MENU TITLE: Early Experiences With Criminal History Records Improvement.
Series: BJA Monograph
Published: May 1997
176 pages
304,214 bytes
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document
in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic
file available from this Web site or order a print
copy from BJA at 1 800-688-4252.
Early Experiences With Criminal History Records
Improvement
Monograph
May 1997
NCJ 152977
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
John C. Dwyer
Acting Associate Attorney General
Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General
Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770
Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
1-800-688-4252
Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
------------------------------
Foreword
The Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI)
Program was the first installment in a long-term
and multifaceted effort by the U.S. Department of
Justice to assist States in improving the quality
of their criminal history records. CHRI Program
awards totaling more than $27 million were made to
53 jurisdictions (all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands) from fiscal year (FY)
1990 through FY 1993. The CHRI Program was
administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS). The evaluation leading to this monograph was
supported through BJS's sister agency within the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA).
The CHRI Program's goals were to enhance State
criminal history records by improving their quality
and timeliness, assist States in meeting new
standards for voluntary reporting of criminal
record information to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and overcome obstacles to
identifying felons who attempted to purchase
firearms. To accomplish these goals, the CHRI
Program supported a wide array of technological
activities that ranged from baseline data quality
audits to the design and implementation of
sophisticated electronic interfaces between a
State's central repository and its court
information system(s).
CHRI's origin dates to the passage of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988, which also established the BJA
Criminal Justice Records Improvement (CJRI)
Program. Under CJRI, States receiving awards on an
annual basis under the Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant
Program are required to apply a minimum of 5
percent of each award to activities seeking to
improve the accuracy and completeness of records
related to the disposition of cases and offenders
by the criminal justice system. Other CJRI goals
are to automate all criminal history recordkeeping
systems and to promote interface between State
repositories and the FBI's criminal history record
programs. Funding under the CJRI Program began in
FY 1992 and continues today. From the beginning,
States saw the CJRI Program as a mechanism to
expand on and complete activities begun under the
CHRI Program.
With the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence
Protection Act and the National Child Protection
Act in 1993, the CJRI Program goals were expanded
to include assisting States in implementing the
provisions of these acts. At the same time, BJS was
given the responsibility of administering a
complementary program, the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP), which also
supports Brady and Child Protection Act goals. BJA
and BJS continue to work in tandem, using these
programs to assist States in addressing these
complex and important national priorities.
BJS is now supporting continuation of the
evaluation, which will address CHRI, CJRI, and
NCHIP activities. Thus, this monograph becomes a
record of and a building block to, rather than a
final report on, a comprehensive nationwide
examination of the quality of State criminal
justice recordkeeping systems.
BJA is pleased to contribute to this Federal and
State partnership effort by supporting improvement
of and providing information on these very
significant activities. They serve not only to
improve criminal history record systems but also to
enhance interagency cooperation within States and
to heighten awareness of the importance of criminal
history record information nationwide.
Nancy E. Gist
Director
------------------------------
Acknowledgments
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) wishes to
acknowledge the contributions of the following
individuals, without whose hard work the production
of this report would not have been possible: James
M. Tien, Ph.D., and Thomas F. Rich of Queues
Enforth Development, Cambridge, MA; Smiley Ashton,
Helen Graziadei, John Jones, Carol Kaplan, Don
Manson, Linda Ruder, Bernard Shipley, and Paul
White of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS);
Emmet Rathbun and Virgil Young of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; Tom McEwen of the
Institute for Law and Justice; Earl Gillespie of
the Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services; Owen Greenspan of the New
York State Division of Criminal Justice Services;
and Gary Cooper, Dave Roberts, and Paul Woodard of
SEARCH. In addition, the State and local officials
involved in the various State Criminal History
Records Improvement (CHRI) projects are too
numerous to list, but their contributions and the
many hours they spent responding to data requests
and reviewing findings should be recognized. Donald
J. Anderson, Linda James McKay, Pam Swain, and
Steve Yonkers of BJA assisted with the project.
------------------------------
Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
CHRI Program
Related Programs and Legislation
Scope of Report
Chapter 2: Study Approach
Study Objectives
Data Quality Framework
Study Conduct
Chapter 3: Program Implementation
Program Components
Implementation Overview
Assessment of the Current System
Development of a Plan
Implementation of Training Programs
Identification of Felons
Implementation of Policies and Procedures
Automation of Arrest Reporting
Automation of the Central Repository
Automation of Disposition Reporting
Countywide Automation
Chapter 4: Program Findings and Recommendations
Program Findings
CHRI Program in Perspective
Ideal System Considerations
Recommendations
Bibliography
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: State Summary
Appendix C: Discussion of the State Questionnaire
Appendix D: Sources for Further Information
------------------------------
Exhibits
1-1 CHRI Projects: Funding Levels
1-2 CHRI Projects: Timeframe
1-3 Criminal History Records Improvement
Milestones
1-4 CHRI and BJA/CJRI Programs:Key Characteristics
1-5 CHRI and BJA/CJRI Programs:Funding By State
2-1 Data Quality Measures: Framework
2-2 Data Quality Measures: FBI/BJS Standards and BJA
Criteria
3-1 CHRI Strategies and Activities: A Classification
Scheme
3-2 CHRI Projects: By Activity
3-3 CHRI Projects: By Strategy
3-4 CHRI Projects: By State
3-5 Relationship Between BJA/CJRI and CHRI Programs
4-1 Criminal History Case Cycle Flow
4-2 Criminal History Record Reporting Systems:
Threats to Data Quality
4-3 Recording Frequency of Basic Offender Data:
Manual Versus Fully Automated Systems
C-1 Data Quality Questionnaire
C-2 Questionnaire Response Reliability: Based
on New York State Responses
C-3 Data Quality Improvement Activities:
Relationship Between Criticality and Problematic
Status
C-4 Data Quality Issues: State-to-State Variations
C-5 Data Quality Improvement Activities:
Relationship Between Importance and Implementation
Status
C-6 Data Quality Improvement Activities: State-
to-State Variations
------------------------------
Executive Summary
Over several years, the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) has supported a multifaceted effort
to improve the quality of State criminal history
records. A key component of this effort is the
multiyear Criminal History Records Improvement
(CHRI) Program, administered by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS), within DOJ's Office of
Justice Programs (OJP). A total of 81 awards were
made between fiscal year (FY) 1990 and FY 1993 to
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, American
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. These 81
awards have supported a wide range of activities,
from baseline data quality audits to the design and
implementation of sophisticated electronic
interfaces between a State's central repository and
its court information system(s). In addition to
improving the accuracy, timeliness, and
completeness of records in the criminal history
repositories of each State, CHRI funds have
enhanced the viability of an eventual national
criminal history system, strengthened interagency
cooperation among State agencies, and heightened
awareness of the importance of criminal history
records.
When this evaluation of the CHRI Program ended
in April 1994, 22 States were still working on
their CHRI projects; the findings reported here
should therefore be viewed as preliminary.
Nevertheless, the CHRI Program has clearly made a
critical contribution to improving the quality of
criminal history records; indeed, it is a long-term
effort to bring all States into compliance with
Federal and State data quality standards.
Fortunately, as the CHRI projects are completed
in each State, other Federal moneys become
available for continuing the data quality
initiative, including funds from the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) under the Criminal Justice
Records Improvement (BJA/CJRI) Program and,
potentially, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection
Act and the National Child Protection Act, both of
1993. In fact, the continuing stream of Federal
funds no doubt led most States to use CHRI funds to
initiate multiyear data quality improvement efforts
that address underlying systemic problems in
criminal history recordkeeping, rather than
focusing on one-time activities that may be more
expedient than effective.
The remainder of this Executive Summary
discusses the background and provides an
overall assessment of the CHRI Program,
offering recommendations for guiding future
programs in the area of criminal history
records improvement.
History
The origin of the CHRI Program dates to the
congressional passage of Section 6213(a) of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. This law required the
Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury, to develop a system for
the immediate and accurate identification of felons
who attempt to purchase firearms. Pursuant to this
mandate, the Attorney General appointed the Task
Force on Felon Identification in Firearm Sales. In
May 1989, this task force published its
recommendations. In a related effort, Queues
Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.) was contracted
to undertake a study on the feasibility of
identifying persons, other than felons, ineligible
to purchase firearms. In his comments on the
May 1989 report, then-Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh noted several obstacles in providing for
the immediate and accurate identification of felons
who attempt to purchase firearms. One obstacle is
that many criminal history records are incomplete,
particularly regarding the final disposition of the
case; another concerns inaccurate data. To address
these data quality issues, as well as to facilitate
implementation of the Felon Identification in
Firearm Sales system, the Attorney General made a
number of recommendations. In particular, he
recommended using $9 million per year of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act discretionary funds in FY 1990, FY
1991, and FY 1992 to fund the CHRI Program.
Goals
The three overall goals of the CHRI Program are
to:
o Enhance State criminal history records to
identify convicted felons accurately.
o Meet the new Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)/BJS voluntary reporting standards for
identifying such individuals.
o Improve the quality and timeliness of criminal
history record information.
In general, the primary focus of the CHRI
Program is to improve disposition reporting.
Because the genesis of the CHRI Program was an
effort to identify convicted felons who attempt
to purchase firearms, the emphasis on disposition
reporting is appropriate.
Evaluation
Given the amount of Federal moneys directed to
the CHRI Program, it was decided that a private
contractor should conduct an evaluation of the
program. BJA issued a request for proposals in
September 1991. The BJA solicitation stated that
the CHRI evaluation should:
o Assess the impact of the CHRI Program on data
quality in each of the participating States,
particularly regarding timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, and the ability of the State to
identify felons and to comply with the FBI/BJS
voluntary standards.
o Identify promising approaches and strategies for
improving data quality.
BJA selected Q.E.D. to conduct the evaluation
and in March 1992 awarded the company a 2-year
grant for this effort.
The objectives helped Q.E.D. select a two-
pronged evaluation approach: (1) an overall impact
evaluation of all participating CHRI States and (2)
a systemic study of three to five States that have
developed and implemented particularly innovative
or successful data quality improvement activities.
The impact evaluation should benefit DOJ officials
who need to know "how well these funds were spent."
Individual States, however, can be viewed as the
primary beneficiaries of the detailed systemic
study because systems or procedures implemented
successfully in one State might be adopted in other
States.
It is helpful to contrast the CHRI evaluation
study goals with those of the BJS-sponsored surveys
on the status of criminal history records. Whereas
the surveys focus on what the status of data
quality is, the CHRI evaluation study addresses why
data quality has improved and how specific
activities improved data quality. Put another way,
the BJS-sponsored surveys reflect a snapshot-based
approach, whereas the CHRI evaluation study
reflects an activity-based approach. The two
approaches are clearly complementary.
Findings of the CHRI evaluation study can be
summarized as follows. In terms of Program awards:
o In total, 53 jurisdictions--the 50 States plus
American Samoa, the District of Columbia, and the
Northern Mariana Islands (hereinafter  referred to
as "States")--received 81 CHRI awards.
o The amount of CHRI awards ranged from $112,842 to
$921,669. The average award was $521,227.
o States were able to leverage other State and
Federal money to expand and extend the scope of
their CHRI projects.
For the CHRI evaluation study, 12 data quality
improvement strategies that underscore the long-
term goals of a quality criminal history system
were identified. The States selected to implement
strategies consistent with CHRI Program goals:
o The most common CHRI-supported strategy has been
to improve automation of the central repository:
46 of 53 jurisdictions used CHRI funds for this
purpose.
o The only other strategy addressed by more than
half of the States (29 of 53) with CHRI funds was
automation of disposition reporting.
Forty-six activities related to the 12 strategies
were also identified. The implementation status
and funding of these activities were as follows:
o The number of activities proposed by each State
ranged from 1 to 10. The average number to be
implemented was four. The level of effort
required to implement each activity varied
widely; for this reason, the number of activities
being implemented should not be considered a measure
of performance.
o In total, the CHRI Program is supporting 213 data
quality improvement activities throughout the 53
jurisdictions; at the end of this initial
evaluation stage (April 1994), approximately
two-thirds of these activities had been completed
and one-third were still ongoing in 22 States.
o Only CHRI funds were used to support 66 percent
of the 213 activities: State and BJA/CJRI funds
were used to complement the CHRI support of the
other 34 percent of the activities.
Eight of the possible 46 activities were
supported by CHRI funds in 10 or more States:
o Electronic interfaces between the courts and the
central repository data base were designed or
implemented by 22 States, but the percentage of
dispositions submitted electronically in these 22
States varied.
o Baseline audits of criminal history record
systems were conducted by 17 States. Audit
results concur with results of the BJS data
quality survey and underscore the urgent need for
continued efforts to improve data quality.
o Felony flagging systems were developed by 17
States to allow the States to determine quickly
whether an offender has been convicted of a
felony. The use of State-specific felony
definitions in these efforts raises questions
about the feasibility of achieving consistency
in a national felony flag system.
o Disposition backlogs were processed by 15 States.
As of April 1994, these States added 1.2 million
dispositions to central repository data bases.
o Long-term data quality improvement plans were
developed by 12 States.
o Computerized criminal history (CCH) programs were
rewritten by 11 States.
o Manual criminal history records were automated by
11 States.
o Unreported dispositions were obtained
by 10 States from other criminal justice
agencies.
In addition to helping the States meet the three
CHRI Program goals, this program has:
o Improved the national criminal history system.
o Improved interagency cooperation.
o Heightened awareness of the importance of
criminal history record information.
Much of the impact of the CHRI Program has yet
to be realized. As of April 1994, CHRI funds were
still supporting activities in 22 States. Most
important, in most States the same data quality
improvement activities supported with CHRI funds
were being continued with BJA/CJRI funds.
Although the accomplishments of the CHRI Program
are significant, the program should be viewed in
the context of the total long-term effort to
improve data quality and to bring all States into
compliance with State and Federal standards. On the
basis of experience with the CHRI Program, a few
observations can be made on the level of effort
still required. First, the CHRI Program has enabled
each State to implement only a small fraction of
all the needed data quality improvement activities.
Second, an activity is never really completed in
the sense that no more resources need be directed
to that activity. Third, the CHRI-supported data
quality audit results, observations in the States,
and the results of the BJS data quality survey
underscore the urgent need for continued emphasis
on improving data quality. Finally, it is critical
that evaluations of programs like CHRI continue to
be made.
Recommendations for Future Criminal History
Records Improvement Programs
Given different States' views of data quality
problems and improvement activities, the ultimate
objectives of an ideal criminal history system, the
status of related grant programs, and the lessons
and experiences of the CHRI Program, it is
recommended that the following five measures be
undertaken for future criminal history records
improvement efforts:
o Continue funding of records improvement
initiatives.
o Continue to require establishment of multiagency
task forces.
o Fund baseline activities.
o Continue to emphasize automation.
o Work toward implementing paperless reporting
systems.
Finally, three recommendations are made for
research and evaluation:
o Continue evaluation of CHRI-like activities,
especially other federally supported efforts to
improve criminal history data quality.
o Develop and publish a guide for improving data
quality to expand and pilot test the guide-related
ideas promulgated in the CHRI evaluation study,
including such concepts as the data quality chain
and the data quality index.
o Assess the usefulness of criminal history
records.
------------------------------
Introduction
During the past 5 years, the need to improve the
quality of criminal history records has been one
of the major challenges facing Federal, State, and
local criminal justice agencies. This report
presents the findings of an evaluation of the
Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI)
Program, a $27 million effort funded and
administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) to meet this need.
The CHRI Program originated with the passage of
Section 6213(a) of the Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988. This law required the U.S. Attorney
General, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, to develop a system for the immediate and
accurate identification of felons who attempt to
purchase firearms. To meet this mandate, then-
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh established
the Task Force on Felon Identification in Firearm
Sales. In May 1989, the Task Force published its
Report to the Attorney General on Systems for
Identifying Felons Who Attempt To Purchase
Firearms.[1] A related study, Identifying Persons,
Other Than Felons, Ineligible To Purchase Firearms:
A Feasibility Study, was undertaken at the same
time.[2]
In comments on the first study, Attorney
General Thornburgh noted two major obstacles
in providing for the immediate and accurate
identification of felons (especially those
attempting to purchase firearms). One of the
obstacles was the incompleteness of many existing
criminal history records, particularly in regard
to information on final case disposition.
The second obstacle was the inaccuracy of data.
To address these issues as well as to facilitate
implementation of the Felon Identification in
Firearm Sales system, the Department of Justice
initiated a multifaceted effort to improve the
quality of criminal history records at the State
level. First, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and BJS were directed to publish criminal
history data quality standards.[3] Second, funds
were provided to the FBI to reduce their backlog
of fingerprint cards and disposition reports and
to automate their manual criminal history records.
Third, the Attorney General recommended that $9
million of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act discretionary
funds be used in fiscal year (FY) 1990, FY 1991,
and FY 1992 to fund the CHRI Program.
In addition to establishing the CHRI Program,
the Federal Government has directed approximately
$21 million per year since FY 1992 toward criminal
history records improvement through the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) Criminal Justice Records
Improvement (CJRI) Program.[4] In FY 1995, $100
million was appropriated for criminal history
records improvement under the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
Emphasis on criminal history records is
appropriate for a number of reasons. First,
criminal history records are critical to the day-
to-day operation of virtually every Federal, State,
and local criminal justice agency. Law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, judges and other court
officials, corrections staff, probation officers,
and parole officers all depend on timely and
accurate criminal history information for
processing offenders through the criminal justice
system. In fact, availability of reliable
information is a critical component of the criminal
justice system.
Second, noncriminal justice uses of criminal
history records are rapidly increasing. The Brady
Act and the National Child Protection Act of 1993
dramatically expanded the importance of criminal
history records for determining eligibility to
purchase a firearm and for screening childcare
facility employees. In addition, most States permit
some noncriminal justice agencies access to
criminal history records for employment, licensing,
and other purposes.
Third, although the need for access to criminal
history records continues to increase, long-term
problems with the quality of these records persist.
These problems were first widely discussed in 1967,
with publication of the report by the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration
of Justice, which noted that criminal history records
were frequently inaccurate, incomplete, and
inaccessible.[5] Yet a data quality survey conducted
in 1988 found that only 11 of the 50 States surveyed
reported that 70 percent or more of arrests in their
criminal history data base had entries for final
dispositions.[6] By 1992 results of another survey
showed that 16 States reported meeting that
standard.[7] At the national level, only one-third of
the offenders listed in State criminal history
repositories were also listed in the FBI Interstate
Identification Index (III).[8]
Fourth, criminal justice agencies in every
jurisdiction are responsible for reporting criminal
records to State central repositories.
Unfortunately, many of these repositories have
suffered budget cuts that have caused them to
become seriously understaffed and/or to be left
with inadequate or outdated automation capability.
Acceptable data quality cannot be ensured until
appropriate reporting procedures are developed and
effective automated systems are able to receive,
store, and retrieve information quickly and
accurately.
CHRI Program
In general, the primary focus of the CHRI
Program is to identify impediments to disposition
reporting, to develop plans and procedures to
improve such reporting, and to allocate resources
to overcome obstacles preventing complete
disposition reporting. Because the genesis of the
CHRI Program was an effort to identify convicted
felons who attempted to purchase firearms, the
emphasis on disposition reporting is appropriate.
Under the CHRI Program, 81 awards were made in
FY 1990 through FY 1993 to all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.[9] The awards supported
a wide range of activities, from baseline data
quality audits to the design and implementation
of sophisticated electronic interfaces between a
central record repository and the court's information
system.
The findings of this report are preliminary because
22 States were still working on their CHRI projects
when this evaluation was completed in April 1994.
In addition, many CHRI-initiated activities are
being continued under funding from other Federal
grant programs, such as the BJA/CJRI Program.
Although the final impact of the CHRI Program has
not yet been realized, it has already made a
significant contribution to the ongoing process of
improving the quality of criminal history records.
In addition to improving the accuracy, timeliness,
and completeness of records at the State criminal
history repositories, CHRI funds increased the
possibility of a national criminal history records
system, improved interagency cooperation among
State agencies, and heightened awareness in the
criminal justice community of the importance of
criminal history records.
Improving the quality of criminal history data
bases to comply with Federal and State standards is
a long-term and costly process that will require a
conscious effort to complete. Despite the problems
with funding and reporting protocols, the CHRI
Program has already contributed significantly
toward accomplishing this objective.
CHRI Program Goals
The purpose of the CHRI Program is to improve
the accuracy of identifying and recording
information on convicted felons. The specific goals
of the CHRI Program were to:
o Enhance State criminal history records.
o Meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting
standards.
o Improve the quality and timeliness of criminal
history records information.
To meet these goals, eight broad funding
categories were established to:
o Develop systems and procedures to identify
convicted felons through an examination of
automated or manual criminal history records and
to include a felony flag in criminal history
records.
o Develop systems and procedures to improve
reporting to the central repository of all
arrests, dispositions, and other related criminal
justice information.
o Develop programs and procedures to meet the new
FBI reporting standards for identifying convicted
felons, including making such records available
to authorized State, local, and Federal criminal
justice agencies.
o Implement a State master name index (MNI) or
enhance existing automated MNI's by increasing
the number of individuals listed in the index.
o Establish a computerized criminal history (CCH)
record system or facilitate an increase in the
number of individuals recorded in existing
systems to improve the quality and timeliness of
criminal history records.
o Develop procedures to participate in the III.
o Conduct a baseline audit of criminal history
records systems to assess existing data quality
levels, to identify problems in the present
system, and to establish a basis for evaluating the
success of a data quality improvement program.
o Upgrade existing data systems by acquisition of
auxiliary equipment such as disks, printers, and
communication lines.
Program Status
As shown in Exhibit 1-1, all States participated
in and received funds from the CHRI Program.
Because 28 jurisdictions received 2 awards, the
total number of awards was 81. A total of $27.6
million was awarded, with the amounts of individual
awards ranging from $112,842 to $921,669; the
average award was $521,227. Exhibit 1-1 also shows
the CHRI per capita funding amounts, based on
estimated 1990 State population figures. Because
CHRI awards were not based on a formula, as were
BJA/CJRI Program funds, it is perhaps not
surprising that the larger grant dollar per capita
awards went to those jurisdictions with small
populations: American Samoa; the Northern Mariana
Islands; Alaska; Delaware; Washington, D.C.;
Vermont; Montana; and North Dakota.
Exhibit 1-2 shows the start and projected end
dates of each CHRI project. The timeframe of CHRI
projects extended well beyond the original 3-year
period of fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992. In
fact, 32 States extended their CHRI project periods
into calendar year 1994. Exhibit 1-2 also shows the
time period of the evaluation study. In particular,
it should be noted that CHRI projects have been
operating since September 1990, fully 19 months
before the start date of the evaluation, and 22
States expected to end their CHRI projects after
the end date of the study (April 1994).
Consequently, the findings of this study should
be regarded as preliminary.
Related Programs and Legislation
Since the CHRI Program was announced in May
1990, several key events occurred to accelerate
activity in criminal justice record improvement.
Some of the responses to the Attorney General's
recommendations and the Federal legislation
described earlier in this chapter have appeared in
the form of publications or additional legislation,
as shown in Exhibit 1-3. Three of the most
significant related programs are described in the
following section.
These grant programs, as they are funded, will
build on efforts initiated with CHRI funds. In the
end, each of these programs will provide aggregate
information that will interact with and complement
the improvement of criminal history records
throughout the United States.
BJA/CJRI Program
Perhaps the most important response to the
Attorney General's recommendations was an amendment
to the Crime Control Act of 1990. The amendment
required States to spend 5 percent of their annual
BJA formula grant funds (about $21 million of $423
million in FY 1992) on improving the quality of
their criminal history records.
The objectives of the BJA/CJRI Program, created
by this amendment, are similar to those of the CHRI
Program:
o Complete criminal histories by including the
final disposition of all arrests for felony
offenses.
o Automate all criminal justice histories and
fingerprint records.
o Improve the frequency and quality of criminal
history reports to the FBI.
Given similar program goals, it is not
surprising that the same types of data quality
improvement activities were implemented under both
programs. In fact, many States view the BJA/CJRI
Program as an extension of the CHRI Program. This
is particularly important because many of the CHRI-
supported projects were multiyear efforts
addressing systemic reporting problems.
Although the objectives of the BJA/CJRI Program
are similar to those of the CHRI Program, there are
important differences between the two (see Exhibit
1-4).
Among the differences outlined in Exhibit 1-4,
the following are most significant:
o Funding basis. The BJA/CJRI Program is a formula,
rather than discretionary, program. Exhibit 1-5
compares the amounts awarded to each State under
the CHRI Program with the first 2 years of the
BJA/CJRI Program. The exhibit highlights the
importance of the CHRI Program for smaller
States; in fact, 22 States received more CHRI
funds than BJA/CJRI funds for FY 1992 and FY 1993.
Also, the BJA/CJRI Program requires States to
provide a 25-percent match to the Federal funds,
while CHRI funds have no match required. As of
March 1994, only 82 percent of BJA/CJRI Program FY
1992 funds had been released.
o Approval process. The two programs differ
substantially in terms of their approval
processes. For the CHRI Program, States were
required simply to submit a proposal that addressed
the overall  program objectives. The BJA/CJRI
Program, however, requires that the States
convene a multiagency task force, assess data
quality in the State, identify the reasons for
underreporting, and submit a detailed data
quality improvement plan.
o Program focus. The CHRI and BJA/CJRI Programs
differ most significantly in program focus. The
focus of the CHRI Program was on the central
repositories: improving the degree of automation of
the repository and improving disposition reporting
to the repository. Not surprisingly, most of the
activities initiated by the States using CHRI
funds were related to the central repository. In
contrast, the  broader scope of the BJA/CJRI
Program emphasizes all types of State, county,
and local criminal records. In many States,
activities involving local courts, prosecutors,
public defenders, and law enforcement agencies
were supported by the BJA/CJRI Program.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
On November 30, 1993, Congress passed Public Law
103-159, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
The purpose of the act is to provide a waiting
period before approving the purchase of a handgun
and to establish a national instant criminal
background check system. Firearms dealers would be
required to access the system before transfer of
any firearm could be made. The Handgun Violence
Prevention Act authorizes $200 million for FY 1994
and all fiscal years thereafter for the improvement
of criminal history records. Specifically, the
provisions of the act allow the States to use grant
funds for the following purposes:
o To create a computerized criminal history records
system or upgrade/improve an existing system.
o To improve accessibility to the national instant
criminal background system.
o Once the national system is established, to
assist the States in transmitting criminal
records to it.
National Child Protection Act
On December 20, 1993, Congress passed Public Law
103-209, the National Child Protection Act of 1993.
The purpose of the act is to establish procedures
for national criminal background checks for
childcare providers. It authorizes $20 million for
FY 1994, FY 1995, FY 1996, and FY 1997 for the
improvement of criminal history records. Specifically,
the intention of the act is to assist the States in:
o Computerizing criminal history files.
o Improving existing computerized criminal history
files.
o Improving accessibility to the national criminal
history background check system.
o Transmitting criminal records to or indexing
criminal history records in the national criminal
history background check system.
