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: Mental Health Submissions 

Author(s):	 Becki Goggins; Anne Gallegos 

Document No.: 

Publication Date:	 

Award No.:	 

249793 

February 2016 

2009-NS-BX-K050 

This resource is part of a series of BJS grant-funded reports on 

firearm-related background checks. This report presents an 

overview of legislation and reporting mechanisms for mental 

health information used in background checks for firearm 

purchases; identifies the challenges States face in reporting; 

strategies that have been implemented to address the 

challenges; and data that illustrate the improvements in this 

area over the past decade. 

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. 
Mental Health Submissions 

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

by Becki Goggins, SEARCH and Anne Gallegos, National Center for State Courts February, 2016
	

Introduction 

Over the past ten years, states have made vast progress in 

providing firearm prohibiting mental health information 

to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System 

(NICS) Index. The passage of the NICS Improvement 

Amendments Act (NIAA) in 2008 was a turning point 

in reporting; in addition to the approximately 250,000 

federally-submitted mental health records, the NICS Index 

went from holding just over 400,000 state-submitted mental 

health records to over 3.8 million state-submitted records in 

July of 2015. This report provides an overview of legislation 

and reporting mechanisms for mental health information, 

the challenges states face in reporting, strategies that 

have been implemented to overcome the challenges, and 

finally, data that illustrate the improvements that have been 

accomplished over the past decade in this area. 

Background

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence 

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

the 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). 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. Additional information that may 

be available via III include persons that 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, persons subject to domestic violence 

protection orders, and persons under indictment. 

• NICS Index – A database, separate from NCIC and 

III, created specifically for the purpose of conducting 

a firearm-related background check, 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 available at the national level. 

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

and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Relevant databases of 

the ICE are queried for non-U.S. citizens attempting to 

receive firearms in the United States. 

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, was mandated by the Brady Act and launched by 

the FBI on November 30, 1998. NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a 

prospective transferee is eligible to receive firearms or explosives. 

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.
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. 

2 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

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 test results should be 

placed here. 

Mental Health 

(focus of this report) 

lll: 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 be placed here so they are 

available for the purpose of sharing 

criminal justice information. 

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. 

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.
 

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. 

Increased Focus on Mental Health Records1

 in NICS 

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia 

Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others 

on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia prior 

to fatally shooting himself. Later it was revealed that 

he had been ordered by a judge to participate in mental 

health treatment, although he was not committed to a 

mental institution. While Virginia was reporting mental 

health information to the NICS Index at the time, Virginia 

law did not require outpatient commitments to mental 

health facilities to be submitted to the NICS Index. 

Following the Virginia Tech shootings, there began an 

increased focus by Congress and the states on increasing 

the number of records available at the time of a NICS check 

with a particular emphasis on mental health records. 

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) 

was signed into law on January 8, 2008, and it was 

intended to address the gap in information available to 

NICS about prohibiting mental health adjudications and 

commitments along with other prohibiting factors. One 

of the primary accomplishments of the NIAA was the 

creation of the NICS Act Record Improvement Program 

(NARIP), which provides funding to states to develop 

systems to ensure that all disqualifying mental health 

information are included in the NICS Index. From FY 

2009 to FY 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (BJS) awarded approximately $95 

million to states under the NARIP program. Additionally, 

BJS continued to allow states to use National Criminal 

History Improvement Program (NCHIP) funds to support 

efforts to gather and submit disqualifying mental 

health data to improve the quality and completeness of 

firearms background checks. 

Mental Health Data in the NICS Index 

Understanding what mental health information should 

be reported to the NICS Index – and who should report 

it – is an important part of ensuring disqualifying 

information is searched when conducting a NICS 

background check. Title 18, section 922(g)(4) of the 

U.S. Code defines as prohibited persons who have been 

adjudicated as mental defective or who have been 

committed to a mental institution. Records that result 

from these actions include those that find a person to:

 • Be a danger to himself or others;

 • Lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his 

own affairs (i.e., be placed in guardianship status);

 • Be found insane by a court in a criminal case;

 • Be incompetent to stand trial or not qualify by reason 

of lack of mental responsibility, pursuant to the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, or

