Background

Each state has a central repository for receiving criminal history  information contributed by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors,  courts, and corrections agencies throughout the state. Each repository  compiles this information into criminal history records (commonly called  “rap sheets”), which are to be made available to criminal justice personnel  for authorized purposes. Typically, a criminal history record is created for  each individual offender (each “subject”). The record is to contain relevant  identifiers (including fingerprints) and information about all arrests and  their dispositions, such as whether the criminal charges were dropped or  resulted in an acquittal or a conviction.
Efforts to improve criminal history records nationwide predate NCHIP by  more than 2 decades. For example, the development of computerized  criminal history systems in the states was a priority of the Law  Enforcement Assistance Administration, established by the Omnibus  Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Also, during much of the  1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s—largely without specifically appropriated  funds—BJS (or its predecessor, the National Criminal Justice Information  and Statistics Service) took the lead in encouraging states to computerize  criminal records and ensure conformity with evolving FBI standards.
In the 1990s, efforts to improve the accuracy, completeness, and  accessibility of criminal history records received an impetus with passage  of various federal statutes, particularly  the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”), which,  among other things, authorized grants for the improvement of state  criminal history records and amended the Gun Control Act of 1968;  the National Child Protection Act of 1993, which was enacted to  provide national criminal background checks for child care providers;  and  the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which,  among other things, strove to improve access to court protection  orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking and domestic  violence.
With initial grant awards to states in 1995, NCHIP was designed by BJS to  implement these federal mandates to improve public safety by enhancing  the nation’s criminal history records systems. In 1998, NCHIP’s scope was  expanded in response to federal directives to develop or improve sex  offender registries and to contribute data to a national sex offender  registry.
Also, in 1998, the “permanent” provisions of the Brady Act went into effect  with the implementation of NICS—the computerized system designed to  instantly (as the name indicates) conduct presale background checks of  purchasers of any firearm (both handguns and long guns). In contrast, the  “interim” provisions of the Brady Act (effective from 1994 to 1998) applied  to handgun purchases only, and law enforcement officers were allowed a  maximum of 5 business days to conduct presale background checks for  evidence of felony convictions or disqualifying information. The  effectiveness of NICS depends largely on the availability of automated  records—including the final dispositions of arrests, such as whether the  criminal charges resulted in convictions or acquittals. In this regard, many  criminal justice agencies, from police departments to the courts, are  generators of records relevant to NICS.
Over the years, BJS has tried to ensure that the use of NCHIP funds was  closely coordinated with the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant  Program, which requires that states use at least 5 percent of their awards  for improving criminal history records. All 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and the U.S. territories have been recipients of NCHIP grant  awards, which totaled more than $438 million during fiscal years 1995  through 2003.
Also, as mentioned previously, to ensure national compatibility and  accessibility of records, recipients’ uses of NCHIP funds must conform  with the FBI’s standards for national data systems—including, as  applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Regarding IAFIS, for example, most  states have some type of automated fingerprint identification system  (AFIS); a state can use NCHIP funds to enhance its AFIS by purchasing  Livescan equipment, if the state has implemented (or is implementing)  procedures to ensure that the AFIS is compatible with FBI standards.  More details about the national data systems are presented in appendix II.

	States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS

For the recent fiscal years we studied, states used NCHIP grants primarily  to support NICS in conducting background checks of firearms’ purchasers.  According to BJS data, a total of $165.2 million in NCHIP grants was  awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Of this total, a majority— over 75 percent—was used for NICS-related purposes that encompassed a  broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated  formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or  upgrade existing systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants during this  period, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to  building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as  implementing technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint  data to IAFIS. We found that a state’s participation status in NICS— whether the state was a full participant, partial participant, or  nonparticipant—made little difference in how NCHIP funds were used by  states.

		For the Recent Fiscal Years We Studied, the Majority of NCHIP Funds Was Used to Support NICS-Related Activities

As indicated in table 1, NCHIP award amounts can be grouped into six  spending categories in which BJS awarded a total of $165.2 million in  NCHIP grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. A majority of these funds  was used for NICS-related purposes. For example, the two largest  categories of spending—NICS/III/criminal records improvements and  disposition reporting improvements—accounted for over 75 percent of  total program awards during this period. Both categories directly affected  NICS. The NICS/III/criminal records improvements category affected NICS  by focusing on activities for improving records related to federal firearms  disqualifiers and enhancing access to these records through III.
Similarly, the disposition reporting improvements category provided  access to information about the disposition of arrests—information that is  critical for determining whether persons are legally prohibited from  purchasing firearms. Regarding this category, BJS encourages states to  focus on making systemic improvements rather than using staff to  manually research records to determine dispositions. Nonetheless,  according to BJS, states may use NCHIP funds to research arrest  dispositions in response to specific NICS-related queries, if the  information is subsequently added to the automated system. BJS officials  could not quantify the NCHIP grant amounts that all states have allocated  for staff to research arrest dispositions. Officials in 2 of the 5 case-study  states indicated that their states had used NCHIP funding to research  missing arrest dispositions and update criminal history records in  response to specific NICS-related queries. One of these states (Maryland)  used $41,000 of its fiscal year 2002 NCHIP award to fund a full-time  position for researching the state’s archived criminal history records.
Also, table 1 shows that BJS awarded 3 percent of NCHIP funding  specifically for protection order activities to improve records related to  this firearms-purchase disqualifier. The other categories in table  1AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and  national security/antiterrorism activitieswere for records improvement  efforts that do not directly impact NICS. However, according to BJS, even  if not NICS-related, each of the six spending categories in table 1 had  either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of  nationally accessible records, such as implementing technology to support  the automated transfer of fingerprint data to IAFIS.
Appendix III presents more information about the use of NCHIP funds in  the 5 case-study states, and appendix IV presents information about the  use of NCHIP funds in the 5 priority states.

		No Apparent Differences in NCHIP Awards Based on States’ Participation Status in NICS

As mentioned previously, for purposes of NICS background checks of  persons purchasing firearms, states are categorized as full participants,  partial participants, or nonparticipants. As table 2 shows, we found little  difference in the use of NCHIP funds by states based on their participation  status in NICS. With relatively minor exceptions, the relative order of  spending across categories was the same in all three types of states. Of the  various spending categories, NICS/III/records improvements reflected the  largest difference in percentage points—that is, a difference of 12  percentage points between the partial participant states (47 percent) and  the full participant states (35 percent). A BJS official stated that this  difference is not substantial and might occur because some states have  legislation with slightly different prohibitors for purchasing firearms.

	Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal  funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records  and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of   the nation’s criminal history records that are automated increased from   79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to   89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS’s most recent biennial  survey of states. To ensure national compatibility and accessibility of  records, recipients’ uses of NCHIP funds must conform with the FBI’s  standards for national data systems—including, as applicable, NICS, NCIC,  III, and IAFIS. Such conformance is important, for example, because III is  the primary system used to access state-held data for NICS checks. The  number of states participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to  30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003, indicating growth in  compatible automated records. On the other hand, progress has been  more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For example, automated  information on the disposition of felony and other potentially disqualifying  arrests is not always widely available. Also, automated information is not  always available to identify other prohibited purchasers of firearms, such  as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,  persons adjudicated as mental defective, or persons who are unlawful  users of controlled substances. In fiscal year 2004, BJS plans to begin  using a new, performance-based tool for making NCHIP funding decisions.

		Progress Made in Automation and Accessibility of Criminal History Records

In recent years, with the use of state and federal funds, criminal history  record automation levels in the states and the accessibility of these  records nationally have improved. BJS survey data from the end of 1993 to  the end of 2001 (the most recent data) show that increases in automation  levels have outpaced increases in the number of criminal history records.  Specifically, while the number of total records increased 35 percent during  this period, the number of automated records increased 52 percent— which indicates progress in automating older criminal history records.  Also, the number of records accessible by the III system increased   196 percent (see fig. 1).
Overall, the percentage of the nation’s criminal history records that are  automated increased from 79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at  the end of 1995 and to 89 percent at the end of 2001. The number of states  participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the end of  1995 and to 45 by May 2003.
Also, according to BJS, other indicators of improved automation levels  and accessibility are as follows:  In 1997, the FBI established the NCIC Protection Order File to provide  a repository for protection order records. As of May 2003 (within   6 years of implementation), 43 states and 1 territory had contributed  more than 778,000 records to this system.  In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments to the Jacob  Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender  Registration Act, the FBI established a national sex offender database  for states to register and verify addresses of sex offenders. As of May  2003 (within 5 years of implementation), 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and 3 territories had contributed all of their then-applicable  records (over 300,000 records) to the National Sex Offender Registry.
In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFISa computerized system for  storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format.  As of April 2003 (within 4 years of implementation), 44 states, the  District of Columbia, and 3 territories had submitted some portions of  their fingerprint files electronically to the FBI for entry into IAFIS.
BJS officials told us that NCHIP funds played a role in leading states to  these and other accomplishments. Similarly, officials in the 5 case-study  states we visited told us that the criminal history record improvements in  their states would not have been possible without NCHIP funds. According  to BJS officials, NCHIP is best viewed as being an “umbrella” program that  pools or coordinates various streams of monies. The officials noted that  NCHIP grants generally should not be viewed in isolation, apart from  funds that the states themselves spend for these initiatives. That is, the  NCHIP grants generally provide the seed money or the supplemental funds  that the states need to undertake major system upgrades or to implement  an overall plan for modernizing their information systems. While NCHIP  requires that states provide a 10 percent match to the federal funds  awarded, officials in the case-study states told us that their states typically  have invested much more than the required 10 percent. For example,   1 state that has received over $5 million in NCHIP funds estimated that  over $20 million of its own funds have been invested in system  improvements since 1995. Another state, receiving almost $7 million in  NCHIP grants, estimated that $35.4 million in state resources have been  spent on improving and automating its systems.
In addition to NCHIP and state-provided funds, other federal programs  provide funds that can be used to improve criminal history records. For  example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance provides funds to states  through Byrne grants, a block grant program that requires states to set  aside 5 percent of any award for criminal justice information systems to  assist law enforcement, prosecution, courts and corrections organizations.   In addition to criminal history record improvements, Byrne grants may be  used for a variety of other system-related activities that are not related to  NCHIP. Examples include activities involving systems to collect criminal  intelligence and systems to collect driving-under-the influence data.   According to Bureau of Justice Assistance data for fiscal years 2001  through 2003, almost $73 million in Byrne grants were set-aside to improve  criminal justice information systems.
Grants are also now available for antiterrorism purposes under the Crime  Identification Technology Act of 1998, as amended by the United  Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to  Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001.
Besides characterizing NCHIP as an umbrella program, BJS officials also  described it as being a “partnership” program—among BJS, the FBI, and  the states and localities—for building a national infrastructure to facilitate  the interstate exchange of information. The officials explained that such  exchanges or accessibility are needed to support a variety of both criminal  justice purposes (e.g., making decisions regarding pretrial release,  sentencing, etc.) and noncriminal justice purposes (e.g., conducting  background checks of firearms’ purchasers, child-care providers, etc.).  The BJS officials noted that NCHIP funds often are spread across a variety  of long-term initiatives undertaken by the states’ executive and judicial  branch agencies to upgrade the architecture and coverage of criminal  records information systems.

		Limited Progress for Some NICS-Related Purposes

For some NICS-related purposes, limited progress had been made in the  automation and accessibility of relevant records. For example, automated  information on the disposition of older felony and other potentially  disqualifying arreststhat is, information regarding whether the criminal  charges against the arrested individual were dropped or proceeded to be  prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or acquittalis critical for  conducting background checks of persons purchasing firearms but is not  always widely available. Also, automated information is not always  available to identify other prohibited purchasers, such as persons  convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, adjudicated as  mental defectives, or who are unlawful users of controlled substances.

			Information on Dispositions of Arrests Not Always Widely Available

In conducting background checks of firearms’ purchasers, automated  information on whether the criminal charges against arrested individuals  were dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction  or acquittal is not always widely available. For example, 23 of the 38 states  that responded to a question on final dispositions in BJS’s most recent  biennial survey reported that 75 percent or less of their arrest records had  final dispositions recorded (see table 3).
It is important to draw a distinction between old and new arrest records  with respect to disposition reporting. The BJS Director told us that, given  limited resources, the agency has always emphasized to the states the  importance of making certain that records of recent criminal activity are  updated and compatible with FBI standards. In this regard, the Director  explained that many states adopted a “day 1” approach in using NCHIP  funds to improve records—that is, improve new records first—and left a  number of old, inactive records archived in state repositories. The  Director noted that BJS research, with FBI assistance, has indicated that  older arrest records account for much of the “open arrest” problem. That  is, of the criminal history records for which missing disposition  information was never recorded, about one-half involve arrests that  occurred before 1984 and three-quarters pre-date NCHIP.
Nonetheless, while states have made progress in automating newer  disposition information—and automating disposition information  discovered when conducting research of older records—achieving  universal automation of disposition information continues to present  challenges, as table 3 indicates.
BJS has recognized that, whenever criminal history records show arrests  without final dispositions, there is the potential for delays in responding to  presale firearms inquiries because, in most instances, disqualifications  result from convictions rather than arrests. Since 1995, BJS has  encouraged states to contact court representatives and determine how  NCHIP funds can be used to improve disposition reporting. Further, since  2000, BJS has required that such contacts be documented in the states’  application packages for NCHIP funds. For example, in the Fiscal Year  2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS specified that “all  applications will be required to demonstrate that court needs have been  considered, and if no funds for upgrading court systems capable of  providing disposition data are requested, applicants should include a letter  from the State court administrator or Chief Justice indicating that the  courts have been consulted in connection with the application.”