Scope of Report
This report is composed of four chapters and
three appendixes. This chapter has provided
background information on criminal history records
and on the CHRI and related programs. Chapter 2
describes the approach taken in this study to
evaluate the CHRI Program, including study
objectives, the data quality framework, and conduct
of the study. Chapter 3 describes the conduct and
impact of the CHRI Program: the efforts undertaken
with CHRI funds to improve data quality,
accomplishments made with CHRI funds, and some of
the innovative approaches used for improvement of
data quality. Chapter 4 summarizes program funding;
focuses on the future by describing characteristics
of an ideal criminal history system; and makes
recommendations for future criminal history records
improvement programs.
Chapter 4 is followed by a bibliography and
three appendixes. Appendix A is a glossary of
pertinent abbreviations and acronyms; Appendix B
provides a detailed description of each State's
CHRI project(s); and Appendix C discusses in detail
the results of a survey on data quality administered
to State central repository personnel. Inclusion
of these project descriptions and survey results
in appendixes should not diminish their importance;
indeed, sharing this information should help
States do a better job of improving their own
data quality as they learn about the experiences
and best practices of other States.
------------------------------
Chapter 2
Study Approach
Before considering the impact of the CHRI Program,
it is important to describe the overall study
approach. Three important components of the study
approach were study objectives, data quality
framework, and study conduct.
Study Objectives
The goals of the CHRI evaluation were to:
o Assess the impact of the CHRI Program on data
quality in each of  the participating States,
especially regarding timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, the State's ability to identify
felons, and the State's  ability to comply with
the FBI/BJS voluntary standards.
o Develop a guide to assist States in improving
data quality.
o Identify promising approaches and strategies
for improving data  quality.
Three comments should be made regarding these
study objectives. First, these objectives helped
Queues Enforth Development (Q.E.D.) select a two-
pronged evaluation approach. Q.E.D. has conducted
(1) an overall impact evaluation of all
participating CHRI States and (2) a systemic study
of four selected States that developed and
implemented particularly innovative or successful
data quality improvement activities. The impact
evaluation should benefit officials in the
Department of Justice who need to know how well
program funds were spent. Individual States will
benefit from the detailed systemic study, as it
is hoped that systems or procedures implemented
successfully in one State can be adapted by other
States.
Second, it is helpful to contrast the CHRI
evaluation study goals with those of the BJS-
sponsored surveys on the status of criminal history
records.1 Whereas the surveys focused on the
question, "What is the status of data quality?" the
CHRI evaluation study addressed the questions, "Why
has data quality improved?" and "How did specific
activities improve data quality?" In other words,
the BJS-sponsored surveys reflect a snapshot-based
approach, and the CHRI evaluation study reflects
an activity-based approach. Although the two
assessment efforts took different approaches,
the two approaches are clearly complementary.
Data Quality Framework
A broad systemic approach for measuring data
quality and for evaluating data quality improvement
activities was adopted. As summarized in Exhibit
2-1, this approach is based on a comprehensive set
of data quality measures that include input,
process, and outcome measures.[2]
o Input measures describe the support elements,
or the basic building blocks, of data quality
and include enabling legislation and guidelines,
policies and procedures, a multiyear plan,
agency cooperation, leadership commitment, and
technological resources. From an evaluation
perspective, input measures reflect how funds are
being used, such as for an audit, new reporting
procedures, a new computerized criminal history
system, and additional resources.  On a
programmatic basis, input measures would suggest
the program's potential for success. Without
adequate input, there may not be a program.
o Process measures describe how arrest and
disposition records are processed: what
percentage are submitted to the repository, how
quickly they are submitted, how quickly they are
entered, whether they are accurate and complete,
and whether they are properly linked. Poor
process measures are usually symptoms rather than
causes of data quality problems. Thus, for example,
poor linkage is usually a symptom of some other
underlying cause such as the lack of tracking
numbers on the record. From an evaluation
perspective, process measures reflect the
immediate impact of funding on how records are
processed. Improved process measures may result
in a higher disposition reporting percentage or
a shorter elapsed time  from arrest record receipt
to data base update.
o Outcome measures describe how useful criminal
history records are to the users of such records:
criminal justice agencies, firearms dealers,
employers, and repository staff. Providing useful
information is the ultimate goal of State
repositories, even though timeliness, accuracy,
and completeness are usually seen as the basis
for defining data quality. From an evaluation
perspective, outcome measures reflect the
ultimate impact of the program on the usability
of criminal history records.
The data quality framework in Exhibit 2-1
provides an informative perspective for viewing
both the FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards
and the BJA criteria for waiver of the BJA/CJRI
Program, as is done in Exhibit 2-2. Many of the
standards and criteria can be contained in the
measures framework.
However, it is interesting to consider those
data quality measures that are not in the set of
standards and criteria. Most conspicuous is the
absence of outcome measures. Although it is
important to focus on process measures such as data
completeness, data timeliness, and felony flagging,
the purpose of these efforts should not be
forgotten: to enhance the outcomes of data
accessibility and utility.
In addition, an objective of the CHRI Program
evaluation was to understand not only what
activities States implemented to improve data
quality, but how and why States selected those
activities. Therefore this report considers what
problems prompted selection of those activities,
how the States identified the problems, how they
prioritized the problems, and how they ascertained
the causes of the problems. Addressing these issues
should provide insight into whether the States are
concerned about the symptoms or the causes of poor
data quality and whether they are focusing on their
weakest data quality link. One hypothesis is that
those States addressing their weakest data quality
link will obtain the greatest improvement in their
data quality.
Of course, each State should not be judged on
improvements in all the measure groups listed
in Exhibit 2-1, but rather only on those that
directly apply to whatever data quality
improvement activities are implemented. In
particular, many CHRI activities affect only one
or two measures listed in Exhibit 2-1. Additionally,
for the formal CHRI evaluation, the issue of why
States selected particular activities was not
investigated because the CHRI Program announcement
stated which data quality improvement activities
would be funded. Thus, identifying convicted felons
and improving disposition reporting became priority
activities for the States, regardless of whether
the activities addressed the States' weakest data
quality links. An investigation into why States
selected particular data quality improvement
activities would be more appropriate for an
evaluation of the BJA/CJRI Program, because for
that program, States were required to select their
strategies and activities on the basis of detailed
assessments of their current systems.
Study Conduct
All of the States were quite cooperative in
discussing their CHRI projects and in responding to
data requests. The CHRI project director was the
key contact in each State; this person coordinated
requests for information, documentation, and other
data and supplied additional contacts.
As noted earlier, a two-pronged evaluation was
undertaken: an overall impact evaluation of CHRI
projects in all the States and a more focused set
of systemic evaluations in a small number of States
that were implementing particularly innovative and
successful data quality improvement activities. For
States not in the systemic study, the primary means
of data collection was telephone contacts with key
State CHRI project personnel and analysis of
documentation and data provided by the State.
In addition, site visits were made to 16 States
for meetings with key CHRI project personnel. These
States were recommended by the BJS CHRI project
monitors, mainly on the basis of some interesting
aspects of the funded projects. The 16 States were
California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Washington. By contrast, multiple site visits were
made to the four States in the systemic study group
for interviews with key persons involved in data
quality improvement efforts and for conduct of
onsite data collection to measure the impact of the
activities.
In recommending States for the systemic study,
the following four criteria were considered, with
the most important criterion listed first:
o The site should be implementing activities
considered very important  for improving data
quality.
o The site should be implementing activities that
are considered of  great interest because a
significant number of other States are
contemplating their implementation.
o The group of sites should have an appropriate
variation of activities, geographic locations,
and sizes.
o The group of sites should constitute a systemic
study cohort that is feasible within the constraints
of the evaluation study.
A data quality survey of all States was conducted
in early 1993 to gain insight into the first two
criteria, among other purposes. (The survey is
discussed in detail in Appendix C.) In the end,
the States of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and
New York were chosen. The more detailed study of
the systemic States gave better insight into some
of the implemented activities and their effectiveness
in improving data quality.
------------------------------
Chapter 3
Program Implementation
Chapter 3 addresses the conduct and impact of the
CHRI Program, recognizing that when this evaluation
ended, some CHRI projects were still ongoing. All
of the data quality improvement efforts that the
CHRI Program supported are categorized, and the
supporting strategies, activities, and tasks are
defined.
The chapter also discusses the work that has
been accomplished to date with CHRI funds.
Following a statistical overview is a narrative
discussion of each of the key data quality
improvement strategies, which focuses on
innovative and successful approaches to improving
data quality. Detailed information about the
CHRI-supported data quality improvement activities
implemented in each State is contained in Appendix
B.
Program Components
The CHRI Program consisted of 81 separate CHRI
projects. The classification system developed for
this evaluation is summarized in Exhibit 3-1. As
shown in the exhibit and described in the following
paragraphs, the system has three tiers: strategies,
activities, and tasks.
Strategies
Data quality improvement strategies[1] reflect
broad, long-term objectives related to criminal
history records. For this evaluation, 12 strategies
were identified:
o Assessment of the current system.
o Development of a data quality improvement plan.
o Enactment of legislation.
o Implementation of training programs.
o Implementation of policies and procedures.
o Automation of the central repository.
o Automation of disposition reporting.
o Automation of arrest reporting.
o Automation of custodial reporting.
o Identification of felons.
o Improvement of the national system.
o Improvement of records accessibility.
Activities
To achieve the goals embodied in the strategies,
States had to implement data quality improvement
activities. For this evaluation, 46 activities
that supported the 12 strategies were identified.
Exhibit 3-1 also identifies the activities
associated with each strategy. The definition and
purpose of each activity is also indicated. Thus,
for example, several different activities could be
undertaken to achieve the goal of automating the
central repository. These include developing the
necessary automated systems, processing backlogs of
fingerprint cards and disposition reports, and
automating manual criminal history records.
Similarly, to assess the current status of data
quality, four different activities could be
implemented: conducting a baseline audit,
conducting a user needs assessment, documenting the
current reporting system, and implementing a data
quality monitoring system.
In reviewing Exhibit 3-1, it is obvious that
judgments had to be made about what constituted a
strategy and an activity. Although some of the
activities seem quite general (for example,
automate manual records) and others seem quite
specific (for example, set felony flags in existing
records), the focus is on those activities of
interest to BJA, BJS, and the States. For example,
if a State purchased personal computers and other
equipment to facilitate obtaining and entering
unreported dispositions, this effort is described
as one activity (obtain unreported dispositions)
rather than two (purchase equipment and obtain
unreported dispositions). In this framework, the
equipment purchases constitute a task within the
"obtain unreported dispositions" activity.
Tasks
Each activity has associated with it a number of
different tasks that represent well-defined work to
be performed. For example, five tasks are typically
involved in systems development activities such as
development of a computerized criminal history
(CCH) or an electronic interface between two
information systems: requirements analysis,
technical specification, software development,
pilot testing, and implementation. Each task could
be divided further into subtasks, but for the sake
of brevity, tasks and subtasks related to each
activity are not listed in Exhibit 3-1.
Implementation Overview
Exhibit 3-2 lists the States that used CHRI
funds to support each of the data quality
improvement activities defined in Exhibit 3-1. For
each activity, the States have been divided into
two groups: those that, as of April 1994, were
using CHRI funds to support these activities and
those that had completed CHRI-supported work on the
activity. Completion of a CHRI project does not
imply that work on an activity has been completed.
Indeed, many States used CHRI funds to complete
only one task of a multitask activity. Many States
continue to work on an activity with other State
and Federal funds.
As indicated in Exhibit 3-2, the most common
activity supported by CHRI funds involved
interfacing court information systems with the
central repository CCH system so that dispositions
could be reported electronically. Twenty-two States
used CHRI funds for this purpose. Given that the
goal of the CHRI Program is to improve disposition
reporting, this use of funds is clearly appropriate.
Other activities implemented by more than 10 States
included: developing a long-term data quality
improvement plan, upgrading a CCH, obtaining unreported
dispositions, processing disposition report backlogs,
automating manual criminal history records, and setting
felony flags on existing criminal history records.
Exhibit 3-3 summarizes and prioritizes this
information, showing the number of States that
implemented activities in each of the data quality
improvement strategies. A majority of States (46)
implemented activities that improved automation of
the central repository. Automation of disposition
reporting was the only other strategy that more
than half the States addressed with CHRI funds.
Exhibit 3-4 offers a State-based perspective on
the CHRI Program by listing the number of
activities, the completion status, and the extent
of solely CHRI-supported activities in each State.
The exhibit suggests a wide distribution in the
number of activities proposed by each State,
ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 10, with an
average of 4. However, the number of activities
implemented by a State should not be interpreted as
a measure of performance. First, the number of
activities listed does not account for the amount
of funding received by a State, and State funding
under the CHRI Program ranged from a low of
$112,842 to a high of $921,669.
Second, and more important, the level of effort
required to implement each activity varied widely.
Some activities could be implemented in just a few
weeks, while others entailed a multiyear effort. In
addition, the level of effort required for a
particular activity varied by State, depending on
existing conditions and available resources.
Finally, statistics do not reflect the number of
tasks within an activity the State has completed.
For example, three States used CHRI funds to
develop an electronic interface between law
enforcement booking systems and their CCH system.
However, two of the three States (Nebraska and
Washington) completed only the requirements and
specifications definition tasks by the end of their
CHRI project, and the third, Maryland, completed
the requirements, specifications, software
development, and pilot testing of tasks.
The completion status of the State CHRI
activities varies from a low of 0 percent to a high
of 100 percent, with an average of 68.1 percent.
This figure compares with 24.9 percent in April
1993 and 47.8 percent in November 1993.2 Clearly,
given that only two-thirds of the activities were
completed, it is inappropriate to offer final
evaluation findings. It should also be noted that
although all the activities listed in Exhibit 3-1
were CHRI supported, they were not implemented
exclusively with CHRI funds. Only 66.2 percent of
the strategies were supported exclusively with CHRI
funds. This statistic is a very positive finding
because it demonstrates that CHRI funding was used
to leverage other State and Federal funds to
improve the quality of criminal history records.
Following are discussions of several of the data
quality improvement strategies and activities
undertaken to execute the strategies.
Assessment of the Current System
A complete understanding of the strengths and
limitations of the current criminal history system
is required if data quality is to be improved. This
understanding can be obtained through a range of
activities, four of which were supported with CHRI
funds: baseline audits, user needs assessments,
documentation of the current reporting system, and
implementation of data quality monitoring systems.
Of the four, the audit was the most common
activity.
Baseline Audits
CHRI funds supported baseline audits in 17
States. Given that only 11 States had conducted
audits before the CHRI Program was established,[3]
expanding knowledge about the Nation's criminal
history systems through baseline audits should be
viewed as a major accomplishment of the CHRI Program.
The statistical results of most of the baseline audits
have been reported in the most recent BJS-sponsored
data quality survey.[4] The audit results underscore
the urgent need for continued efforts to improve data
quality.
Two comments on the audit process should be made.
First, most of the States conducting an audit
had never before been audited. In spite of this,
many central repository officials reported that
they were not surprised by the audit results. At
the same time, officials were nearly unanimous in
praising the audit process-particularly those
officials from States that hired private vendors to
conduct them. As one official stated, "Having an
impartial third party spell out the problems was
invaluable for building a consensus on how we
should proceed." This sentiment was particularly
true if a multiagency task force was involved in
the audit process. If the task force was involved
in the audit process from the beginning, its
members were much more likely to agree to the audit
recommendations.
Second, 13 of the 17 States hired private
vendors to conduct the audits; 3 States (Colorado,
Missouri, and New Mexico) recruited central
repository staff to conduct the audits; and 1 State
(Iowa) asked a separate agency to conduct the
audit. Nearly all States that hired private
contractors to perform the audits experienced
delays--sometimes several months long--in the
procurement process. Given this fact, it seems
unlikely that States will conduct audits annually,
as recommended by FBI/BJS standards. A more
workable approach would be to develop an ongoing
audit capability.
Ongoing Data Quality Monitoring
An alternative to infrequent baseline data
quality audits is an ongoing program of data
quality monitoring. Such a program could range in
complexity from measuring a single data quality
attribute to measuring the health of the entire
criminal history system. For example, the Oregon
State Police, using CHRI funds, developed and
implemented a personal computer (PC)-based
fingerprint card monitoring system for cards that
are unreadable. The arrest data on the fingerprint
card are recorded in a data base, which is then
periodically analyzed to track rejected fingerprint
cards and to direct training resources toward
agencies with higher than average rates of
fingerprint card rejection. Wisconsin developed a
monitoring system that flags dispositions that have
remained open longer than expected.
A more comprehensive ongoing monitoring program
might involve routine collection of perhaps one
dozen easy-to-collect measures that could reflect
the collective health of the criminal history
records system. These measures would not only
monitor data quality at the central repository but
also diagnose the underlying data quality problems.
That is, rather than conducting infrequent, large-
scale audits, the central repository could use
"vital sign" measures continuously to assess data
quality status, much as a physician might use
various physiological measures to monitor the
status of a hospitalized patient. In addition, this
small set of measures could be combined into a data
quality index that could provide a convenient way
for States to determine whether their data quality
was improving. This evaluation did not find such a
monitoring system or index in use, so it is an area
for future research.
Development of a Plan
All States are required to develop data quality
improvement plans in order to receive BJA/CJRI
funds. CHRI funds were used by 12 States to develop
data quality improvement plans. Developed by
multiagency task forces with the assistance of
private contractors, these plans became blueprints
for each State's BJA/CJRI Program and, in some
cases, a second CHRI award.
In terms of plan content, the data quality
problems identified and the data quality
improvement activities recommended varied from
State to State. For example, the data quality
improvement plan developed by Massachusetts focused
on the steps needed to make that State's CCH
fingerprint supported. Minnesota's audit report
recommended the following: eliminating backlogs;
simplifying, automating, and integrating central
repository operations; implementing systems that
focused on the noncriminal justice market;
establishing a coordinating group to oversee
criminal history; establishing a user focus group;
improving education and training; and performing
periodic audits. In reviews of these and other
plans developed for the BJA/CJRI Program, one
feature stands out. In most States, the same data
quality improvement activities supported with CHRI
funds were continued with BJA/CJRI funds, as noted
in Exhibit 3-5:
o Of the 35 States that had their FY 1992 BJA/CJRI
plans approved, 22 continued their CHRI activities
with BJA/CJRI funding. A common example of this
continuation related to the automated disposition
reporting strategy. Many States brought one county
at a time online with automated disposition reporting;
thus, CHRI funding brought some counties online, while
BJA/CJRI funding brought others online.
o Only 7 of 35 States implemented activities with
BJA/CJRI funding different from those activities
implemented with CHRI funds. Nevertheless, these
BJA/CJRI activities overlap those activities
implemented by other States with CHRI funds.
This finding is encouraging because it indicates
that States used CHRI funds to address systemic
reporting problems and to initiate multiyear
activities rather than one-time efforts that are,
at best, temporary solutions to data quality
problems. No doubt this is largely due to the
prospect of a stable Federal funding source.
Implementation of Training Programs
Training activities implemented with CHRI funds
helped States develop training materials and
conduct training courses for local law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, court personnel, and other
criminal justice officials. Typically, the training
programs consisted of two components. The first was
an overview of the criminal history reporting
system. Explaining the entire process to
contributing agencies was important because
personnel at these agencies often did not
understand the connection between their actions and
the information printed on an offender's rap sheet.
The second component was a discussion of issues
specific to a particular reporting agency. For
example, training programs for law enforcement
agencies typically focused on the offenses for
which suspects could be fingerprinted, techniques
for improving the readability of fingerprints, and
timeliness requirements for fingerprint cards. In
many States, central repository officials conducted
the training programs; in other States such as
Minnesota and Missouri, personnel from a variety
of criminal justice agencies led the training
sessions. Missouri officials commented that the
participation of court personnel in that State's
training program greatly increased the program's
effectiveness.
Officials from the Arizona central repository
felt that training was one of their most successful
data quality improvement activities. The major
topics covered by their training sessions were:
o How information flowed through the criminal
justice system.
o How the central repository processed arrest and
disposition reports.
o How a fingerprint card should be filled out.
o How a disposition report should be filled out and
who is responsible for submitting it.
o How unusual arrest scenarios, such as an arrest
on a failure-to-appear warrant, should be handled.
Trainers found that many reporting problems
resulted from a lack of familiarity with reporting
procedures. By the end of their CHRI project, the
Arizona central repository hoped to have conducted
training sessions for every criminal justice agency
in the State.
Of course, the impact of training activities was
difficult to assess, particularly when other data
quality improvement activities were implemented
simultaneously. In addition, natural fluctuations
in arrest rates made it difficult to account for
increases in fingerprint card submissions. However,
three observations could be made.
First, central repository officials generally
agreed that poor fingerprint card submission rates
at some law enforcement agencies were the result of
ignorance about fingerprinting rules and regulations.
If that is the case, training programs should greatly
improve fingerprint card submission and quality.
Second, the increase in reporting rates resulting
from training programs may unintentionally increase
fingerprint card backlogs at the central repository.
Thus, while training activities increase the inflow
of fingerprint cards to the central repository, other
activities such as electronic arrest reporting may
need to be implemented so that the central repository
can handle this additional workload.
Third, such training initiatives should not be
viewed as one-time efforts. Indeed, in many States
personnel who attend fingerprint training programs
at local law enforcement agencies are eventually
assigned to other units.
Identification of Felons
Substantial progress has been made in the
identification of convicted felons, one of the
three primary objectives of the CHRI Program.
According to recent BJS data quality surveys, the
number of States with CCH systems that flag at
least some felony convictions increased from 13 in
1989 to 32 in 1992.[5] As noted in Exhibit 3-2, the
CHRI Program made a major contribution in the
felony flagging area. Seventeen States used CHRI
funds to improve their ability to identify
convicted felons. Of these 17, 3 States completed
their felony flagging efforts after the most recent
survey: Iowa, Michigan, and Tennessee.[6] Thus, some
35 States have CCH systems that flag at least some
felony convictions.
Methods
The purpose of the felon identification strategy
is to enable States to determine quickly whether an
offender has been convicted of a felony. One way to
determine the felony status of an offender is to
peruse the offender's rap sheet. In Delaware this
approach is used in conjunction with the State's
point-of-sale firearm eligibility system; State law
enforcement personnel taking calls from firearms
dealers have been specially trained to determine a
purchaser's eligibility on the basis of charges and
convictions listed on the potential purchaser's rap
sheet. However, a key goal of the CHRI Program has
been to implement systems that can programmatically,
and therefore quickly, determine an offender's felony
conviction status.
The primary tactic States used to meet this
objective was to implement a felony flag system.
Felony flag-based systems place a felony flag in an
offender's identification or conviction segment of
the criminal record. When a rap sheet is requested,
the system looks at the value in the felony flag
field of the offender's record and reports its
status on the rap sheet. Two different types of
flags appear to be in use:
o For use in Interstate Identification Index (III)
records, a single-letter  flag in which F
signifies one or more felony convictions, M
signifies no felony convictions, and X signifies
an unknown status.
o A cumulative type of flag in which the identification
segment for  each offender contains the number of
felony convictions and the  number of felony arrests
for which no disposition has yet been obtained.
An alternative to the felony flag-based system
was the analysis-based system, which does not use a
felony flag. Rather, when the felony conviction status
for an offender is requested, all of the information
about the offender residing in the central
repository automated records is analyzed; then,
based on the analysis, a determination is made on
the offender's felony status. The information
analyzed could include a reference to a State
statute in the offender's conviction segment, an
incarceration record indicating that the offender
served time in a State prison, or other keywords in
the disposition description.
Both Maryland and New Jersey implemented this
approach to felon identification. Maryland's
analysis system determines the State statute under
which an offender was convicted and then searches a
data base to see whether that statute is a felony
or a misdemeanor. If a statute could be either a
felony or a misdemeanor, then the system looks in
the disposition text fields for certain keywords
(such as robbery).
One advantage of the analysis-based system over the
felony flag-based system is flexibility. If there is
a change in the rules used to determine whether an
offender is a felon, States using the analysis-based
system can simply modify the algorithm that the
analysis system  uses, while States using the felony
flag-based system  should reexamine every felony flag
stored in their CCH. On the other hand, an advantage
of the felony flag-based system is that it is compatible
with the National Felon Identification in Firearm Sales
system approach, which uses felony flags in III
records.
Success Rates in Determining Felon Status
The question for both the felony flag-based
system and the analysis-based system is how
successful they are in determining the felony
status of offenders already in a State's CCH.
Success depended on two factors:
o The degree to which disposition data were
available on offenders in the CCH. If no
disposition was available, the offender's felony
status could not be determined.
o Even if disposition data were available, the
offender's felony status may not be able to be
determined in an automated manner. The felony
status of such an offender could be determined
manually, by perusing her or his rap sheet, but
the States felt it was not practical financially
to set felony flags in this manner.
Many of the older CCH's were designed to be
storage systems, and little thought was given to
how people might use the data. For this reason,
the format and precision of the data stored in
disposition fields varied widely. In South Dakota
and Tennessee, for example, the disposition data in
existing records included the actual sentence
imposed rather than the sentence that could have
been imposed. Nonstandard abbreviations also made
it difficult to determine an offender's felony
status.
It is, therefore, not surprising that States
reported varying degrees of success in
programmatically setting felony flags on existing
offenders. Some States, including Hawaii, Missouri,
Oregon, and Washington, reported that flags for
virtually all offenders could be set. Such States
typically had conviction-level codes for reported
dispositions, so setting flags on the basis of
these codes was straightforward. One block of
States that included Florida, Illinois, and Utah
reported that flags could be set on about half of
their offenders. However, another block of States
that included Michigan, North Carolina, North
Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota reported
that they did not bother to examine existing
records programmatically because much of the
available disposition data were not specific enough
to determine an offender's felony status. These and
other States have taken a "day-one approach" to
identifying felons by not attempting to flag
existing records.
Implications for the National System
Irrespective of how a State determines an
offender's felony status or how successful the
State's approach has been, an issue of concern is
the definition of felony being used. The National
Felon Identification in Firearm Sales system is
based on the definition in the Federal Gun Control
Act of 1968. Virginia, which completed a pilot test
with the FBI and updated its III records with a
felony flag, used the Federal definition. However,
as noted by BJS,[7] not only do States define felony
in a variety of ways, but also the term felony is
not defined at all in seven States. Most important,
many States appear to use their own definitions to
set felony flags. Interestingly, South Carolina is
setting two felony flags: one based on the State
definition and one based on the Federal definition
of felony.
Because each State uses its own definition of a
felony, several State central repository officials
expressed concern over the reliability and
consistency of felony flags that will eventually
appear in III records. One State official said he
wouldn't trust a flag set by another State and
would need to look at the offender's rap sheet
before determining the applicant's firearm
eligibility.
Implementation of Policies and Procedures
The purpose of this strategy is to implement new
procedures as necessary to ensure that arrests and
dispositions are submitted in a timely and accurate
manner. Critical procedures include those that
relate to what forms are used, how data regarding
both routine and unusual events are reported, how
data fields are interpreted, and in what format
computerized data are stored and transmitted.