 • Be involuntarily committed to either an inpatient or 

outpatient facility for treatment.2 

Sources of Various Mental Health Data 

Adjudications of not-guilty by reason of insanity as well 

as determinations that a defendant is incompetent to 

stand trial originate with the criminal courts. Ideally, 

these types of dispositions should be a part of a person’s 

criminal history and therefore available from III as a 

routine part of a NICS search. However, in some cases, 

the disposition may not have an identifiable arrest (or 

other biometrically supported) record that allows the 

record to be submitted to the state criminal history 

repository and to be included in III. In this case, the 

record would be appropriately entered into the NICS 

Index instead to ensure disqualifying information is 

available for NICS background check purposes. 

3 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

1

 A person’s actual mental health history is not submitted to the NICS Index. A record qualifies 

for entry in the NICS Index if it contains, at a minimum, a NICS record identifier; an agency record 

identifier; the associated data source; the prohibited category (e.g., mental health); the originating 

agency identifier; the name and sex of the subject; and at least one numeric identifier for the subject 

(e.g., date of birth, social security number, or miscellaneous identification number). The record does 

not contain any information on the diagnosis or treatment of the individual. 

2

 For additional definitions, see Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 

information at https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download or 27CFR§478.11. 

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: Mental Health Submissions 

Involuntary commitments to inpatient or outpatient 

mental health facilities may come from several sources 

including probate, civil and criminal courts. In some 

states involuntary commitments are handled by probate 

courts while in others there may be a probate division 

within the civil courts. These courts do not routinely 

interact with the state criminal history repository, and 

they may be unaware of how/when they should submit 

records for inclusion in the NICS Index. Special outreach 

by state criminal history repositories may be necessary 

to make sure these entries are appropriately reported. 

Criminal courts may also order involuntary commitments 

– especially certain specialty courts such as drug, mental 

health and veterans’ courts. Since this may reflect an 

“interim” disposition, it is possible that these may not be 

reported to the criminal history repository. Once again, 

training and outreach can help make sure these get 

included in the NICS Index. 

Mental health/public health agencies, boards, or 

commissions may also have records concerning 

involuntary commitments that could be contributed to 

the NICS Index. For instance, they may be able to supply 

information about historical court ordered commitments 

that were not reported by the courts, thus serving as a 

rich data source for discovering and entering older records. 

Challenges to Reporting Mental Health Data to the NICS Index 

One of the major challenges to reporting mental health 

records to NICS is the lack of data made available to 

state criminal history repositories who are typically 

responsible for channeling NICS entries to the FBI. 

There are several reasons this may occur. First, as 

noted above certain non-criminal justice entities may 

not be aware of NICS reporting requirements. Then, 

even if they are aware, they may be unfamiliar with 

how to report records to the state criminal history 

repository. Assuming that they are aware of reporting 

procedures, lack of electronic connectivity to the state 

criminal records system may discourage reporting if only 

manual processes – e.g., mail or fax – are available as 

transmission methods as this can create an additional 

burden for staff. 

Misinformation about privacy laws can also lead to a 

lack of reporting. Court ordered participation in mental 

health programs – including involuntary commitments 

– are exempt from HIPAA reporting rules.3

 Many records 

maintained by behavioral health providers fall into this 

category; however, they are reluctant to report them due 

to fears of violating the HIPAA privacy rule. 

In addition to the challenge of unreported information, 

there is also the concern of duplication. It is important 

that members of the behavioral health, criminal justice 

and repository community work together to ensure that 

there are clear lines of responsibility relative to reporting 

mental health information. Duplication is problematic 

in the event a person applies for relief from disabilities 

associated with having a mental health entry in the NICS 

Index as they may have to go to multiple agencies in 

order to have an entry for the same commitment event 

removed. Often duplication is due to manual reporting 

and data entry methods which can be resolved by 

implementing automated data exchanges. 

3

 See Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) HIPPA Privacy Rule and the 

NICS (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/06/2015-33181/healthinsurance-portability-and-accountability-act-hipaa-privacy-rule-and-the-nationalinstant#page-382). 