			Automated Information Not Always Available to Identify Other Prohibited Purchasers

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, specifies four nonfelony or  noncriminal categories that prohibit an individual from owning or  purchasing a firearmthat is, persons who (1) have been convicted of a  misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, (2) are subject to certain  outstanding court protection orders, (3) have been adjudicated as mentally  defective, or (4) are unlawful users of controlled substances. Generally,  states have used NCHIP funds to provide information for only one of these  four categories—court protection orders. For fiscal years 2000 through  2003, states received a total of approximately $5.3 million in NCHIP funds  to develop systems for reporting information to the FBI to be included in  the NCIC Protection Order File as indicated in table 1. As of May 2003,  states had made more than 778,000 records of court protection orders  available to the national file.
However, the availability of information regarding domestic violence  misdemeanor convictions, mental health commitments, and controlled  substance abusers is problematic for various reasons. For example,  according to BJS, problems in identifying domestic violence misdemeanor  convictions are twofold—(1) misdemeanor data traditionally have not  been maintained at the state level in an automated format and   (2) misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender  relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged. That is,  domestic violence-related offenses can be difficult to distinguish from  misdemeanors broadly classified as assaults. Since fiscal year 1996, BJS  has encouraged states to use NCHIP funds to improve access to domestic  violence records. BJS has provided direction, for example, to the states to  set “flags” on the records of persons known to have a conviction for  domestic violence.
Records regarding mental health commitments are often not available  nationally for reasons beyond the control of NCHIP. For instance, state  mental health laws, privacy laws, or doctor-patient considerations may  preclude federal law enforcement officials from routinely accessing some  of these records. According to BJS, the area of mental health records and  their shareability is a very difficult area—and is an area in which BJS has  encouraged states to do more with NCHIP funds since fiscal year 1996.  The FBI’s strategy—which BJS encourages the states to use—has been to  create a Denied Persons File in the NICS Index where the reason for  denial is not given unless the denial is appealed.
In reference to substance abuse, BJS noted that federal law is very unclear  regarding who is a prohibited person, which makes it very difficult for  states to make records available to the FBI for NICS checks. Also, BJS  noted that states have no central registries of active drug users or addicts.  Given the complications of federal definitions, BJS emphasized that it  would be a very challenging undertaking to develop such registries and  keep them current.
Overall, as table 4 indicates, a national system for domestic violence  misdemeanor records is not available, only 10 states have provided mental  health records to the NICS Index, and only 3 states have provided  substance abuse records. According to BJS, most states have chosen to  use NCHIP awards to automate criminal history records overall and  improve criminal history record systems, rather than focus on improving  access to these four specific types of records. BJS recognizes that ensuring  the availability of additional nonfelony or noncriminal records involves  various considerations or challenges that extend beyond simply providing  more money to improve records. For example, as mentioned previously,  BJS noted that federal law is very unclear regarding who is a prohibited  person in reference to substance abuse.
BJS has recognized that the absence of widely accessible information on  domestic violence misdemeanors and noncriminal disqualifying factors is  among the most important issues affecting the accuracy and timeliness of  presale background checks of firearms purchasers. Thus, for several years,  BJS has been encouraging states to use NCHIP funds to make  improvements.  Recently, for example, in providing NCHIP guidance in the  Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS encouraged  states to develop systems that would make this information available  nationally.

		BJS Is Developing a Tool for Measuring NCHIP Performance

As mentioned previously, NCHIP’s goal is to improve public safety by  enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation’s  criminal history and sex offender record systems and the extent to which  such records can be used and analyzed for criminal justice and authorized  noncriminal justice purposes. To better measure progress toward this  goal, BJS is developing a tool—a criminal history records quality index  (RQI)—to uniformly characterize and monitor performance across  jurisdictions and over time. RQI is to be based on a series of key indicators  or outcome measures, such as the proportion of fully automated criminal  history records in a state’s repository, the proportion of court dispositions  transmitted electronically to the repository, and the extent to which the  state submits data electronically to the FBI. According to BJS, RQI will be  used to assess the progress of records quality at both the state and  national levels, identify critical records improvement activities by  pinpointing areas of deficiency and permit BJS to target specific problems  and deficiencies for allocating future funding at the individual state level.
After RQI is operationalized, BJS plans to begin using it for NCHIP funding  decisions. Initial RQI development—and pilot testing in 10 states—was  completed in 2003. As of January 2004, according to BJS, collection of the  underlying RQI measures data from the other   46 jurisdictions (40 states, the District of Columbia, the 5 U.S. territories)  was still ongoing. BJS hopes to receive RQI data submissions from all  jurisdictions by April 30, 2004.

	Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in Debating the Future of NCHIP

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when  debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and  shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems that cover all  needed types of information. While states have made progress, more work  remains. For NICS-related purposes, as discussed previously, automated  information is not always widely available on the disposition of felony and  other potentially disqualifying arrests, nor on other prohibited purchasers,  such as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.  Another relevant factor to consider is that the demand for background  checks is growing, with increases in recent years driven by screening  requirements for employment and other noncriminal justice purposes.  Furthermore, technology is not static, which necessitates periodic  upgrades or replacements of automated systems for them to remain  functional.

		Progress Has Been Made, but More Work Remains

As discussed previously, much progress has been made in automating  records in recent years. On the other hand, some areas reflect a continuing  need for improvements. For instance, the availability of and access to  arrest disposition informationnecessary for timely presale background  checks of persons purchasing firearms—continues to be problematic.  Such information is important for preventing or minimizing the sale of  firearms by “default proceed.” That is, by statute, if a background check is  not completed within 3 business days, the sale of the firearm is allowed to  proceed by default, sometimes to prohibited persons.
In 2000, we reported that default proceeds occurred primarily due to a  lack of arrest dispositions in states’ automated criminal history records  and that many of these transactions involved individuals—2,519  purchasers during a 10-month period—who were later determined by the  FBI to be prohibited persons. We further reported that firearms being  transferred to prohibited persons presented public safety risks and placed  resource demands on law enforcement agencies in retrieving the firearms.  More recently, according to the FBI, over one-third (1,203) of the total  3,259 firearms retrieved in 2002 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,  Firearms, and Explosives occurred because disposition information for  felony arrests could not be determined within 3 days.
Another one-third (1,052) of the total retrievals in 2002 involved  background checks whereby FBI examiners were unable to timely  determine from available records that misdemeanor assault convictions  involved domestic violence. A national system for domestic violence  misdemeanor records is not available (see table 4). To further support  NICS, table 4 also indicates that there is still much opportunity for  improving the availability of records regarding persons who have been  adjudicated as mentally defective and persons who are unlawful users of  controlled substances.
Additional examples (not exhaustive) of opportunities for further progress  in automating records and/or enhancing national systems include the  following:    5 states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont), the  District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa,  Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin  Islands) still do not participate in III;    7 states (Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, and  West Virginia), the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories  (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico)  have not contributed any data to the NCIC Protection Order File; and    6 states (Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Nevada Vermont, and  Wyoming) and 2 U.S. territories (Northern Mariana Islands and   Puerto Rico) have not submitted any files electronically to IAFIS.