Perhaps the most important activity related to this
strategy is implementation of a unique arrest
tracking number (ATN). In fact, this was the most
common procedure supported with CHRI funds.
Arrest Tracking Number
Because repositories receive data from several
different agencies, including law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections
agencies, the State central repository must have a
method to link the various pieces of information it
receives to the correct case. For this reason,
statewide use of an ATN is critical to the
achievement of high data quality. States
implementing ATN's either before the CHRI Program
or as part of their CHRI project used several
methods, which can be divided into two groups:
o The most common method for implementing ATN's
is to have them preprinted on multipart forms
that eventually are submitted to the central
repository, the prosecutor, and the courts. ATN's
can be preprinted on fingerprint cards or on
charging documents; they can also be preprinted
on labels, which are then affixed to fingerprint
cards and charging documents.
o The second method of implementing ATN's is to
allow arresting agencies to obtain them from
computer systems (such as that of the central
repository). For example, in Montana, arresting
officers routinely perform a name search of the
central repository's master name index when an
arrest is made. After the search is conducted,
the system generates a unique ATN that the
arresting officer records on the fingerprint card
and on the charging documents submitted to the
prosecutor. In Maryland, booking workstations that
are still  being developed will internally
generate unique ATN's, printing them on all
documents and electronically transmitting them to
other criminal justice agencies involved in
processing offenders.
The ATN method that is best for a State depends
in part on the procedures already in place. In
Montana, because arresting officers were already
querying the central repository data base, it was
simpler to have the system generate ATN's. In
addition, by having the system generate ATN's,
Montana central repository staff could determine
which agencies were obtaining ATN's but neglecting
to submit fingerprint cards.
Alaska convened a multiagency task force that
considered the various options for implementing an
ATN and elected to include a preprinted ATN on the
charging document filed by arresting officers with
the prosecutor. From a data quality perspective,
the best method for implementing an ATN is one that
does not require any human intervention, such as
the method being implemented in Maryland. Data
quality is threatened whenever ATN's must be copied
manually from one form to another or entered into a
computer system.
Standardization of Procedures
Recognizing that data quality begins at the
local level, CHRI project directors emphasized the
need to standardize local agency arrest and
disposition reporting practices. Of particular
interest in this regard is ongoing work in New York
State, where the State's Division of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS) used CHRI funds to improve
arrest and disposition reporting by first assessing
local reporting practices and then devising and
implementing model reporting standards across the
State. During its first CHRI project, DCJS
personnel identified a wide array of reporting
practices of local arresting agencies,
prosecutors, and courts that contribute to poor
data quality. A major goal of New York's second
CHRI project will be to develop a set of model
procedures that will meet the needs of the local
agencies as well as the central repository. Such a
document was expected to be available in fall 1994.
Automation of Arrest Reporting
The automation of arrest reporting would improve
the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness with which
arrest information is reported to the central
repository and other criminal justice agencies.
Arrest information would include fingerprint cards,
and other criminal justice agencies would include
prosecutors, courts, and other organizations that
use such information in their day-to-day work.
Because the CHRI Program focuses on improving
disposition, not arrest reporting, few States
implemented activities under this strategy.
Nevertheless, what work is being undertaken is new
and innovative and should be of interest to all
States.
Live-Scan Systems
Live-scan devices can potentially improve the
readability of fingerprints and, depending on how
they are configured, reduce the delay in submitting
fingerprint cards to the central repository to a
matter of minutes. There are three basic live-scan
system configurations, all of which were implemented
with CHRI funds.
o In Pennsylvania, fingerprint images are printed on
cards at the  booking sites; the fingerprint cards are
then sent via the U.S. mail to the central repository.
o In Minnesota, fingerprint card images are
transmitted to the central repository, where each
image is printed on a fingerprint card.
o In both Maryland and Minnesota, work is under way
to enable fingerprint card images to be directly
interfaced with an automated fingerprint identification
system (AFIS).
The full benefits of live-scan technology are
only realized through the third configuration
listed above; the first two configurations
should, at best, be considered interim solutions.
Implementation Considerations: Maryland's
Experience
Maryland's efforts to interface live-scan
devices with its AFIS is one component of an
ongoing initiative to completely automate the
arrest, booking, and reporting processes in the
State. Arrest/booking workstations are scheduled
to be installed in Baltimore and in four or five
other law enforcement agencies in 1995. (State
funds are supporting installation of the
Baltimore system, while CHRI funds are supporting
installation at the other sites.) The plan is for
these workstations to be placed in all arresting
agencies in the State. Statewide implementation
of the workstation approach will be possible
because the State will own the software; local
agencies wishing to install the system need only
purchase the hardware, which could consist of a
single PC for smaller agencies.
The workstation-based system supports the
principle that data entry should be at the
origination point: at booking. Major features
of the system include:
o A Windows-based user interface.
o Data entry screens for arrestee and arrest event
information.
o System-generated ATN's.
o Barcoding technologies to track offenders
entering a jail facility.
o Live-scan fingerprinting workstations that will
be linked to a State's AFIS.
o An interface to the State's CCH so that arrest
event information can  be posted immediately to
the offender's record.
o An interface to the State's judicial information
system.
o An interface to the information system of the
State's pretrial services agency.
In terms of impact, perhaps the major goal of
the booking workstations is to reduce the elapsed
time from fingerprinting to positive identification
to posting of the arrest to the offender's criminal
history record. The goal would be to identify 95
percent of offenders within 30 minutes of booking.
In addition, the booking workstation effort
addresses what the most recent audit of the
Maryland criminal history system found to be its
major weakness: the failure to assign and use State
identification numbers and ATN's uniformly and
reliably throughout the criminal history reporting
system. The percentage of arrests that can be
linked to dispositions should improve because ATN's
are system generated and electronically passed to
both the central repository and the judicial
information system.
Automation of the Central Repository
As noted in Exhibit 3-3, 46 of 53 States used
CHRI funds to improve automation of their central
repository. In particular, States developed new
systems or upgraded existing systems at the central
repository, processed backlogged records, and
automated manual criminal history records.
CCH Development
Of great significance is the fact that the CHRI
Program supported development of a CCH in those
States that did not have such a system. American
Samoa, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Mexico,
Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia all used
manual systems prior to the CHRI Program. They are
now developing and installing CCH's with CHRI
funds. At the same time, 11 States used CHRI funds
to upgrade or rewrite their CCH's.
In light of the staggering advances in computer
technology in recent years--many of the CCH's
being replaced have been in use for two decades--a
new CCH based on modern technology can make an
enormous impact. New hardware can increase the speed,
reliability, and capacity of the CCH. New software
can reduce data entry time and costs, ease system
maintenance, and enhance other system capabilities
and features. In terms of the CHRI Program, these
rewrites are typically a required step before a
State can develop procedures for quickly
identifying convicted felons. As previously
mentioned, this is because older CCH's were viewed
simply as data storage systems and usually were
not designed with analysis capabilities in mind.
Therefore, disposition information in these systems
typically is stored in a text field with no
standards governing the format or content of the
text. In redesigning the CCH, States have included
a felony flag field in either the offender's
identification segment or conviction segment. In
addition, an upgrading of the CCH is often required
before the State can implement electronic
interfaces with other agency computer systems.
Data Entry and Data Conversion Efforts
Data entry and data conversion efforts aimed to
accomplish one of three goals: (1) obtain and enter
in the central repository data base arrest or
disposition records that were never reported to the
central repository; (2) enter records that were
reported to, but never processed by, the central
repository because of a backlog; or (3) automate
manual criminal history records. All of these
activities aimed to increase the number of records
in the criminal history data bases. Backlog
reduction activities had the additional objective
of reducing the delay between the time a record was
received and when it was posted to the central
repository data base.
For the backlog reduction activities, States
either hired temporary personnel or paid central
repository personnel overtime. Both approaches
had drawbacks. States hiring temporary personnel
experienced delays in hiring, screening, and
training, while States asking staff to work
overtime found employee burnout to be a problem.
To obtain dispositions previously not reported to
the central repository, States typically obtained
a computer tape of unlinked arrests and attempted
to match those records to computerized records on
another agency's system. Taken together, these
activities significantly increased the completeness
of the central repository data bases. As of April
1994, States had:
o Obtained 430,000 unreported felony dispositions
from various  contributing agencies and entered
them in central repository data bases.
o Entered 1.2 million dispositions that had
been backlogged at repositories into central
repository data bases.
o Entered 340,000 fingerprint cards that had
been backlogged at repositories into central
repository data bases.
o Automated 650,000 manual criminal history
records.
Because many of the States are still working on
these activities (see Exhibit 3-2), these figures
will increase before the end of the CHRI Program.
In addition, backlog reduction activities have
resulted in significant improvements in the
timeliness with which records are posted to the
CCH. Of the States reducing backlogs, Georgia
merits special recognition for the magnitude of its
improvement in update timeliness: the elapsed time
from receipt of fingerprint cards and entry of the
arrest data in the CCH has been reduced from 14
months to less than 24 hours; and the elapsed time
from receipt of disposition reports to entry of the
disposition data in the CCH has been reduced from
36 months to 3 months.
Although these activities improved data base
completeness and reduced delays in posting records
to the CCH, these activities by themselves do not
solve systemic reporting problems. They do not
affect the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of
records reported to the central repository in the
future. Many State officials noted these concerns,
commenting that future efforts to improve data
quality should focus on the quality of future
records rather than the quality of old records.
Fortunately, many States such as Iowa, Minnesota,
New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and South Carolina that
implemented backlog reduction activities also used
CHRI funds to implement automated disposition
reporting.
Automation of Disposition Reporting
The primary objective of the CHRI Program has
been to improve disposition reporting to the
central repository. Clearly one of the most
effective strategies for improving disposition
reporting is to automate the reporting process by
implementing electronic interfaces between the CCH
and the agencies responsible for reporting
dispositions. Indeed, these interfaces can solve
systemic reporting problems.
A properly implemented electronic interface
between a CCH and a court or prosecutor information
system can increase the percentage of dispositions
reported to the central repository, improve the
timeliness of disposition reporting, and improve
the accuracy and completeness of the disposition
records. The interfaces can also reduce the
workload and improve the efficiency of agencies
involved in the exchange of data. For example, in
the case of a court-central repository interface,
court personnel are relieved of the burden of
submitting paper forms to the central repository,
and central repository personnel no longer have to
enter disposition data manually. Finally, recent
advances in computer technology, particularly in
the networking area, have made linking computers a
much easier task.
Aggregate Accomplishments
As indicated in Exhibit 3-2, 22 States used CHRI
funds to design or implement electronic interfaces
between the courts and the CCH. It should be noted
that 18 of the 22 States had no automated
disposition reporting prior to the CHRI Program,
the exceptions being California, Delaware, Hawaii,
and Massachusetts.
The degree to which dispositions in these 22
States will be reported electronically at the end
of their CHRI projects varies:
o Five States (Idaho, Nebraska, Rhode Island,
Washington, and Wyoming) will have completed
design work with CHRI funds and will pursue
implementation of the interfaces with other
Federal and  State funds.
o Eight States (Arizona, California, Georgia,
Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and
Texas) will receive dispositions electronically
from some, but not all, counties in their State.
o Nine States (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, South Dakota,
and Utah) should receive the vast majority of
their dispositions electronically.
Implementation Considerations: Interface
Characteristics
The court-central repository interfaces that were
developed with CHRI funds differ in at least two
respects. The first difference concerns the path
traveled by the data. As noted earlier, States
such  as Texas and California are implementing
systems one county at a time, so the data travel
from the counties  directly to the central repository.
On the other hand, in States with centralized court
information systems, the data travel from the county
court to the central court information system and
then to the central repository. Oregon and South
Dakota, for example, have unified court systems,
and courts throughout both States are linked to the
central court information system. This setup clearly
facilitated obtaining dispositions electronically.
When asked to give advice to other States that
wanted to implement automated disposition
reporting, Oregon officials said, "Get a unified
court system."
The second difference in court-central repository
interfaces concerns the method by which data are
transmitted. Again, from a technological perspective,
some methods are easier to implement than others.
The simplest--what might be called a semiautomated
electronic interface--involves having court personnel
transfer disposition records to a diskette or tape
and deliver it (by courier, for example) to the
central repository. A more technologically
sophisticated approach--what might be called a
fully automated electronic interface--is an online
data transfer wherein data are transmitted directly
from a court case management system (for example),
over a leased telephone line or modem, directly to
the central repository computer system.
From a data quality perspective, the less human
intervention, the higher the data quality.
Reporting should be a byproduct of normal day-to-
day activities. Thus, if possible, preference
should be given to online data transfers. In
addition, a common feature of the most successful
systems is two-way data transfer. In these systems,
offender identification information such as the
State identification (SID) number is transmitted
back to the court system after the central
repository processes the offender's fingerprint
card. Having both the courts and the central
repository jointly develop and benefit from a
system can greatly enhance interagency cooperation.
Implementation Considerations: Delaware's
Experience
Delaware used CHRI funds to implement a two-way
interface between the two main State criminal
justice-related information systems: the Criminal
Justice Information System (CJIS) and the Judicial
Information Center (JIC) system. CJIS users include
law enforcement agencies, the State Bureau of
Identification (SBI), the attorney general, and the
arraignment courts (or Justice of the Peace Courts),
while the upper courts (or the Court of Common Pleas
and Superior Court) use the JIC system. CJIS and
the JIC system were independently designed and
operated by two different State agencies. Initially,
little thought was given to sharing data with the
other system. Having two independent systems affected
data quality and data accessibility in a number of
ways:
o Data entry was duplicated because each agency
entered data in its  own system. Sometimes paper
notification was made to agencies  using the other
system. However, court clerks routinely entered
dispositions in the JIC system without entering
them in CJIS. As a result, dispositions were
frequently never posted to the offender's
criminal history record. In addition, data common
to both systems--in particular, the offender's
charges--often were not  synchronized.
o Linking arrests to dispositions was an equally
serious problem. A temporary SBI number, based on
a name index search, was recorded on both the
arrest fingerprint card and on paperwork sent by
law  enforcement agencies to the courts. If, after
performing a technical fingerprint search, SBI
personnel changed the temporary SBI number, the
new SBI number would be posted to the CJIS system;
although court officials had access to CJIS, the
courts would often not be formally notified of
the new SBI number.
o Users had to understand how to use two different
systems, know  which system had the desired data,
and understand the limitations of both systems.
Integration of the CJIS and JIC system had a
major impact on the flow of information from agency
to agency:
o After the SBI processes arrest fingerprint cards,
the correct SBI number is posted to CJIS and then
electronically posted to the offender's case
record in the JIC system.
o If the attorney general adds, drops, or modifies
the arrest charges, the new charges are
electronically posted to both CJIS and JIC. In
addition, if the attorney general declines to
prosecute the case, this decision is
electronically recorded in both systems.
o When cases are bound over from an arraignment
court to the upper courts, the arraignment court
enters this disposition in CJIS. The disposition
and the accompanying case data are then
electronically transmitted to the JIC system.
o When a case is disposed in the upper courts,
clerks record the disposition in the JIC system.
The disposition is then electronically
transmitted to CJIS.
In sum, when information is entered in either
CJIS or the JIC system, a subset of that
information is electronically transmitted to the
other system.
These efforts will have a major impact on all
aspects of Delaware's data quality, especially the
percentage of dispositions submitted to the central
repository, the timeliness with which they are
submitted, and the ability to link arrests to
dispositions. In addition, the savings in data
entry work will be significant. As one JIC official
said, "We are now out of the data entry business."
Implementation Considerations: South Carolina's
Experience
South Carolina implemented automated disposition
reporting on a county-by-county basis. Prior to
the CHRI Program, the South Carolina disposition
reporting system was entirely paper based. Court
clerks in the 46 counties forwarded paper disposition
forms to the central South Carolina Court
Administration (SCCA) office, where seven data
entry clerks entered the data in the SCCA data base.
In addition, SCCA forwarded paper disposition forms
to the State's central repository (SLED), where
personnel posted the disposition to the CCH. A
combination of State and CHRI funds supported
development of a central SCCA computer system that
could receive dispositions electronically from
county clerk offices, as well as development of an
electronic interface between the new SCCA system
and SLED's CCH.
Two important points should be made about the approach
South Carolina took in these efforts. First, 19
counties in the State, including the most populous
counties, already had court information systems; a
requirement of the new reporting system was that
the new SCCA system be able to accept data from
these systems, which were on a variety of hardware
and software platforms with their own particular
data formats and conventions. Second, in the 27
counties without any automation, CHRI funds were
used to develop an inexpensive PC-based court case
management system that county court clerks could
use to manage their cases and assist with
scheduling and calendaring. The package included a
module for reporting electronically to the new SCCA
system. Dispositions are transmitted in batch mode,
posted to the SCCA data base, and then reformatted
and transmitted to the SLED CCH.
As of February 1994, 32 of the 46 counties had
discontinued submitting paper disposition forms and
were only reporting electronically. The other 14
counties were expected to be reporting electronically
later in the year.
Countywide Automation
The final group of data quality improvement
efforts concerns efforts to electronically link the
key criminal justice agencies within a single
county to each other and to the State criminal
justice agencies. In terms of the classification
scheme presented in Exhibit 3-1, such efforts
represent several activities under the "automate
arrest reporting" and "automate disposition
reporting" strategies. The ultimate goal of these
efforts is significant: they attempt to create a
single-point-of-entry or paperless reporting system
within a county. Below, efforts toward this goal in
Utah, Missouri, and Delaware are discussed.
Implementation Considerations: Utah's Experience
In Utah, CHRI funds were used to electronically
link State-level criminal justice agencies and
criminal justice agencies responsible for reporting
criminal history information in Salt Lake County,
the largest county in the State. The agencies being
linked included county agencies (the Salt Lake
County sheriff and Salt Lake County prosecutor) and
State agencies (corrections, courts, and central
repository). As is the case in many States, all of
these agencies developed independent computer
systems with little thought given to sharing data
with other agencies. Once completed, the project
will become a model for other counties in the
State.
CHRI funds supported partial implementation of
the interfaces. The interface between the jail
systems and the Salt Lake County prosecutor system
was completed, and the prosecutor now receives
immediate electronic notification of new cases.
The interface between the prosecutor system and the
courts was also completed. This interface is two
way: basic case information is electronically
transmitted from the prosecutor to the courts at
the time of case filing, and prosecutors are able
to access the court calendar electronically.
Finally, court-repository interface was completed.
The countywide efforts will be continued with
BJA/CJRI funds.
Implementation Considerations: Missouri's
Experience
Missouri's long-term automation plan involved
placing the information systems of the county
sheriff, the prosecutor, and the court on a single
computer network. This network will in turn be one
node on a larger statewide network that will include
the central repository, other counties, and gateways
to national criminal justice telecommunications
systems such as the National Crime Information Center
and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System, Inc. Pilot projects to test this automation
approach were under way in Osage and Randolph counties.
The centerpiece of these networks is the Missouri
Prosecutors Integrated Case Management System
(MOPICS). With CHRI funds, the Missouri State
Highway Patrol developed MOPICS/2 and implemented
it in nine counties. Development of MOPICS/2 was
crucial for implementation of the countywide systems
because it is capable of supporting online two-way
communication with the central repository data base.
This communication allows not only for real-time
disposition reporting but also for online querying
of the central repository data base by prosecutor
offices. The system runs on a variety of hardware
platforms, including PC-based local area networks.
Implementation Considerations: Delaware's
Experience
In Delaware, CHRI funds were used to develop two
key missing pieces to a statewide single-point-of-
entry system: case management systems for the
courts and integration of the two main State
criminal justice-related information systems--the
Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and the
Judicial Information Center (JIC) system. Delaware
has a major advantage over other States in
development of a single-point-of-entry system
because all of the criminal justice information
systems were at the State level.
With State funds and the first-year CHRI award,
a court case management system was created and
installed in the arraignment courts. In addition to
automating the process for producing court forms,
the case management system included a reporting
module that automatically transmitted dispositions
to the CJIS system. A similar case management
system was being developed for the upper courts
with State and BJA/CJRI funds.
These efforts appear to have had a profound
organizational impact in the State. Prior to these
efforts, each agency had a narrow mentality based
on its own system, and agency staff gave little
thought to how their actions would affect other
criminal justice agencies. With the development of
the single-point-of-entry system, criminal justice
agencies in Delaware seem to understand better that
their actions affect other agencies and that they
are part of a single criminal justice system.
------------------------------
Chapter 4
Program Findings and Recommendations
This chapter builds on the experiences of the CHRI
Program and considers possible future directions
for efforts to improve criminal history record data
quality. Such considerations are particularly relevant
at this time because recent Federal legislation,
including the Brady Act and the Child Protection Law,
has reaffirmed that improving the quality of criminal
history records will continue to be a priority for
Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies.
This discussion draws, naturally, on the overview and
analysis of the CHRI Program already presented
earlier in this report, as well as on a survey of
central repository personnel in 39 States as
detailed in Appendix C. It also takes into account
the characteristics of an ideal criminal history
information system.
Program Findings
The CHRI Program was created in FY 1990 to improve
each State's ability to accurately identify felons
who attempt to purchase firearms. The Program was
limited in scope: a 3-year funding period, a total
of $27.6 million in funds, and a focus on improving
felony conviction reporting to State central
repositories. The CHRI Program has made a significant
contribution to the long-term struggle to improve the
quality of criminal history records. Findings of the
evaluation can be summarized as follows.
Program Awards
Benefits from the CHRI Program were achieved for
every State:
o All 50 States plus American Samoa, the District of
Columbia, and  the Northern Mariana Islands obtained
CHRI funding. In all, 81  awards were made, and 28
jurisdictions received 2 awards.
o The award amounts ranged from a low of $112,842
to a high of $921,669. The average award was $521,227.
o States were able to leverage other State and
Federal money to expand the scope of their CHRI
projects. For example, CHRI funds accelerated
implementation of data quality improvement efforts
begun before the CHRI Program; similarly, CHRI
funds provided the basis for effectively using
BJA/CJRI and other Federal and State funds to
improve data quality even more.
Data Quality Improvement Strategies
For the CHRI evaluation, 12 data quality improvement
strategies were identified. The strategies underscore
the long-term goals of a high-quality criminal history
records system. The degree to which States carried
out these strategies is consistent with CHRI Program
goals:
o The most common CHRI-supported strategy was to
improve automation of the central repository: 46 of 53
jurisdictions used CHRI funds for this purpose.
o The only other strategy addressed by more than
half of the States (29) was automation of
disposition reporting.
Program Activities
In addition, 46 different activities that supported
the 12 strategies were identified. Each State
implemented from 1 to 10 activities, with an
average of 4 per State for a total of 213 data
quality improvement activities. CHRI funds only
were used to support two-thirds of the 213
activities, while State and BJA/CJRI funds
complemented CHRI support of the other one-third
of activities. In 10 or more States, 8 different
activities were supported by CHRI funds, as
discussed below:
o Electronic interface. Electronic interfaces
between the courts and the central repository data
base were designed or implemented in 22 States. Of
these, 18 States had no automated disposition
reporting prior to the CHRI Program. The percentage
of dispositions  submitted electronically in these
22 States varied: 9 States received the vast
majority of dispositions electronically; 8 States
received  dispositions from some but not all of the
counties in the State; and 5 States completed design
work and will pursue implementation with  other
non-CHRI funds.
o Baseline audits. Baseline audits of criminal
history record systems were conducted by 17
States. Given that only 11 States had  conducted
audits before the CHRI Program was established,
increasing the knowledge about the Nation's
criminal history systems  is a major achievement
of the CHRI Program. Audit results concur with
results of the BJS data quality survey and
underscore the urgent need for continued efforts
to improve data quality.
o Felony flags. Felony flagging systems were
developed by 17 States to determine quickly
whether an offender has been convicted of a
felony. The ability of States to flag the
records of offenders already contained in their
data bases varied widely, depending on the
availability of conviction data and the form in
which the data were  stored. The use of State-
specific felony definitions raised questions
about the feasibility of a national felony flag
system.
o Disposition backlogs. Disposition backlogs were
processed by 15 States. As of April 1994, these
States added 1.2 million dispositions to central
repository data bases.
o Long-term plans. Long-term data quality
improvement plans were  developed by 12 States.
These plans became the basis for a second CHRI
award and/or implementation of the BJA/CJRI
Program. The  common theme of the plans was that
activities supported with CHRI funds were to be
continued with BJA/CJRI funds.
o Revised CCH's. CCH's were rewritten by 11 States.
Such activities typically increased the speed,
reliability, and capacity of the CCH; reduced
data entry time and cost; eased system maintenance;
enabled States to develop procedures for quickly
identifying convicted felons; and enabled
interfaces between the CCH and other criminal
justice information systems.
o Automated records. Manual criminal history
records were automated by 11 States. As of April
1994, these States added  650,000 automated records
to central repository data bases.
o Unreported dispositions. Unreported dispositions
were obtained by 10 States from other criminal justice
agencies. As of April 1994, these States had added
430,000 dispositions to central repository data bases.
Achievement of Related Goals
In addition to helping States to (1) enhance
criminal history records for accurate
identification of convicted felons, (2) meet
the FBI/BJS Voluntary Reporting Standards, and
(3) improve the quality and timeliness of criminal
history information, the CHRI Program has
accomplished three important missions:
o Improvement of the national criminal history
system. CHRI funds have increased participation
in the Interstate Identification Index  (III).
Five additional States have become III
participants, and four others hope to become
participants by the end of their CHRI  projects.
An increase in the level of automated disposition
reporting to the FBI and an increase in
participation in the Felon Identification in
Firearm Sales Program have also resulted.
o Improvement of interagency cooperation. Enhanced
cooperation among agencies was a byproduct of
CHRI-supported activities such as the planning,
auditing, and electronic interface activities. This
cooperation is essential because coordinated
multiagency efforts are necessary to make
systemic improvements to data quality.
o Heightened awareness of the importance of
criminal history record information. One CHRI
project leader commented that the mere existence
of a Federal criminal history records improvement
program sent a strong message to State legislatures
that "the quality of criminal history records is
a priority." Increased awareness of the
importance of criminal history records will
inevitably lead to improved reporting.
CHRI Program in Perspective
Much of the impact of the CHRI Program has yet
to be realized. More important, in most States the
same data quality improvement activities supported
with CHRI funds were being continued with BJA/CJRI
funds. In fact, most States viewed the BJA/CJRI
Program as an extension of the CHRI Program. This
finding is significant because, as noted earlier,
States used CHRI funds appropriately to address
systemic reporting problems and to initiate
multiyear activities.
Although the accomplishments of the CHRI Program are
significant, it is important to view the program in
the context of the long-term effort to improve data
quality and to bring all States into compliance
with State and Federal standards. It is impossible
to predict when States will be in compliance with
these standards because it depends on a number of
factors: the level of State and Federal funding,
which (and how well) data quality improvement
activities are implemented, and how important the
quality of data is considered to be by the
thousands of criminal justice personnel involved
in reporting criminal record information.
