This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center 

for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS).

Document Title: State Progress in Record Reporting 

for Firearm-Related Background 

Checks: Fingerprint Processing 

Advances Improve Background 

Checks

Author(s): Owen Greenspan; Richard Schauffler

Document No.: 250275

Publication Date: September 2016 

Award No.: 2009-NS-BX-K050

This resource is the latest in a series of BJS grant-funded 

reports on firearm-related background checks. This report 

details the importance of fingerprint-supported criminal history 

records for background check purposes, including: challenges 

States face in reporting; strategies that have been implemented 

to overcome those challenges; and progress States are making 

in improving the timeliness and accuracy of firearm-related 

background checks.

Opinions or points of view expressed in 

this report are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department 

of Justice.
1 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

by Owen Greenspan, SEARCH and Richard Schauffler, National Center for State Courts 

State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks:

September, 2016

1 Fact Sheet: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer, 

January 5, 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-newexecutive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Introduction

Technology advances in criminal record exchange systems 

and fingerprint processing continue to produce significant 

improvements in the quality and availability of information 

critical to making sound firearm-related background check 

decisions. The volume and speed with which fingerprints 

are transmitted from booking stations in local agencies to 

a state criminal records repository enables rapid updating 

and availability of criminal record information. The National 

Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) check 

utilizes records from several Federal databases and of these 

the Interstate Identification Index (III) houses fingerprintbased records. Improving fingerprint reporting, storage, 

and processing increases the timeliness and accuracy 

of background checks for the purpose of determining 

eligibility for firearms ownership. In 2015, the III was able 

to effectively and reliably respond to more than 22.2 million 

firearm-related search requests, an average of more than 

63,000 per day.1

Number of Records in State Criminal History Repositories, 1995 and 2014

Total Records

0 30 60 90 120

Automated Records

2014

in Millions

95% were automated

1995

85% were automated

Increasing the availability of automated 

criminal history records is one way 

to improve the speed and accuracy 

of background checks. In 1995, 

there were over 49 million criminal 

history records in state criminal 

history repositories, of which 86% 

were automated. By the end of 2014, 

those numbers had risen to almost 

106 million with a 95% automation 

rate. The chart shows the percent of 

automated records for those two years.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
2 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Typically, more than 91% of NICS checks are cleared 

immediately while the balance is delayed up to 72 hours for 

clarification of information surfaced during the background 

check process.

Background

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence 

Prevention Act (Brady Act) that, among other things, 

created the National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS). The NICS is the national system that 

enables Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to initiate a 

background check through the FBI or a State Point of 

Contact (POC).2 The FBI or POC will check all available 

records to identify persons who may be prohibited from 

receiving or possessing firearms. The records may be 

included in the following databases.

• National Crime Information Center (NCIC) –

An electronic database consisting of 21 files, 10 of

which are queried for a NICS-related background

check. These files help criminal justice professionals

apprehend fugitives from justice, locate missing

persons, recover stolen property, identify terrorists,

and verify persons subject to domestic violence

protection orders.

• Interstate Identification Index (III) – Administered

by the FBI, and participated in by all states, the III is

a fingerprint-supported automated criminal records

exchange system that includes arrest and disposition

information for individuals charged with felonies or

misdemeanors. Information that may be available via

III includes persons who are fugitives from justice, 

persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or 

adjudicated to be incompetent to stand trial, persons 

found guilty of misdemeanor crimes of domestic 

violence, and persons under indictment.

• NICS Index – A database, separate from NCIC and III,

created specifically for the purpose of conducting a

background check for a firearms-related purpose.

The NICS Index contains information contributed by

local, state, tribal, and federal agencies pertaining

to persons prohibited from receiving or possessing a

firearm pursuant to state and/or federal law. While

any disqualifying record may be entered into the

NICS Index, it is not intended to duplicate information

entered in NCIC or III. Instead, the database was

designed to house disqualifying information not

otherwise available at the national level.

• Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Relevant databases of

the ICE are routinely queried by the FBI NICS section,

and can be queried by POC states, for non-U.S. citizens

attempting to receive firearms in the United States.

States acting as a POC also search additional databases 

containing large volumes of state and local court and 

law enforcement records. Such records may render 

prospective gun purchasers disqualified under federal 

and/or state laws.

2 In states where the state government has agreed to serve as the POC for the system, the FFLs 

contact the NICS through the state POC for all firearm transfers. The state POC conducts the 

NICS check and determines whether or not the transfer would violate state or federal law. 

www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
3 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

NICS Participation Map

American Samoa

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

Other U.S. Territories

WA

AZ

TX

KS

UT

NV

CA

ID

MT ND

NE

IA

AR

MS AL

LA

GA

MI

WY

WV

NC

SC

AK

HI

KY

OR

NM

OK

CO

SD

MN

MO

FL

WI

IL IN

OH

NJ

NY

CT RI

MA

NH

ME

PA

VA

DE

DC

MD

VT

TN

26

13 

4 

3 

36

At Least One ATF-Qualified Alternate Permit — The permits are issued by local or state agencies. 

Full POC State — Contact state/territory for all firearm background checks including permits

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun and FBI for long gun background checks

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun permit and FBI for long gun background checks

Non-POC — Contact FBI for all firearm background checks

Please refer to the latest Permanent Brady Permit Chart for specific permit details at 

www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-permit-chart

Point of Contact (POC)

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
4 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Prohibiting Record Type Federal Database(s)

Felony/Serious Misdemeanor 

Convictions

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III.

Fugitives from Justice NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in NCIC.

Unlawful Drug Use lll: Arrests and convictions for drug 

offenses should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Information such as 

admission of use and failed drug tests 

should be placed here.

Mental Health III: Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be incompetent 

to stand trial should most appropriately 

be placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Involuntary commitments 

to mental institutions for the purpose 

of treatment should be placed here as 

they would be otherwise unavailable for 

firearms background check searches. 

Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be mentally 

defective should most appropriately 

be placed here if they are otherwise 

unavailable through III.

Subjects of Domestic Violence 

Protection Orders 

NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if qualified for, but not available in, 

NCIC or if not qualified for NCIC, 

but still prohibited by state law.

Misdemeanor Crimes of 

Domestic Violence Convictions

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here if not 

available in III or, if conviction is available 

in III, should also be placed here if 

qualifying relationship and/or force 

element is not available in III.

Indictments lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III.

Dishonorable Discharges III: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes.

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III.

Illegal or Unlawful Aliens NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches.

Renounced United States 

Citizenship

NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches.

Where are NICS Prohibiting Records Reported? 

The following lists the firearm purchase-prohibiting categories identified in the Brady Act and shows the federal database 

in which those records are appropriately stored.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
5 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

NICS Background Checks and Criminal History Records

A national background check of a prospective firearms 

purchaser is based on the submission of the purchaser’s 

name, sex, race and date of birth to the NICS. As a part of 

the screening process, a search for disqualifying information 

is always made against III, NCIC, and the NICS Index. Of 

the three databases, only III is supported by fingerprints, 

taken at the time of arrest, conviction, or incarceration. 

Similar to inquiries made by NICS personnel, firearmsrelated background checks at the state level may also be 

name based; however, in many �nstances the applicant for 

a license or Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit will be 

fingerprinted and those fingerprints searched against state 

and federal criminal record databases.

The criminal history record3, often called a Rap Sheet, 

chronicles criminal justice events linked to a biometric 

identifier.4 This unique identifier, most commonly fingerprints, 

serves to positively associate an individual with arrests, 

prosecutions, judicial actions and other criminal justice events. 

States, territories, and the District of Columbia all have a 

central records repository which maintains fingerprint files, 

associated with criminal record information, on state offenders. 

It provides rap sheet information to in-state users for 

criminal justice and other authorized purposes. In many 

instances the state central repository also responds to 

requests from the FBI in connection with firearm-related 

background checks or requests sent on behalf of others.