		Demand on Systems Is Increasing, Especially for Noncriminal Justice Purposes

In debating the future of NCHIP, another relevant factor for policymakers  to consider is that the demand for background checks is growing, with  increases in recent years driven by screening requirements for  employment and other noncriminal justice purposes. Generally,  background checks for these “civil” purposes are based on fingerprint  submissions—in contrast to the “name-based” searches conducted under  NICS. The number of civil fingerprint submissions to the FBI has increased  substantially in recent years. As figure 2 shows, for 5 of the 7 years during  1996 to 2002, the number of civil fingerprint submissions exceeded the  number of criminal fingerprint submissions (i.e., fingerprints of criminal  suspects or arrestees). In the most recent year (2002), civil fingerprint  submissions totaled 9.1 million, whereas criminal fingerprint submissions  totaled 8.4 million.
The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to   1993 federal legislation that encouraged states to have procedures  requiring fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history records of  individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with organizations serving  children, the elderly, or the disabled. As of February 2004, according to  BJS, 47 states had enacted legislation authorizing these record checks.
Further, in 2003, federal legislation was enacted that establishes, in  general, a pilot program in 3 states to conduct fingerprint-based  background checks on individuals seeking volunteer positions involving  interactions with children. Within 6 months of the date of the 2003 Act’s  enactment, the Attorney General is to conduct a feasibility study to  determine, among other things, the number of background checks that  would be required if the pilot were implemented nationwide and the  impact these additional checks might have on the FBI and IAFIS. If this  pilot program is implemented nationally, BJS officials estimate that  millions of additional background checks would be required annually.
Homeland security concerns are another factor that has increased the  demand for fingerprint-based background checks. Since the events of  September 11, 2001, Congress passed legislation to protect the nation from  future terrorist attacks. These laws require that individuals employed in  sensitive positions undergo background checks to qualify for employment.  FBI and BJS officials expect the number of applicant background checks  to be in the millions, as homeland defense laws are fully implemented.  Examples of federal homeland defense legislation and the number of  checks anticipated follow:    USA PATRIOT Act of 2001—Requires background checks on  commercially licensed drivers who transport hazardous materials.  Officials from the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division  estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 individuals held commercial  licenses at the time the USA PATRIOT Act was passed. Under the act,  license renewals, in addition to new licensees, will need background  checks to qualify for commercial licenses.
Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001—Requires  background checks of those individuals in security screener positions  or other positions such as those with unescorted access to aircraft or  secured areas of an airport. New background checks are required for  those employees already hired at the time of the Aviation and  Transportation Security Act’s passage as well as for individuals seeking  employment. This act further requires background checks of foreigners  seeking enrollment in flight schools. The Transportation Security  Administration has requested over 105,365 background checks since  passage of the act in November 2001. In addition to these checks, FBI  officials estimated that flight school checks alone could result in up to  50,000 fingerprint checks annually.
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response  Act of 2002—Requires the Attorney General to conduct background  on persons possessing, using, or transferring various toxins and  biological agents. FBI officials estimated that this law could result in  30,000 checks annually.

		Technology Is Not Static

Another factor for consideration is that technology is not static and can  change rapidly, which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of  automated systems. For example, 1 case-study state used fiscal year   1995 NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for its major  metropolitan areas. According to state officials, this equipment is now  outdated and fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funds will be used to purchase new  equipment. According to state officials, the 1995 machines will be retained  for installation in other areas, such as the state’s less populous or more  rural counties.
Another relevant factor is how long-term funding needs will be met.  Replacing outdated equipment and automating records can be expensive.  States advocate that steady or long-term funding streams are important for  implementing technological advances. In this regard, states do not rely  entirely on NCHIP grants for system improvements. That is, states view  NCHIP funding as “seed” or supplemental money and contribute from  their own coffers to fund these upgrades. For instance, as noted  previously, officials in the case-study states told us that their states  typically have invested much more than the 10 percent matching funds  required by NCHIP.

	Conclusions

The overarching goal of NCHIP—building a national infrastructure to  facilitate the interstate exchange of criminal history and other relevant  records—is important for many purposes. Without such an infrastructure,  individuals who are, in fact, prohibited but whose records are inaccessible,  or do not reflect such a prohibition may be allowed to purchase firearms,  creating safety concerns not only for the general public, but also for the  law enforcement officials responsible for retrieving these firearms after  the prohibited status is ascertained. Further, inaccurate, incomplete, or  inaccessible records and systems do not help to prevent persons who have  been convicted of crimes to be hired in paid or volunteer positions with  organizations serving children, the elderly, or the disabled, putting these  populations at risk for abuse or worse. Also, accurate, complete, and  accessible records and systems are necessary to respond to the needs and  requirements of homeland security and to avert terrorism, particularly  with respect to individuals employed in sensitive positions.
Since its initiation in 1995, NCHIP has provided more than $438 million in  federal grants nationwide. Using their own funds, as well as NCHIP and  other federal grants, states have made much progress in automating their  records and making them accessible nationally by conforming with the  FBI’s standards for applicable national data systems—such as NICS, NCIC,  III, and IAFIS. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a  national infrastructure inherently will involve a partnering of federal, state,  and local resources and long-term commitments from all governmental  levels.