However, on the basis of experiences in the CHRI
Program, a few observations on the level of effort
still required can be made. First, the CHRI Program
has enabled each State to implement only a fraction
of all the activities needed for data quality
improvement. Second, an activity is never really
completed in the sense that no resources need ever
be directed to it again. For example, the FBI/BJS
voluntary reporting standards suggest that baseline
audits be performed annually. In addition, the
lifetime of any computer system is limited,
typically about 5 years. Third, CHRI-supported data
quality audit results, observations from the States
included in this evaluation, and the BJS data
quality survey results underscore the urgent need
for continued emphasis on improving data quality.
Fortunately, as the CHRI Program ends, other
Federal money is available for criminal history
records improvement. Finally, it is essential that
evaluation efforts be continued: not only to ensure
that funds have been appropriately spent and have
achieved a significant degree of impact, but also
to share best practices and minimize the potential
for reinventing the wheel.
This evaluation study provides officials in the
Department of Justice with an assessment of how
effectively Federal funds were spent on the CHRI
Program and provides State and local officials
with insight into a range of criminal history
record improvement strategies and activities.
However, another key purpose of evaluations is to
help guide future policies in the area of concern.
Ideal System Considerations
One way of determining the future direction of
criminal history record improvement activities is
to consider the ideal criminal history information
system. Put simply, the ideal criminal history
information system is one that provides useful data
to those who need such information. This statement
follows directly from the data quality framework
discussed in Chapter 2. In that framework, the
outcome measures--those measures that reflect the
ultimate objectives of a system--focus on the
usefulness of criminal history data, including the
availability of those data to authorized agencies;
the time lapse between record request and
information receipt; and the relevance of the
information provided to the needs of the requestor.
It also follows that to be useful, data must be
complete, accurate, and timely. For an ideal
criminal history record system, the data should
comply with Federal and State data quality
standards: in this case, the FBI/BJS Voluntary
Reporting Standards and the BJA waiver criteria.
The data quality standard most often referenced is
that a State central repository must have
dispositions for 80 percent of felony arrests
occurring in the last 5 years. Achieving this
standard would result in significant upgrades in
many States' record systems.
However, the concern here is not what standards
must be met but how a State achieves whatever
standards are established. Although a step-by-step
guide for meeting standards and improving data
quality, while a laudable goal, is beyond the scope
of this report, two points should be made. First,
on the basis of evaluation findings and
conversations with CHRI project officials, it seems
clear that there exists a set of baseline data
quality improvement activities that must be
implemented if an acceptable level of data quality
is to be achieved. That acceptable level may or may
not bring a State into compliance with established
data quality standards. Baseline data quality
improvement activities might include convening a
multiagency task force, conducting a baseline
audit, enacting legislation specifying both
reportable events and those agencies responsible
for reporting, establishing a fingerprint-supported
CCH, providing online name query capability to
contributing agencies, and implementing a unique
number tracking system. Clearly, future funding
efforts should focus on ensuring that all States
have addressed these baseline activities.
Second, to achieve the highest possible levels of
completeness, accuracy, and timeliness, States
should work toward a single-point-of-entry or
paperless system in which particular data elements
are entered into an automated system once and are
subsequently transmitted electronically to other
agencies that require the data element. Efforts
toward that goal in Delaware, Missouri, and Utah
were discussed previously in this report.
The single-point-of-entry system is essential
because of the inherent threats to accuracy,
completeness, and timeliness in the manual handling
of the data by multiple parties. As illustrated in
Exhibit 4-1, the flow of paperwork related to a
single arrest involves several agencies. For the
maintenance of complete, accurate, and timely
records, each link in the data quality chain must
be strong. Among the most vulnerable links are the
interfaces between two different agencies. There
are three basic types of interfaces: manual,
semiautomated electronic, and fully automated
electronic. The CHRI Program supported development
of semiautomated and fully automated electronic
interfaces in a number of States. Exhibit 4-2
summarizes the levels of risk for each of the three
types of interfaces, first, if the sending agency
fails to submit or delays submitting data, and,
second, if the receiving agency delays processing
the received data or makes errors in processing the
data. The fully automated electronic interface
clearly poses the least threat to data quality.
Exhibit 4-3 further illustrates the advantages
of fully automated electronic interfaces by
estimating how many times basic data on offenders
must be either handwritten or keyed into a computer
system for two kinds of criminal history reporting
systems: one composed exclusively of manual
interfaces and one composed exclusively of fully
automated electronic interfaces. In the fully
automated system, the data are entered only once:
when the offender is booked or when an arrest
warrant is obtained. In the completely manual
system, data are entered a minimum of 16 times; the
potential for data entry errors and delays in such
a system is obvious.
Although court-repository electronic interfaces
were emphasized in the CHRI Program, States used
CHRI funds to support electronic interfaces between
other pairs of agencies. In formulating their
approaches to automation and to achieving a
paperless system, States must prioritize
implementation of electronic interfaces between
agencies, considering, for example, implementation
costs, the volume of data transmitted between two
agencies, and the goals and constraints of
available funding programs.
Recommendations
Keeping in mind the ultimate objectives of the
ideal criminal history system and the lessons and
experiences of the CHRI Program, the States' views
of data quality problems and activities to improve
data quality, and the status of related grant
programs, five recommendations for future criminal
history records improvement efforts can be made.
Three recommendations for research and evaluation
actions can also be made. Each builds on and
extends the findings contained in this report.
o Continuation of funding of records improvement
initiatives.  Recurring uncertainty about funding
for the BJA/CJRI Program, the newer Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act, and the National Child
Protection Act grant programs continues to inhibit
this overall effort. Given the current status of
criminal history records, the increasing
importance of higher quality criminal history
records, and the need for States to continue
activities initiated with CHRI funds, all three
programs should be funded. A stable funding stream
is essential if States are to address their
systemic reporting problems in a purposeful
manner.
o Continuation of the requirement to establish
multiagency task forces. Convening a multiagency
task force is an important first step toward
having each agency understand that its actions
affect other agencies and that each agency is
part of a single criminal justice system. This
requirement should be a part of every records
improvement initiative.
o Funding of baseline activities. Funding priority
should be given to States that have not
implemented baseline data quality improvement
activities needed for achievement of higher data
quality. Examples of these activities include
establishing a system to measure data quality on
an ongoing basis, enacting legislation specifying
both reportable events and agencies responsible
for reporting, having a fingerprint-supported
CCH, providing online name query capability to
contributing agencies, and implementing a unique
number tracking system.
o Continuation of emphasis on automation. The
importance of automation in improving data
quality cannot be overstated. The CHRI Program
emphasized improving automation of the central
repository. Other funding initiatives should
consider automation not only of the central
repository but also of the local, county, and State
criminal justice agencies that are responsible for
reporting criminal records. Complete, accurate,
and timely records require all links in the data
quality chain to be strong.
o Paperless reporting systems. Each State should
develop a strategy for implementing reporting
systems that are county-based or State-based and
single-point-of-entry or paperless. Any proposed
automation effort should be approved for funding
only if it has explicitly accounted for
electronic interfaces to other criminal justice
agencies.
o Continuation of evaluation of activities similar
to CHRI. CHRI-supported efforts were still under
way in 22 States when this evaluation was
completed. Therefore, a full accounting of the
impact of the CHRI Program has not been made. A
full evaluation is essential not only for the
CHRI Program but also for similar efforts, given
the level of funding of the BJA/CJRI Program, the
anticipated funding through the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act and Child Protection Act
programs, and the overlap in their goals. Such
an evaluation is warranted not only because of
the amount of Federal moneys involved; it is
important also to determine the benefits that the
States derive from these programs. In addition, an
activity-based evaluation would complement the
snapshot-based BJS-sponsored data quality
surveys.
o Development and publication of a guide for
improving data quality. The development and
publishing of a guide to improving data quality
would expand and pilot test the guide-related ideas
promulgated here, including such concepts as the
data quality chain and the data quality index.
For example, the development of an index that
could continually measure and assess data quality
would not only provide a consistent basis for
assessing changes in quality before and after
implementation of improvement activities, but also
would assist States in selecting activities that
yield the largest increase in their data quality
indexes.
o Assessment of the usefulness of criminal history
records. Although States are focusing on the
complete, accurate, and timely aspects of data
quality emphasized in FBI/BJS standards and BJA
criteria, in coming years the emphasis is likely
to shift to activities that improve the
accessibility and utility of criminal history
records. Such activities might include the
provision of more sophisticated query
capabilities to users and development of
decision-support modules that can produce pertinent
information for criminal justice officials at
both the operating and the administrative levels.
These recommendations represent modest and
realistic goals that together form a framework for
making and assessing progress in this complex area.
Reliable, constant sources of funding coupled with
cooperative guidance stressing improvements in
basic system components will eventually lead to
achieving the initial goals of the CHRI Program and
its related programs: accurate, timely, complete,
automated criminal history records. Ongoing
evaluation will allow for midcourse correction and
document longer-term successes, leading to renewed
efforts that will further enhance the basic system.
Eventually, the now-ideal goals of a paperless,
interconnected, user-friendly system will emerge.
------------------------------
Bibliography
American Bar Association. 1991. Criminal History
Record Checks: A Report for Nonprofits. Washington,
DC.
Barton, S.J. 1991. Survey of Criminal History
Information Systems. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1991. Announcement
of a Grant To Evaluate State and Local Government
Criminal History Records Information. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1991 (December).
Guidance for the Improvement of Criminal History
Records. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Assistance and Bureau of
Justice Statistics. 1990 (May 23). "Notice of
Program for Improvement of Criminal History Record
Information and Identification of Convicted
Felons." Federal Register 55(100).
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1988. Felony Laws
of the 50 States and the District of Columbia,
1986. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992. Criminal
History Record Disposition Reporting: Findings and
Strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992. Criminal
History Record Information: Compendium of State
Privacy and Security Legislation, 1992. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992 (January).
National Conference on Improving the Quality of
Criminal History Records: Proceedings of a
BJS/SEARCH Conference, June 20-21, 1991,
Washington, D.C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1994 (March 7).
Updated CHRI Summary and Other CHRI Information.
Internal BJS memorandum.
Delaware Statistical Analysis Center. 1992.
Drug Traffickers' Criminal History Profile.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of
Justice Statistics. 1991 (February 13). "Voluntary
Standards for Improving the Quality of Criminal
History Records and Guidelines for Identifying
Felony Convictions." Federal Register 56(30).
Geerken, M.R., A.C. Miranne III, and M.B.
Kennedy. 1993. New Orleans Offender Study:
Development of Official Record Databases.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
Michigan Department of State Police. 1992.
Criminal Records Reporting Manual. East
Lansing: Michigan Justice Training
Commission.
National Center for Juvenile Justice. 1991.
OJJDP Guide to the Data Sets in the National
Juvenile Court Data Archive. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
New York City Police Department. 1992. Criminal
Record Information and Management System. Bronx:
NYPD 50th Precinct.
Osborne, E., and C. Corbo. 1990. Prior Criminal
History: Correctional Inmates, October 10,
1989. Newark: New Jersey Criminal Disposition
Commission.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. 1967 (February). The
Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Schmitt, J.B. 1992 (February). "Spotlight on
Computerized ID Systems." Police Chief 59(2),
pp. 33, 35-36, 40, 43-45.
Schneider, V.W., and B. Wiersema. 1990. "Limits
and Use of the Uniform Crime Reports." In D.L.
MacKenzie et al. (Eds.), Measuring Crime: Large-
Scale, Long-Range Efforts, pp. 21-48. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
SEARCH. 1988 (April). Strategies for Improving
Data Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
SEARCH. 1990. Access to Criminal History Records
by TASC Programs: A Report on Current Practice and
Statutory Authority. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
SEARCH. 1991 (March). Survey of Criminal History
Information Systems. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
SEARCH. 1992 (January). Assessing Completeness
and Accuracy of Criminal History Record Systems:
Audit Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
SEARCH. 1992 (June). Report of the National Task
Force on Criminal History Record Disposition
Reporting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
SEARCH. 1993 (November). Survey of Criminal
History Information Systems, 1992. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
SEARCH. 1993 (November). Use and Management of
Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Shipley, B., and L. Ruder. 1992. Attorney
General's Program for Improving the Nation's
Criminal History Records: Bureau of Justice
Statistics Implementation Status Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council. 1992.
Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan for the
State of Texas. Austin.
Tien, J.M. 1979. "Toward a Systematic Approach
to Program Evaluation Design." IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Special Issue on
Public Systems Methodology SMC-9, pp. 494-515.
Tien, J.M. 1990. "Program Evaluation: A System
and Model-Based Approach." In A.P. Sage (Ed.),
Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing
in Systems and Organizations, pp. 382-388. New
York: Pergamon Press.
Tien, J.M., and T.F. Rich. 1990 (May).Identifying
Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible To Purchase
Firearms: A Feasibility Study. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Tien, J.M., and T.F. Rich. 1992 (June). Criminal
History Records Improvement Evaluation and Guide:
Study and Evaluation Design. Cambridge, MA: Queues
Enforth Development, Inc.
Tien, J.M., and T.F. Rich. 1992 (September).
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation and
Guide: Pilot Test Results and Guide Approach.
Cambridge, MA: Queues Enforth Development, Inc.
Tien, J.M., and T.F. Rich. 1993 (April). Criminal
History Records Improvement Evaluation and Guide:
Interim Report. Cambridge, MA: Queues Enforth
Development, Inc.
Tien, J.M., and T.F. Rich. 1993 (November).
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation and
Guide: Second Interim Report. Cambridge, MA: Queues
Enforth Development, Inc.
Tien, J.M., T.F. Rich, and J.H. Mallinger. 1992
(May). Criminal History Records Improvement
Evaluation and Guide: Preliminary Assessment.
Cambridge, MA: Queues Enforth Development, Inc.
U.S. Department of Justice. 1989 (October). Report
to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying
Felons Who Attempt To Purchase Firearms. Washington,
DC.
Van Duyn, J. 1991. Automated Crime Information
Systems. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books.
Woodard, P.L. 1989. Criminal Justice Information
Policy: Strategies for Improving Data Quality.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Woodard, P.L. 1990. Compendium of State Privacy
and Security Legislation: 1989 Overview, Privacy
and Security of Criminal History Information.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Woodard, P.L. 1991. Statutes Requiring the Use
of Criminal History Record Information. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
------------------------------
Appendix A
Glossary
AFIS  Automated Fingerprint Identification
System: An automated system for classifying,
searching, and maintaining fingerprints.
ATN  Arrest Tracking Number: A unique
identification number that is assigned
manually by the arresting officer or
automatically by the computer system when
an arrest is made. The number is entered into
a State's central repository for use by law
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and
corrections agencies to track individual cases.
BJA  Bureau of Justice Assistance: The U.S.
Department of Justice agency that funded
the CHRI evaluation study and administers
the BJA/CJRI Program.
BJS  Bureau of Justice Statistics: The U.S.
Department of Justice agency that funded
and administered the CHRI Program.
CCH  Computerized Criminal History: An
automated system used to maintain records
on the criminal activities of offenders.
CHRI  Criminal History Records Improvement: A
$27-million program focused on improving
the quality of the Nation's criminal history
records. (In other publications, CHRI sometimes
refers to criminal history record information.)
CRIMS  Criminal Records Information Management
System: The New York State Office of Court
Administration's (OCA's) mainframe management
information system that is used to forward criminal
and superior court dispositions to OCA, provide an
inter-face with the Division of Criminal Justice
Services, and transfer dispositions electronically
to the central repository.
CJRI  Criminal Justice Records Improvement: A
continuing mandate attached to the BJA Formula
Grant Program requiring each State to apply 5
percent of its funds to criminal justice records
reporting, beginning in FY 1992 (called the
BJA/CJRI Program).
III  Interstate Identification Index (Triple "I"):
A data base system maintained by the FBI that contains
personal identifiers of offenders and "pointers" to
States maintaining criminal history records on
these offenders.
MNI   Master Name Index: A data base, either manual
or automated, containing personal identifiers of
offenders with criminal history records.
NCIC  National Crime Information Center: A
cooperative venture between the FBI and State
and local law enforcement agencies that provides
computerized access to documented criminal justice
information on wanted persons, stolen property,
violent felons, etc.
NLETS  National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System: A computer-controlled, message-switching
network linking local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies for the purpose of information
exchange.
------------------------------
Appendix B
State Summary
This appendix contains a description of
activities supported by the Criminal History
Records Improvement (CHRI) Program in each State.
In addition, the following summary information is
also given:
o Data quality improvement activities. All activities,
whether fully or  partially supported by CHRI funds,
are identified. Some of the activities are general
(for example, automate manual records) while others
are specific (for example, set felony flag in existing
records), but the focus is on activities that are of
interest to Federal and State officials.
o CHRI project status. The status of each CHRI-
supported activity is noted as either ongoing
or completed. "Completed" means that all work
performed on the activity with CHRI funds is
completed. It does not mean that a State has
completed all work on this activity. Indeed,
as previously noted, many States are continuing
CHRI-supported activities with other Federal or
State funds.
o Funding sources. The funding sources for each
activity are based on self-reported information
from the States; no financial audits were undertaken
as part of the evaluation. Activities supported by
a State's first CHRI award list the funding source
as "CHRI I"; those supported with a second CHRI
award list the funding source as "CHRI II." CHRI-
supported activities may also be supported by
other funding sources, including the Bureau of
Justice Assistance Criminal Justice Records
Improvement (BJA/CJRI) Program, earlier BJA
formula grants, or major State grants.
Finally, 22 States were continuing to work on
their CHRI projects at the time this report was
completed.
Alabama
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Obtain unreported dispositions
Install court information system
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, 5%
State,CHRI I & II, 5%
Alabama's CHRI project emphasized increasing the
percentage of recent felony arrests with
dispositions. The State estimated that only about
50 percent of the felony arrests made prior to 1990
and recorded in its computerized criminal history
(CCH) had dispositions. Consequently, the central
repository hired temporary personnel to go to the
county courts and retrieve unreported felony
dispositions. Some 37,000 felony dispositions were
obtained and entered in the CCH. As a result of
these efforts, approximately 90 percent of the
felony arrests that occurred in 1988 and 1989 now
have disposition records in the central repository
data base. The State planned to use BJA/CJRI funds
to target those felony arrests that occurred in
1987 that were missing dispositions.
New disposition reporting procedures instituted
in 1990 should ensure high disposition reporting
rates in the future. A key component of these
procedures was a monthly tape transfer of
dispositions from the central court to the central
repository. To increase the percentage of
dispositions reported electronically, the State
installed case management systems in the county-
level courts to enable them to report dispositions
electronically to the central court. Prior to the
CHRI project, 15 county courts were automated.
With CHRI funds, an additional 10 counties were
automated. The State planned to continue the
automation project with BJA/CJRI funds.
Alaska
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Set felony flags in existing records
Participate in III
Implement unique tracking number
Conduct audit
Interface prosecutor and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
CHRI II, 5%
Alaska's CHRI I project focused on three activities.
First, the State set felony flags on all existing
offenders in its criminal history system. In carrying
out this activity, Department of Public Safety (DPS)
personnel developed software that examined each
offender's record and determined the offender's
felony status based on the conviction charge,
sentence length, and court of conviction (a
conviction in superior court rather than district
or municipal court implied a felony). Second,
DPS personnel worked with a private contractor
and with the FBI to develop the necessary
software and supporting procedures so that the
State could participate in the Interstate
Identification Index (III). On August 4, 1991,
Alaska became the 22d State to participate in III.
Recognizing the importance of having a reliable
method to link arrest information to disposition
information, Alaska selected for one of its CHRI
activities the implementation of an arrest tracking
number (ATN). The State hired a local consultant to
head this effort. The consultant worked closely
with a multiagency working group that included
representatives of those agencies most affected by
the changes necessitated by the new ATN. The
approach the State elected to take was to include a
preprinted ATN on the criminal case intake and
disposition (CCID) form, the charging document
submitted by the arresting officer to the
prosecutor. The prosecutor then recorded on the
CCID the charges to be filed in court, forwarded a
copy of the updated CCID to both the arresting
agency and DPS, and recorded the ATN on the
complaint filed with the court clerk. The court
clerk subsequently entered the ATN and other
relevant case information into the court's
information system.
Project personnel reported that the most important
factor in the successful implementation of the ATN
was the commitment to long-term followup and
monitoring of the activity. The consultant in charge
of the project held several training sessions on
proper use of the ATN, conducted mini-audits to
assess the degree to which procedures were being
followed, made site visits to agencies, and was
available by telephone to answer questions from
local agency personnel. A professional-quality
video that explained the importance of the ATN
and the procedures to be followed was also produced.
In terms of impact, project personnel noted that
for the first time the State routinely obtained
prosecutor declinations. The ATN also enabled the
State to conduct effective audits of the CCH data
base by determining precisely which dispositions were
associated with what charge. However, the impact on
the percentage of arrests that could be linked to
dispositions was not known. Work on this activity
was continuing with CHRI II funds, and implementation
of the ATN continued to be monitored. A number of
changes were being considered, most notably the
addition of a check-digit to the ATN.
The State hired another private contractor to
conduct a baseline assessment of the criminal
history reporting system. Completed in spring 1993,
the assessment examined data completeness,
timeliness, and accuracy and determined the degree
to which the State was in compliance with FBI/BJS
reporting standards. Recommendations were also made
in the areas of management, CCH structure, and the
relationship between the CCH and other State
computerized information systems. As a result of
this study, the State elected to use CHRI II and
BJA/CJRI funds to develop a prosecutor-repository
interface, which was expected to be completed by
the end of 1994.
American Samoa
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
Prior to the CHRI Program, the American Samoa
Department of Public Safety had a manual records
system. CHRI funds were used to install a baseline
CCH system and to automate records of felony
arrests made in the past 3 years. Both activities
were ongoing, and CHRI project personnel projected
that CCH would be ready by the end of the grant
period and that 1,000 felony arrest records from
the past 3 years would be automated.
Arizona
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Develop data quality improvement plan
Process disposition report backlog
Conduct training at local agencies
Interface courts and CCH
Interface corrections and CCH
Upgrade CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI II
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
CHRI II
With CHRI I funds, Arizona hired a private
contractor to conduct a baseline data quality audit
and to develop a data quality improvement plan.
This plan became the basis for both the State's
CHRI II proposal and the BJA/CJRI plan.
The four key activities implemented with CHRI II
funds were all recommended in the data quality
improvement plan. One recommendation called for a
renewed emphasis on local agency training, which
central repository personnel felt was their greatest
success. The major topics covered by the training
sessions were:
o How information flowed through the criminal
justice system.
o How the central repository processed arrest and
disposition reports.
o How a fingerprint card should be filled out.
o How a disposition report should be filled out and
who is responsible  for submitting it.
o How unusual arrest scenarios such as arrests on
failure-to-appear warrants should be handled.
The trainers found that many reporting problems
were due to lack of familiarity with reporting
procedures. By the end of the CHRI project, the
central repository hoped to have conducted training
sessions for every criminal justice agency in the
State.
The Arizona central repository does not yet
receive any arrest or disposition reports
electronically, and both central repository staff
and the State's plan stress that electronic
reporting is essential if the central repository is
to keep up with its workload and improve data
quality. With CHRI I funds, the central repository
assessed the feasibility of implementing electronic
disposition reporting with Maricopa County, the
largest county in the State. Unfortunately, the
assessment concluded that electronic reporting was
not feasible until the county system was upgraded,
and this project had to be postponed for 2 to 3
years.
The central repository-corrections interface was
in the process of being upgraded. The current
procedure is for corrections to send a tape
once a month to the central repository; however,
the State identification (SID) number was not
consistently included in the records, so posting
the records to the CCH was a time-consuming
process. In the future, tapes will be sent weekly,
and because new procedures will go into effect
requiring that the SID number be entered into the
corrections system, records should be more easily
posted to the proper offender record.
Finally, 95,000 backlogged felony disposition
reports were entered into the CCH, improving the
completeness of the data base and the State's
ability to identify convicted felons.
Arkansas
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Obtain unreported dispositions
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II
Arkansas used CHRI funds to obtain and enter
unreported dispositions associated with felony
or serious misdemeanor arrests made from 1985 to
1990. The Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC)
estimated that it did not have dispositions for
77,280 of 120,000 such arrests (64 percent). In 1990
Arkansas implemented a new arrest and disposition
reporting system, which featured a new fingerprint
card with a unique tracking number and a change in
responsibility for reporting dispositions from law
enforcement to the courts. The State felt that the
new system greatly improved arrest and disposition
reporting.
ACIC completed the field work of going to the
various criminal justice agencies to physically
obtain the unreported arrests and dispositions and
entered approximately 126,000 records with CHRI
funds. The offender felony conviction status was
updated in this process. An additional 17,000
records have been obtained but not yet automated.
ACIC is seeking funds from other sources to
automate these manual records.
California
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Process disposition report backlog
Automate disposition reporting to FBI
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
CHRI II
California's CHRI I project focused on an
assessment of the criminal history reporting
system and development of a long-term data
quality improvement plan. The State's Department
of Justice hired a private contractor for this
task. The primary conclusions of the study were
that "lack of automation was a significant barrier
to more complete, timely, and accurate" reporting;
that "more frequent and targeted training at the
local agency level was needed"; and that "low
priority, lack of incentives, and lack of
accountability were barriers to improved reporting."
The recommendations of the study later became the
basis for the State's BJA/CJRI plan.
The State used CHRI funds to reduce a significant
backlog of "no arrest online" dispositions--that is,
dispositions received for which no corresponding
arrests were in the CCH. During the CHRI I project
period, approximately 140,000 such dispositions were
entered. An additional 70,000 were expected to be
entered during the CHRI II project period. Although
not fingerprint supported, these dispositions can be
the basis for initial denial of a firearm purchase.
California's CHRI II project focused on automated
disposition reporting, both from the counties to
the central repository and from the central
repository to the FBI. Like other States, California
has experienced increased workloads and reduced
staffing in its county and State criminal justice
agencies. CHRI project officials saw automated
disposition reporting as a way to do more work
with fewer staff. Prior to this project, two
counties were reporting dispositions
electronically, so the concept already had been
shown to be feasible. By August 1993 the State
Department of Justice had issued subgrants to 12
counties to help them report dispositions
electronically. To facilitate this process, the
State Department of Justice issued guidelines for
electronic reporting. CHRI project officials
expected that all 12 counties, which accounted for
nearly half of all dispositions submitted to the
central repository, would be reporting
electronically by fall 1994. The major impact of
this activity will be to increase timeliness of
dispositions; at the end of 1993, there was a 60-
to 70-day delay from time of receipt by the central
repository to processing of the disposition.
Finally, CHRI funds were used to automate
disposition reporting to the FBI. This activity was
particularly important because California's
dispositions accounted for one-quarter of all
dispositions submitted to the FBI. Once automation
was completed, tapes were to be forwarded monthly
to the FBI. In addition, the State planned to send
tapes containing all dispositions submitted by the
State to the FBI since 1984, enabling them to be
downloaded directly to reduce the backlog at the
FBI.