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 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : 

Through the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), BJS provides direct awards and technical 

assistance to states and localities to improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate accessibility of criminal history 

records and related information. Complete records require that data from all components of the criminal justice system, 

including law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and corrections be integrated and linked. NCHIP assists states to 

establish the integrated infrastructure that meets the needs of all components. 

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) was 

created pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-180 (NIAA or the Act) which was 

signed into law on January 8, 2008, in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech 

shooter was able to purchase firearms from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) because information about his prohibiting 

mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the 

firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA through the NARIP program seeks to address the gap in information available 

to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments, and other prohibiting factors. Filling 

these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons 

prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms. 

NARIP Funding Awarded by Year 

(in millions) 

$22.7

$16.9

$20.1

$11.1 $10.2 $11.4

$2.5

2009 2010 2011 2012

State Strategies for Improvement 

States have channeled significant time, effort, and funds 

into strategies to overcome challenges and to improve 

reporting of disqualifying mental health records for 

NICS purposes. Funding, such as NARIP and NCHIP, 

has provided states with the opportunity to focus on 

making significant improvements to the number of 

disqualifying records available. BJS has emphasized 

mental health reporting improvement and made that 

a priority area in the NARIP grant solicitations since 2011. 

2013 2014 2015

Thus, the majority of mental health-focused work has 

been conducted under the NARIP. However, not all 

states qualify for NARIP funding due to the eligibility 

requirements.4

 Specifically, many states do not have a 

qualifying relief from disabilities statute certified by the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF). Some states that have not been eligible for 

NARIP funding have used other Federal grants to fund 

improvements in mental health record reporting. 

Mental Health Submissions 

4

 The NIAA legislation includes two specific conditions for eligibility for NARIP grants: 

1) provision of reasonable estimates of records and 2) implement a relief from disabilities 

program. (see 18 U.S.C. § 922 note) 

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.
Recipients of NARIP awards were required to create a 

NICS Task Force as a condition of the grant. 

Additionally, the majority of states, including all of 

the NARIP grantee states, have passed some type of 

legislation addressing mental health record reporting. 

The table below displays NARIP grantee states by year 

from 2009-2014, where there was a mental health 

component included in the grant project(s).5

 Project 

components, other than NICS task forces and legislation, 

are indicated in the table. 

6 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

Funded Years 

NARIP Grantee States: Funded Years and Strategies 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mental health project strategies6 

Training Automation

Addressing historical/ 

back-logged records 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Connecticut

Delaware 

Florida 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Missouri 

Nebrasaka 

Nevada 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Dakota 

Oregon 

South Carolina 

Texas 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

5

 The few states without a mental health-focused project are omitted from this table. For 

NARIP funding amounts by state from 2009-2014 and 2014 project summaries, go to 

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=491#funding. 

6

 According to NARIP project summaries submitted by states. 

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.
With these resources, states have made vast 

improvements to the quality and quantity of reported 

mental health-related records, which have historically 

been very difficult to obtain and report. 

The majority of state improvement strategies can be 

grouped into five categories: 

• Creating dedicated NICS task forces 

• State legislation 

• Training 

• Addressing historical/backlogged records 

• Automation 

Task Forces 

Assembling stakeholders at the state level to focus on 

and provide leadership for addressing NICS reporting 

issues has been an important initial step toward 

records improvement. Many states have established 

dedicated NICS Improvement Task Forces over the past 

several years. In fact, every state that received a NARIP 

grant was required to create and support a task force. 

Typically, the task forces are multi-disciplinary and are 

comprised of members from many stakeholder groups, 

both local and state level. For example, Arizona’s NICS 

task force meets quarterly. Members represent law 

enforcement, prosecution, courts, and corrections 

agencies from across the state, as well as key state 

agencies such as the Department of Public Safety and 

the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

While the NICS task forces vary from state to state, 

they primarily serve to identify gaps in reporting 

structures and procedures and to develop strategies 

and recommendations for addressing those gaps. Some 

state task forces have spent significant time mapping 

out the business process and structure of NICS-related 

information, as a tool to identify reporting gaps and 

barriers (e.g., Arizona, Connecticut). Conducting audits 

of records currently held in courts and repositories has 

also been coordinated by some states’ task forces (e.g., 

Arizona, Delaware). Another achievement of NICS task 

forces has been planning for and coordinating multiple 

available funding streams in order to make improvement 

work sustainable. This has been accomplished through 

NICS Improvement Plans. These plans are used to focus 

and coordinate NICS-related efforts, including goals 

and objectives. 