	Agency Comments

On January 28, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for comment to the  Department of Justice. In a response letter, dated February 13, 2004, the  Assistant Attorney General (Office of Justice Programs) commented that  the report fairly and accurately described NCHIP, its accomplishments,  and the continued need to promote state and local participation in national  criminal history records systems. Also, the Assistant Attorney General  commented that the following issues mentioned in the report should be  highlighted:
Given limited resources, it is important to draw the distinction  between old and new arrest records with respect to disposition  coverage. BJS has always emphasized to the states the importance of  making certain that records of recent criminal activity were updated  and compatible with FBI standards.    In many cases, state laws prohibit sharing mental health information  because of confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy laws. The  strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the states to  use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index  where the reason for denial of a firearm purchase is not given unless  the denial is appealed.
Most states do not fingerprint misdemeanants, and misdemeanor  assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender relationship (unless  domestic violence is specifically charged). BJS has given strong  direction to the states to set flags on the records of persons known to  have a conviction for domestic violence.
No state has a central registry of active drug users or addicts. It will   be challenging to develop such registries and to keep them current.  In perspective, the number of problematic firearms sales—that is,  default proceeds that result in a need to retrieve firearms from  prohibited purchasers—is very small compared to the 8 million to   9 million background checks conducted each year.
RQI, a metric developed by BJS, is a major step forward and may  provide a significant opportunity for evaluating performance over time  and establishing a basis for targeting future assistance to state and  local participants in federal funding programs.
The full text of the Assistant Attorney General’s letter is presented in  appendix V.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents   of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the  date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to  interested congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also  make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss  the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny Burton at  (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

	Objectives

As requested by the Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, our  overall objective was to broadly review the National Criminal History  Improvement Program (NCHIP). Managed by the Department of Justice’s  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NCHIP is a federal grant program to  build a national infrastructure to facilitate the interstate exchange of  criminal history and other relevant records—that is, to improve the  accuracy, completeness, and accessibility of records used by various  national systems. One of the primary systems is the National Instant  Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used to conduct presale  background checks of persons purchasing firearms. As agreed with the  requester’s office, this report presents information on    how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to  which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;  the progressusing NCHIP grants and other funding sourcesthat  states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant  records and making them accessible nationally; and  the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in  debating the future of NCHIP.
Regarding the use of NCHIP grant funds, as further agreed with the  requester’s office, this report also presents information on (1) the use of  such funds by the priority states  and their progress in automating records  and (2) whether any of the 50 states have used NCHIP funds to develop or  implement a ballistics registration systemthat is, a system that stores  digital images of the markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when  firearms are discharged.

	Scope and Methodology

In addressing the objectives, to the extent possible, we focused on  obtaining national or programwide perspectives. For example, we  reviewed BJS’s biennial national survey data or reports on the automation  status of all states’ criminal history records. Further, we interviewed  NCHIP managers at BJS and NICS managers at the FBI’s Criminal Justice  Information Services Division (Clarksburg, W. Va.). Also, we reviewed BJS  program documentation that describes allowable NCHIP spending  activities. In addition, given that NCHIP consolidates criminal records  improvement funding authorized by various federal laws, we reviewed  these laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and  related legislative histories.
Also, to provide supplemental or more in-depth perspectives, we  conducted case studies of 5 recipient states (California, Maryland,  Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia). We selected these states to reflect a  range of various factors or considerations—the amounts of grant funding  received, status of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as  to encompass different geographic areas of the nation (see table 5).

		How States Have Used NCHIP Grant Funds, Including NICS-Related Purposes

To obtain an overview of how all jurisdictions (the 50 states, District of  Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories) have used NCHIP grant funds, we  requested that BJS provide us information on total awards for each of the  4 most recent fiscal years (2000 through 2003)—with the amounts  disaggregated into applicable spending categories. Generally, NCHIP  spending can be grouped into six spending categories: (1) NICS/Interstate  Identification Index (III)/criminal records improvements, (2) disposition  reporting improvements, (3) Automated Fingerprint Identification System  (AFIS)/Livescan activities, (4) sex offender registry enhancements,   (5) protection order activities, and (6) national security/antiterrorism  activities. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than   one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was the most  descriptive of the activity.
We reviewed BJS documentation and interviewed BJS officials to  determine which of these spending categories involved NICS-related  purposes. In addition, we analyzed the spending category information in  reference to the 50 states’ participation status in NICS (full participant,  partial participant, or nonparticipant) to determine any general differences  in the types of NCHIP-funded projects undertaken. Similarly, we analyzed  the spending category information to determine how the 5 priority states  had used NCHIP grant funds (see app. IV).
For more in-depth perspectives, we reviewed data on the use of NCHIP  grant funds by the 5 states we selected for case studies. Preliminarily, we  reviewed information in grant files maintained by the Office of the  Comptroller (a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice  Programs). Then, we visited each of the 5 states and interviewed state  officials responsible for NCHIP-funded projects. At our request, using  definitions provided by BJS, the officials grouped their respective state’s  grant awards into applicable spending categories (see app. III). For some  NCHIP-funded activities, officials in the case-study states indicated that  expenditures could be included in more than one category. In these cases,  based on input from state officials, we selected the category that was most  descriptive of the activity. For each of the case-study states, these  spending category analyses covered NCHIP grant awards for fiscal year  1995 (when the program was initiated) through fiscal year 2002 (the most  current data available at the time of our visits).
Regarding ballistics registration systems, we interviewed NCHIP managers  to determine if NCHIP guidelines allow NCHIP funds to be used to develop  and implement such systems and, if so, the extent to which states have  used or are planning to use NCHIP funds for this purpose. In addition, in  visiting the 5 case-study states, we asked state officials if NCHIP money  had been or would be used to develop and implement ballistics  registration systems.

		States’ Progress in Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally

We reviewed BJS’s biennial survey data and/or reports (for 1993, 1995,  1997, 1999, and 2001) on the automation status of states’ criminal history  records. We contacted BJS managers to clarify (when necessary) the  survey data and discuss automation progress, including the contributing  roles played by NCHIP and other federal grants and by the states’ use of  their own funds. Further, we reviewed BJS and FBI information regarding  the progress of states in making criminal history and other relevant  records accessible nationally by, for example, conforming with the FBI’s  standards for national data systems—including, as applicable, NICS, the  National Crime Information Center (NCIC), III, and the Integrated  Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Also, in each of the   5 case-study states, we discussed these issues with state officials.

		Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in Debating the Future of NCHIP

To determine various factors that are relevant considerations for  policymakers in debating the future of NCHIP, we interviewed NCHIP and  NICS managers, as well as officials in the 5 case-study states. We also  contacted officials from other organizations, such as SEARCH (The  National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics) and the  American Prosecutors Research Institute. Further, we relied on insights  gained in addressing the objectives of this work.

	Data Reliability

To assess the reliability of BJS’s data (by spending category) on NCHIP  funds awarded to all jurisdictions for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 (see  table 1) and to the 5 case-study states for fiscal years 1995 through   2002 (see tables 6 through 11), we  reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources,    electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with  completeness or accuracy, and  interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data.
We determined that the NCHIP funds data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To assess the reliability of data reported by BJS based on its biennial  surveys of state criminal history information systems for 1993, 1995, 1997,  1999, and 2001, we (1) reviewed the published survey results and   (2) interviewed officials knowledgeable about the surveys. We determined  that the biennial survey data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report.

