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