Colorado
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Conduct training at local agencies
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, State
CHRI I & II, State
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) used
CHRI funds to establish a team of auditors to make
site visits to more than 300 reporting agencies
throughout the State and to assess the degree of
participation by each agency in the criminal
history reporting system. The audit team found that
although systems, including electronic interfaces
to the CBI, were in place to provide for complete,
accurate, and timely reporting, agency personnel
were not following established reporting procedures
consistently. The most pressing problem was that
the arrest tracking number was not being passed
from the arresting agency to the prosecutor and
then on to the courts. As a result, dispositions
reported by the courts could not be linked to
arrests. The auditors believed that confusion was
the primary reason for this problem. Following
established reporting guidelines never had been a
priority in the State, at least until the CHRI
project.
The State's major activity for improving adherence
to reporting guidelines was local agency training
programs. The auditors planned to visit local
reporting agencies again; however, instead of
conducting audits, they planned to conduct training
sessions for local agency personnel. CBI hoped to
continue this program with State funds. CBI also
planned to publish reporting statistics by agency
each quarter to spotlight those agencies that were
not following guidelines. CBI was optimistic for
the future because for the first time, the
leadership of the prosecutorial agencies and the
courts was solidly behind CBI's efforts to improve
reporting.
Connecticut
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Develop data quality improvement plan
Implement unique tracking number
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
Connecticut completed its baseline data quality
audit and was in the process of completing three
other activities that will facilitate long-term
planning for improving data quality: a 1988 study
of the State's Criminal Justice Information System
was being reviewed and updated, the State's
telecommunications network was being assessed, and
a systemwide data reference document was being
produced to guide future automation projects. All
three activities were expected to be completed by
the end of 1994.
The State also used CHRI funds to implement a
new arrest fingerprint card with a unique tracking
number. CHRI project personnel reported that
implementation of the new card proceeded very
smoothly because most reporting agencies saw the
need for the new card as well as for the tracking
number. The new fingerprint card replaced two older
forms, thus reducing the amount of paperwork for
law enforcement agencies.
Finally, the State tested an interface between
the State Police's CCH system and the State's
judicial information system. Once testing is
completed, the interface will allow batch transfer
of dispositions to the CCH system. With other
Federal funding, the State is upgrading the CCH;
once this update is completed, dispositions will be
transmitted from the judicial information system to
the CCH in real time.
Delaware
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Automate manual records
Obtain unreported dispositions
Upgrade court information system
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, State, 5%
Delaware used CHRI funds both to improve the
completeness of existing criminal history records
and to implement electronic interfaces to ensure
the completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of
records reported in the future.
Two data entry and data conversion activities
improved the completeness of existing criminal
history records. First, temporary personnel were
hired to enter in the State Bureau of Investigation's
(SBI's) automated master name index arrest data
contained in the manual fingerprint card file. By
the end of the State's first CHRI award, data on
all 175,000 manual records had been automated.
Second, the SBI attempted to increase the number
of felony arrest charges that had dispositions. Two
strategies were used for this activity. Temporary
personnel were stationed at courts throughout the
State to research court files for missing dispositions,
and the SBI attempted a programmatic match of
computerized records on its CCH with records on the
State's Judicial Information Center (JIC) system.
As a result, some 56,000 felony dispositions were
added to the CCH. From 1985 to 1989, the percentage
of felony arrests with final dispositions increased
from 35 to 64 percent.
Delaware's CHRI projects, however, focused primarily
on development of automated systems for processing
and reporting criminal justice records. In 1984 the
State developed a master plan for automating the
State's criminal justice agencies. The primary
objective of that plan was development of a single-
point-of-entry system, wherein all data elements
would be entered only once. (It should be noted
that Delaware has a major advantage over other
States in the development of a single-point-of-
entry system because all criminal justice
information systems are at the State level.) The
first major step in that direction occurred in
1989, when a statewide Automated Warrants System
(AWS) was implemented. It is significant that this
system was developed first because the application
for a warrant is usually the first step in a case
cycle. The information in AWS could eventually feed
data to succeeding case processing steps.
CHRI funds were used to develop the two key
missing pieces to the single-point-of-entry system:
case management systems for the courts; and
integration of the Criminal Justice Information
System (CJIS) and the JIC system, which are the two
main State criminal justice-related information
systems. CJIS users included law enforcement
agencies, the SBI, the attorney general, and the
arraignment courts (that is, Justice of the Peace
courts); the upper courts (that is, the Court of
Common Pleas and the Superior Court) used the JIC
system. CJIS and JIC were independently designed
and operated by two different State agencies.
Initially, little thought was given to sharing data
with the other system. Having two independent
systems affected data quality and data
accessibility in a number of ways, as detailed
below:
o Data entry was duplicated because each agency
entered data in its system, be it CJIS or JIC.
Sometimes paper notification was made to agencies
using the other system. However, court clerks
routinely  entered dispositions in the JIC system
but seldom entered them in CJIS. As a result,
dispositions frequently were never posted to the
offender's criminal history record. In addition,
data common to both systems--particularly the
charges against an offender--often were not
correlated.
o Linking arrests to dispositions was an equally
serious problem. A temporary SBI number based on
a name index search was recorded on both the
arrest fingerprint card and on paperwork sent by
law enforcement agencies to the courts. If, after
having performed a technical fingerprint search,
SBI personnel changed the temporary SBI number,
the new SBI number would be posted to CJIS.
Although court officials had access to CJIS, the
courts often were not formally notified of the
new SBI number.
o Users had to understand how to use two different
systems, know which system had the desired data,
and understand the limitations of both systems.
With State funds and the State's first-year CHRI
award, a court case management system was created
and installed in the arraignment courts. In
addition to automating the court's forms production
process, the case management system included a
reporting module that automatically transmitted
dispositions to the CJIS. A similar case management
system was being developed for the upper courts
with State and BJA/CJRI funds.
The second and more ambitious activity was
integration of the CJIS and the JIC system. Design
work was completed with first-year CHRI funds, and
development and installation work was completed in
April 1994 with second-year CHRI funds. Integration
of these two systems had a major impact on the flow
of information between agencies, as detailed below:
o After the SBI processes arrest fingerprint cards,
the correct SBI number is posted to CJIS and then
electronically posted to the offender's case
record in JIC.
o If the attorney general adds, drops, or modifies
the arrest charges, the new charges are
electronically posted to both CJIS and JIC. In
addition, if the attorney general declines to
prosecute the case, this  fact is electronically
recorded in both CJIS and JIC.
o When cases are bound over from the arraignment
courts to the upper courts, the arraignment court
enters the disposition in CJIS. The disposition
and the accompanying case data are then
electronically transmitted to JIC.
o When a case is disposed in the upper courts,
clerks record the disposition in JIC. The
disposition is then electronically transmitted to
CJIS.
In sum, when information is entered in either
JIC or CJIS, a subset of that information is
electronically transmitted to the other system.
Delaware's efforts will have a major impact on
all aspects of data quality, especially the
percentage of dispositions submitted to the central
repository, the timeliness with which they are
submitted, and the ability to link arrests to
dispositions. In addition, the savings in data
entry work will be significant. As one JIC official
said, "We are now out of the data entry business."
Finally, these CHRI-supported activities appear to
have had a profound organizational impact. Prior to
these efforts, each agency had a narrow mentality
based on its own system, and agency staff gave
little thought to how their actions affected other
criminal justice agencies. With the development of
the single-point-of-entry system, criminal justice
agencies in Delaware seemed to understand better
that their actions affect other agencies and that
they are part of a single criminal justice system.
District of Columbia
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I, State, 5%
CHRI I, State, 5%
In 1988 the Criminal Justice Information System
Task Force developed a master plan for criminal
records improvement in the District of Columbia.
The task force's major recommendation was
development and implementation of a CJIS. At that
time, the six key criminal justice agencies
(Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Attorney's
Office, Pretrial Services Agency, District of
Columbia Courts, Department of Corrections, and
Board of Parole) all had separate information
systems, each with its own indexing scheme and
tracking number. In essence, the District had no
central repository. Users of criminal history
information had to query each of these systems
separately to obtain an offender's complete
criminal history. Under the CJIS concept, all data
were to reside in a central CJIS data base. CHRI
funds were used to accelerate CJIS development and
to expand the system's scope.
CHRI funds were used to complete two important
components of the CJIS. First, existing criminal
history records were consolidated and entered into
the CJIS data base. As the guidelines of the CHRI
program suggested, CHRI project personnel focused
on offenders arrested during the past 5 years.
Second, software was developed so that data could
be passed in real time among the six criminal
justice agencies in the District and the CJIS. CHRI
project staff expected that both activities would
extend beyond the end of the CHRI project and be
continued with BJA/CJRI funds.
Florida
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Obtain unreported dispositions
Set felony flags in existing records
Interface booking system and courts
Upgrade court information system
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I, 5%
County, CHRI I
CHRI II
Florida's first CHRI award was administered by
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE),
the agency that operates the State's central
repository. Three activities were implemented in
the first year of funding. First, FDLE obtained
unreported dispositions for felony arrests made
between 1983 and 1987, the 5-year period prior to
implementation of the State's Offender-Based
Transaction System (OBTS). Prior to 1988, law
enforcement agencies, rather than the courts, were
responsible for reporting dispositions; only about
half of felony arrests made between 1983 and 1987
had final dispositions. The approach FDLE elected
to take to improve data base completeness was to
obtain unreported dispositions from court clerk
offices in the 15 largest counties, which accounted
for 75 percent of arrests in the State. At the
completion of the activity, CHRI project personnel
obtained and entered 90,000 felony dispositions,
increasing the percentage of felony arrests with
dispositions during the 5-year period to 71
percent.
Second, FDLE personnel embarked on an effort to
determine which offenders already in the State's
CCH were convicted felons. This involved first
determining whether each charge in the State's
charge code library was a felony or a misdemeanor.
Offender records were then updated on the basis of
arrest and conviction charges. FDLE personnel
reported that the felony status of 54 percent of
disposition records in the CCH could be determined;
the remaining 46 percent could not be set because
of ambiguity concerning the charge: Was it a felony
or a misdemeanor? Flags were also set programmatically
on an ongoing basis as arrests and dispositions were
posted to the CCH.
Third, FDLE subcontracted with the Office of the
State Court Administrator (OSCA) to develop an
interface between county-based booking centers and the
court's OBTS. Prior to this effort, jail personnel
entered arrest-related information into their jail
management system and then forwarded a paper copy
of the arrest information to the court clerk, who
entered the data into the OBTS. Now the arrest
information entered into the jail management system
is electronically transmitted to the OBTS. CHRI
project personnel reported that this new system
improved the accuracy of the OBTS data, reduced the
delay in reporting arrests to the courts from 48
hours to seconds, reduced the workload of the court
clerks, and improved cooperation between law
enforcement agencies and the courts. Using a
combination of CHRI funds and county funds, this
interface was installed in four counties.
Florida's second CHRI award was likewise implemented
by OSCA and had one objective: to upgrade the OBTS
so that it conformed to legislative changes in
criminal sentencing reporting requirements.
Software enhancements were made to systems in 27
counties. The remaining counties had inhouse
programming staff who could accomplish the work
themselves.
Georgia
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Process disposition report backlog
Process fingerprint card backlog
Install court information system
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I
CHRI II, 5%, State
CHRI II, 5%, State
Georgia's first CHRI award, which was
administered by the Georgia Crime Information
Center (GCIC), focused on reducing fingerprint card
and disposition report backlogs. The State's second
CHRI award, which was administered by the Georgia
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), involved
implementing a court-repository interface for
disposition reporting.
At the start of the first CHRI project, GCIC had
sizable backlogs: 320,000 fingerprint cards and
550,000 disposition reports. These backlogs were
the result of a variety of factors, including the
success of audit programs in the mid-1980's (from
1984 to 1989, the State experienced a 53-percent
increase in fingerprint card submissions and a 90-
percent increase in disposition report submissions),
a lack of staffing increases, and delays in
implementation of the State's automated fingerprint
identification system (AFIS). GCIC contracted with
a temporary employment agency to reduce the backlogs.
By the end of the first CHRI project, the delay from
receipt to processing of fingerprint cards was reduced
from 14 months to less than 24 hours, and the delay
from receipt to processing of disposition reports was
reduced from 36 months to less than 24 hours.
No doubt the State recognized that the long-term
solution to disposition report backlogs was
automated disposition reporting; AOC therefore
embarked on such an effort with CHRI II funds.
However, implementation of a court-repository
interface had been more difficult in Georgia than
in other States for several reasons. First, Georgia
did not have a unified court system, and there was
a strong tradition of county-level judicial
autonomy in the State. Second, the State had a
large number of counties: 159. Third, AOC had
traditionally obtained, basically, only summary
case data from the counties.
Ultimately, AOC sees dispositions being reported
in electronic format to GCIC in three ways:
o The smallest counties will transmit records to
GCIC via a terminal connected to the GCIC system.
Programming for this reporting system was
initiated with CHRI funds, and electronic reporting
of individual cases was implemented in more than
a dozen counties by the end of 1993.
o Medium-sized counties will use a generic case
management software package to manage their day-
to-day work and to report dispositions.  With CHRI
funds, a statewide license for a case management
system was purchased; by fall 1993 AOC had
installed the software in Superior Courts in two
judicial circuits. This case management software
established a standard for automated disposition
reporting that will guide the State in the
future.
o The largest counties that have developed their
own case management software will make their own
arrangements to report dispositions electronically
to GCIC. No CHRI funds were expended in this area.
AOC hoped to continue electronic reporting efforts
with BJA/CJRI funds.
Hawaii
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Set felony flags in existing records
Obtain unreported dispositions
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, State
Activities that Hawaii selected for its CHRI
project were based on the recommendations of a 1988
strategic plan, which was developed with the
assistance of a multiagency task force. Thus, the
CHRI Program was able to accelerate projects that
had been envisioned or started with State funds.
The quality of disposition reporting was
improved by upgrading the existing interface
between the central repository and the circuit
courts and by implementing a new interface between
the central repository and the district courts.
Implemented in 1985, the central repository-circuit
court interface consisted of a batch transfer via
tape of dispositions every 2 weeks. Although
disposition submission extent and timeliness were
good, it was felt that record linkage (that is, the
ability to match a disposition with the
corresponding arrest) could be improved. CHRI funds
were used to make the interface a two-way interface,
so the central repository was given the ability to
update and correct the key matching fields on the
court system. This updating occurs after the
dispositions have been passed to the central
repository; as central repository staff research
"unmatched" dispositions to determine a proper State
identification number or date of birth, they update
the corresponding offender record on the court
system. Over time, as the offender information on
the court system becomes more accurate, the matching
rate will improve. An interface was also implemented
between the district courts and the central repository.
Dispositions from these courts are now reported to
the central repository via tape every 2 weeks rather
than via paper forms.
Three other activities were implemented with CHRI
funds. First, the State set a felony flag on existing
offenders in the CCH, a straightforward task because
all dispositions in the CCH had a charge severity
code. Second, data base completeness was improved by
locating and entering more than 50,000 unreported
felony and misdemeanor dispositions. For this
activity the central repository enlisted the help of
the local courts, which generated and forwarded missing
disposition lists to the appropriate court.
Repository officials believed that the courts were
willing to help out in this effort because users of
criminal history information came to see the value
of complete and accurate rap sheets. Third, the
State hired a private contractor to conduct a
baseline data quality audit. Since the audit was
completed, the central repository has formed a data
quality assurance unit to carry out the audit
recommendations.
Idaho
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Process fingerprint card backlog
Process disposition report backlog
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I
The Idaho Bureau of Criminal Identification
(BCI) used CHRI funds to address what it saw in
1990 as its two most pressing problems: the backlog
of fingerprint cards and disposition reports. At
BCI incoming fingerprint cards and disposition
reports were separated into two queues: first-time
arrest fingerprint cards and second-time or later
fingerprint cards and disposition reports. Since
BCI's workload was reduced because of a policy
change on misdemeanor driving-while-intoxicated cases,
BCI staff have been able to handle the inflow of
fingerprint cards and disposition reports.
Temporary workers were hired with CHRI funds to
process the backlog of second-time or later
fingerprint cards and disposition reports. As of
November 1993, there were 9,600 such fingerprint
cards and 14,600 disposition reports in the backlog.
BCI expected this backlog to be eliminated by
December 1994, and BCI planned to use BJA/CJRI
funds to pay for the temporary positions. CHRI
funds were used through the end of February 1994
to help process the backlogs.
BCI recognized that the long-term solution to
the backlog problem was electronic disposition
reporting. CHRI funds were used to begin development
of a court-repository interface, which was viewed
in 1990 as the State's second highest data quality
priority. The feasibility of electronic disposition
reporting was tested in one county, which was to
submit a diskette containing dispositions to the
central repository each week. The court in this
county was also required to transcribe the arrest
tracking number from the charging documents onto
the court computer system. In the end the feasibility
study highlighted incompatibilities between the way
the court system structured its case cycles and the
way the central repository system structured its
arrest cycles. Because the diskette containing the
dispositions could not be read into the central
repository system, BCI hired a private contractor
to study the problem and make recommendations. This
study was expected to be completed by February 1994.
Finally, BCI used CHRI funds to hire a private
contractor to conduct a baseline audit, which was
completed in March 1993. The major findings of the
audit were that the State lacked the statutory
mandates it needed to authorize the central
repository to record and maintain criminal history
information and that the State did not have
documented reporting procedures for local agencies.
The audit's findings and recommendations formed the
basis of the State's data quality improvement plan.
This plan was approved in December 1993, and an
expenditure of BJA/CJRI funds was authorized.
Illinois
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Set felony flags in existing records
Obtain unreported arrests
Participate in III
Obtain unreported dispositions
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
The Illinois CHRI project was composed of
several activities aimed at improving data
quality. First, Illinois State Police (ISP) staff
modified the criminal history system software so
that the State could become a participant in the
III. The State became a participant on August 8,
1993, thus becoming "the last big State" to join
III.
Second, ISP staff developed software programs to
determine whether offenders in the CCH were
convicted felons. A three-step algorithm was
developed that examined the class of felony field,
checked for the existence of a State corrections
record, and checked the conviction status field.
Using this algorithm, felony flags were set in the
ISP's 2 million "ident" (identification) segments.
Using the same definition of a felony as that
contained in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968,
25 percent of offenders were flagged as felons, 25
percent were flagged as nonfelons, and 50 percent
were flagged as unknown. Finally, ISP uploaded its
felony flags to the State's III records.
Two data collection activities were expected to be
completed by the end of 1994. First, ISP obtained
unreported arrest fingerprint cards from the
Chicago Police Department (CPD). ISP estimated that
CPD did not report some 614,000 arrests made from
1985 through 1989. Of those unreported arrests, ISP
targeted 62,000 for this CHRI activity. As of
December 1993, all but 14,000 fingerprint cards had
been collected, and procedures were changed in CPD
to ensure that future fingerprint cards were
submitted to ISP. In fact, CPD installed live-scan
devices at all of their arrest booking facilities,
and fingerprint images were transmitted to ISP
within 4 hours of an arrest. The second data
collection activity was to obtain unreported
dispositions from the State attorney's offices.
ISP hoped to obtain 140,000 unreported dispositions
from these offices.
Finally, acting on a recommendation of a recent
data quality audit, the State convened a
multiagency task force to address the problem of
disposition reporting. The task force was charged
with developing both short- and long-term solutions
to the problem. Among the interim findings of the
task force were the needs for increased training,
automated disposition reporting, direct electronic
fingerprinting, and an expanded State audit
program. The State hoped to implement many of these
activities with BJA/CJRI funds.
Indiana
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Process fingerprint card backlog
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
Like many States, Indiana elected to use CHRI
funds to conduct a baseline data quality audit
and to develop a multiyear plan for improving
data quality. A private contractor was hired
for this effort, which was completed in September
1993. The audit found that one of the biggest
problems in the State was that personnel at
contributing agencies--in particular, those
responsible for fingerprinting--did not
understand the connection between what they
reported and what eventually appeared on rap
sheets. Accordingly, a key recommendation was
that education and training programs be expanded.
Another major problem was that prosecutor
declinations were rarely reported. To address this
issue, the audit recommended redesigning the
arrest and disposition reporting form to include
a section for prosecutors to indicate their actions
on the case. To address the low disposition
reporting rate, the audit recommended implementing
automated disposition reporting systems in the courts.
Finally, the audit recommended a redesign of the
existing CCH. These and other recommendations were
included in the State's BJA/CJRI plan.
The State also used CHRI funds to hire 10 additional
temporary employees to process a backlog of fingerprint
cards. By the end of the CHRI project, the Indiana State
Police had a backlog of only 9,800 fingerprint cards.
Iowa
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Conduct user needs assessment
Process disposition report backlog
Set felony flags in existing records
Implement unique tracking number
Interface courts and CCH
Interface corrections and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II, 5%
Iowa's CHRI project was a joint effort of four
State agencies: the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Human Rights (DHR), the Department
of Public Safety (DPS), and the State Court
Administrator. Coordinated by DPS, the CHRI
project was the first multiagency effort to
improve criminal history information in the State.
Three activities were completed with first-year CHRI
funding. DHR conducted the first audit of the
criminal history reporting system. Among the
findings of the audit were that reporting laws were
"outdated, ambiguous, and fragmented"; there were
no procedures for ongoing monitoring of fingerprint
card and disposition submissions, especially those
returned to the submitting agencies; and reporting
procedures followed by agencies across the State
varied widely. The audit recommendations included
implementation of a unique tracking number, an
overhaul of the reporting laws, and formulation of
procedures to ensure that persons issued citations
were fingerprinted. New reporting laws subsequently
were enacted by the State legislature, and
additional staff were hired to conduct ongoing
auditing and monitoring of data quality.
Second, DHR conducted a survey of users of
criminal history information. Of 396 respondents,
80 percent felt that the completeness and accuracy
of criminal history information was good or
excellent. Suggestions were to clarify and add to
the information on the rap sheets.
Third, DPS hired 4 temporary employees to
process 80,000 backlogged dispositions. This
activity was continued with BJA/CJRI funding.
Systemic improvements to criminal history
information in Iowa will be realized when both
court-repository and corrections-repository
interfaces are completed. For both activities, the
design work was finished with first-year CHRI
funding. The corrections-repository interface was
completed in early 1994, and records of inmate
admissions and releases were being transmitted
electronically from the corrections information
system to the courts. Corrections also receives
notification of admissions electronically from the
courts. The interface between corrections and the
central repository was scheduled to be tested in
April 1994.
Iowa's court-repository interface is different
from those in other States in that it is a two-way
interface. In addition to disposition information
being electronically transmitted from the courts to
the central repository on a daily or weekly basis,
each day the central repository will transmit
defendant identification information on all
defendants identified during the previous day to
the central State court system, which will pass the
information along to the appropriate county court.
(The State was already in the midst of a multiyear
court automation project to link county courts to
the central State court computer system.) Because
both the courts and the central repository will
benefit from this system, both agencies were eager
to cooperate in the implementation. The first
county was scheduled to test the interface in April
1994, and the State hoped to bring additional
counties into the system by the end of the CHRI
project in June 1994. After that, the State will
use BJA/CJRI funds to continue to bring counties
into the system one at a time.
Iowa's ability to link dispositions with arrests
will be improved because of a unique tracking
number implemented in early 1993 with CHRI funds.
The system uses preprinted tracking numbers on
disposition reporting forms. Arresting agencies are
responsible for handwriting the tracking number on
the fingerprint card and submitting the disposition
reporting form to the prosecutor, who is
responsible for ensuring that the tracking number
appears on documents submitted to the court. The
State reports that implementation of the tracking
number went very smoothly, with minimal confusion
and a high degree of cooperation from law
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and court
officials.
Finally, Iowa implemented a felony flagging
system by adding a felony flag to the central
repository master name index (MNI) and the court
information system. Dispositions reported to the
central repository now have a felony flag
indicator; and by March 1994, 15,000 arrest records
had been flagged with felony convictions.
Kansas
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Automate manual records
Participate in III
Interface corrections and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, SAC (BJS)
The Kansas CHRI project focused on improving the
completeness of its automated criminal history
files. Before 1988 Kansas had an automated MNI but
no automated criminal history records. Records
pertaining to an individual offender were located
in as many as seven different manual files: the
master fingerprint card file, the second and
subsequent fingerprint card file, the offender
photograph file, the FBI rap sheet file, the court
disposition file, the court diversion file, and a
miscellaneous file. These paper files were all
indexed in different ways. Moreover, the MNI
contained persons other than offenders, including
witnesses, victims, and persons under investigation.
In May 1991 the central repository embarked on an
effort to consolidate and automate these paper
files for all offenders arrested in the past 7
years. Also, incoming dispositions were thereafter
entered into automated CCH files. To consolidate
and automate some 280,000 offender files, 12
temporary workers were hired. CHRI project
personnel expected to complete this activity by
fall 1993.
Kansas also used CHRI funds to develop electronic
interfaces to the CCH. The State was in the process
of interfacing the CCH to its law enforcement
telecommunications system; this was an important
step toward the State goal of participating in III,
which it had hoped to do by fall 1994. In addition,
an interface was being developed between the CCH
and the State corrections computer system to
facilitate more timely CCH updates of prisoner
admissions and releases. Finally, an interface
between the CCH and the State Sentencing Commission
was being developed to allow Commission staff to
analyze CCH data in support of the State's new
sentencing guidelines.
Kentucky
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Upgrade court information systems
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Funding Sources
State, CHRI I, 5%
In Kentucky CHRI funds were used to expand a
court automation project begun in 1984. The
project involved automating both the 120-county
court systems and the State Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC) computer system. With
CHRI funds, court case management systems were
installed in 25 county courts, and the central
AOC court system was upgraded to facilitate
automated reporting from the county courts.
The CHRI project greatly improved disposition
reporting to AOC. Under the old system, the county
court clerks mailed disposition forms to the State
Police and AOC. Now, in counties where court clerks
use the automated court case management system,
disposition reporting to AOC occurs automatically,
and the State AOC system polls the county systems
every 12 hours to upload dispositions. Although
this system improved disposition reporting
timeliness to the AOC system from 3 weeks to 12
hours, AOC officials believed the major benefits
were in improved submission extent and data
accuracy. The next step for Kentucky will be to
implement an automated interface between the AOC
system and the central repository.
Louisiana
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
Louisiana's application for CHRI funds highlighted
the significant deficiencies in its criminal history
records and reporting systems, in particular lengthy
backlogs of 1 to 2 years for fingerprint cards and
disposition reports, poor submission of fingerprint
cards and disposition reports, and lack of
accessibility to criminal history records. The State
recognized the need for an overall plan to improve
criminal history records.
To develop the plan, the State convened a multiagency
task force and hired a private contractor. State
officials believed that the task force improved
interagency cooperation and broke down turf barriers,
which some State officials felt was the biggest
impediment to improving data quality. This plan
became the basis for the State's BJA/CJRI plan,
which was subsequently approved. In addition, at
least one State official believed that the mere
existence of the plan would help secure funding
from the State legislature for criminal history
records improvement.