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems

BJS strives to create national criminal history records systems that contain  accurate, complete, and accessible information. To accomplish this, since  1995, BJS has awarded approximately $438 million in NCHIP grants to  states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to help these  jurisdictions improve their records and establish automated capabilities  that enhance participation in national criminal history records systems.
Each state operates a central criminal history records repository that  receives information regarding individuals’ criminal histories from a  number of sources throughout the state, including state and local law  enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies. For  each individual, the repository compiles the information from these  sources into a comprehensive criminal history record for that person.  These records are commonly referred to as “rap sheets.” By means of  statewide telecommunications systems, the repositories make these  records available to criminal justice personnel for authorized purposes,  such as pretrial release and sentencing decisions. The repositories also  provide criminal history records for authorized noncriminal justice  purposes. For example, with increasing frequency, state and federal laws  are requiring local law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal history  background checks on persons seeking employment in sensitive positions  (such as child and elder care) and for occupational license authorizations.
The FBI has historically maintained criminal history record files on all  federal offenders and on state offenders to the extent that states  voluntarily submit state criminal history information. The FBI also  maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that enables federal,  state, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct national record  searches and to obtain criminal justice related-information, for example,  about individuals who are arrested and prosecuted in other states.  Criminal record services are also provided to noncriminal justice agencies  authorized by federal law to obtain such records.
The practice of maintaining duplicative state offender records at both the  state and federal levels is being replaced by efforts to build an automated  infrastructure that will make all criminal history records accessible  nationally. To fully participate in the national systems that are to comprise  this infrastructure, a jurisdiction must have an automated criminal history  record system that meets FBI standards for participation. For example, the  state’s automated system must be compatible with the federal systems and  be capable of responding automatically to requests for records. The  principal national, federal systems are discussed in the following  paragraphs.
Prior to 1967, the FBI’s criminal history records were manual files. In   1967, the FBI established NCIC, an automated, nationally accessible  database of criminal justice and justice-related records. NCIC provides  automated information on wanted and missing persons, as well as  identifiable stolen property, such as vehicles and firearms. Each state has  a central control terminal operator, who is connected to NCIC through a  dedicated telecommunications line maintained by the FBI. Authorized  local agencies use their state’s law enforcement telecommunications  network to access NCIC through the respective operator. An investigator  can obtain information on wanted and missing persons and stolen  property by requesting a search by name or other nonfingerprint-based  identification. Information provided can include graphics, such as mug  shots, pictures of tattoos, and signatures in a paperless, electronic format.  Using this system, an investigator can also perform searches for “sound  alike” names, such as “Knowles” for “Nowles.” The system has an  enhanced feature for searching all derivatives of names, such as Jeff,  Geoff, Jeffrey. NCIC includes the National Sex Offender Registry and a  Protection Order File (discussed later). NCIC data may be provided only  for criminal justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For  example, authorized purposes include presale firearms checks, as well as  checks on potential employees of criminal justice agencies, federally  chartered or insured banks or securities firms, and state and local  governments.
Maintained by the FBI, the III system is an interstate, federal-state  computer network, which currently provides the means of conducting  national criminal history record searches to determine whether a person  has a criminal record anywhere in the country. This system is designed to  tie the automated criminal history records databases of state central  repositories and the FBI together into a national system by means of an  “index-pointer” approach. The FBI maintains an identification index of  persons arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors under state or  federal law. The index includes identification information (such as name,  date of birth, race, and sex), FBI numbers, and state identification  numbers from each state holding information about the individual.  Criminal justice agencies nationwide can transmit search inquiries based  on name or other identifiers automatically through state law enforcement  telecommunications networks and the FBI’s NCIC telecommunications  lines. According to the FBI, the III system responds to search inquiries  within seconds. If the search results in a “hit,” the system automatically  requests records using the applicable FBI and state identification numbers,  and each repository holding information on the individual forwards its  records to the requesting agency. The FBI provides responses for states  that are not yet participants in III.
Under Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requirements, the FBI  established NICS to provide instant background checks of individuals  applying to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers. Federal law  prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by any person who   (1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding   1 year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of controlled  substances, (4) has been adjudicated as mental defective, (5) is an illegal  or unlawful alien, (6) has been discharged dishonorably from the armed  forces, (7) has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, (8) has been  convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or (9) is subject  to certain domestic violence protection orders.
The three primary, component databases searched by NICS are III, NCIC  (including the Protection Order File and a file of active felony or  misdemeanor warrants), and the NICS Index. This third database was  created solely for presale background checks of firearms purchasers and  contains disqualifying information contributed by local, state, and federal  agencies. For example, the database contains information on individuals  who are prohibited from purchasing firearms because they are aliens  unlawfully in the United States, are persons who have renounced their  U.S. citizenship, have been adjudicated as mental defectives, have been  committed to a mental institution, have been dishonorably discharged  from the armed forces, or are unlawful users of or addicted to controlled  substances.

	National Sex Offender Registry

The FBI established the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) to enable  state sex offender information to be obtained and tracked from one  jurisdiction to another. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against  Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the Jacob  Wetterling Act) required that states create sex offender registries within   3 years or lose some of their federal grant funds. The law further provided  that—when any offender convicted of committing a criminal sexual act  against a minor or committing any sexually violent offense—is released  from custody or supervision into the community, he or she must register  with law enforcement agencies for a period of 10 years. The act was  amended in 1996 to require the FBI to establish a NSOR and to register  and verify addresses of sex offenders when a state’s registry does not meet  the minimum compliance standards required by the Jacob Wetterling Act.  According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, all 50 states currently  have sex offender registration laws, and all states require a registration  period of at least 10 years, with some states requiring lifetime registration.  State registry information typically includes the offender’s name, address,  Social Security number, date of birth, physical description, photograph,  and fingerprints. NSOR is a component of NCIC that serves as a pointer  system to identify a sex offender’s records in the III system. When  agencies request authorized fingerprint-based criminal history background  checks, NSOR will flag the subjects who are registered sex offenders.

	NCIC Protection Order File

The FBI established the Protection Order File in 1997 to provide a  repository for protection order records. The purpose of this NCIC  component is to permit interstate enforcement of protection orders and  the denial of firearms transfers to individuals who are the subjects of court  protection orders. Such orders include civil and criminal court orders  issued to prevent a person from committing violent, threatening, or  harassing acts against another individual. A protection order can preclude  the person from contacting, communicating with, and being in physical  proximity to a named individual. State and federal law enforcement  agencies can submit protection orders to the NCIC Protection Order File.
In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS, a computerized system for storing,  comparing, and exchanging digitized fingerprint data. Most fingerprint  data submitted to IAFIS originate when a local or state law enforcement  agency arrests a suspect. At that time, the agency takes the suspect’s  fingerprints manually (using ink and paper fingerprint cards) or  electronically (using optical scanning equipment). The agency forwards a  copy of the fingerprints—along with nonbiometric data such as name and  age—through its state repository to the FBI. Electronic submissions are  automatically entered into IAFIS, and paper submissions sent through the  mail are scanned into an electronic format for entry. When a set of  fingerprints is submitted, IAFIS searches for a prior entry in the system  that matches the suspect’s nonbiometric personal identifying data. If a  prior entry is not found, the system compares the submitted fingerprints  with those previously stored in the computer’s memory to determine if the  suspect has an entry under another name. This information can be used  for a number of purposes, including positively identifying arrestees to  prevent the premature release of suspects who use false names and are  wanted in other jurisdictions. To support crime scene investigations, the  system can also compare a full or partial fingerprint from a crime scene  with the prints stored in the database to identify a suspect.

