1. NCHIP Objectives

! The goal of the NCHIP Program 

is to insure that accurate records are

available for use in law enforcement,

including sex offender registry requirements, and to permit States to identify

ineligible firearm purchasers, persons

ineligible to hold positions involving

children, the elderly, or the disabled,

and persons subject to protective

orders or wanted, arrested, or

convicted of stalking and/or domestic

violence. 

! The NCHIP Program consolidates

criminal records improvement funding

authorized under the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act (P.L.

103-159); the National Child Protection

Act (P.L. 103-209); the Crime Identification Technology Act (P.L. 105-251);

the Violence Against Women Act provisions of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.

103-322); Victims of Trafficking and

Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L.

106-386); and various provisions of the

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent Offender

Registration Act, Megan's Law, and the

Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act.

! NCHIP provides direct funding and

technical assistance to the States to

improve the quality, timeliness, and

immediate accessibility of criminal

history and related records. Funds and

technical assistance are also provided

to support the interface between States

and the national record systems,

including the FBI-operated National

Instant Criminal Background Check

System (NICS) established pursuant to

the permanent provisions of the Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the

National Sex Offender Registry

(NSOR), and the National Protection

Order File which facilitates compliance

with Federal full faith and credit

requirements.

2. NCHIP Funding History

! NCHIP was initiated in FY 1995 with

total awards to the States of $391

million through FY 2002. Every State

and territory has received funding

under the program. California ($29.9

million or 7.6% of all funds), New York

($24 million or 6.1% of all funds), and

 May 2003 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Highlights

National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)

Improving Criminal History

Records for Background Checks

+35%

1995 1997 1999 2001

0

25

50

75

Total

Percent change

1995-2001 Millions of criminal history records

+29%

Automated

Ill-accessible +75%

In 2001, States held approximately 64 million criminal records on individuals. About

9 out of 10 of these records were automated and 3 out of 4 automated records were

accessible for conducting presale firearms and other background checks. 

Since 1995, the number of criminal records accessible for background checks 

has increased 75%, twice the rate of growth in the number of automated records over

the same years.

Status of Criminal History Records
Texas ($20.0 million or 5.1% of all

funds) account for the largest amounts

received under the program. Fund

distribution is based upon need rather

than population or other formula-based

methodology.

! BJS awarded approximately $37

million in NCHIP funds from FY 2002

appropriations to the States and territories to promote continued development

of criminal records infrastructure. The

FY 2003 appropriation from Congress

includes $40 million to support continued assistance to the States and localities and an additional $3 million to

support the development of anti-stalker

databases (protection order files). The

FY 2004 President’s Budget includes

an upgrade to NCHIP to incorporate a

court-directed component to improve

disposition reporting — a total of $61

million to support NCHIP and its

consolidated approach to funding criminal records improvements.

! The FY 2003 NCHIP Program

Announcement, publicly released in

March 2003, provides for the continued

development of the criminal records

infrastructure to support the NICS and

other background check purposes. In

addition, the announcement encourages States to coordinate their criminal

records systems development with

emergency management plans and

anti-terrorism activities within the State.

3. NCHIP Accomplishments

! Improved Records: Since the

inception of NCHIP, the number of

criminal history records held nationwide

grew 29% while the number of

automated records increased 35%.

Over the same period, the number of

records available for sharing under the

FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III)

climbed 75%.

! III Participation: Since 1993, the

number of States participating in III

grew from 26 to 45.

! New Identification Technologies:

43 States, 3 Territories, and the District

of Columbia now participate in the

FBI's Integrated Automated

Fingerprint Identification System. The

system began operation in July 1999,

but States had used their NCHIP funds

to prepare to participate.

! National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): The

NICS is now supporting over 8 million

checks annually at the presale stage of

firearms purchases. The State NICS

infrastructure, developed through

NCHIP funding, seamlessly transitioned from the Interim Brady system of

checks conducted by the chief law

enforcement officer (CLEO) to the

current permanent system in which

certain States have approved

background check systems of their

own (called Point-of-Contact States or

POC States) while others rely exclusively on the FBI’s NICS. 