3 The term “criminal history record information” is defined by Federal regulations to mean “information collected by criminal justice agencies on individuals 

consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, information or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition 

arising therefrom, including acquittal, sentencing, correctional supervision, and release.” 28 CFR 20. www.it.ojp.gov/documents/28CFR_Part_20.PDF

4 Defined as the measurement and analysis of unique physical or behavioral characteristics 

(as fingerprint or voice patterns) especially as a means of verifying personal identity. 

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biometrics

FBI NICS Background Check Process

FBI NICS Check 

An FFL requests a NICS check from the FBI. 

The FBI NICS Section searches the following federal databases 

for NICS prohibiting records: III, NCIC, NICS Index, ICE.

Additional Research Needed

Possible prohibiting records found; 

immediate decision cannot be made.

Immediate Proceed 

No prohibiting 

records found.

Proceed Deny 

Can be appealed 

and, if overturned 

within 30 days, 

transfer can 

proceed.

Delay 

Additional review 

required, but 

"transfer date" 

provided. 

If no response 

in 3 business 

days, federal law 

does not prohibit 

firearm transfer. 

Transfer can be 

further delayed for 

continued research.

Cancel 

Insufficient 

information 

provided.

Source: www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/nics-process-for-ffls

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
6 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Between 1995 and 2014, the number of individual offenders 

in state files grew by 112 percent while the number of 

person records available through the FBI administered 

III grew 473 percent.5,6

Offenders in State Criminal History Files and III (in Millions)

Automating Fingerprint Identification 

and Criminal Record Information

Early automation of fingerprint identification focused on 

names, biographic, and fingerprint classification information 

found on booking documents. Law enforcement agencies 

bought computers to record and sort arrest and fingerprint 

data, producing what became known as the Computerized 

Criminal History file, or CCH. On the federal level, the FBI 

introduced NCIC in 1967 with the goal of assisting law 

enforcement in apprehending fugitives and locating stolen 

property. When the III came on-line in 1983, with 14 states 

participating7, access to criminal record searching by law 

enforcement across the country was through NCIC.8

Fingerprinting and the Criminal History Record Timeline

1983 The Interstate Identification Index (III) comes 

on-line, with 14 participant states, allowing access 

to criminal record searching by law enforcement 

across the country through NCIC.

1988 Georgia becomes first State to integrate fingerprint 

identification and criminal history updates.

First marketing of a Livescan fingerprint capture 

device capable of recording both rolled and flat 

impressions digitally.

1993 American National Standards Institute/National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (ANSI/NIST) 

establish standard for the exchange of fingerprint 

images. FBI subsequently issues Electronic 

Fingerprint Transmission Specification enabling 

transmission of fingerprint data from Livescan 

devices to local or State Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (AFIS). 

1999 The FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (IAFIS) goes into operation.

The National Crime Prevention and Privacy 

Compact became effective, establishing uniform 

standards and processes for the interstate 

and federal-state exchange of criminal history 

records for noncriminal justice purposes 

including oversight of the National Fingerprint 

File (NFF) program.

2004 National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) determines that AFIS systems have become 

so sophisticated that the best systems are accurate 

more than 99% of the time. Leads to “lights out” 

processing by many states, eliminating the need 

for fingerprint examiners to confirm AFIS matches. 

2014 Implementation of the FBI’s Next Generation 

Identification System (NGI).

5 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1995, Criminal Justice Information Policy Series, May 1997, NCJ 163918. 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Sschis95.pdf

6 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, 

U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf

7 California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming

8 Use and Management of Criminal History Record Information: A comprehensive Report, 

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report, November, 1993, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. P. 53. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/CCHUSE.PDF

Individual Offenders in State Criminal History Files

1995 2014

Person Records Available in III

120

90

60

30

0

50

15

106

86

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
7 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Livescan Technology

AFIS provided a means of rapidly searching and 

matching fingerprints, with a high degree of accuracy, 

against large databases. However, the process relied 

on the delivery, scanning, and classification of inked 

images manually recorded on physical fingerprint cards. 