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case- Study States

This appendix presents information about the use of NCHIP funds by   5 case-study statesCalifornia, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and   West Virginia—for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. As mentioned  previously, we selected these states to reflect a range of factors or  considerations—that is, the amounts of grant funding received, status   of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as to encompass  different geographic areas of the nation (see app. I).
NCHIP funding amounts can be grouped into six categories of spending  established by BJS to track the use of program funds. These six categories  are (1) NICS/III/criminal records improvements, (2) disposition reporting  improvements, (3) AFIS/Livescan activities, (4) sex offender registry  enhancements, (5) protection order activities, and (6) national  security/antiterrorism activities.

	Overview of 5 States’ Use of NCHIP Funds

Table 6 shows that since the inception of NCHIP in 1995, 4 of the 5 case- study states have devoted the majority of their grant awards for the first  two BJS spending categories—NICS/III/criminal records improvements  and disposition reporting improvements. Expenditures in the first category  include overall system upgrades, equipment purchases, database  development, and other activities required to bring states in compliance  with FBI standards so that the states may participate in national systems  maintained by the FBI. Expenditures in the second category include  efforts to automate disposition records and provide linkages for reporting  these records to the state’s central records repository. Maryland, the only  case-study state that did not devote the majority of its funds to the first  two categories, still allocated nearly half (48 percent) of its total grant  awards for these two areas. Maryland devoted a large amount (40 percent)  of its NCHIP funding to AFIS/Livescan activities, as did Texas   (45 percent).
For all 5 case-study states, the NCHIP funding detailed in table 6  represented “seed” or “catalyst” money and, therefore, accounted for only  a portion of the total criminal records improvement spending. For  example, according to California officials, state resources accounted for  85 percent of records improvement funding in California during fiscal year  2002-03. The remaining 15 percent consisted of NCHIP grants (6 percent)  and other federal sources (approximately 9 percent). Three of the other   4 states provided data indicating that NCHIP grants accounted for less  than a majority of the criminal records improvement funding in the  respective state.
More details on each case-study state’s use of NCHIP funds are presented  in the following sections.

	California

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded California a total of  $29.9 million in NCHIP fundsthe most of any state. As shown in table 7,  California allocated approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of its NCHIP  awards for NICS/III/criminal records improvements. For example, the  state devoted over $4.9 million of program funds to projects for converting  manual fingerprint and palm print cards to an electronic format and  matching records maintained by the FBI’s III system to those maintained  by the state repository. According to California officials, these efforts will  improve overall criminal record keeping and benefit NICS by improving  the state’s response to queries on prospective gun purchasers.
Officials also said that the state has used NCHIP funds to improve the  reporting of case dispositions to the state’s central repository. For  example, officials have used program funds to improve disposition  reporting in the 28 counties that represent 70 percent of the disposition  volume for the entire state. As a result, these 28 counties report   100 percent of their dispositions to the state central repository via a  magnetic tape batch process occurring three times a week. In addition,  California officials are conducting an NCHIP-funded pilot project in one  county to test the feasibility of moving to a real-time updating system for  disposition reporting rather than the current batching approach.

	Maryland

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Maryland $6.8 million  in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 8, Maryland allocated the largest  percentage (40 percent or $2.7 million) of its NCHIP awards for  AFIS/Livescan activities. This category, together with NICS/III/criminal  records improvement, accounted for over three-fourths (76 percent) of the  state’s use of NCHIP funds. Regarding the first category in table 8,  Maryland devoted a sizeable portion of its NCHIP award ($1.2 million) to  make the state’s automated systems compatible with the FBI’s NCIC  database, which was updated and expanded in 2000. In addition, Maryland  is using nearly $200,000 of program funds to convert over 700,000  historical arrest records (older than October 1998) to a format compatible  with the FBI’s III system. This effort will make older records accessible to  the FBI, which will improve NICS background checks. In the category of  disposition reporting, Maryland has also implemented a $360,000 NCHIP  project to automate reporting from the courts (including case  dispositions) to the central records repository on a daily basis. Maryland  currently reports dispositions from courts to the state’s central records  repository through weekly magnetic tape updates.
For purposes of NICS, Maryland is a partial participant state. That is, a  designated state agency (Maryland State Police) conducts background  checks for handgun purchases, whereas the FBI conducts such checks for  long gun purchases. For both types of firearms purchases (handguns and  long guns), another state agency (Maryland State Archives) provides  support (researching the disposition results of arrests) for criminal history  records generated before 1982. In fiscal year 2002, the Maryland State  Archives received $41,000 in NCHIP funds to conduct disposition research  for NICS queries from the FBI. Earlier, due to a lack of state funding, this  state agency had discontinued such research for a period of approximately  3-1/2 months (March 18 to July 2, 2002). According to Maryland and BJS  officials, the $41,000 award in 2002 was the first distribution of NCHIP  funds to the Maryland State Archives since the inception of the grant  program.

	Mississippi

As shown in table 9, for fiscal years 1995 through 2002, Mississippi  allocated approximately three-fourths (76 percent) of its NCHIP funds for  projects in the category of NICS/III/criminal records improvements.  NCHIP projects in this category centered on creation of and support for  the state’s computerized criminal history database.
According to state officials, prior to the rollout of the state’s new  automated criminal history database in March 1998, Mississippi was  without any type of arrest record automation. After the rollout, Mississippi  was one of fewer than 10 states with an automated system whereby every  arrest record was automatically associated with a fingerprint record and  made available to authorized inquirers across the state and the nation.  Mississippi officials told us that, without NCHIP, this advance in records  automation would not have been possible.
On the other hand, in responding to BJS’s latest biennial survey (2001),  Mississippi reported that 3 percent of its automated criminal records  included final dispositionsthe lowest among the responding case-study  states. However, as indicated in table 9, Mississippi is using NCHIP funds  for various projects to improve disposition reporting.