Leadership is critical for systemic technological and 

procedural changes, and the task forces, in many states, 

have brought the necessary multi-agency leaders 

together. The groups are particularly useful when nontraditional partners are included (see Ohio example 

below). NICS task forces have been instrumental in 

focusing resources and achieving improvement in 

records reporting for many states. 

Mental Health Task Force: Ohio 

Through federal funding, Ohio created a sub-group from 

their greater NICS improvement task force that focused 

solely on improving reporting through automating 

mental health information transfer. Members of the 

Mental Health subgroup included representatives from 

the Ohio Supreme Court, Probate courts, Bureau of 

Criminal Investigation (which houses the computerized 

criminal history repository), Office of the Attorney 

General, a state psychiatric hospital, and the Ohio 

Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. 

Including the mental health professionals, as well as 

court and repository representatives, was effective in 

identifying all perspectives of the issues. The multidisciplinary approach helped not only with the quality of 

the finished product but also with the quick adoption of 

use across the probate courts and state hospitals. 

State Legislation 

There are two types of legislation that states have 

passed regarding mental health reporting. One is the 

authorization or requirement to report particular types 

of mental health records. The other is legislation that 

creates a certified relief from disabilities program, as 

described by the NIAA statute. 

7 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

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: Mental Health Submissions 

Forty-three states have enacted laws that authorize 

or require the reporting of mental health records 

for firearms background check purposes (32 require 

reporting vs. authorize reporting).7 The components 

of state statutes vary, but most often include the 

types of records to be reported (civil commitments, 

guardianships, criminal adjudications), where they 

must be reported (directly to the Federal database or 

a state entity), and the timeline for reporting (ranging 

from “immediately” to 30 days). Passing such statutes 

has provided clarity on what should be reported and 

eliminated confusion about confidentiality and privacy 

requirements, which were previously significant barriers 

to reporting. Passing legislation requiring reporting 

appears to be effective as the majority of states with 

the largest increase in reported mental health data from 

2008 to 2015 have such statutes. 

Thirty-two states have relief from disabilities statutes.8 

This allows a court, agency, or board to restore firearm 

purchasing rights to a person who had them previously 

removed because of a mental health adjudication or 

involuntary commitment. In order to establish a relief 

from disabilities program, a state must comply with the 

NIAA requirements, as follows: 

1. Pass state law or administrative order 

2. Complete an application 

3. Indicate the lawful authority that will consider 

the petition 

4. Abide by due process 

5. Create a proper record of the proceeding 

6. Create proper findings 

7. Allow for de novo judicial review of denial 

8. Update state and federal records once made aware 

that the disqualifier no longer applies 

9. Establish a written procedure to address updating 

requirements (recommended) 

In addition to providing reasonable estimates of available 

records, states who establish a certified program are 

then eligible for NARIP grant funding which is the 

funding source with a mental health record priority. 

Receiving NARIP funding has also proven successful in 

increasing the number of mental health records to the 

NICS Index. Twenty of the 26 states with the largest 

increase in reported mental health data from 2008 to 

2015 received NARIP funding. 

Training 

The first step in accurate and complete reporting is 

ensuring that stakeholders have a clear understanding 

of the types of records that are required to be reported 

to which databases. This can be particularly challenging 

with the mental health records. While state statutes 

have been helpful in clarifying and directing this, the 

information must be disseminated at the practitioner 

level. Several states have implemented some type 

of training efforts to address the confusion that has 

historically existed regarding mental health prohibitors. 