As early as 1970 experimentation with ways to collect 

fingerprints without using ink was underway. The 

practice of taking three sets of arrest fingerprints (for 

local, state, and FBI use) was time consuming, messy, 

and often resulted in inconsistent quality between 

the sets. The primary obstacle was the difficulty in 

engineering a device that could capture nail-to-nail 

rolled finger impressions. That changed in 1988 with 

the marketing of a Livescan fingerprint capture device 

capable of recording both rolled and flat impressions.9

Livescan technology allows multiple sets of fingerprint 

cards to be generated from a single placement of fingers 

on a platen. A keyboard is used to enter arrest and 

biographic data. The fingerprint taker views a screen 

as images are being recorded enabling poor images to 

be recognized, immediately dismissed, and replaced. 

By comparing fingerprint features, the Livescan 

device detects if a finger image has been captured 

more than once, if hands have been transposed, 

or if the presentation of fingers is inconsistent with 

the required format sequence. The introduction of 

Livescan technology significantly improved the quality 

of fingerprint capture and, at the same time, reduced 

rejection rates. However, these devices initially were 

electronically capturing fingerprint images but printing 

fingerprints in hard copy for storage and submission. 

The capability to electronically transmit digitized 

fingerprint data to an AFIS system would await the 

development of several data submission standards.

Standards

Livescan-generated fingerprint cards delivered to the 

FBI were projected to reach 20,000 per day in 1997. 

Driven by a projected growth of twentyfold in just a 

few years the FBI moved toward accepting electronic 

submission of virtual fingerprint cards. These were 

defined as computer-generated data records containing 

the digital representation of the information found 

on an inked fingerprint card. A virtual fingerprint card 

contains both text and fingerprint image data.10

The FBI worked with the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) to develop a standard for the 

exchange of fingerprint images. The standard, when first 

approved in 1993, supported 9 record types.11 Today, the 

standard undergoes periodic review by communities 

of interest. When last updated in December 2015, the 

Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial 

and Other Biometric Information, spanned 21 record types.12

Building upon the fingerprint image standard, the 

FBI issued the Electronic Fingerprint Transmission 

Specification (EFTS), now known in its expanded form 

as the Electronic Biometric Transmission Specification 

(EBTS). This specification provides the technical 

requirements for acceptance of virtual fingerprints by 

the FBI. Along with other standards that were soon to 

follow, this standard was also useful for transmitting 

data from Livescan to local or State AFIS. The FBI and 

NIST also developed standards for certification of 

fingerprint scanning equipment. Major standards efforts 

focused on content, meaning, and representation of 

fingerprint data interchange formats.13

Collectively, these standards enabled fingerprint data to be 

captured, transmitted, searched and stored electronically. 

9 Woodward Jr., John D., et.al. Biometrics. McGraw Hill., 2003. p. 57

10 Ibid.

11 Woodward Jr., John D., et al. p. 58

12 American National Standards Institute/National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

ANSI/NIST-ITL-2011

13 See www.fbibiospecs.cjis.gov/ for a list of relevant active and archived specifications.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
8 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Bringing Uniformity to the Criminal History Record

SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information 

and Statistics, with sponsorship by the U.S. Department of 

Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), empaneled 

the National Task Force on Increasing the Utility of the 

Criminal History Record (1993-1995).14 The Task Force 

focused on the interstate utility of the rap sheet. It found 

that despite a criminal history record that was complete, 

accurate, and timely it was of diminished value if it could 

not be easily understood. Rap sheets created by state 

repositories frequently differed in content and format from 

other states. In addition, states vary in their definitions of 

common terms used on rap sheets. Among the Task Force’s 

recommendations were a proposed model rap sheet, 

designed in an easy-to-read and interpret format, and the 

inclusion of a minimum set of data elements.15

The issuance of the National Task Force Report led to the 

creation of the Joint Task Force on Rap Sheet Standardization 

(JTF), an informal collaboration between several key entities.16 

While the National Task Force proposed uniformity of 

content and layout for the criminal history record, the 

JTF would need to overcome both technology and policy 

challenges on the path to implementing a standardized 

criminal history record. Among the challenges were: 

• states and the FBI employed different formats and

codes, which made the interstate exchange and

interpretation of criminal history information difficult;

• criminal records are used for many purposes, and the

inability to extract only the information that is needed

created problems for both data providers and the end

user of this information; and

• there was no method of combining or electronically

collating criminal records from multiple sources

(i.e., states and the FBI/III).

