceptable. However, once private-sector
entities require fingerprinting, attitudes
become more ambiguous.

* Approximately three-quarters of adults
find fingerprinting "very acceptable" when a
person is arrested (78%) and when someone is
applying for a sensitive job, such as teacher,
nursing home worker, or security guard (77%).
Ninety-four percent and 93%, respectively, think
these practices are either very or somewhat
acceptable.

* Six out of 10 respondents think it a very
acceptable practice to fingerprint welfare
program recipients (62%), or to require a
thumbprint on drivers' licenses (60%), with 86%
and 80%, respectively, responding very or
somewhat acceptable.

* On the other hand, fewer than one-half of
adults find it very acceptable to require
fingerprints to cash a check (45%), buy an
airline ticket (45%), or apply for a job (37%).

There appears to be no significant difference in
attitudes based on whether or not someone has
been fingerprinted.

As the following tables illustrate, women tend
to be more favorable toward fingerprinting
requirements. Similarly, the acceptability of
fingerprinting appears to increase with age.

African-Americans are far less inclined to see
fingerprinting as very acceptable in the context
of government welfare programs (47% vs. 64%
among Whites), but are more likely to see the
requirement as very acceptable step to reduce
check-cashing fraud (57% vs. 44%).

[See Q18]


Posting of information on the Internet

Most adults (90%) say that they prefer that
State agencies not use the Internet to post
criminal history information that is already a
matter of public record.

There is no indication that attitudes toward
Internet posting will substantially change in
the near future. Even among younger adults
(under 35), current Internet users, and those
with a low concern about the misuse of personal
information, opposition exceeds 80%.

[See Q19]


Summary of factors influencing attitudes toward
the use of criminal history records


Overview

The survey instrument was designed to capture
demographic, experiential, and attitudinal
characteristics that were thought likely to have
an impact on or a relationship to respondents'
views on the use of criminal history records
outside the criminal justice system. Throughout
the detailed findings are references to key
differences where those differences are
statistically significant at the 95% confidence
level. ***Footnote 5: See Appendix 1 for notes
on significance testing between independent
subgroups.*** In many cases, differences either
do not exist or were marginal. ***Footnote 6:
Several groupings that would self-evidently seem
to have a bearing on attitudes (for example,
legal and/or criminal justice experience,
whether the individual was ever arrested, and so
on) yielded unweighted base sizes below 100. At
that level, differences need to be extremely
great. Accordingly, these groups are cited
infrequently herein.*** However, a few patterns
do emerge.

* Attitudes toward access to criminal
history records tend to correlate somewhat to
age, income, education, and race.

     --Younger adults, persons with less
education, and those in lower-income households
tend to favor less access to criminal history
records.

     --African-Americans often demonstrate
a greater preference for less access compared to
those who identified themselves as White.

* In terms of attitudes, the perception of
how well the criminal justice system respects
the civil rights of suspects and the general
level of concern about the misuse of personal
information also shows some correlation with
attitudes toward criminal history information.

     --Those who feel the system does not
respect civil rights very well and those who
have a high level of concern about the misuse of
personal information tend to show greater
likelihood of preference for restrictions on
access to criminal history information.


The following tables summarize the experiential,
attitudinal, and demographic factors examined.


[See Experience/Attitudinal summary]
[See Demographic profile]


Appendix 1:
Sampling variations and tolerances

Reliability of survey percentages

Results of any sample are subject to sampling
variation. The magnitude of the variation is
measurable and is affected by the number of
interviews and the level of the percentages
expressing the results.

The table below shows the possible sample
variation that applies to percentage results
reported herein. The chances are 95 in 100 that
a survey result does not vary, plus or minus, by
more than the indicated number of percentage
points from the result that would be obtained if
interviews had been conducted with all persons
in the universe represented by the sample.


[See Reliability of survey %]


Sampling tolerances when comparing two samples

Tolerances are also involved in the comparison
of results from independent parts of the sample.
A difference, in other words, must be of at
least a certain number of percentage points to
be considered statistically significant -- that
is, not due to random chance. The table below is
a guide to the sampling tolerances in percentage
points applicable to such comparisons, based on
a 95% confidence level.