Training has primarily been directed at court clerks, who 

are typically responsible for managing court dispositions 

and records. Topics have focused on clarifying which 

civil mental health dispositions and types of criminal 

dispositions or determinations disqualify a person from 

purchasing a firearm. This is particularly important 

for mental health records, given the concerns about 

confidentiality and HIPAA regulations that have 

often arisen. States have also addressed the issue of 

coordination with state and private mental health 

institutions, so personnel at both courts and hospitals 

are clear on their reporting responsibilities. For example, 

Florida’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 

assembled a working group of cross-disciplined subject 

matter experts to develop standard forms and workflows 

as well as an informational seminar tracking the life of 

the mental health record from creation through each 

point at which the record may be modified or used. 

7

 http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary 

8

 Twenty-nine of those states have an ATF certified relief from disabilities statute: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 

Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Colorado and North Carolina passed legislation that 

meets the federal criteria but these states have not sought to have their programs certified by ATF, and 

Connecticut’s 2011 certification is no longer considered qualified or approved due to 2013 changes in the 

Connecticut Mental Health Law. As a result, Connecticut must reapply to ATF for certification.
	

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.
The seminar was delivered by a panel of representatives 

from the mental health care industry, clerks of court, 

the judiciary, and law enforcement at training sites 

across the state to attendees who ranged from mental 

health facility managers and physicians as well as judges 

and clerks of the court. The seminar topics focused 

on the importance of collecting sufficient identifying 

information, clear documentation of the disability by 

medical staff for judicial review, and timely entry of the 

record into the NICS Index. Templates were provided to 

promote the use of standard forms including a petition 

for Relief of Firearm Disabilities. 

The Texas Office of Court Administration (OCA) also 

conducted training activities, which included guidance 

on guardianship and criminal records, in addition to 

civil commitments, as well as how to handle records 

without necessary identification information for Federal 

reporting. Texas OCA created and conducted training 

for court clerks either in person or by phone, conducted 

outreach activities through articles in clerk association 

newsletters and presentations at regional and state 

conferences, and created a manual and frequently asked 

questions document. These efforts provided significant 

information to current staff, but also provide for ongoing 

training and sustaining knowledge in the future. For 

many states, training court staff is a necessary and 

important piece to increasing the level of understanding 

of, and subsequently improving, the process of mental 

health record reporting. 

Historical/Backlogged Records 

While reporting records “day forward” is the goal for 

states, adding historical records to the background check 

databases is also critical for completeness of data. Older 

records comprise a significant proportion of the records 

currently available to NICS. For mental health records, 

historical records are entered into III as the result of 

general criminal backlog research, or are entered via the 

NICS Index as legacy civil mental health records and/or 

criminal records that do not meet III requirements. 

Many states have used NARIP, NCHIP, and other Federal 

funding to hire staff to research missing dispositions 

and resolve backlogged dispositions at the criminal 

history repository. Hundreds of thousands of records 

have been added to Federal databases as result of 

these efforts; among those records are criminal mental 

health dispositions. A few examples of states that have 

conducted significant disposition research include 

Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. While 

these records typically were felony convictions, they also 

resulted in additional criminal mental health records 

being completed and updated in repositories. 

To specifically address missing civil mental health data, 

states have used grant funds to hire staff to research 

and enter historical mental health records. In some 

cases, this occurred as a result of a state passing 

mental health reporting legislation. For example, Iowa 

passed legislation in 2011 that authorized reporting 

of electronically available historical disqualifying 

mental health orders and judgments. Records from a 

twenty year period were reviewed, verified, and if any 

information was missing from the record, researched. 

Thousands of verified records were sent to the FBI for 

inclusion in the NICS Index. In other states, research into 

legacy records occurred due to the implementation of an 

automation solution for current mental health records. 

Once the technical solution was rolled out, attention 

then turned to the historical records in order to enter 

them into the new system. Review of hard copy files 

is often necessary to identify prohibiting records that 

should be entered. West Virginia has been using NARIP 

grant funds to conduct this type of review, and, since 

2010, staff stationed in circuit courts have reviewed over 

70,000 records and about 20,000 case files have been 

added into their Central State Mental Health Registry for 

inclusion in NICS. Similarly, North Carolina is using NCHIP 

funds to review about 500,000 historical mental health 

commitment cases and enter qualifying information into 

their automated system, and thus into the NICS index, to 

make them available to law enforcement at the time of a 

NICS background check. 