The JTF developed a Concept of Operations, which called for 

each state and the FBI to transmit records to the International 

Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets) where they 

would be consolidated and delivered to the requestor in a 

standardized format.17 The JTF issued an Interstate Criminal 

History Transmission Specification that defined a new 

criminal history exchange mechanism, and testing began. 

It was not until several years later, with the emergence 

of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) that the proposed 

exchange mechanism was truly able to move forward.

The JTF continues to oversee the evolution of the rap 

sheet transmission specification. It has expanded its 

content while bringing it into conformance with the widely 

adopted Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM – http://

it.ojp.gov/initiatives/gjxdm) and the National Information 

Exchange Model (NIEM – www.niem.gov). It has worked 

with the FBI NICS Section to facilitate interpretation of rap 

sheet information by using the specification to standardize 

disparate state terminology. 

Although crafted for interstate purposes, the specification was 

advantageous for in-state use as well. Now state repositories 

and requestors had the capability to tailor where information 

was sent (e.g., a specific printer) and how it was displayed 

on a screen or printer. For example, a style sheet could now 

be developed to display information customized to the 

needs of a state agency conducting background checks. 

There is no national statutory mandate for a uniform criminal 

history record. Similarly, there is no legal prescription for 

record content. Adoption of the standardized rap sheet is 

voluntary. Among its benefits are better data for making 

criminal justice decisions, streamlining of background 

checks, and more accurate and timely information on 

persons prohibited from firearms purchases. 

14 The Task Force was convened under a cooperative agreement between the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, and SEARCH. 

The purpose of the Task Force was to develop recommendations concerning the content of criminal history records among the states and to 

recommend a standard format for such records.

15 Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the National Task Force, Criminal Justice Information Policy Series, December 1995, 

NCJ-156922, www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/IUCHR.PDF

16 JTF initially was comprised of representatives from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), 

the CJIS Advisory Policy Board, the International Justice and Public Safety Network (Nlets), 

SEARCH and state and local justice agencies. Representation from the National Center for State Courts 

and the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council were subsequently added.

17 Nlets is a private, nonprofit corporation owned by the states. It provides a secure 

international justice telecommunications capability and information services. www.nlets.org

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

With funding from BJS, Nlets has assisted states in adopting 

the standardized rap sheet through the Criminal History 

Information Exchange Format (CHIEF) Project. The Interstate 

Criminal History Transmission Specification has been adopted 

by at least 29 States, the District of Columbia and the FBI.18

The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

(IAFIS)

In July 1999 the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (IAFIS)19 went into operation. The 

system’s specified performance requirements were rigorous 

but in actual operation were exceeded. For example, the 

plan was to respond to urgent criminal submissions within 

2 hours but the actual experience showed that the system 

could process all criminal fingerprints within 2 hours. 

The intention was to respond to criminal record requests 

received through III in 2.7 seconds. This requirement was 

consistently exceeded with responses within 1 second.20

IAFIS brought the capability to fulfill the vision of a paperless 

end-to-end process connecting a booking station’s Livescan 

to a state repository and a state repository to the FBI. When 

replaced by Next Generation Identification (NGI) (discussed 

in more detail below) in the summer of 2014, IAFIS was 

the largest criminal fingerprint database in the world. IAFIS 

included not only fingerprints, but corresponding criminal 

histories; mug shots, scars and tattoo photos; physical 

characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; 

and aliases.

Improvements in the Quality and Availability 

of Criminal Records

Significant advances in fingerprint processing and identification 

technology created the opportunity for dramatic improvements 

in the quality and availability of criminal records, but the 

acquisition and implementation of these scientific 

developments needed a serious commitment of resources. 