[See Sampling Tolerances]


Appendix 2:

Questionnaire

OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

FEBRUARY 22, 2000

PRIVACY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE
32632

BALLOT #
TELEPHONE #
STATE
COUNTY
METRO
SURVEY # (LAST 3 DIGITS)
CALL


TELEPHONE NUMBER: (  )   TIME ENDED:    
                         TIME STARTED:
     
349-352                  LENGTH:   
(MINUTES)
SEX OF RESPONDENT:       DATE:     
372  1    MALE                INTERVIEWER:
     
     2    FEMALE         I.D.:     


Hello, I'm          calling from Opinion
Research Corporation International of Princeton,
New Jersey. We're conducting a national survey
of people's opinions on privacy and criminal
justice and would like to have your household
participate. We are not selling any products or
services. We are only asking your opinions.

Now, may I please speak to a (male/female) 18
years of age or older who lives in this
household?

First of all . . .

Q1   How much do you know about the American
system of criminal justice - the way police,
prosecutors, courts, and defense counsel work?
Would you say you know a great deal, know the
basics, don't know very much, or don't know
about this area at all?
1    KNOW A GREAT DEAL
2    KNOW THE BASICS
3    DON'T KNOW VERY MUCH
4    DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS AREA AT ALL
5    DON'T KNOW


Q2   From what you have read or heard, or any
personal experiences, how effective do you think
the overall American criminal justice system is
in each of the following areas? Do you think it
is very effective, somewhat effective, not very
effective, or not effective at all? (READ LIST)
1    Very effective
2    Somewhat effective
3    Not very effective
4    Not effective at all
5    DON'T KNOW

In investigating and arresting persons suspected
of committing crimes
In prosecuting accused persons
In reaching just outcomes at criminal trials


Q3   How well do you think the criminal justice
system as a whole respects the civil liberties
or constitutional rights of persons who become
involved as suspects? Would you say . . . (READ
LIST)
1    Very well
2    Somewhat well
3    Not very well
4    Not well at all
5    DON'T KNOW


Q4   Government agencies collect and store the
criminal history records of persons arrested,
prosecuted, and convicted or acquitted in the
State and Federal criminal justice systems. They
store these records in computerized record
systems. Police, prosecutors, defense counsel,
and court officers use these records to carry
out their missions. Have you read or heard about
this criminal history record system?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


Q5   Under American law and practice,
government criminal history records are made
available to some government and private users
outside the criminal justice system. Please
listen to three different policies for making
such government records available and indicate
which ONE you would prefer. (READ ENTIRE LIST
BEFORE RECORDING ONE ANSWER)
1    A COMPLETELY OPEN SYSTEM, where anyone can
obtain either the conviction or the
arrest-without-conviction record about an
individual, because such broad access helps
protect society
2    A PARTIALLY OPEN SYSTEM, where anyone can
obtain CONVICTION records but NOT records of
arrests WITHOUT CONVICTIONS, because persons not
convicted are presumed innocent in our
constitutional system
3    A system OPEN ONLY TO SELECTED USERS for
either conviction or nonconviction records, such
as employers or government licensing
authorities, because society feels certain users
have a valid need but others do not have a valid
need
4    DON'T KNOW/NONE OF THESE

Regardless of the view you just expressed, we'd
like to explore some issues of criminal history
record use in greater detail, starting with
CONVICTION records.