9 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

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: Mental Health Submissions 

Automation 

Record automation and data exchanges have been 

the ultimate solutions for most states with significant 

improvement in mental health records reporting. These 

strategies have made it possible for states to overcome the 

accessibility challenges that have plagued mental health 

reporting in the past. Creating a means to track and exchange 

information electronically provides a clear path for reporting 

and accountability that has historically been lacking, given 

that there are several different types of disqualifying mental 

health records and these records can reside outside of the 

typical criminal justice and court arenas. 

State automation strategies have typically fallen under 

these four categories, depending on the structure and 

existing process of record flow in the state: 

• Improving all types of automated criminal dispositions 

sent to III and the NICS index 

• Automating transfer of mental health data from the courts, 

through the criminal history repository, to the NICS index 

• Establishing connectivity from mental health databases 

(e.g., public mental health hospitals, state health agency) 

where records are held through the criminal history 

repository, to the NICS index 

• Automating all mental health record reporting through 

a single central database 

Automating all criminal dispositions 

Many states have focused efforts on automating all of 

their criminal dispositions or improving the accuracy, 

timeliness, and completeness of their disposition 

reporting systems. While this work is not focused on 

mental health disqualifiers solely, it does result 

in the addition of not-guilty by reason of insanity 

and incompetency to stand trial dispositions to 

Federal databases. 

Automating mental health data from the Courts to the NICS 

Index through the Criminal History Repository 

Several states have automated the transfer of court 

information to NICS through the criminal history repository. 

In some places, local courts enter information and it 

is sent directly to the NICS Index via the repository, 

while in others, data goes to the state’s administrative 

office of the courts and the connection to the criminal 

history repository happens at that level. Since many 

states have data management systems at the courts 

and repositories that were not initially built to store 

mental health information, the first step in automation 

is often creating fields in databases to accept the mental 

health data. With grant funding, software developers 

have been hired to update and add capabilities to the 

court and repository data systems so they can accept 

civil commitment, guardianship, and other mental 

health adjudications. Depending on how flexible the 

systems are, this task can require a significant amount of 

programming and also subsequent training. 

New Jersey’s Civil Commitment Automated Tracking 

System (CCATS) 

New Jersey’s challenge in reporting involuntary civil 

commitment data to NICS was that the information was 

not available at the state Administrative Office of the 

Courts (AOC) level. Local county adjusters manually 

recorded these commitments and there was no central 

way to view the information. 

New Jersey’s solution was to create a computer 

application (the Civil Commitment Automated Tracking 

System or CCATS) that would capture commitments at 

the local level and make them available to the AOC, New 

Jersey State Police, and NICS database. Temporary staff 

was hired to input 35 years of historical involuntary civil 

commitment records into CCATS. Going forward, the 

data needed for NICS reporting is input into CCATS by 

county adjusters who use CCATS to case manage civil 

commitments with the data electronically transferred 

to NICS in real time. Prior to the NARIP Grant, 

New Jersey had one mental health entry in the NICS 

Index. Today, New Jersey has well over 400,000 entries. 

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.
Another way states have tackled this automation 

strategy, mostly for civil commitment data, is through 

electronic forms. These forms have the NICS Index 

required fields. They do not necessarily have to be 

entered through the court case management system, but 

have a dedicated information exchange with the criminal 

history repository. This works well for states that do not 

have a statewide court case management system. 

Establishing connectivity from mental health databases 

through the Criminal History Repository to the NICS Index 

One of the most difficult pieces of information to track 

and report are commitment data that are held outside 

of the courts. Typically, they are held by state hospitals 

or departments of health or social services. While the 

criminal history repository is usually held accountable for 

making records available for background checks, these 

records are often difficult for them to obtain. Hard copy 

forms were a common way of getting information to the 

repository in many places. Others bypass the repository 

completely and the repository staff do not know if the 

required commitment records are even being reported. 

Timeliness, quality, and completeness of commitment 

data have been improved greatly by creating a 

mechanism to electronically share information from 

these mental health entities to the repository. States 

have either automated the exchange of information 

from individual hospitals or doctors to the repository, 

or where they exist, create a data transfer between the 

state-level entities (e.g., Department of Health) to the 

repository. For example, Ohio developed an electronic 

form to gather mental health data from probate courts 

and state hospitals to submit to NICS via the criminal 

history repository. Maryland created an electronic 

form to collect data from individual institutions and 

hospitals that populates a database maintained by the 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene which then 

connects to the state police for reporting to NICS. 