Maine
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II, 5%
In 1986 a multiagency task force on criminal
records improvement undertook a study on how to
improve the quality of criminal history records.
The top priority was automation: specifically,
creation of an MNI with a felony flag, design and
implementation of a CCH, improvements in the
disposition reporting system, and entry of manual
records into the automated system. A combination of
CHRI funds and BJA/CJRI funds enabled the State to
work toward these goals.
As with other States developing a CCH for the first
time, an important impact of the new system will be
improvements in the accessibility of criminal
history information to users because the production
of rap sheets can be automated. Delays in
processing requests for information were
particularly problematic for Maine; at the end of
1992, there was a 2-month backlog of requests for
information.
Development of the CCH was delayed because the vendor
went bankrupt, and the State had to take over
development of the system. At the close of its CHRI
projects, the State had a temporary automated MNI that
was fingerprint supported and contained 200,000 names.
The MNI was temporary in the sense that the data base
was for internal use only and was not accessible online
by other criminal justice agencies. Even so, the MNI
enabled the State to respond to requests for criminal
history information in one-third the time it used to
take.
To build on the accomplishments of the CHRI project,
the State planned to use BJA/CJRI and other Federal
funds to make the MNI accessible to other criminal
justice agencies and to continue development of the CCH.
Maryland
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Interface booking system and CCH
Interface live-scan and AFIS
Develop felon analysis system
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, State
CHRI I & II, State
CHRI I, State
In developing its CHRI project, Maryland's
Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services turned to the results of its most recent
data quality audit. The audit showed that the major
weakness was a failure to assign and use the State
identification and arrest tracking number uniformly
and reliably throughout the criminal history
reporting system. To address this problem, the
State embarked on a project to standardize arrest
processing by implementing live-scan booking
workstations at all arresting agencies.
Initially the workstations will be installed in
Baltimore, which accounts for 45 percent of the
arrests in the State. These workstations are part
of a larger effort to implement central booking in
Baltimore. The State appropriated $55 million to
build a central booking facility, develop the
necessary software, procure the required hardware,
and operate the facility for 5 years. The State and
its vendor completed the system design
specification in September 1993; central booking,
including the live-scan booking workstations, is
scheduled to begin in July 1995.
Because the State funded development of the
Baltimore installation, CHRI funds have been
reserved for implementation of the system in four
to five pilot law enforcement agencies.
Implementation at these sites is scheduled for
September 1995. In effect, the Baltimore system
design and software will be "given" to the State's
CHRI project at no charge. A task force consisting
of personnel from law enforcement agencies throughout
the State was charged with modifying the Baltimore
system so that it meets the needs of smaller
agencies. This task was scheduled for completion
in October 1994. Statewide implementation of
the workstation will be possible because the State
owns the software; local agencies wishing to install
the system need only purchase the required hardware,
which for smaller agencies could consist of a
single personal computer.
The workstation-based system supports the
principle that data quality begins at booking. Key
features of the system include:
o A Windows-based interface.
o Data entry screens for arrestee and arrest event
information.
o System-generated arrest tracking numbers.
o A barcoding technology to track offenders
entering the jail facility.
o Live-scan fingerprinting workstations that will
be linked to the State AFIS.
o An interface to the State CCH so that arrest
event information is immediately posted to an
offender's record.
o An interface to the State judicial information
system.
o An interface to the State Pretrial Services
Agency information system.
In terms of impact, the main goal of the booking
workstations is to reduce the time between
fingerprinting and posting of the arrest to the
offender's criminal history record. The goal is to
identify 95 percent of offenders within 30 minutes
after they are booked. In addition, the percentage
of arrests that can be linked to dispositions
should improve because arrest tracking numbers are
system generated and electronically passed to both
the central repository and the judicial information
system.
Using CHRI funds, the State also developed a
system to determine which offenders were convicted
felons. Unlike most States, Maryland's system does
not use a felony flag. Instead, upon request, all
of the information about an offender in the central
repository automated records is analyzed, and a
determination on the offender's felony status is
made. The second and ongoing phase of this activity
is addressing problems that occur when a
determination cannot be made on the basis of the
statute (for example, some statutes can be either
felonies or misdemeanors). The system will then
look in the disposition text fields for certain key
words such as robbery.
Massachusetts
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Interface courts and CCH
Interface supervisory agencies and CCH
Process fingerprint card backlog
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
Initially the Massachusetts CHRI project focused
on development of a long-term data quality
improvement plan. For this effort the State
convened both a multiagency task force consisting
of the heads of criminal justice agencies and a
task force working group consisting of key
operational personnel from these agencies. The
working group conducted a needs assessment and
identified impediments to complete and accurate
reporting. The plan, which was completed in July
1992, proposed that BJA/CJRI funds be used to
extend many of the initiatives begun with CHRI
funds. The plan detailed what steps would be
necessary to create a fingerprint-supported CCH and
to establish a statewide CJIS as the hub for the
exchange of fingerprint-supported criminal justice
information.
The initial step in creating the CCH was to
build an offender tracking system on the central
repository mainframe computer. CHRI funds were used
for this task. Subgrants were awarded to the court,
correction, parole, probation, and sheriff's
agencies so that all relevant court, incarceration,
and supervision data would be included in the
tracking system. The central repository now
receives each night an electronic transmission from
the court system via an interface that was
developed with CHRI funds, thus reducing the
court's submission time from 3 weeks to 1 day; each
month the repository receives an electronic
submission from the other agencies. Initially these
data were only accessible online to central
repository staff, but each segment of data was
scheduled to be made available via the State
telecommunications network over the next several
months; parole data became available first in
August 1993.
Finally, the State used CHRI funds to reduce a
backlog of fingerprint cards at the State Bureau of
Identification. At the start of this effort, an
estimated 80,000 fingerprint cards were backlogged,
which resulted in a 1-year delay in processing.
Michigan
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Interface courts and CCH
Obtain unreported dispositions
Interface corrections and CCH
Set felony flags in existing records
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I
Michigan's CHRI project focused on implementing
electronic disposition reporting at the major
circuit courts in the State. By the end of
September 1993, the end of the CHRI project, 37 of
the State's 83 counties reported electronically,
including most of the largest counties. This
activity will be continued with BJA/CJRI funds;
eventually the State hopes to receive 80 percent of
its dispositions electronically, thus improving the
time of disposition reporting from weeks and months
to fewer than 7 days.
The State's approach to electronic disposition
reporting was to offer three choices to each
county:
o Report to the central repository by way of the
State Court Administrative Office (SCAO).
o Use a remote terminal to the central repository
to enter dispositions.
o Send an electronic message to the central repository
from a case  management system.
Many of the larger counties chose the third
option because they already had their own systems
with dedicated lines (for inquiry purposes) to the
central repository; thus, the central repository
made subgrants to these counties to add a reporting
module to their systems. In these cases the central
repository provided immediate feedback to the
county when a disposition was rejected: for
example, when data were missing or a nonstandard
charge code was used. Many smaller counties elected
to use the first option; SCAO was provided with
software so that these counties could report
electronically to SCAO, which in turn passed the
dispositions on to the central repository.
A subgrant also was made to the State
corrections department to develop an interface to
the central repository. This system, which was
completed by the end of the grant period, greatly
improved the timeliness of correctional data. In
addition to submitting a fingerprint card to the
central repository when a prisoner is admitted,
corrections submits a monthly report to the central
repository listing prisoners who have been
released. Under the new system, the fingerprint
card will include the corrections internal file
number for the prisoner. Thus the central
repository will be able to initiate an online
search of the corrections data base, using the
corrections file number stored for that offender
in the CCH.
The central repository also embarked on an
effort to improve the completeness of its CCH by
attempting to obtain unreported dispositions for
felony arrests made in 1988, 1989, and 1990. The
central repository generated open-case lists for
each court and then paid a finder's fee for each
disposition obtained. To date more than 80,000 such
dispositions have been obtained and entered in the
CCH, which improved the completeness of the data
base significantly. As of November 1993, 87 percent
of felony arrests made during these 3 years had
final dispositions. Of the records that remain
incomplete, the State had discovered that many were
cases in which the prosecutor declined to prosecute.
Finally, the State used CHRI funds to implement
a felony flagging system. This activity worked well
in Michigan because each charge is unambiguously
defined as a felony or misdemeanor. The State is
now prepared to provide felony flags to the III
system.
Minnesota
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Interface live-scan and AFIS
Set felony flags in existing records
Set felony flags in III records
Interface courts and CCH
Upgrade CCH
Process disposition report backlog
Conduct training at local agencies
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I & II
CHRI I
CHRI II
CHRI I & II
State, 5%, CHRI II
CHRI II
State, CHRI II
A number of different data quality improvement
activities were implemented under Minnesota's CHRI
projects, which were administered by the Department
of Public Safety (DPS). The data quality audit,
completed in April 1992 by a private contractor,
was viewed as particularly important because the
State criminal history central repository had never
been audited. The audit found that only 77 percent
of arrests were reported, but more than 90 percent
of dispositions were reported. In addition, update
timeliness of fingerprint cards and disposition
reports was determined to be 135 and 400 days,
respectively. Among the key audit recommendations
were:
o Eliminate the backlogs of fingerprint cards and
disposition reports.
o Develop interfaces between the CCH and systems in
other criminal justice agencies.
o Improve education and training.
o Establish a multiagency task force to oversee
criminal history.
Action was taken on all four of these recommendations
during the CHRI II project period.
The CHRI projects leveraged State and BJA/CJRI
funds, which together paid for a rewrite of the
State's CCH. Among other improvements, this rewrite
allowed for the development of interfaces to the
State Supreme Court and corrections department and
the development of a CCH-AFIS interface. The interface
to the Supreme Court was expected to be completed
by the beginning of 1994. Then dispositions were to
be transmitted nightly to DPS, where automated
match programs were to be run to link dispositions
with arrests. Previously the Supreme Court
information system printed out dispositions on
paper forms and submitted them to the central
repository. Also, in conjunction with the CCH
upgrade, computer programs were developed that
determined the felony conviction status of
offenders in the CCH and then set a felony flag.
Felony flagging efforts were continuing, as DPS
staff developed systems to set and update felony
flags in the State's III records.
DPS also leveraged State funds to enhance training
programs for contributing agencies. State funds were
used to hire eight training officers. CHRI funds were
used to hire a private contractor to develop a training
curriculum to explain the criminal justice reporting
system so that all contributing agencies understood
the entire process.
In addition, during the CHRI I project period, DPS
installed live-scan receiving equipment at the central
repository that allowed fingerprints to be transmitted
from three booking sites to the central repository
within minutes. Using CHRI II funds, DPS planned to
interface the live-scan receiving device to the State's
newly installed AFIS system, thereby further reducing
redundant data entry and delays in identifying offenders.
Finally, DPS contracted with a private vendor to
process a backlog of 110,000 dispositions. This
activity was completed, and the backlog was
eliminated.
Mississippi
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Develop data quality improvement plan
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
The Mississippi Department of Public Safety
(DPS) used CHRI funds to conduct a baseline audit
and to develop a data quality improvement plan. DPS
contracted with a private vendor to conduct these
activities.
The audit found that there was no centralized
criminal history system in the State. DPS's
Criminal Records Division (CRD) maintained a file
of fingerprint cards, but there was no fingerprint-
supported MNI. Reporting to the central repository
was also very poor; only an estimated 20 percent
of law enforcement agencies regularly submitted
fingerprint cards to CRD. Repository personnel
noted that the State never emphasized fingerprint
card reporting because the central repository did
not have the staff to process the cards.
The plan's 16 recommendations covered nearly every
aspect of reporting, maintaining, and disseminating
criminal history records. Major recommendations
included:
o Establishing a centralized CCH system.
o Making the data quality improvement task force a
standing  committee.
o Initiating training for State and local criminal
justice officials.
o Conducting a detailed needs assessment.
o Establishing a unique arrest tracking number.
o Standardizing court disposition reporting forms.
o Adopting a day-one approach to automating
criminal history records.
These recommendations became the basis for funding
requests submitted to the State legislature. DPS
hoped to secure funding to establish a CCH system
and to hire additional staff.
Missouri
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Set felony flags in existing records
Set felony flags in III records
Assume responsibility for more III records
Automate disposition reporting to FBI
Conduct training at local agencies
Upgrade prosecutor information system
Interface prosecutor and CCH
Upgrade CCH
Conduct audit
Upgrade OBTS system
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI II
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) coordinated
implementation of a variety of CHRI activities,
including felony flagging, automated disposition
reporting, auditing, training, and information
system development.
The State's felony flagging efforts focused on
determining the felony conviction status of
offenders listed in the central repository data
base. A felony flag field was added to the data
base identification segment, and a computer program
was written that made a one-time pass through all
the data base records and set each offender's
felony flag. This process was relatively easy
because every Missouri statute was unambiguously
defined as either a felony or a misdemeanor. MSHP
personnel reported that 21 percent of the offenders
in the data base were flagged as convicted felons.
In addition, another computer program was written
that updated the felony flag field when new
dispositions were posted to the data base.
Three CHRI activities involved the FBI. First,
MSHP developed software to set felony flags on its
III records; 109,000 felony conviction flags were
set in these records. Second, MSHP completed work
on an activity aimed at increasing its responsibility
of Missouri III records. For this effort the FBI
provided a tape of 120,000 Missouri III records for
which the FBI was responsible. These records were
matched against records in the MSHP data base, and
as a result, responsibility for some 14,000 records
shifted from the FBI to Missouri. Finally, in January
1993 Missouri was accepted as the ninth State to
submit dispositions electronically to the FBI. MSHP
submitted a tape to the FBI of all dispositions on
file at the central repository with an arrest date
of 1985 or later. MSHP will continue to submit monthly
tapes of all new dispositions.
An audit program also was initiated with CHRI
funds. Rather than hire a private contractor to
conduct a baseline audit, MSHP elected to hire a
quality control coordinator to develop an ongoing
monitoring program. This person also was charged
with developing a training manual and training
program agenda. This dual responsibility has proven
effective: Analyses of the central repository data
base for the audit task have pointed out areas that
require special emphasis in the training program
and have helped MSHP target their training
resources to specific agencies.
The primary focus of the State's CHRI project
was on enhancing the Missouri Prosecutors
Integrated Case Management System
(MOPICS). MSHP's Information Systems Division
developed the first version of MOPICS in 1986 with
assistance from BJA. Originally implemented on an
IBM mainframe, the system was later converted to a
PC-based system. Both systems supported electronic
transfer of dispositions to MSHP, albeit in a batch
mode instead of an online mode.
With CHRI funds MSHP developed MOPICS/2 and
implemented it in February 1994 in nine counties.
The new MOPICS/2 had two advantages over the original
MOPICS. First, MOPICS/2 was capable of supporting
online, two-way communication with the MSHP data
base. This allowed for real-time disposition
reporting and for online querying of the MSHP data
base by prosecutors' offices. Second, MOPICS/2
could be run on a variety of hardware platforms,
including single-user or local area network (LAN)-
based DOS, Windows, and OS/2 systems. Thus, the
same system could be installed in prosecutors'
offices statewide, regardless of the size of the
agency or the hardware the agency used. MSHP hoped
to implement MOPICS/2 in three more counties by the
end of their CHRI project.
The ability of MOPICS/2 to run on a network was
crucial for MSHP's long-term automation plan. That
plan envisioned each sheriff, prosecutor, and court
in a single county to be a node on a countywide
criminal justice network, which would be linked to
the MSHP data base. This activity would allow for a
paperless, single-point-of-entry reporting system.
Pilot projects to test this automation approach
were underway in Osage and Randolph counties.
Montana
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Set felony flags in existing records
Conduct user needs assessment
Connect to AFIS network
Enact mandatory reporting legislation
Implement unique tracking number
Conduct training at local agencies
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II, 5%
The centerpiece of Montana's CHRI project was
implementation of a unique tracking number called
the Montana Arrest Number System (MANS). MANS was
pilot tested in three counties and was implemented
statewide on July 1, 1993.
Montana's method of implementing MANS was
dictated in part by the results of a survey of
criminal history information users, which found
that many offenders were not being fingerprinted.
In designing MANS, it was decided to require
arresting agencies to obtain a MANS number from the
central repository during the booking process and
then to record the MANS number on both the
fingerprint card and the disposition report,
instead of using preprinted tracking numbers on
fingerprint cards. Thus the central repository
would have a record of each MANS number and the
agency requesting it before the fingerprint card
was submitted, thereby enabling the central repos-
itory to monitor which agencies failed to submit
fingerprint cards. A redesigned disposition report
was also part of the MANS activity (the State
formerly used the FBI's R-84 form to report
dispositions). To further improve submission of
fingerprint cards and to help ensure use of MANS,
the State changed an administrative rule so that
judges only process those defendants who have been
fingerprinted and assigned a MANS number.
State central repository personnel reported that
enactment of the rule and implementation of the
MANS number were lengthy processes, largely
because counties in the State were fiercely
independent. CHRI project personnel visited
agencies in every county to explain how the rule
change and the MANS number would benefit the State
and make the jobs of agency staff easier. Selling
the new system was an integral part of the ongoing
state-wide training program. Even before MANS was
implemented, central repository staff felt that
the training programs were largely responsible for
the 40-percent increase in fingerprint card
submissions.
The State also used CHRI funds to become part of
the Western Identification Network (WIN). As a
result of this activity, 58,000 of the State's
fingerprint cards were entered into the automated
fingerprint identification system (AFIS).
Finally, the State's approach to felony flagging
involved an automated pass through existing
criminal history records to flag those offenders
arrested on felony charges. The existence of a
felony arrest was then noted on the offender's rap
sheet; it was the requesting agency's responsibility
to determine whether the felony arrest resulted in a
felony conviction. This approach was selected because
court dispositions in existing criminal history records
were stored in a text field, making it difficult to
determine which offenders were convicted felons.
Nebraska
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Revise central repository procedures
Upgrade CCH
Interface booking system and CCH
Interface supervisory agencies and CCH
Interface courts and CCH
Automate disposition reporting to FBI
Interface corrections and CCH
Conduct training at local agencies
Process disposition report backlog
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI II
State, CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II
CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II
CHRI II
CHRI II
CHRI II
Nebraska received two CHRI awards, both of which
were coordinated by the Nebraska State Patrol. With
the first CHRI award, the State hired a private
contractor to develop a long-term data quality
improvement plan. The plan became the basis for the
State's proposal for a second CHRI award and the
BJA/CJRI plan. Nine initiatives were contained in
the plan. Implementation of many of these
initiatives began with the second CHRI award. The
State hoped to complete the initiatives with other
Federal and State funds over the next 2 to 3 years.
Three major causes of poor data quality were
identified in the plan:
o The State lacked the statutory mandates,
policies, and procedures necessary to effectively
collect, maintain, and disseminate criminal
history record information.
o The roles, responsibilities, and membership of
the criminal justice governance structure were
not sufficient for making necessary policy and
operational decisions.
o The criminal history information system was
inadequate and inflexible and did not meet the
State's needs.
In addition, it was determined that the State
complied with only 5 of the 10 FBI/BJS voluntary
reporting standards and 5 of the 12 BJA compliance
criteria.
Central to data quality improvement was
implementation of an upgraded CCH, called the
Patrol Criminal History (PCH) system. Compared with
the older CCH, the PCH allowed for more automation,
more user-friendly data entry, felony flagging, and
reporting to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. Unfortunately, the PCH will not be
accessible to criminal justice agencies in the
State until the State's telecommunications switch
is replaced, which was not scheduled to occur until
1995. (Currently the State is using a switch router
developed by the FBI and given to the State in
1973.) Another implication of the delay in
replacing the switch is a delay in III
participation.
The plan also stressed the importance of electronic
interfaces between the central repository and local
reporting agencies. With CHRI funds, design work was
completed for three major types of interfaces, including
an interface to the new statewide court system under
development, an interface to the Department of
Correctional Services case tracking system, and an
interface to law enforcement booking systems. It should
be noted that implementation of these interfaces is
also contingent on installation of the new
telecommunications switch. In addition, the State
designed and implemented an interface between the
CCH and the State Probation Administrator. This
personal computer-based system transmitted
probation-related information (such as start and
end dates of probation and name of probation
officer) to the CCH and transmitted identification
information from the CCH to the probation system.
This interface was operational in 12 of 20
probation districts.
Another important activity completed with
second-year CHRI funds was an overhaul of central
repository policies and procedures. Work procedures
were rewritten, and document control mechanisms
were redesigned. The new policies and procedures
reduced document processing times and should
therefore reduce the likelihood of future backlogs
of fingerprint cards and disposition reports.
Finally, three additional activities were
implemented with CHRI funds. First, the central
repository cleared a backlog of 40,000 dispositions.
Second, the State Patrol developed a local agency
training manual and conducted training sessions
throughout the State, an activity to be continued
with other Federal funds. Third, the State Patrol
developed software to allow for automated disposition
reporting to the FBI. Magnetic tapes were being
delivered to the FBI on a monthly basis.
Nevada
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Develop data quality improvement plan
Participate in III
Process fingerprint card backlog
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
The key activity of Nevada's CHRI project was a
baseline data quality audit. In July 1993 the State
hired a private contractor to conduct the audit and
develop the data quality improvement plan. The
audit was completed in December 1993. In early 1994
personnel from the State Department of Motor
Vehicles and Public Safety used the recommendations
in the audit to develop a long-term data quality
improvement plan. The plan was expected to be
finalized in May 1994.
The State also used CHRI funds to modify the State
message switch and the criminal history system so
that the State could participate in III. Nevada
became a III State on December 12, 1993.
Finally, the State attempted to reduce a backlog of
roughly 43,000 fingerprint cards, thereby reducing
an 8- to 9-month delay in processing fingerprint cards.
The activity was expected to be completed by June
1994. Offender data associated with these fingerprint
cards have already been entered into a temporary
CCH file and are available to criminal justice
agencies throughout the State. Once the fingerprint
card backlog has been processed, these data will be
fingerprint supported.
New Hampshire
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Participate in III
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
The New Hampshire Division of State Police (DSP)
coordinated three CHRI project activities. First,
DSP hired a private contractor to develop a long-
term data quality improvement plan. This plan will
become the basis for the State's BJA/CJRI program.
Second, DSP used CHRI funds to convert some
100,000 manual criminal history records. As of
February 1994, approximately 70 percent were
converted, and DSP expected that this activity
would be completed by mid-1994.
Third, DSP was taking steps to enable the State
to participate in III. A key element of this effort
was an upgrade of the State telecommunication
message switch. In addition to allowing for
participation in III, the upgraded switch will
improve accessibility to criminal records within
the State. Before this CHRI project, the CCH data
base was not linked to the State law enforcement
telecommunications network. Thus, DSP personnel had
to intercept messages from law enforcement agencies
and then retype the requests into the CCH system, a
procedure that will become obsolete once the new
switch is installed. CHRI project personnel
expected the new switch to be operational in spring
1994.
New Jersey
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Upgrade CCH
Interface courts and CCH
Interface corrections and CCH
Process disposition report backlog
Develop felon analysis system
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, State
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I
CHRI I
New Jersey used CHRI funds to make systemic
improvements to criminal history data quality in
the State. The State's major CHRI activity was to
rewrite its CCH system, which had been operational
since 1978. The announcement of the CHRI Program
was especially timely for New Jersey because the
State had just completed a redesign feasibility
study of its CCH system.
The new CCH went online in January 1993 and has
had an impact on several aspects of data quality.
Under the old CCH, arrest data had to be entered
separately into three different systems: the master
name index, the criminal history system, and the
court disposition reporting system. Now arrest data
are entered once, improving record accuracy and
reducing data entry costs. Accessibility timeliness
and rap sheet accuracy were improved by eliminating
the need to type rap sheets manually for applicant
licensing. The readability of the rap sheet was
also improved by using phrases rather than codes.
Perhaps the most important impact of the new CCH is
that it allowed the State to interface the CCH with
the court-prosecutor system (PROMIS/GAVEL) and the
corrections system (OBCIS). Both interfaces were
designed and implemented with CHRI funds.
The State's court-repository interface was
implemented on a county-by-county basis. By
the end of the State's CHRI project in June
1993, two counties were reporting dispositions
electronically, and the remaining counties were
scheduled to be brought online by the end of 1993.
The interface enabled the State to replace a number
of different data collection forms that the State
Police had been sending to prosecutors and courts
for their use in recording dispositions. Now when
the central repository receives word from the
municipal courts that a case has been referred
to the prosecutor, central repository staff
use the interface to access the appropriate
county's PROMIS/GAVEL system and enter the
defendant's SID number in the case record
(assuming that a fingerprint card for the
defendant has been submitted and a SID number
assigned). Consequently, when dispositions are
transmitted to the central repository, the link
to the proper criminal history record is already
in the disposition record. Dispositions are
electronically transmitted nightly from each
county-based PROMIS/GAVEL system, dramatically
reducing submission time from its previous length
of several months.
The interface between the CCH and the corrections
OBCIS has also improved the timeliness of criminal
history data. When the State Police receive a
fingerprint card for a new admittee to a State
prison and central repository staff determine
the prisoner's SID number, that SID number is
electronically transmitted to OBCIS and appended to
the prisoner's record, ensuring a link between the
offender's record on the two systems. This link and
the interface between the two systems has improved
the accuracy and timeliness of information on rap
sheets. When a request for a rap sheet is received,
the CCH sends a message to OBCIS for information on
a particular SID number. OBCIS forwards any
information on the prisoner to the central
repository, which merges the OBCIS and CCH data to
produce the rap sheet.
The State developed the capability to identify
convicted felons. However, the CCH does not have a
felony flag, in part because the term "felony" does
not exist in New Jersey. When rap sheets are
produced, the felony conviction status is
determined "on the fly": A felony conviction notice
is printed on the rap sheet if the defendant has
been convicted of first-, second-, or third-degree
offenses, which are punishable by terms from 2
years to life in prison. As an example of a typical
problem that States have in identifying felons in
existing records, New Jersey disposition reports
until recently did not include the degree of the
offense. To identify convicted felons in existing
records, the central repository looks for the
existence of an indictment number in the conviction
segment of the criminal history record.
Finally, a backlog of 50,000 disposition reports was
eliminated, thus improving data base completeness.
With the newly developed court-repository interface,
backlogs should not recur.
New Mexico
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Merge external data bases into CCH
Conduct audit
Interface prosecutor and CCH
Upgrade AFIS
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, State, 5%
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, State
A pre-CHRI project assessment found that the State
had "no CCH, very poor AFIS capability, and virtually
no disposition reporting." The CHRI effort enabled
New Mexico to establish a CCH system and to make
systemic improvements generally to data quality.
The State hired a private contractor to develop
and implement a CCH, which was scheduled to undergo
beta tests in March 1994. The State hoped to have
the CCH operational by June 1994, when the CHRI
project ended.