Q6   How do you feel about EMPLOYERS being able
to obtain from government agencies the
conviction records of persons applying to them
for jobs? Do you feel ALL employers should be
able to get such records, NO employers should be
able to get these, or it should DEPEND ON
WHETHER THE JOB INVOLVES SENSITIVE WORK, such as
handling money, dealing with children, or
serving as security guards?
1    ALL
2    NONE
3    DEPENDS ON JOB
4    DON'T KNOW


Q7   How do you feel about GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
THAT ISSUE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES obtaining
CONVICTION records from the record agencies? Do
you feel that ALL license agencies should have
access, NONE should have access, or it should
DEPEND ON WHETHER THE LICENSE WILL BE FOR JOBS
INVOLVING SENSITIVE WORK?
1    ALL
2    NONE
3    DEPENDS ON JOB
4    DON'T KNOW


Q8   Here are some other groups that might want
to get CONVICTION records. For each, would you
favor them having access or not? (READ AND
ROTATE ITEMS)
1    Favor groups having access to CONVICTION
records
2    Do not favor groups having access to
CONVICTION records
3    DON'T KNOW

Banks deciding on personal loan applications
Reporters wanting to find out about political
candidates
Individuals wanting to learn if a neighbor has
any criminal record
Insurance companies investigating claims for
possible fraud
Private organizations, like the Boy Scouts, that
work with children
The military services, in screening persons
seeking to enlist
Companies that issue credit cards


Q9   Now, please think about government records
of persons ARRESTED BUT NOT CONVICTED. Would you
take the SAME position on groups having access
to those records as you just did for CONVICTION
records, or would you take some DIFFERENT
positions as to records of ARRESTS WITHOUT
CONVICTIONS?
1    SAME POSITION -->SKIP TO Q13
2    DIFFERENT POSITIONS -->CONTINUE
3    DON'T KNOW -->SKIP TO Q13


Q10  How do you feel about EMPLOYERS being able
to obtain from government agencies the
arrest-without-conviction records of persons
applying to them for jobs? Do you feel ALL
employers should be able to get such records, NO
employers should be able to get these, or it
should DEPEND ON WHETHER THE JOB INVOLVES
SENSITIVE WORK, such as handling money, dealing
with children, or serving as security guards?
1    ALL
2    NONE
3    DEPENDS ON JOB
4    DON'T KNOW


Q11  How do you feel about GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
THAT ISSUE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES obtaining the
arrest-without-conviction records from the
record agencies? Do you feel that ALL license
agencies should have access, NONE should have
access, or it should DEPEND ON WHETHER THE
LICENSE WILL BE FOR JOBS INVOLVING SENSITIVE
WORK?
1    ALL
2    NONE
3    DEPENDS ON JOB
4    DON'T KNOW


Q12  Here are some other groups that might want
to get ARREST-WITHOUT-CONVICTION records. For
each, would you favor them having access or not?
(READ AND ROTATE ITEMS)
1    Favor groups having access to
ARREST-WITHOUT-CONVICTION records
2    Do not favor groups having access to
ARREST-WITHOUT-CONVICTION records
3    DON'T KNOW

Banks deciding on personal loan applications
Reporters wanting to find out about political
candidates
Individuals wanting to learn if a neighbor has
any criminal record
Insurance companies investigating claims for
possible fraud
Private organizations, like the Boy Scouts, that
work with children
The military services, in screening persons
seeking to enlist
Companies that issue credit cards


(ASK EVERYONE)
Q13  Here are some policies that could be set
to protect individual rights of persons having a
criminal history record in government files. For
each of these, indicate whether you think
requiring such a policy is very important,
somewhat important, not too important, or not
important at all. (READ LIST)
1    Very important
2    Somewhat important
3    Not too important
4    Not important at all
5    DON'T KNOW

Each person would be informed when a record is
created what the record is, how it will be used
inside the criminal justice system, and what
policies will be followed in making the record
available outside the criminal justice system
Each person would have the right to see his or
her record, and to have items felt to be
incorrect re-checked by the recordkeeping agency
and corrected, if in error

An impartial procedure would be available for
receiving, investigating, and resolving
complaints by individuals about misuse of their
records or failure to follow agency policies