Submitting information to a central mental health database 

Accountability of reporting can be a major challenge 

with mental health data, given the multiple origination 

sources. Some states have been able to implement a 

direct automation from origination sources to criminal 

history repository databases (i.e., implemented both 

of the previously discussed strategies). Other states 

have taken a different approach and created a centrally 

managed database at the state level that houses all of 

the mental health disqualifying entries that should be 

forwarded to the NICS Index, separate from the criminal 

history repository. Instead of courts and/or other mental 

health agencies sending information directly to the 

criminal history repository exclusive of one another, a 

central repository can act as layer of quality control for 

data before it is reported to NICS. Since all entities with 

information submit to the central database, duplicate 

entries will be identified before they get forwarded on. 

It also creates a level of accountability because the data 

are being centrally managed. 

New York’s NICS Transmission System 

New York faced significant challenges gathering 

necessary mental health data from the multiple agencies 

and health facilities that hold them. The repository and 

AOC were unable to track whether required records 

were being reported to NICS. 

In order to solve this problem, New York developed a 

centrally managed automated NICS Transmission System 

that allows each agency that holds mental health records 

to electronically transfer those records to the NICS Index. 

Using this strategy, they are able to not only transfer 

records in a secure manner but also impose quality 

control and efficiencies through automated and manual 

submission methods. Prior to the NIAA, New York had 

four mental health records in the NICS Index. As of 

August 2015, they had more than 350,000 entries. 

11 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

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: Mental Health Submissions 

Improvements in Reporting Mental Health Data to 

the NICS Index 

Due to the funds made available through the NCHIP and 

NARIP programs and the greater focus among states to 

increase the number of submissions to the NICS Index, 

there has been a marked growth in the number of mental 

health records available for firearms background checks 

in recent years. According to the FBI, there were 234,628 

state and federal mental health records in the NICS Index 

as of December 31, 2005. By July 31, 2015, this number 

had increased to 4,087,528 million records—representing 

a 1600% increase in the past 10 years.9 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Mental Health Records in the NICS Index 

234,628 

298,571 

518,499 

648,120 

888,807 First year of NARIP funds 

1,107,758 

1,364,613 

1,821,217 

3,260,730
 

3,774,301
 

4,087,528
 

(2015 through July) 

9

 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/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.
Federal Mental Health Denials for Firearm Purchases
	

3,557
 

923 

1,292 

1,776 

2,301 

2,932 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 

During 2009, the first year NARIP funds were awarded, there were 923 federal denials to purchase firearms based on 

mental health records in the NICS Index. During 2014, there were 3,557 federal denials – a 285% increase. 

Conclusion 

Because of the increased awareness of the need to 

report mental health records to the NICS Index – 

coupled with enhanced funding made available by BJS 

for criminal history systems improvements in reporting 

these records – significant progress has been made in 

recent years in terms of reporting levels. However, there 

is still much work to be done. The promising practices 

identified in this analysis can help serve as a roadmap for 

states seeking to continue improving their participation 

in the NICS. While the strategies described in this bulletin 

were focused primarily on mental health submissions, 

they could be used to increase the availability of other 

disqualifiers as well. Task forces improve communication 

between agencies in terms of what information should 

be available for NICS background checks and can lead to 

procedural and/or technical changes that promote the 

availability of necessary information. Ongoing training 

is also critical to make sure all stakeholders remain 

aware of the need for timely and accurate information. 

Ensuring that historical or backlogged records are made 

available – whether through III, NCIC or the NICS Index 

– can meaningfully enhance information quality. Finally, 

automation is critical to ensuring records availability and 

efforts to promote the electronic exchange of information 

can provide long-term benefits for the purpose of 

improving firearms background checks and beyond. 

13 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions 

This project was conducted under cooperative agreement 2009-NS-BX-K050 from the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of 

the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the funding agency. 

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.