In supplying data for the new CCH, the State merged
data from several existing automated data bases
rather than undertake a massive conversion of
existing manual criminal history records. The
existing data bases included the State's automated
master name index, which consisted of approximately
300,000 records; New Mexico arrest records
maintained by the FBI; disposition records from the
State's prosecutors; and records from the State
corrections department. These data had to be
carefully screened before they were posted to the
CCH. In particular, the status of the SID number
had to be carefully examined. For example, FBI
records prior to 1981 generally did not have SID
numbers because New Mexico did not become a
single-source State until after that date.
Manual criminal history records were also converted
and new fingerprint cards were received on existing
offenders.
In conjunction with development of the CCH,
efforts were also under way to automate disposition
reporting by prosecutors. Fortunately, there were
only two prosecutor case management systems that
had to be interfaced: a system in Albuquerque and a
system for prosecutors in every other part of the
State. The interface was expected to be completed
by mid-1994, allowing a nightly transfer of
disposition data to the central repository.
Prosecutors have agreed not to accept cases from
law enforcement agencies unless they have assigned
a unique tracking number to the case.
Also in conjunction with the CCH development, the
State upgraded its AFIS capabilities. CHRI funds
were used to hire a contractor to assess alternative
AFIS expansion options. State funds were used to
purchase additional AFIS equipment to allow the
central repository to access Albuquerque's AFIS. In
addition, the State appropriated funds to enable
the central repository to purchase its own AFIS.
Finally, the State used CHRI funds to conduct a
baseline audit of the central repository. Staff at
the State Department of Public Safety performed the
audit. The major goals of the audit were to
determine the percentage of felony arrests that had
final dispositions and to determine the timeliness
of law enforcement agencies in submitting
fingerprint cards. On the basis of a sample of
arrests, it was determined that 25 percent of
felony arrests had final dispositions; it was also
determined that an average of 31 days elapsed
between a felony arrest and receipt of a
fingerprint card at the central repository. The
State planned to use these figures as a baseline
from which to measure changes resulting from
activities initiated with CHRI project and BJA/CJRI
funds.
New York
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Obtain unreported dispositions
Document reporting system
Upgrade CCH
Standardize reporting procedures
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II, 5%
Like many States, New York and its Division of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) used CHRI funds
to improve disposition reporting. However, unlike
most States, most of New York's dispositions were
already being reported electronically to the
central repository prior to the CHRI program. This
was accomplished through an interface developed in
the mid-1980's between the DCJS system and the
Office of Court Administration (OCA) mainframe. In
addition, criminal and superior courts in many of
the State's most populous counties, including those
encompassing New York City, had been forwarding
dispositions electronically to the OCA system since
the late 1980's via the OCA's Criminal Records
Information Management System (CRIMS). Nevertheless,
a major conclusion of a data quality audit conducted
in 1989 noted that dispositions available on the OCA
system often were not contained in the DCJS system.
The primary reason for the discrepancies between
the two systems was that the previous automated
reporting system did not allow for transmission of
dispositions for cases that had not been manually
compared with official case papers. Data entry
backlogs in the courts delayed the performance of
this requirement and caused discrepancies between
the OCA and DCJS systems. With the implementation
of CRIMS, this manual process was eliminated, and
dispositions were transmitted within 24 hours of
the court appearance.
Given these audit results, DCJS used CHRI funds
in two major ways. A collection team was convened
and charged with collecting felony dispositions
rendered from 1985 to 1989 that were on the OCA
system but not on the DCJS system. At the beginning
of this effort, the collection team estimated that
130,000 felony arrests made between 1985 and 1989
did not have dispositions. To obtain these
dispositions, the collection team first gave a tape
containing these arrests to OCA so that it could
attempt to match the arrests to dispositions on
their system. This effort was delayed because OCA
reported problems in linking the data. Efforts
resumed with the generation of a new tape file
created to eliminate any cases that had been
manually collected in the interim. OCA was about to
begin transmission of dispositions for the cases
identified. The effort will be continued with
BJA/CJRI funding. Second, the collection team
began a field effort  to collect missing
dispositions; as of February  1994, approximately
9,500 felony dispositions had been added to the
DCJS system. This field effort will also be
continued with BJA/CJRI funding.
In the course of its research, the collection
team also identified some 70 problems and
limitations with the DCJS CCH. For example, the CCH
allowed duplicate tracking numbers. Original plans
called for two programmers to be hired with the
State's second CHRI award to fix as many of these
data base problems as possible. As of April 1994,
DCJS was in the process of hiring one of these
programmers. However, to address an immediate need
for a complete rewrite of the existing disposition
maintenance program, funding for one of the
programmer positions was reallocated to train
existing staff in a three-tier client server
architecture for the development of the new
program. The need to rewrite the maintenance
program arose from a project funded by the BJA/CJRI
Program to provide some users of criminal history
data the ability to make documented corrections to
that data online.
The second major use for CHRI funds was to
convene a study team that was charged with
identifying and documenting impediments to
complete, accurate, and timely reporting. The
study team completed a comprehensive assessment of
reporting practices at a sample of contributing
agencies and was scheduled to present its findings
to the State's multiagency criminal records task
force in May 1994. One finding of this assessment
was that the disposition reporting problem appeared
to be less serious than it actually was because of
"hanging arrests" on the CCH. This occurred when
more than one fingerprint card was submitted for an
arrest, when only one should have been submitted.
The study team discovered this occurred when one
arresting agency turned the arrest over to another
arresting agency, when multiple agencies were
involved in the arrest, when persons were arrested
on a bench warrant, when arresting agencies
submitted a fingerprint card for each charge, or
when courts consolidated two or more arrests into a
single case. In general, the study team found that
"failures in communication among agencies as well
as a lack of standardization in the processing of
arrests and dispositions" were the major causes of
reporting problems.
At the end of the State's CHRI project in August
1994, the study team planned to publish a handbook
for local contributing agencies that contained
standardized arrest and disposition reporting
procedures.
North Carolina
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Improve court records accessibility
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation
(SBI) and the State Administrative Office of the
Court (AOC) worked together to increase the
accessibility of the AOC data base to law
enforcement users. Previously only those agencies
with an AOC terminal had access to court records,
and few law enforcement agencies had such
terminals. CHRI funds were used to develop software
so that agencies with a terminal to the SBI CCH
system could use that same terminal to inquire into
the AOC's system. The software was completed, and
the system is operational.
As part of the State's activity to fully automate
its criminal records, data entry workstations were
purchased so that each data entry clerk could enter
records directly into the CCH. Prior to the CHRI
project, central repository staff had to fill out a
coding sheet, which was subsequently given to staff
who had access to a data entry workstation. This
intermediate coding step was eliminated by the new
workstations. The new workstations were also used
by temporary personnel hired to convert some
70,000 manual criminal history records.
North Dakota
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Upgrade CCH
Install prosecutor information system
Interface prosecutor and CCH
Participate in III
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I, State, 5%
CHRI I, State, 5%
CHRI I
The focal point of North Dakota's CHRI project
was rewriting the central repository CCH. The new
CCH, which went online in July 1993, promised to
improve data quality in a number of ways, one of
which was felon identification. The State's old
CCH, like many other CCH systems, was a text-based
system designed to store information; little
thought had been given to how the data might be
analyzed. Conviction data were stored in a free-
format text field. The new CCH has a felony flag
field that will be updated on the basis of the
conviction level associated with a disposition.
Because conviction data stored in the older CCH
system were not amenable to automated analyses, the
State is taking a day-one approach to flagging
felons.
The new CCH also enabled the central repository
to develop interfaces with other agencies. The
State expected to participate in III by March
1994. CHRI funds were also used to implement
automated disposition reporting by prosecutors.
Case management software was developed that makes
such reporting a byproduct of the prosecutor office's
day-to-day work. Plans call for dispositions to be
reported to the central repository in real time, as
they are entered into the case management system.
The State plans to continue development of the
interface with BJA/CJRI funds.
Northern Mariana Islands
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Develop data quality improvement plan
Install CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I, 5%
Prior to the CHRI program, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands had no criminal
history system. Traditionally, the courts acted as
the central repository, maintaining nonfingerprint-
supported disposition information. CHRI funds were
used to develop a long-term data quality improvement
plan and to establish a criminal history system in
the Commonwealth's Department of Public Safety.
The Commonwealth's Criminal Justice Planning
Agency (CJPA) hired a private contractor to assist
a multiagency task force in producing a data
quality improvement plan. The major recommendations
of the plan included the following activities:
o Obtain training in fingerprint classification,
filing, and maintenance and in criminal history
record creation, maintenance, and dissemination.
o Develop a master fingerprint file of existing and
new arrest fingerprint cards.
o Develop a fingerprint-based automated MNI.
o Develop a fingerprint-based manual criminal
history record.
As of early 1994, progress had been made on all
four recommendations. Training was conducted
for CJPA staff on proper fingerprinting techniques;
on developing procedures to ensure complete,
accurate, and timely reporting; and on developing
policies regarding the creation, maintenance, and
dissemination of criminal history record information.
The Commonwealth created a master fingerprint file
and added a small number of offenders to an automated
MNI. Associated with each MNI record is a unique
State identification number and a set of word
processing package-based arrest and disposition
records. Once an effective manual criminal history
system is established, the Commonwealth will create
a computerized criminal history system.
Ohio
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Conduct audit
Interface courts and CCH
Automate disposition reporting to FBI
Process disposition report backlog
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
Prior to the CHRI program, the Ohio Bureau of
Criminal Identification and Investigation viewed the
quality of disposition reporting as its most serious
problem. In 1991 the Bureau estimated that only 23
percent of arrests in its CCH had dispositions.
More important, virtually no dispositions were
being received from the major courts with
jurisdiction over felony cases. The Bureau felt
that the primary reason for poor disposition
reporting was confusion about who should report and
what disposition form should be used. In spite of
the low reporting rate, central repository staff
could not keep up with the inflow of dispositions,
and a backlog of 100,000 dispositions had
developed.
The Bureau recognized that automated disposition
reporting through an interface to the CCH offered
the potential both to increase the percentage of
dispositions reported to the central repository and
to reduce the workload for the data entry clerks.
Using CHRI funds, the Bureau pilot-tested a court-
repository interface in Hamilton and Cuyahoga
counties, which accounted for 25 percent of the
felony cases in the State. The interfaces were
expected to be completed in late 1994. In addition,
CHRI funds were provided to the State's prosecutor
association to modify its information system so
that dispositions could be reported to the central
repository. The Bureau also used CHRI funds to
improve disposition timeliness in the CCH by
processing disposition backlogs.
Two other CHRI-supported activities were
completed recently. The Bureau hired a private
contractor to conduct a baseline data quality audit
and developed the necessary software to automate
disposition reporting to the FBI.
Oklahoma
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Merge external data bases into CCH
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
(OSBI) attempted to improve the completeness of
its CCH by merging the records on the Arrest
Disposition Reporting System (ADRS) into the CCH.
ADRS was developed in the 1970's as a case tracking
system for district attorneys. The system had
significantly more dispositions than the CCH;
however, ADRS was not fingerprint supported, and
not all of its records had a process control number
that could link the disposition with an arrest
fingerprint card. OSBI hired a private contractor
to move and merge the ADRS data base into the CCH,
a process that was expected to be completed in late
1994.
Oregon
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Interface courts and CCH
Process disposition report backlog
Implement monitoring system
Conduct audit
Set felony flags in existing records
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, State
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI II
Using CHRI I funds, Oregon completed four
activities that improved data quality. First, the
State developed and implemented an interface
between the Oregon Judicial Information Network
(OJIN) and the State central repository CCH data
base. This effort capped a multiyear court
automation project. Prior to 1985 the State used
multipart forms to report arrests and dispositions;
court clerks completed one of the copies and mailed
it to the central repository. From 1985 to 1989,
the OJIN system was implemented in all the
counties. The court-repository interface was
simplified by the fact that the State had a unified
court system, which meant that all the counties
used an identical system. With the implementation
of OJIN, court clerks submitted computer printouts
of dispositions to the central repository. In July
1992 the interface between OJIN and the central
repository was completed. The interface is two-way:
OJIN transmits dispositions weekly to the central
repository, and the central repository transmits
State identification numbers of the offenders
associated with the dispositions back to OJIN.
The percentage of dispositions that can be
automatically posted to the CCH has continued to
increase; by fall 1993 it was 90 percent. Most of
the remaining 10 percent could not be posted
automatically because the associated arrest
information was not in the CCH data base.
Second, the Oregon State Police developed and
implemented a fingerprint card monitoring system
for cards that were unreadable and subsequently
returned to the submitting agency. Prior to the
CHRI project, fingerprint cards that were
unacceptable were returned to the submitting
agency, and no arrest information was recorded in
these cases. With CHRI funds a PC-based monitoring
system was developed: Central repository personnel
entered the arrest facts recorded on the
fingerprint card in a data base. This data base was
periodically analyzed to track rejected cards and
to target training resources toward agencies with
higher-than-average rejection rates.
Third, CCH data base completeness was improved
by reducing a backlog of some 60,000 (paper)
disposition reports. Delays between receipt and
entry of disposition reports were reduced from 6
weeks to 1 week. A backlog should not recur because
of the OJIN-CCH interface. Fourth, CHRI I funds
were used to set felony flags on offenders in the
CCH data base. Flags were able to be set on all
offenders convicted after 1987, when a felony
conviction disposition code was implemented.
Oregon's second CHRI award was used to conduct a
baseline audit. A private contractor was hired for
this project, and a final audit report was expected
to be completed by March 1994.
Pennsylvania
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Automate manual records
Process fingerprint card backlog
Assume responsibility for more III records
Process disposition report backlog
Set felony flags in existing records
Conduct audit
Install live-scan devices
Conduct training at local agencies
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI II
CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II
Pennsylvania's CHRI projects encompassed a
number of different activities that can be
categorized into four broad groups:
o Activities aimed at improving fingerprint card
reporting.
o Data entry and data conversion activities for
improving the completeness of central repository
records.
o A flagging program for identifying felons, career
criminals, and aliens.
o A baseline audit.
The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) estimated
that prior to the CHRI program, 35 percent of
all arrests were not reported to the central
repository. Moreover, they estimated that 10
percent of submitted fingerprint cards were not
readable. Thus, a priority for Pennsylvania's
CHRI project was to improve fingerprint reporting.
This was accomplished through two main activities.
First, CHRI funds contributed to a statewide
effort to implement live-scan fingerprinting.
Specifically, four live-scan devices were placed
at high-volume PSP troop barracks. Along with 15
devices expected to be purchased with BJA/CJRI
funds and placed at local law enforcement agencies
and with some already existing devices in
Philadelphia and Harrisburg, PSP estimated that
half of all fingerprint cards received at the
central repository would be live-scan generated.
These fingerprint cards were being printed at the
local booking facility and then mailed to PSP; PSP
hoped to interface the devices to its AFIS in the
future. How much these devices improve fingerprint
card reporting rates remains to be seen, although
PSP reported a significant improvement in the
readability of the cards.
The second activity aimed at improving fingerprint
cards was implementation of local agency training
programs. In conjunction with the Pennsylvania
Chief's Association, PSP conducted 1-day regional
training seminars on reporting requirements and
fingerprinting techniques. In addition, PSP produced
a training video that was distributed to law
enforcement agencies across the State. These training
efforts were to continue through October 1994.
CHRI funds were also used to support a number of
data conversion and data entry activities. For
example, PSP personnel were paid overtime to
eliminate a backlog of 59,000 disposition reports.
This backlog was partially the result of shortcomings
in the disposition reporting system. Under this system,
dispositions submitted by the 67 counties were sent
to a third-party vendor for key entering. The keyed
data were then forwarded to the central State court
and then to PSP. The lack of edit checks in the
process was felt to be partially responsible for
the fact that PSP could not post approximately 20
percent of the dispositions to the CCH.
A second backlog of 30,000 fingerprint cards
submitted by the State corrections department was
eliminated with first-year CHRI funds. In
processing these cards, it was found that 4,500 (15
percent) of the associated offenders did not have a
fingerprint card on file with PSP. The long-term
solution to this backlog problem was to provide the
corrections department with online access to the
CCH and to instruct staff only to submit a
fingerprint card if there was not one already on
file for the offender.
A third backlog of 300,000 firearm sale records
was also being addressed. PSP hoped to identify
convicted felons who had purchased firearms. The
final data conversion activity involved conversion
of manual criminal history records. PSP did not
begin automating its criminal history records until
1984; consequently, the State had an extensive file
of about 750,000 manual records. The objective of
this activity was to convert manual records of
approximately 18,000 active offenders. In addition,
PSP assumed responsibility for some 15,000 III
records that previously had been supported by the
FBI. However, according to FBI records, as of June
1993 the FBI still supported some 225,000
Pennsylvania records.
The PSP felony flagging activity involved
programmatically identifying existing offenders in
the CCH and setting a felony flag in the offender's
ident segment. PSP personnel used the State's
definition of a felony that corresponds to Federal
law: "an act punishable by more than 1 year in
prison." In the first run of the software to set
felony flags, some 280,000 offenders were
identified as convicted felons. In addition to
setting felony flags, PSP also set flags for career
criminals (offenders convicted of three or more
prior felonies) and aliens convicted of felonies.
Work on the flagging programs was expected to be
completed in summer 1994.
Finally, CHRI funds were used to conduct a
baseline data quality audit. PSP hired a private
contractor for this effort, which was completed in
early 1994. The major recommendation from the audit
report was that PSP expand its training program to
improve arrest and disposition reporting. PSP
incorporated the training recommendations into its
ongoing CHRI-supported training programs.
Rhode Island
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Interface courts and CCH
Upgrade CCH
Obtain unreported dispositions
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
In 1988 Rhode Island developed a master plan for
automation of its criminal justice agencies.
Updated in 1990, the plan focused on both
automation within individual agencies and
automation among agencies, the goal being to link
agencies through a central CJIS hub. CHRI funds
were used to complete one of the most important
aspects of that plan: data sharing between the
courts and the central repository. Indeed, a 1991
audit of the central repository's data base showed
that 50 percent of the reported arrests had no
disposition.
To develop the court-repository interface, the
central repository CCH had to be rewritten. The CCH
is now in a modern, relational data base
environment that allows for easy ad-hoc querying
and report generation. The number of programs
needed to maintain the criminal history system has
been reduced from dozens to one. One master program
allows the repository staff to access inquiries,
entries, dispositions, expungements, pistol
permits, warrants, and sex offender registrations.
The process of updating dispositions was reduced
from six steps to one.
New procedures also had to be developed to
ensure more complete fingerprint and disposition
reporting. An offender's State identification
number, if found after a name search, is recorded
on both the fingerprint card and the charging
documents submitted to the courts. Each day a file
of new court cases is transmitted to the central
repository, where staff match them to the submitted
fingerprint cards. Once an offender has been
positively identified, staff update the court's
automated case tracking system with the offender's
SID number. Later, dispositions will be forwarded
to the central repository on a nightly basis.
Felony convictions will be flagged in the
transmitted file.
The original rewrite of the CCH was designed for
electronic posting of charging information from
the court information system; however, for a number
of reasons, manual transmittal is still being used.
The most significant reason is the lack of uniform data
entry at the district court level, primarily due to
personnel constraints. Because not all district
courts are entering felony information, arrest
information cannot be consistently captured at the
arraignment level.
CHRI project staff completed data entry of
missing dispositions for felony arrests made
between 1985 and 1993. Temporary personnel used
printouts supplied by the courts in this effort.
Finally, fingerprint classifications were entered
and updated for more than 75,000 offenders,
allowing for the eventual electronic sharing of
data with other jurisdictions.
South Carolina
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Set felony flags in existing records
Process disposition report backlog
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I & II, State, 5%
South Carolina's two CHRI projects focused on
improving disposition reporting. The South Carolina
Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the South
Carolina Court Administration (SCCA) worked
together to transform the State's manual
disposition reporting system into an automated
system. SLED also undertook the CHRI-supported
activities of establishing a felony flagging
system and processing a backlog of disposition
reports that improved data quality.
Prior to the CHRI program, South Carolina's
disposition reporting system was entirely paper
based. Court clerks in the 46 counties forwarded
paper disposition forms to the central SCCA office,
where 7 SCCA data entry clerks entered the data in
the SCCA data base housed on a mainframe at SLED.
In addition, SCCA forwarded paper disposition
forms to SLED, where SLED personnel posted the
disposition to the CCH. Realizing that an electronic
disposition reporting system could improve data
quality, timeliness, and accuracy and reduce costs,
the State Justice Institute (SJI) and the South
Carolina Bar Foundation in 1991 funded development
of a central SCCA computer system that could receive
dispositions electronically from these county systems.
Soon after the SJI funds became available, the
State received the first of its two CHRI awards. In
addition to supporting SLED's efforts to identify
convicted felons and process a backlog of
disposition reports, the CHRI funds were directed
toward building on the goals of the SJI grant.
While the SJI grant funded development of the
central SCCA system, CHRI funded development of
software that would facilitate electronic
submission of dispositions from the counties to the
new SCCA system and development of an electronic
interface between the new SCCA system and the SLED
CCH.
Two important points should be made about the
approach South Carolina took in these efforts.
First, 19 counties, including the most populous
counties, already had court information systems.
The new SCCA system had to be able to accept data
from those systems, which existed on a variety of
hardware platforms and had their own data formats
and conventions. Some CHRI funds were given to
these counties to defray the costs of interfacing
their systems to the new SCCA system. Second, in
the 27 counties that lacked automation, CHRI funds
were used to develop an inexpensive PC-based court
case management system that county court clerks
could use to manage their cases and assist with
scheduling. The package included a module for
reporting electronically to the new SCCA system.
Dispositions were transmitted in batches, posted to
the SCCA data base, and reformatted and transmitted
to the SLED CCH.
As of February 1994, 32 of 46 counties had
discontinued submitting paper disposition forms
and only reported electronically. The other 14
counties expected to report electronically by the
end of the year. In addition to improving the
timeliness and accuracy of disposition reports,
the activity also greatly improved cooperation
between SLED and SCCA.
SLED also established a felony flagging system
and reduced a backlog of disposition reports.
Flagging was based both on Federal law (the Gun
Control Act of 1968) and State law (a crime of
violence or a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment of more than 2 years). Because the
State had a post-sale firearm eligibility
verification law, at least prior to enactment of
the Brady law, firearm sales in violation of
Federal but not State law were referred to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; others
were investigated by SLED. As part of these
efforts, SLED altered its data base so that the
State statute on which the offender was convicted
was recorded in the data base; prior to this
upgrade, conviction information was simply stored
in a literal field, making it difficult to
determine in an automated manner whether an
offender had a felony conviction. Data entry
screens were also rewritten to facilitate flagging
of convicted felons.
Finally, SLED used CHRI funds to clear a backlog
of 125,000 dispositions, reducing delays in the
processing of disposition reports from 12 months to
1 month. Because dispositions are now reported
electronically, disposition backlogs should not
recur.
South Dakota
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Participate in III
Obtain unreported disposition
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
Perhaps the most important goal of South Dakota's
CHRI project was to enable the State to become a
participant in III. Two major tasks had to be
completed for this to happen. First, the State
needed to upgrade the hardware and software of its
message switch. A private contractor was hired for
this task, and the new switch was expected to be
operational in fall 1993. Second, the State needed
to become a single-source State; this occurred on
June 1, 1993. To help local reporting agencies
adapt to the change, CHRI project staff compiled a
detailed training and procedures manual, which was
distributed to all State reporting agencies. CHRI
project staff hoped that the State would become a
participant in III by June 1994.
The State selected two other activities to
improve criminal history record data quality.
First, CHRI project staff initiated an effort to
obtain all missing felony dispositions from the
past 5 years. An analysis of the CCH data base
indicated that 4,270 (19 percent) of 21,931 felony
arrests were missing. Project staff researched the
missing dispositions and were able to close out
more than 90 percent of them, including
dispositions that were in the court data base but
never reported to the central repository and cases
that were prosecutor declinations. The rest of the
dispositions were primarily cases in which
offenders failed to appear at court proceedings and
were presumed to have left the State.
Finally, the State developed a court-repository
interface. In developing the interface, the State
had a tremendous advantage in its unified court
system, with all the court records on one computer
system. Also, the courts agreed to include the
arrest tracking number in their system. The method
by which the dispositions would be transmitted
to the central repository (tape or online
transmission, for example) and the frequency of
transmission had not yet been determined. The State
expected to complete the interface by August 1994.
Tennessee
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Automate manual records
Set felony flags in existing records
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
State, CHRI
CHRI I
CHRI I
In Tennessee CHRI funds were used to establish a
CCH system. Work on the system had begun with State
funds, but the CHRI program allowed implementation
of the CCH to be accelerated. The CCH went online
in April 1992. Since then, the central repository
has used CHRI funds to hire temporary employees
and pay existing personnel overtime to automate
the records of 600,000 offenders. By the end of
the State's CHRI project, 580,000 of the 600,000
offenders had been added to the automated MNI. A
felony flag in the MNI was set when each record
was converted. Including aliases, approximately
1 million names were added to the State's MNI. In
addition, the criminal history records of 191,000
of the 600,000 offenders were fully automated with
CHRI funds.
The CCH had already been interfaced to Tennessee
and National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System telecommunications networks for online
queries. Given that responses to requests for
criminal history information previously had to be
typed by hand following a search of the manual
files, the impact of the CCH on the accessibility
of criminal history records has been significant.
The State hoped to use BJA/CJRI or other funds to
embark on additional data quality improvement
activities, including participation in III,
implementation of automated disposition reporting,
and design of a new fingerprint card with a unique
arrest tracking number.
Texas
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Upgrade CCH
Interface courts and CCH
Interface corrections and CCH
Implement unique tracking number
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II, 5%
CHRI I & II
CHRI I
The activities Texas selected for its CHRI project
stemmed from a data quality audit conducted in
1988 by the Criminal Justice Policy Council. The
audit recommendations led to passage of a
legislative package in 1989, with revisions in
1991 and 1993, that included stricter reporting
requirements and mandated development of a criminal
justice information system (which required an
enhanced CCH and creation of a corrections tracking
system). The State recognized that electronic
disposition reporting was the key to improving
disposition reporting and to eliminating the ever-
present backlogs at the central repository. The
CHRI program, and subsequently the BJA/CJRI
program, enabled Texas to address these legislative
requirements while also responding to Federal
needs.
The State CHRI I project focused on rewriting
the Department of Public Safety CCH system and
pilot-testing the court-repository electronic
interface. The new CCH went online in June 1993.
Whereas the old CCH was built around "flat" data
files, the new CCH incorporates a data base
management system, which allows for flexible
report generation and extensive analysis
capabilities. The new CCH also includes a field
indicating whether the offense is a felony or a
misdemeanor. The major benefit of the new CCH is
that it allows for electronic interfaces to the
county data processing systems.
The State is approaching automated disposition
reporting by bringing the counties into the
system one at a time. Counties are selected on
the basis of disposition volume and the level of
county interest in participating in the program.