Q14  Turning from government record systems to
the private sector, there are private companies
that collect reports of arrests and trial
outcomes from newspaper stories and from various
public records, such as criminal court files.
These companies sell this information to private
parties, such as private employers, insurance
companies investigating fraud, or lawyers
checking out parties or witnesses in civil
litigation. The companies also provide criminal
history reports to government licensing
agencies, government employers, and other
government agencies. Which ONE of the following
judgments about this system of private
information suppliers of criminal history
records would you agree with MOST? (READ LIST)
1    This commercial system provides relevant
information from public record sources for many
important business, social, and governmental
purposes and is OK
2    It worries me that this is being done by
commercial organizations and I favor this being
done only by the government
3    DON'T KNOW/NONE OF THESE


Q15  Do you feel that these commercial
companies should follow the SAME rules and
procedures for giving individuals they report on
fair information and fair procedure practices
that government criminal history agencies
follow, or do you think such rules are NOT
IMPORTANT where private businesses are involved?
1    COMMERCIAL COMPANIES FOLLOW THE SAME RULES
AND PROCEDURES AS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
2    SUCH RULES ARE NOT IMPORTANT FOR PRIVATE
BUSINESSES
3    DON'T KNOW


Q16  Today, many States limit the availability
of records about juveniles charged and processed
in juvenile courts; for example, not allowing
access to employers, government licensing
agencies, or military enlistment offices. This
is based on a judgment that juveniles should be
given an opportunity to overcome youthful
criminal behavior. Out of concern over current
juvenile crimes, some people would open juvenile
records to greater access. Please listen to the
following two policies and indicate which ONE
you think would be BEST. (READ LIST)
1    Keep restrictions on disclosure of
juvenile court records, because giving juvenile
offenders the chance to overcome a bad record is
a sound approach
2    Open juvenile records to the same
government and private organizations that can
get adult criminal records, since protecting
society and the public should be the primary
concern
3    DON'T KNOW/NONE OF THESE


Q17  Some people believe that if a person
convicted of a crime serves his or her sentence
and then does not violate the law for a period,
such as 5 years, government record agencies
SHOULD NOT make that criminal record available
to employers or licensing agencies.

Other people believe employers and government
licensing agencies SHOULD HAVE access to such
government records, and be able to consider the
fact of a conviction in the hiring or licensing
process.

Overall, which of these two approaches do you
prefer?
1    SHOULD NOT MAKE CRIMINAL RECORDS AVAILABLE
AFTER PERIOD OF TIME
2    SHOULD MAKE CRIMINAL RECORDS AVAILABLE
3    DON'T KNOW


Q18  Identifying a person accurately is a major
concern in many areas of life today. In each of
the following situations, how acceptable is it
to you that persons be required to give their
FINGERPRINTS? Is it very acceptable, somewhat
acceptable, not very acceptable, or not
acceptable at all? (READ AND ROTATE ITEMS)
1    Very acceptable
2    Somewhat acceptable
3    Not very acceptable
4    Not acceptable at all
5    DON'T KNOW

When individuals are arrested for a criminal
offense, so that a check can be made against
criminal history and wanted persons records
To put a thumbprint on drivers' licenses, to
make successful counterfeiting of drivers'
licenses more difficult
To cash a check, to help reduce check-cashing
fraud
When applying for a job, so that the employer
could check for a criminal history record
When applying for a government license for
sensitive jobs, such as teachers, nursing home
workers, or security guards
When buying an airline ticket, because of
terrorism threats
For government welfare program recipients, to
detect double registrations or ineligible
persons


Q19  Some people believe that State government
agencies that maintain criminal history records
that are open to the general public under their
State law should post these on the Internet, so
that anyone who wanted to could check whether
someone had such a record.

Other people feel that even though such records
could be obtained by applying to the government
record agency for a copy, it isn't a good idea
to put all those records on the Internet for
anyone to obtain.