If the promise of a rapid throughput, highly accurate, evergrowing national criminal records exchange system was to 

be realized, it would take more than technology; sustained 

funding assistance would be required. 

The Brady Act provided the initial funding support for the 

BJS-administered National Criminal History Improvement 

Program (NCHIP), introduced in 1995. NCHIP provided the 

major impetus for automation of fingerprint processing and 

the exchange of fingerprint/criminal record data at both 

the state and federal levels. Within the first two years of 

operation, every state received funds to upgrade criminal 

record systems, including establishing and upgrading AFIS and 

supporting participation in III. 

Between 1995 and 2015 every state, five territories, and the 

District of Columbia received grants under NCHIP totaling 

$633 million. In the early years of NCHIP the program was 

closely coordinated with the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Byrne Memorial Grant 

Program. Since 2000 NCHIP has been funded under the Crime 

Identification Technology Act of 1998 (Pub L. 105-251) and 

the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 

(Pub. L. 106-386). 

Since the establishment of NCHIP the number of states 

participating in III has grown from 26 to all 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. The combined investment of federal 

dollars with state and local funds has made it possible 

for every state to benefit from automated fingerprint 

identification technology. At the local level criminal and 

civil applicant fingerprints are captured electronically, 

transmitted for searching against a state-level data base 

with the capability, as appropriate, to electronically forward 

these fingerprints to the FBI. Significant improvements in the 

accuracy, completeness, and availability of criminal record 

information have been achieved. 

18 Source – www.nlets.org.

19 IAFIS was subsequently replaced with the Next Generation Identification system.

20 Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System Final Report 

by James J. Jasinki to the FBI CJIS Advisory Policy Board, June 13, 2000.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
10 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

For instance:

• Over 49 million criminal history records were in the

criminal history files of the State criminal history

repositories on December 31, 1995 of which 86% of

the records were automated. By the end of 2014,

those numbers had risen to 106 million with a 95%

automation rate. (An individual offender may have

records in several States).21,22

• At the end of 1995, there were 25.5 million records

available through III from either the 30 participant

states or the FBI. By the end of 2014, there were 86

million records available through III with every state,

the District of Columbia, and the FBI participating.23,24

• During 1995, over 6.9 million arrest fingerprint

cards were submitted to the State criminal history

repositories. In 2014, nearly 12 million fingerprints

were submitted to the state criminal history

repositories for criminal justice purposes. Of these

at least 89% were submitted by either Livescan

fingerprint capture or card scan devices.25,26

• In 1995, the state criminal record repositories reported

that the average number of days between receipt of

fingerprints and entry of arrest data into the criminal

history databases was 24 days. By the end of 2006,

many states were measuring processing times in

hours rather than days with 23 states, the District of

Columbia and American Samoa reporting processing

times of 1 day or less.27,28,29

States have continuously used NCHIP funding in ways that 

have improved criminal records systems and benefitted 

firearm-related background check determinations. Illustrative 

of the awards made to 36 States, the District of Columbia and 

Guam in 2015 are the following projects:

• Enhancing records management software provided

to local law enforcement agencies to improve the

reporting of misdemeanor convictions for domestic

violence to support NICS.

• Reducing the backlog in reporting of dispositions

to the state criminal history repository by the court

system to close gaps in criminal history records that

impede the ability of NICS to accurately

confirm a prohibited prospective buyer of a firearm.

• Increasing the disposition/arrest matching rate on

criminal history records and correct and update

incomplete criminal history information.

• Building interfaces between case management systems

and the FBI’s NGI System.

• Improving the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness

of court conviction and disposition data sent to the

criminal history repository.

• Researching and resolving initially non-approved

transactions for the purchase of firearms.