	Texas

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Texas $19.5 million in  NCHIP fundsthe third highest total among all states, behind only  California and New York. As shown in table 10, Texas allocated about half  (52 percent) of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal records  improvements. A significant project in this category is an ongoing upgrade  of the state’s computerized criminal history system. According to state  officials, this upgrade will “rewrite” the system to meet new demands and  expectations. For example, the rewrite will allow Texas to “flag” domestic  violence misdemeanors (a category for prohibiting firearms sales under  NICS) at the arrest, prosecution, and court levels.
During this period, Texas also allocated 45 percent of its NICHIP funds for  AFIS/Livescan activitiesthe highest percentage for this category among  the 5 case-study states. To implement electronic reporting of arrest data,  Texas used NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for placement in  4 major cities and 27 of the state’s 254 counties. According to Texas  officials, these cities and counties account for a majority of the state’s  total arrests.
Also, as shown in table 10, Texas allocated 2 percent of its NCHIP awards  for disposition reporting improvementsthe lowest among the 5 case- study states. However, according to Texas officials, criminal case  disposition reporting is recognized as an area in need of improvement and  will be addressed by future projects funded by NCHIP.  Also, as an  example of recent progress in Texas, BJS noted that NCHIP funds were  used to automate approximately 52,600 court disposition records from  Harris County—which includes Houston, the most populous city in  Texas—for inclusion in the state’s central repository.

	West Virginia

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded West Virginia  approximately $4.7 million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 11,   West Virginia allocated half of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal  records improvements. Also, the state allocated 35 percent for disposition  reporting improvementsthe highest percentage for this category among  the 5 case-study states. The purpose of the ongoing projects in this  category is to automate the reporting of court data (including case  dispositions) to the state’s central records repository.
According to its 2003 NCHIP grant application, West Virginia was the last  state to implement an AFIS. NCHIP funding assisted the state to  implement its system by financing a study to determine AFIS requirements  and costs. West Virginia officials noted that plans call for placing Livescan  equipment in each of the state’s nine regional jails, which are to be  booking sites for all persons entering the state’s criminal justice system.

Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems

This appendix provides information on the 5 states that BJS identified as  having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation in   1994. Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia were  designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an additional  $1 million in funding during NCHIP’s first year. NCHIP was tasked with  implementing statutory grant provisions that required the states with the  lowest levels of criminal history record automation receive priority funds  from the program to give them some extra help in automating their  records. This additional funding for priority states applied to only the first  year of NCHIP grant awards.
Also, this appendix provides information about whether any of the   50 states have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics  registration system—that is, a system that stores digital images of the  markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are  discharged.

	Priority States’ Use of NCHIP Grant Funds

For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, table 12 shows that the priority states  allocated 70 percent of their NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal records  improvements and disposition reporting improvements. The remaining   30 percent of the priority states’ NCHIP award amounts was allocated for  AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and  protection order activities. None of the priority states allocated NCHIP  award amounts for national security/antiterrorism activities.

	Priority States’ Progress in Automating Records

The priority states have made progress in automating their criminal history  records. Prior to NCHIP, these states had approximately 1.4 million  records in manual formats and very few automated records. By 2003, BJS  estimated that these 5 states had over 1 million automated records.
More specifically, as shown in table 13, biennial surveys of state criminal  history record repositories also indicate the priority states have made  progress in automating their records. For example, New Mexico and  Mississippi progressed from little or no automation in 1993 to 100 percent  automation in 2001. The other priority states also have made progress in  automating their records but have not yet achieved full automation.
According to Mississippi officials, NCHIP played a critical role in the  state’s successes in automating and sharing criminal history information.  The officials noted, for instance, that receiving the “priority” designation  and the accompanying additional funds enabled Mississippi to begin  automating its criminal history records and take advantage of the latest  technology developments. Similarly, a West Virginia official commented  that the additional priority funding helped the state establish and begin  implementing an automated fingerprint identification system, the  backbone of West Virginia’s entire records improvement and automation  project.
Another indicator of progress is participation in III, the system used for a  number of law enforcement-related purposes, including background  checks of persons purchasing firearms. As of May 2003, 3 of the 5 priority  states participated in III, with New Mexico joining the program in 1997 and  Mississippi and West Virginia joining in 1998. At the time of our review,  Maine and Vermont were not participating in III. According to BJS, Maine’s  participation may not occur until some time in 2004 because the state is in  the process of undertaking a major revision of its entire criminal justice  information technology infrastructure. Vermont officials reported to BJS  that the state is currently using NCHIP funds to install a new system that is  fundamental to III participation and that the state will be III-compliant by  January 2004. States must ensure that their computerized criminal history  records systems meet specific FBI criteria and that these systems are  compatible with the FBI’s national data systems before the FBI will allow  states to provide records nationally through III.
The 5 priority states have also increased their participation in other  national systems. According to BJS officials, all 5 states participate in the  National Sex Offender Registry, 4 of the 5 states have provided some  portion of their criminal fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, and 3 states  have submitted protection order records to the NCIC Protection Order  File.

	No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, According to BJS

BJS officials said that no NCHIP funds have been used to develop or  implement a ballistics registration system—a system typically used as an  investigative tool to compare crime scene evidence to the stored images.  Also, according to BJS officials, NCHIP funds are to improve the  availability of information on the “person,” rather than to improve  investigative tools. BJS does not plan to expand the scope of NCHIP  funding to include investigative tools because improvements are still  needed in the ability to identify prohibited purchasers of firearms, such as  individuals with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. Of the   5 case-study states we visited, only 1 (Maryland) had developed a ballistics  registration system. According to BJS and state officials, federal funding  was not used to develop or implement this system.

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contacts

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the above, Grace Coleman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael H.  Harmond, Kevin L. Jackson, Jan B. Montgomery, Jerome T. Sandau, Linda  Kay Willard, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

Public safety concerns require that criminal history records be accurate, complete, and accessible. Among other purposes, such records are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that prohibited persons do not purchase firearms. Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under the program, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually provides federal grants to states to improve the quality of records and their accessibility through NICS and other national systems maintained by the FBI. GAO examined (1) how states have used program grant funds, particularly the extent to which such funds have been used for NICS-related purposes; (2) the progress--using program grants and other funding sources--that states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and making them accessible nationally; and (3) the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in debating the future of the program.

What GAO Found

States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting presale background checks of firearms' purchasers. BJS data show that over 75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes. These uses encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All other uses of program grants, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records. Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal grants, states have made progress in automating criminal history records and making them accessible nationally. The percentage of the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to BJS's most recent data. Also, the number of states participating in the Interstate Identification Index--a "pointer system" to locate criminal history records anywhere in the country--increased from 26 at year-end 1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. A national system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as of May 2003, only 10 states had made mental health records available to NICS, and only 3 states had provided substance abuse records. One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when debating the future of the program is the extent of cumulative progress (and shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While states have made progress, more work remains. Also, the demand for background checks is growing, and technology is not static, which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve long-term commitments from all governmental levels. Justice commented that GAO's report fairly and accurately described the program and its accomplishments.