From the inception of the Brady Act on

March 1, 1994, to December 31, 2001,

about 38 million applications for firearm

transfers were subject to background

checks. About 840,000, or 2.2% of all

applications, were rejected, primarily

for the presence of a prior felony

conviction history. State and local

agencies maintain a significant role in

background checks, conducting checks

on almost half of the applications for

firearm transfers or permits in 2000,

while the FBI was responsible for the

remainder. NCHIP funds have facilitated the integration of databases

within States: the number of rejections

for reasons other than felonies

increased 256% from the beginning of

the Brady Act to yearend 2001.

! Sex Offender Registries: NCHIP

funds have assisted the States in building sex offender registries and participating in the FBI's National Sex

Offender Registry (NSOR) which

became operational in July 1999. As of

February 2003, all 50 States plus 3

Territories and the District of Columbia

have provided more than 280,000

records to the NSOR.

! Domestic Violence and Protection

Orders: States have used NCHIP

funds to initiate the flagging of criminal

history records evidencing convictions

for domestic violence or the issuance

of a protection order. Forty-two States

and the Virgin Islands now submit data

to the NCIC Protection Order File,

which became operational in May 1997

and included over 754,000 records of

protection orders in February 2003.

4. Efforts to Promote Involvement 

of the Courts and Systems Integration to Improve Disposition

Reporting

! Among the most important priorities

of the NCHIP Program is to insure that

each State implements compatible and

integrated records systems. Annually,

the NCHIP Program Announcement to

the States has indicated that the first

priority of the program is to exhibit in

the grant application a "commitment to

support court efforts relating to development of record systems." All State

applications are "required to demonstrate that court needs have been

considered, and, if no funds for

upgrading court systems capable of

2 Improving Criminal History Records

National Sex Offender Registry 280,339

260,559

Convicted Persons 

on Supervised Release

Protection Order File 754,089

Deported Felons 94,422

Foreign Fugitives 1,525

Wanted Persons 899,911

 Total 2,290,845

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) Files

Mental Defective Records 143,662

Citizenship Renounced 12,603

Dishonorable Dischargees 7,404

Controlled Substance

Abuse Records 166

Illegal/Unlawful Aliens Records 2,683,910

Denied Persons File 42,418

 Total 2,890,163

NICS Prohibited Persons Index 

FBI Maintained III Records 19,043,002

State Indexed III Records 28,927,627

 Total 47,970,629

Interstate Identification Index (III)

Total records checked 53,151,637

Number

of records

A NICS background check involves

reviewing over 53 million records from 3

sources and 14 databases 

Pre-Sale Firearms Background

Checks Databases Used for NICS

Checks and Record Holdings, 2003
providing disposition data are

requested, applicants should include a

statement from the State Court Administrator or Chief Justice indicating that

the courts have been consulted in

connection with the application." 

In FY 2002, approximately 18% of the

$37 million in NCHIP funds distributed

to the States provided direct funding to

the courts and another 18% assisted in

court-related activities and disposition

reporting.

To further stimulate courts involvement

in the program, the BJS Director has

formally encouraged each State repository director to dedicate NCHIP funds

for disposition reporting or for identification efforts consistent with State antiterrorism plans.

Some examples of court improvement

projects under NCHIP include:

Alabama, through its Administrative

Office of the Courts, is conducting a

test project for municipal courts. The

project is testing a variety of data

collection efforts that will enhance

misdemeanor disposition reporting

from municipal courts (especially

domestic violence misdemeanors). 

Florida, as of February 2002, has 61

of 67 clerks of court submitting disposition data online which means that

criminal history records are being

updated and disseminated in a more

timely and accurate manner. As a

result of working closely with the Clerks

of Court, Florida has added over 4.1

million dispositions to the State's criminal history system since 1995.