21 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1995, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Sschis95.pdf

22 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Criminal Justice Information Policy series, U.S Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf

23 Survey 1995, supra note 21

24 Survey 2014, supra note 22

25 Survey 1995, supra note 21

26 Survey 2014, supra note 22

27 Survey 1995, supra note 21

28 Survey 2014, supra note 22

29 2006 was the last year the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 

collected backlog information.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
11 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Fingerprints and Firearm-related Background Checks

The NICS began operation on November 30, 1998. From its 

inception through May 31, 2015, State POCs processed 

114.6 million firearm-related background checks (54% of 

all background checks) and the FBI NICS Section handled 

96.9 million. State-level firearm-related background 

checks are conducted by many states as part of a 

licensing process to possess, receive, or carry a firearm. 

Historically the denial rate for checks conducted by state 

and local agencies is 1.8% while the FBI NICS Section rate 

is approximately 1.2%.30 The difference is in part due 

to the application of state level statutory prohibitors, 

which may include criminal offenses and convictions 

beyond those that are disqualifying under federal law. 

Between 1999 and 2014 nearly 1.34 million denial 

decisions were made by state and local agencies while 

nearly 1.17 million denial decisions were made by the 

FBI NICS Section. The most common basis for denial of 

a firearm transfer by the POC states is based on a state 

law prohibition. The most common reason for denial 

of a firearm transfer by the NICS Section is a conviction 

for a crime punishable by more than one year or a 

misdemeanor punishable by more than two years 

(i.e., felony/serious misdemeanor convictions).31,32

30 Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2013-14-Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2016. Table2. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft1314st.pdf

31 FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board, Fall 2015 Working Group 

Meeting Information Topics, Staff Paper Topic U, National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS) Update.

32 Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, supra note 30, table 5.

Federal Prohibitor Categories that May Rely on Criminal Record Information

Prohibiting Record Type Total # of Denials By NICS Section 

(excludes state checks)*

% of All 

Denials

Felony/Serious Misdemeanor Convictions 728,182 54.4

Indictments 38,271 2.9

Fugitive from Justice 160,401 12.0

Unlawful Drug User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance 116,615 8.7

Mental Health 24,277 1.8

Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Convictions 125,616 9.4

Dishonorable Discharges 1,012 0.1

*NICS Section denials November 30, 1998 through July 31, 2016

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
12 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

Challenges and Solutions

The accuracy, completeness, and timely availability of 

criminal records information and the ability to respond 

to ever growing volumes of requests remain challenging. 

Efforts at both the state and federal levels continue to 

yield improvements in information exchange capabilities, 

and thus to improve firearm-related background checks. 

Extensive collaboration within states and between 

the FBI and the states addressing policy, standards, 

and technology is the foundation for progress while 

maintaining all that has been achieved.

Next Generation Identification (NGI)

The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory 

Policy Board (APB) – which consists of state, local and 

national criminal justice officials – is a driving force behind 

ongoing advancements in fingerprint identification 

technology and criminal record exchange systems 

including the recently implemented NGI, which was 

rolled out incrementally over several years beginning in 

February 2011.33 NGI brings an improvement in matching 

accuracy from approximately 92% to over 99.6%.34

In December 2015, approximately 22,885 local, state, 

tribal, federal, and international partners submitted 

fingerprints electronically to NGI. Total requests 

exceeded 6.3 million, including 2.8 million fingerprint 

cards submitted for employment or other civil screening 

purposes such as concealed weapon or carry permits; the 

average response time is 21 seconds.35

A component of NGI is the introduction of a national rap 

back service. This is a perpetual background check formerly 

provided on a limited basis by a few states, for certain events 

occurring within the state. Now a criminal justice 

practitioner can “enroll” a set of fingerprints and receive 

notification of any subsequent arrest or other notification 

triggering event such as a court disposition. The state police, 

having conducted a fingerprint-based background check 

before issuing a firearm carry permit, can learn if the permit 

holder is subsequently convicted of an offense that would 

cause the permit to be revoked. At least seven states provide 

rap back services in connection with firearm permits.36

The National Fingerprint File (NFF)