Which would you prefer: State agencies putting
all these records on the Internet, or not doing
that?
1    PUTTING RECORDS ON THE INTERNET
2    NOT PUTTING RECORDS ON THE INTERNET
3    DON'T KNOW


Q20  For each of the following types of
personal records, please indicate whether you
think it is true or false that anyone using the
Internet can PURCHASE this kind of record from
PRIVATE SERVICES on any person they are
interested in, for any purpose that they have in
mind. (READ AND ROTATE ITEMS)
1    True
2    False
3    DON'T KNOW

Anyone's criminal conviction record
Anyone's arrest record, even if not convicted
Anyone's credit bureau report
Anyone's Social Security number
Anyone's bank checking account balance
Anyone's credit card numbers


Q21  How concerned are you about the possible
misuse of your personal information in America
today? Are you...(READ LIST)
1    Very concerned
2    Somewhat concerned
3    Not very concerned
4    Not concerned at all
5    DON'T KNOW


Q22  Have you personally ever been the victim
of what you felt was an improper invasion of
privacy by any of the following? (READ AND
ROTATE ITEMS)
1    Yes
2    No
3    DON'T KNOW
A business collecting and using information
about you
A law enforcement agency
A government tax, social service, welfare, or
license agency
A charitable, political, or nonprofit
organization


Q23  Have you ever had your fingerprints taken,
for example, for military service, applying for
a job or a government license, or for any other
identification purpose?
1    YES -->CONTINUE
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED -->SKIP TO Q25


Q24  Did you feel that doing this was an
appropriate requirement or not an appropriate
requirement?
1    APPROPRIATE
2    NOT APPROPRIATE
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

Just for background purposes, please answer the
following questions about yourself.


Q25  Do you now work or have you ever worked
for any kind of criminal justice agency, such as
the police, prosecutor's offices, courts, or
corrections agency?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


Q26  Are you a lawyer, do you work for a law
firm or legal department, or have you had legal
training?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


Q27  Do you use the Internet today from home,
work, school, or any other place?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


Q28  Have you personally ever sought to obtain
the criminal conviction record about another
person, for any reason, apart from any such
inquiry in your duties at work?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


Q29  Have you ever been arrested for a criminal
offense, other than driving violations?
1    YES -->CONTINUE
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED -->SKIP TO S7


Q30  Were you convicted for that offense or
not?
1    YES
2    NO
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED


S7   What was the last grade in school you
completed?
1    8TH GRADE OR LESS
2    HIGH SCHOOL INCOMPLETE (GRADES 9, 10, 11)
3    HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETE (GRADE 12)
4    SOME COLLEGE
5    COLLEGE GRADUATE
6    POSTGRADUATE WORK/DEGREE
7    TECHNICAL SCHOOL/PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS
SCHOOL
8    REFUSED/NR


S8   What is your age?
1 18-20
2 21-24
3 25-29
4 30-34
5 35-39
6 40-44
7 45-49
8 50-54
9 55-59
10 60-64
11 65 OR OLDER
12 REFUSED/NR


S9   Which of the following best describes your
race? (READ LIST)
1. White/Caucasian
2. Black/African-American
3. Asian/Asian-American, or
4. Some other race
5. REFUSED/NR


S9A  Are you, or is anyone else in your
household Hispanic? That is, from a
Spanish-speaking country, or the descendent of
someone from a Spanish-speaking country.
1    YES
2    NO
3    REFUSED/NR


S10  Was your TOTAL household income BEFORE
taxes for 1999 less than $25,000 or $25,000 or
more?
1    LESS THAN $25,000   --> Was that . . . ?
(READ CHOICES.)
1    Under $10,000
2    $10,000 but less than $15,000
3    $15,000 but less than $20,000
4    $20,000 but less than $25,000
5    REFUSED
2    $25,000 OR MORE     --> Was that . . . ?
(READ CHOICES.)
1    $25,000 but less than $30,000
2    $30,000 but less than $35,000
3    $35,000 but less than $40,000
4    $40,000 but less than $50,000
5    $50,000 but less than $75,000
6    $75,000 but less than $100,000
7     $100,000 or more
8    REFUSED (UNSPECIFIED AFTER $25,000 LESS OR
MORE)
3    DON'T KNOW/REFUSED/NR


Thank you very much for your time. May I please
verify that I reached you by dialing . .

______________ __________________________
   (AREA CODE)      (TELEPHONE NUMBER)



th 7/12/01