Reporting in the participating counties works as
follows. The arresting agency forwards charging
documents to the county district attorney, which
leads to creation of a case record in the county
computer system. The arresting agency also forwards
fingerprint cards to the central repository, where
personnel identify the offender through the
statewide AFIS and associate a SID number with the
offender. Repository personnel then transmit the
recorded data, including the SID number, to the
county computer system.
To solidify the linkage between the CCH and the
county systems, a new fingerprint card with a
unique charge-specific tracking number was
implemented. The State embarked on an extensive
training program to ensure that the tracking
numbers were entered into the county systems. The
frequency with which dispositions are transmitted
from the county system to the central repository
is at the discretion of the county, which can use
online or batch transmissions. The CCH records the
updates in batches. No disposition is transmitted
to the CCH until the SID number has been added
to the county case record. The first county to
participate in the program was Tarrant County,
which used IBM hardware; CHRI I funds were used
to upgrade that system to be compatible with and
communicate with the CCH, which uses an Amdahl
system. This pilot test proved the feasibility of
the interface and established standards for the
remaining counties. During CHRI II, funds were used
to complete the conversion of the State CCH data
base and to test electronic submissions from Nueces
County, which uses Hewlett-Packard hardware.
By April 1994, the State expected that eight of
the largest counties would be reporting
dispositions electronically. BJA/CJRI funds were
made available to counties that wished to upgrade
their systems so that they could communicate with
the CCH and continue the initiative started with
CHRI funds. As of April 1994, 21 counties had
received BJA/CJRI funds, and another 24 counties
were expected to be funded by the end of the year.
Finally, the State used CHRI funds to develop an
interface to the State-funded corrections tracking
system in the Department of Criminal Justice. As
status information, such as an inmate's release
from prison, is entered in the tracking system,
the subject's criminal record in the CCH will be
automatically updated. The State expected to
complete this project by early 1995.
Utah
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Upgrade CCH
Interface booking system and prosecutor
Interface courts and CCH
Interface prosecutor and courts
Interface corrections and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I, 5%
In Utah CHRI funds were used to electronically
link State criminal justice agencies with criminal
justice agencies responsible for reporting criminal
history information in Salt Lake County, Utah's
largest county. The agencies being linked included
county agencies such as the Salt Lake County
Sheriff and Salt Lake County Prosecutor with State
agencies such as corrections, courts, and the
central repository. As is the case in many States,
all of these agencies developed independent
computer systems with little thought given to
sharing data. Once completed, the project will make
systemic improvements to the quality of criminal
history records and become a model for
implementation of similar systems for other
counties in the State.
Before the interfaces could be developed, a
number of other activities had to be completed.
Procedural changes were needed to improve record
linkage. Prior to the CHRI project, the State had
a tracking number called the Offense Tracking
Number (OTN), which was not being used effectively.
A pre-CHRI project audit estimated that 54 percent
of cases on the court's computer system did not
have an OTN. A multipart fingerprint card was
introduced, and new laws requiring prosecutors to
provide OTN's to the courts at the time of case
filing were enacted. The immediate impact of these
changes was that the central repository began
receiving prosecutor declinations for the first
time. The central repository CCH had to be upgraded
to accommodate the interfaces. As part of this
effort, the readability of rap sheets was improved,
and better data entry screens with electronic edits
were developed.
Work on the interfaces has been partially completed.
The interface between the jail systems and the Salt
Lake County prosecutor system was completed, and the
prosecutor now receives notification of new cases
in real time. The interface between the prosecutor
system and the courts was also completed. This
interface is two-way: Basic case information is
electronically transmitted from the prosecutor to
the courts at the time of case filing, and
prosecutors are able to electronically access the
court calendar. The court-repository interface was
completed, and dispositions are being reported by
electronic transfer once per month.
Vermont
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
Automate manual records
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I
The Vermont Department of Public Safety (DPS)
used CHRI funds to develop a CCH system. Prior
to the CHRI Program, the State had an automated
master name index but no automated criminal
history records. DPS contracted with a private
vendor to install the new CCH. DPS expected the
entire CCH system to be operational, including the
communications system for allowing State criminal
justice agencies to conduct online searches of the
CCH, by fall 1994.
Once the CCH was operational, DPS planned to use
remaining CHRI funds to convert manual criminal
history records. The highest priority was to be
given to the records of offenders in State prisons
and on probation, to be followed by the records of
offenders arrested in the past 5 years. In addition,
new criminal records and records for which requests
are made will be automated on a day-one basis.
Virginia
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Process disposition report backlog
Upgrade CCH
Set felony flags in existing record
Set felony flags in III records
Interface booking system and courts
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I
CHRI I & II
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI I
CHRI II, 5%
Data entry and data conversion activities were
an important component in Virginia's CHRI I
project. In particular, a disposition report
backlog had been developed at the Virginia State
Police (VSP), largely because VSP staff had to
be diverted to legislatively mandated programs,
such as the point-of-sale firearm eligibility
verification system. Temporary employees were
hired with CHRI funds, and a backlog of 80,000
dispositions was eliminated. Delays in entering
disposition reports were reduced from 4 months to
4 days. VSP also embarked on a project to flag
convicted felons who are listed in VSP's MNI but
whose criminal history record had not yet been
automated. VSP had some 300,000 manual criminal
history records. By the end of the CHRI I project
period, approximately 73,000 records had been
identified for automation. This activity was to
be continued with BJA/CJRI funding. Finally, VSP
successfully completed a pilot project with the
FBI in which felony flags were added to Virginia's
III records. The initial transfer of data to III
resulted in 218,000 records being flagged.
Improvements to the VSP CCH were made during the
two CHRI projects. VSP developed three different
versions of its rap sheets. For example, a police
officer whose only interest was in recent arrests
would request a basic rap sheet, while a probation
officer who was preparing a presentence
investigation report would request the version
containing the most detailed information. Another
improvement to the CCH was to include juvenile
arrest reporting capabilities for offenses that
would be felonies in an adult court. This
modification was made as a result of 1993
legislation. Finally, during the CHRI I project
period, a module was added to the CCH that
extracted the necessary data for the VSP OBTS
system. Prior to this effort, VSP staff had to
manually enter the OBTS data, so this improvement
saved considerable personnel data entry time.
The major CHRI II activity was development and
installation of an interface linking local booking
centers to the courts. The State Department of
Criminal Justice Services and the Supreme Court
worked with five law enforcement agencies in the
State to develop and pilot test the interface.
The system was designed to simultaneously store
the arrest information in the agency's local
information system and to electronically forward
the information to the magistrate and court
information systems. In turn, warrant and
disposition information was to be sent
electronically to local law enforcement agencies.
The interface was expected to be operational in
three agencies by spring 1994. This system should
ensure that accurate and complete arrest
information is forwarded to the courts, thus also
ensuring that dispositions subsequently submitted
from the courts to the central repository will be
able to be linked to arrests. If the pilot test
were successful, the State planned to expand
implementation of the system using BJA/CJRI funds.
Washington
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Process disposition report backlog
Process FBI rap sheet backlog
Develop data quality improvement plan
Set felony flags in existing records
Conduct training at local agencies
Participate in III
Revise central repository procedures
Interface booking system and CCH
Interface courts and CCH
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I
CHRI I, 5%
CHRI II
CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II, 5%
CHRI II, 5%
The focal point of Washington's first year
CHRI project was development of a data quality
improvement plan. For this task, Washington hired
a private contractor who worked closely with the
State's multiagency task force. The result was a
comprehensive long-term plan that became the
basis for the State's second-year CHRI project
application and its BJA/CJRI plan. The State felt
that the process of developing a plan through the
multiagency task force was extremely valuable
because, as one official said, "The key players
in each agency bought into a process for
decisionmaking and consensus building."
The State's first-year CHRI project also
included four other activities. First, to
reduce the disposition report backlog, the State
hired temporary employees who entered 60,000
dispositions and improved update timeliness from 9
months to 2 months. However, State Patrol personnel
noted that backlogs recurred. The court-repository
interface system under development should help
solve the felony disposition backlog problem.
Second, the State's backlog of 25,000 FBI rap
sheets was eliminated. The backlog will not recur
because the State is now a III participant.
Third, training materials were developed, and
State Patrol personnel conducted 44 training
sessions that were attended by 685 individuals
in 360 different agencies. Training focused on
criminal history information reporting requirements
and procedures and on fingerprinting techniques.
Fourth, the State Patrol added a felony flag to
its criminal history system and, on the basis of
offense codes, determined the felony conviction
status of offenders currently in the system.
Procedures were put in place to flag felons on an
ongoing basis. The State reported that by the end
of 1992, 120,000 offenders were flagged as felons.
As noted above, the State's CHRI II project
activities were selected on the basis of data
quality improvement plans developed during the
CHRI I project and included the following projects.
First, the State became a participant in III in
February 1993. Second, the State Patrol revised
many of its internal procedures for processing
arrest and disposition reports. In general, the
central repository switched from an assembly line
operation in which each staff person performed one
task to one in which all staff handled everything.
The State Patrol reported that this switch greatly
improved staff morale. Revisions of central
repository procedures continued with BJA/CJRI
funds.
Third, the State pilot tested a booking-
repository interface in which data entered in
county-based jail management systems were
transmitted electronically to the central
repository. The idea was to update the transmitted
booking record once the fingerprint card arrived at
the central repository. Jail management software
with an interface to the central repository was
installed in three counties. An initial evaluation
of these systems found that the interfaces were of
limited value because many of the records,
particularly those for misdemeanors, used local
charge codes that the central repository could not
translate. The system was being evaluated further
by the State.
Fourth, the State developed functional
specifications for a court-repository interface
to facilitate electronic disposition reporting
to the central repository. BJA/CJRI funds will fund
implementation of the system. The system was pilot
tested in King County, which accounted for 50
percent of the felonies in the State. The success
of the system depended on implementation in King
County of a unique tracking number called the
process control number to match arrests with
dispositions automatically.
West Virginia
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Install CCH
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II
Prior to the CHRI program, West Virginia had no
CCH system. The State's master name index was also
manual. Consequently, the State viewed the CHRI
project as an opportunity to implement a CCH.
The State's first CHRI award was used to hire a
contractor to complete a functional requirements
report that became the basis for a request for
proposal for the new CCH. This report was completed
in August 1992. With its second CHRI award, the
State planned to hire a vendor to develop a CCH.
The State expected its new CCH system to be
operational by the end of 1996.
BJA/CJRI funds will be used to support data
conversion efforts, particularly automation of
the State's MNI and transfer of West Virginia's
criminal history records from the FBI into the new
CCH.
Wisconsin
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Process disposition report backlog
Conduct audit
Set felony flags in existing records
Implement monitoring system
Process FBI rap sheet backlog
Participate in III
CHRI Project Status
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Funding Sources
CHRI I & II, State
CHRI II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
CHRI I & II
Wisconsin's Crime Information Bureau coordinated
the State's two CHRI awards. By early 1994, four
of Wisconsin's six CHRI-supported activities were
completed. First, the State hired an outside
contractor to conduct a baseline assessment of its
criminal history system. The last such assessment
was conducted in 1980. The completed assessment
included 28 recommendations that became the basis
for the State's BJA/CJRI plan. The most important
recommendations included a rewrite of the State CCH
and implementation of automated disposition
reporting.
Second, a felon identification system was completed
and is now operational. The State has a felony check
box on the fingerprint card and disposition report,
but until this CHRI project the State CCH did not
include a felony flag. A computer program was
developed to examine an offender's criminal history
record and determine the offender's felony status
on the basis of Wisconsin law, which was defined as
"convicted of a felony in Wisconsin or of a crime
in another State that would be a felony in Wisconsin."
The program was to be applied to the entire CCH data
base to update the felony status of all existing
offenders.
Third, the State developed software that reads a
tape of numbers from the FBI and applies it against
the CCH. Thus, a time-consuming manual process was
eliminated. Fourth, the State developed a
monitoring system that flags dispositions that have
been open for a period longer than expected. This
system was expected to increase the disposition
reporting rate.
Two ongoing CHRI-supported activities were
expected to continue through the remainder of the
CHRI project in September 1994. CHRI funds helped
support an effort to process a backlog of
disposition reports at the central repository.
Unfortunately, this activity was plagued by
personnel problems; as a result, the project has
not been fully staffed, and the backlog size had
grown from 48,000 dispositions at the start of the
project in October 1990 to 118,000 dispositions in
December 1993. The central repository keyed the SID
numbers of all outstanding disposition reports to a
newly created data base. When a criminal record is
requested, the new data base is searched for a
corresponding SID. When a match occurs, the related
disposition report is retrieved and keyed to the
record before release of the information.
Finally, the State developed an implementation plan
and system design for participation in III. The
State hoped to become a III participant by the end
of 1994.
Wyoming
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Improve CCH accessibility
Automate manual records
Interface courts and CCH
Set felony flag in existing records
Conduct training at local agencies
CHRI Project Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Funding Sources
CHRI I, local
CHRI I
CHRI I, State
CHRI I, State
CHRI I
The major activity in Wyoming's CHRI project was
to increase local law enforcement access to the CCH
at the central repository. This was accomplished by
upgrading the State switching system and moving it
to a different computer. With the old switching
system, local law enforcement agencies were limited
to a single "dumb" terminal that could only be used
for inquiries to the State CCH. The new switching
system supports personal computers (PC's), and
agencies can have several PC's linked to the CCH:
one for dispatchers, one for detectives, and one
for record clerks, for example. With a combination
of CHRI funds and local agency contributions,
approximately 70 percent of local law enforcement
agencies now have these PC's. Currently, the PC's
are being used to query the CCH. However, having
the PC's in place means that the State can better
support incident-based reporting through
downloading of the data via the PC's and can take
advantage of the FBI's Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System and National
Crime Information Center 2000 initiatives.
The State's four other CHRI activities can be
summarized as follows. The State used CHRI funds to
automate 7,800 manual records, improving data base
completeness; 99 percent of all records were
automated. The task of identifying felons in
existing criminal history records was in progress.
The CCH record format now contains a placeholder
for a felony flag, and the courts provided a table
indicating which statutes are felonies. The State
planned to use non-CHRI resources during 1994 to
set felony flags on existing records. The court-
repository interface activity was put on hold
because budget cutbacks stalled the State's court
automation project. Finally, in fall 1993 the State
began a training program for local law enforcement
agencies, focusing on compliance with reporting
procedures and on improving the quality of
fingerprinting.
-------------------------------
Appendix C
Discussion of the State Questionnaire
To better understand how States view data
quality issues and approaches to improving
data quality, and to assist in this selection
of States for the focused systemic study, a
brief questionnaire was developed and
administered during the CHRI evaluation study
in early 1993. A discussion of the results of
the survey follows.
Survey Instrument
The text of the two-page questionnaire is shown
in Exhibit C-1 along with tabulated average scores
for each question, based on a sample size of 39.
The questionnaire consisted of two pairs of
questions. Questions 1 and 2, both of which have
36 parts, addressed data quality issues; Question
1 asked how important each identified data quality
issue was to an effective State criminal history
repository, while Question 2 asked how much of a
problem each data quality issue was in the
respondent's State. An interesting statistic is
the difference between the Question 1 criticality
rating and the Question 2 problematic rating for
each issue. As indicated in Exhibit C-1, this
alignment rating showed that the greater the
alignment score, the more the State felt that the
issue, although critical, was not a problem because
the State had aligned its priorities and activities
to ensure that the issue was dealt with and posed
no serious problem. The 36 data quality issues
contained in Exhibit C-1 addressed a broad range
of arrest and disposition reporting and processing
issues as well as issues regarding responding to
requests for criminal history information.
Question 2 bears an interesting resemblance to
the BJS-sponsored data quality surveys.[1] For
example, the BJS surveys ask for the percentage
of arrests for which the repository received a
fingerprint card. The questionnaire in Exhibit
C-1 asked how much of a problem the arresting
agencies found submission of fingerprint cards,
ranging from "very serious" to "not a problem at
all." Answers to these two related questions may
not be highly correlated; indeed, as one State
project coordinator noted, "Eighty-percent
reporting may be great to one person, but lousy
to another."
In terms of this questionnaire, however, there
was less interest in how serious a problem a
particular data quality issue was than how serious
one issue was relative to another issue. Do States
see, for example, submission extent of fingerprint
cards as a more serious problem than submission
extent of disposition reports? The hypothesis here
is that when selecting data quality improvement
activities, States were motivated by the relative
seriousness of various data quality issues.
Questions 3 and 4 in Exhibit C-1 concerned
approaches to improving data quality. Each of
these questions had 35 parts, each of which
addressed a different approach to improving
data quality; Question 3 asked how much the
various approaches, if implemented, would
improve data quality, while Question 4 asked
how extensively the activity was actually being
implemented in the respondent's State. An
interesting statistic is the difference between
the Question 3 importance rating and the Question
4 implementation rating. As indicated in Exhibit
C-1, this was called the need rating: the greater
the need score, the more the State felt that the
activity was not being implemented at a level
commensurate with its importance, and the State
needed to ensure that the activity would be so
implemented to improve the State's data quality.
Survey Conduct
An initial version of the questionnaire was sent
to four States for pilot testing and feedback.
All pilot testers commented on the subjective
nature of the questionnaire; most had never seen
a questionnaire like this before and thought it
was an interesting approach. Some commented on
how such a questionnaire would be helpful in
prioritizing problems and solutions and in
assessing whether the activities with high payoffs
were being implemented.
After pilot testing the questionnaire was
distributed to all the States, 39 of which
subsequently completed the questionnaire.
Actually, 6 States completed more than one
questionnaire, bringing the total number of
completed questionnaires to 52. The focus of
the questionnaire was on State criminal history
repositories and how they processed criminal
justice-related information. Appropriately, 45
of the 52 respondents (87 percent) were repository
officials. Six of the remaining seven were from
State criminal history planning agencies. Of the
45 repository officials who completed the
questionnaire, 16 (36 percent) were either
repository directors or assistant directors, and
25 (56 percent) were repository section leaders.
However, in analyzing the completed questionnaires,
it was decided to give equal weight to each State's
response. Thus, the responses from States that
completed more than one questionnaire were averaged
prior to analysis of the responses from all 39
States. In sum, even though 52 questionnaires were
returned, for analysis purposes the questionnaire's
sample size, or N, was 39.
Like all questionnaires, the questionnaire
contained in Exhibit C-1 is subject to reliability
or consistency concerns. In particular, the
question may be asked: How would different
individuals in the same State answer each question?
Fortunately, the New York State Division of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) provided at least
a partial answer to this question. DCJS provided
six completed questionnaires: from three managers
in the identification section, from two managers
in the data processing section, and from one manager
in the data quality unit. The DCJS responses were
analyzed, and a standard deviation (a measure of
reliability) was computed for each of 142 sets of
responses (36 sets apiece for Questions 1 and 2,
35 sets apiece for Questions 3 and 4). As shown
in Exhibit C-2, 70 percent of the 142 response
sets have a standard deviation of 1.0 or less,
suggesting that the questionnaire responses are
quite reliable or consistent, at least within one
agency in one State.
Data Quality Issues
Questions 1 and 2 of the data quality questionnaire
addressed data quality issues, with Question 1
focusing on what issues were most critical to an
effective State repository and Question 2 focusing
on what issues were viewed as problematic in the
respondent's State. Answers to both questions
ranged from 1 to 5. Average responses to each of
the 36 parts of Questions 1 and 2 are noted in
Exhibit C-1.
The averages range from 5.0 for accuracy of
identification (meaning that all States felt that
this issue was very critical to an effective State
repository) to 2.8 for delays in reporting alien
conviction information to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. One should not conclude
that the accuracy of identification (the
ident/nonident decision) was the only critical data
quality issue because 15 of the 36 data quality
issues had an average response of 4.5 or higher.
Indeed, many respondents indicated that they were
splitting hairs when assigning a 5 to certain data
quality issues and a 4 to others.
Question 2 addressed how problematic the States
saw the 36 data quality issues. As shown in
Exhibit C-1, how frequently the arrests recorded
in the data base had final dispositions was seen
as the most serious problem, although it was not
viewed as a "very serious problem" because its
average score was  only 3.7 out of 5. In fact,
the three most serious problems all concerned
disposition reporting. Finally, 9 of the 36 issues
had average scores below 2.0, indicating States
saw them as very minor problems.
Perhaps of greater significance is the alignment
rating in Exhibit C-1. The alignment rating is the
difference between the Question 1 criticality
rating and the Question 2 problematic rating.
Obviously, a low alignment rating is a cause for
alarm; however, the two lowest alignment scores-0.6
and 0.7-were for Issues 23 and 22, respectively,
which were not considered by the States to be very
critical (their criticality ratings were only 2.8
and 3.1, respectively). Clearly, then, the concern
should be with those issues that have high
criticality ratings and, at the same time, low
alignment ratings. The top five items in this
grouping are issues 30 (degree to which arrests
recorded in data base have a final disposition),
14 (degree to which final dispositions are
submitted to repository), 15 (delays in submitting
disposition reports to repository), 31 (degree to
which each offender's felony conviction status can
be determined), and 17 (delays in entering
disposition data in criminal history data base).
This same grouping can be seen when the criticality
and problematic ratings for each data quality issue
are jointly plotted (see Exhibit C-3). Another
interesting aspect of Exhibit C-3 is the slope of
the regression line through the 36 points; the
positive slope suggests that the more critical the
issue, the more problematic it is for the States.
The preceding analysis lumped all the States
together and looked only at averages across all
State responses. Of course, the States are in very
different situations in terms of their data
quality. In light of this, it is not unexpected to
see how differently States viewed specific data
quality issues. Exhibit C-4 looks in detail at how
States viewed three very critical data quality
issues: the accuracy of the ident/nonident decision
(identification accuracy), how frequently final
dispositions were submitted to the repository
(submission extent of dispositions), and how
frequently arrests recorded in the repository data
base had final dispositions (data base
completeness). Although all States viewed the
identification accuracy issue as very critical to
an effective State repository, 27 of 39 States
considered it "not a problem at all." On the other
hand, four States considered this most basic of all
repository functions "a very serious problem."
Although 35 of 39 States viewed the submission
extent of dispositions issue as very critical to an
effective State repository, the degree to which it
was considered a problem varied widely. At one
extreme, 6 of the 35 States viewed it as "a very
serious problem" and, at the other extreme, 2 of
the 35 States viewed it as "not a problem at all."
Finally, while 34 of 39 States viewed the data base
completeness issue as very critical to an effective
State repository, 12 considered it "a very serious
problem" within their State.
Another point of interest is whether questionnaire
respondents saw their States as having one or
several overriding data quality problems. That
is, did the States see themselves as having one
weakest link in their data quality chains or
several weak links? If a respondent saw her or
his State as having a single weakest link, then
the corresponding issue could have been assigned
a 4 or 5, with every other issue assigned a 2 or
3. On the other hand, if a respondent saw her or
his State as having several weak links, then
several different issues could have been assigned
a 5, and lower problematic ratings could have
gone to the remaining issues. On the basis of these
criteria, 10 of the 39 States had a single weakest
link; the remaining 29 States had multiple weak
links (that is, more than one data quality issue
had the highest problematic rating given). Across
all States, 5.8 is the average number of weak
links.
Data Quality Improvement Activities
Questions 3 and 4 of the data quality
questionnaire addressed data quality improvement
activities. Question 3 focused on which
activities States felt would, if implemented,
yield significant improvements in data quality;
Question 4 focused on which activities were being
implemented. The questionnaire included 35
different data quality improvement activities,
with States ranking each activity on a scale of
1 to 5. For Question 3, a 1 meant the activity
would yield minimal improvement and a 5 meant the
activity would yield major improvement; for
Question 4, a 1 meant the activity was not
currently being implemented and a 5 meant a major
effort was under way to implement the activity or
the activity had been completed. The average
responses for  each of the 35 parts to
Questions 3 and 4 are shown in Exhibit C-1.
Looking at the average responses to Question 3,
the five activities that States saw as yielding the
most improvement in data quality were activities 28
(upgrade/install new electronic interface between
courts and repository), 22 (implement live-scan
fingerprint systems at local arresting agencies), 9
(improve interagency cooperation and commitment to
data quality), 4 (develop a long-term data quality
improvement plan), and 19 (upgrade/install new
court information system). That an electronic
interface between courts and the repository heads
the list should not be surprising in light of the
responses to Question 2. As noted earlier, the
three most serious data quality problems all
concerned disposition reporting.
In terms of which activities were being
implemented (see Question 4 in Exhibit C-1), the
two activities that appear to have been implemented
in a major way most frequently were activities 4
(develop a long-term data quality improvement plan)
and 9 (improve interagency cooperation and
commitment to data quality). This is not surprising
in light of the requirements of the BJA/CJRI
Program (convening a multiagency task force and
developing a data quality improvement plan).
Were States implementing what they considered to
be the activities that could yield the greatest
improvement in data quality? In the case of the two
activities mentioned above, yes; that is, while
activities 4 and 9 had an equally high importance
rating (4.1), they had at the same time low need
ratings (0.3 and 0.4). On the other hand, there
were several highly rated activities that, at the
same time, had high need ratings. The top four
items that fell into this grouping were activities
22 (implement live-scan fingerprint systems at
local arresting agencies), 24 (upgrade/install new
electronic interface between arresting agencies and
prosecutors), 26 (upgrade/install new electronic
interface between prosecutors and repository), and
25 (upgrade/install new electronic interface
between arresting agencies and courts). Not
surprisingly, these activities are all in the high-
cost, automation-related area. Again, this same
grouping can be seen when the importance and
implementation ratings for each data quality
improvement activity are jointly plotted (see
Exhibit C-5). A reassuring aspect of Exhibit C-5 is
the slope of the regression line through the 35
points; the positive slope suggests that the more
important the activity, the more likely it was to
be implemented.
Exhibit C-6 looks at variations among States for
two highly rated activities: court repository
interfaces and live-scan fingerprinting systems.
Although 27 of 39 States felt that a court-
repository interface would yield a major
improvement in data quality, only 13 of these 27
States had major efforts in this area. On the other
hand, 8 of these 27 States had no effort under way
on court-repository interfaces. Clearly, these
States will be focusing on such projects in the
future. In regard to live-scan fingerprinting
systems, it is the activity with the greatest
potential but implemented least often. In fact,
11 of the 20 States that saw live-scan systems as
yielding major improvements in data quality had no
effort under way in that area, no doubt because of
the high costs involved.
Selection of Systemic Study States
This data quality questionnaire provided input
essential to the selection of States for the
focused systemic study. As discussed in Chapter 2,
it was agreed that two of the four criteria that
should be taken into consideration when selecting
sites for the systemic study were:
o The site should be implementing strategies that
are considered to be  very important from the
perspective of improving data quality.
o The site should be implementing strategies that
are considered to be of great interest because a
significant number of other States are con-
templating their implementation.
The first criterion was embodied in the
importance rating, and the second criterion was
embodied in the need rating in the data quality
survey. These two criteria, together with the other
two criteria identified in Chapter 2, were analyzed
to obtain the four States for the systemic study.
-----------------------
Sources for Further Information
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480
BJA Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252