III established the concept for a decentralized interstate exchange 

of state criminal history records known as a “National Fingerprint 

File.” NFF is the ultimate decentralization of the nation’s criminal 

records exchange system. Participant states assume the primary 

responsibility for responding to the interstate needs of users 

of criminal history records. Reliance on state record databases 

takes advantage of the long established fact that the states 

typically have more arrests and more dispositions associated 

with those arrests than have either been reported, or due to 

rejection of fingerprints, maintained by the FBI. Under NFF, 

when the FBI identifies a search fingerprint, a comprehensive 

criminal record is retrieved from the NFF state, consolidated 

with information from other states and the FBI, and transmitted to 

the state that submitted the search print. The impact of NFF on 

firearm-related background checks is that more comprehensive 

state criminal record information is available for NICS checks. 

As of April 2016 there were 20 NFF state participants.

The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council

The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact became 

effective the same year that IAFIS went into operation (1999). 

The Compact establishes uniform standards and processes 

for the interstate and federal-state exchange of criminal 

history records for noncriminal justice purposes; including 

state-submitted fingerprints and receipt of criminal record 

information for concealed weapon and firearm carry permits. 

The Compact Council, in partnerships with the FBI and the 

APB is in the forefront of efforts to improve fingerprint quality 

and reduce rejections. The Compact Council also oversees the 

participation of compact signatory states in the NFF Program. 

It continues to aggressively encourage states to join the 

Compact and become NFF participants, thereby increasing 

the records available for NICS checks. As of January 2015 

there were 30 compact states.

33 www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi

34 Ibid.

35 https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/december-2015-ngi-fact-sheet.pdf/view

36 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Criminal Justice 

Information Policy series, U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf, Table 23.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
13 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Fingerprint Processing Advances Improve Background Checks

State Level Partnerships

Fingerprint capture and the searching of massive fingerprint 

databases is highly dependent on Livescan and AFIS 

technology. To remain effective, periodic updating or 

replacement is essential. AFIS technology is expensive; in 

order to mitigate costs, several multi-state partnerships 

were formed to purchase and operate AFIS technology. 

MAFIN, the Midwest Automated Fingerprint Identification 

Network includes all the fingerprint cards in Minnesota, 

North Dakota and South Dakota. A tri-state owned AFIS 

serves Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. Rhode Island 

relies on the Connecticut AFIS. The concept of a shared 

system was pioneered by the Western Identification 

Network (WIN). WIN represents a collaboration of governors, 

attorneys general, legislators, and law enforcement agencies. 

A not-for-profit corporation was developed using pooled 

monetary and technical resources across eight states to 

form WIN. WIN also extended membership to several 

federal agencies who saw benefit in having searchable 

access to the fingerprint files of member states.

AFIS Accuracy Leads to Lights Out Processing

When AFIS was first introduced the common practice was 

for a fingerprint examiner to visually compare the top few 

candidates in a search result list against the questioned 

fingerprint. This has been replaced in many states with 

“lights out” processing, in which a match that exceeds a 

threshold score no longer requires examiner verification. 

This has reduced the time needed to either create or update 

a criminal history record, while improving the accuracy of match 

determinations and minimizing match miss rates that were 

formerly attributable to examiner error. At the end of 2014 

there were at least 37 states, the District of Columbia and 

Guam repositories employing “lights out” in their work flow.37

Conclusion

AFIS technology, together with Livescan electronic 

fingerprint capture devices, standards, and strong 

cooperative information exchange partnerships on 

the state and local level that span courts and other 

justice entities revolutionized the timely consolidation 

of criminal record information. Similarly, technical 

and policy partnerships between the states and the 

FBI, driven by advances in technology at the FBI 

enable the processing of volumes of fingerprints and 

accessing of criminal record information at speeds 

that were once unimaginable. Consequently, criminal 

record information is made more accurate and readily 

available to support criminal justice, to make suitability 

determinations for those who would work with our 

most vulnerable, for other employment decisions, 

national security purposes and firearm-related 

background check screening.

37 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014, Criminal Justice 

Information Policy series, U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf, Table 18.

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.