Georgia, through its Superior Court

clerks, are entering protection order

files populated with images and NCIC

data into its web-based protection

order registry. All relevant data are sent

to the National Protection Order File.

Maine, through its Administrative

Office of the Courts, is using a combination of State, Byrne, VAWA, and

NCHIP funds to update the court case

management system. This update

allows electronic reporting of dispositions to the State Police. Currently, the

State reports receiving 100% reporting

of dispositions from the Courts.

Mississippi is providing workstations

to courts in all 82 counties in the State.

These workstations will be used to

supply disposition data to the Administrative Office of the Courts' central

server. Software currently being developed will extract information from the

central server and forward final dispositions to the State's central repository. 

South Carolina is conducting a joint

initiative between the South Carolina

Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and

the South Carolina Judicial Department (SCJD) to restructure the system

for delivery of dispositions from the

courts to the State Identification

Bureau (SIB). Plans include providing

new Internet connectivity for Clerks of

Court and Magistrates in each county

and allowing direct linkage of dispositions with records already in SIB.

Illinois, through its State Police, 

is initiating a pilot program that will use

single fingerprints to create a

fingerprint-based link between arrest,

final disposition, and custodial information. The State Police are working with

local courts and county sheriffs to test

and implement this system.

Ohio is using NCHIP funds as a

pro-rata share of costs to automate the

last eight manual-based courts. These

courts will then possess the capability

to electronically transmit dispositions to

the central criminal history records

repository. 

 

Rhode Island is identifying missing

dispositions and the courts to locate

and forward them to the central criminal history repository, as well as pay

overtime for data entry by repository

personnel, to reduce a backlog of

dispositions.

Pennsylvania will use funds to

continue pilot testing and implementation of the live posting (electronic) of

dispositions by all courts in the State to

the Administrative Office of the Courts

records system and the State

Police criminal history repository. 

Virginia will use funds to conduct a

needs analysis to determine what

changes to the system infrastructure

will improve the completeness of court

disposition reporting, particularly as it

relates to NICS. Funds will also be

used to provide for the electronic

submission of protection orders from

the courts for use by the Virginia State

Police and local law enforcement

agencies. 

 Improving Criminal History Records 3

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Total

Felony

Nonfelony

Percent change

1995-2001

Number of rejections

+268%

+192%

+477%

In 2001, there were 7,958,000 background checks conducted in connection with the

purchase of a firearm. Among those applying to purchase a firearm, just over

151,000 or 2%, were found to be prohibited purchasers. Since 1995, the number of

applicants rejected due to a felony background has grown by 192% while the number

rejected due to other types of background checks enumerated in the 1968 Gun

Control Act as amended — such as a history of mental illness, drug addiction, or

domestic violence — increased 477%.

Reasons for Rejection of Firearm Transfer Applications, 1995-2001
5. Directive by the Attorney General

to BJS

On June 28, 2001, the Attorney

General issued directives which 

require BJS to —

 

! obtain data from the FBI on missing

dispositions and their effect on NICS

checks

! conduct a survey of the States to

identify major impediments to disposition completeness, with a primary

focus on the linkage between criminal

records repositories and the courts and

prosecutors

! assess the NCHIP program as

currently designed and recommend

changes which will improve record

completeness

! review the availability of records

which could be used for presale

checks for other classes of prohibited

firearms purchasers enumerated in the

1968 Gun Control Act, as amended.

BJS has been working closely with FBI

Criminal Justice Information Services

staff to implement the first element in

the directive. The FBI drew a sample of

NICS checks which could not be

completed instantly due to "open

arrests" and, at the request of BJS,

examined the age distribution of the

most recent arrest transaction on the

RAP sheet. More than three-quarters

of the "open arrests" dated to years

prior to 1995 when the NCHIP program

began. Half the "open arrests" were

from 1984 and earlier. This assessment indicates that a major "clean-up"

of older records would be necessary 

to reduce the number of dispositions

missing from the databases checked

by NICS.

BJS, in collaboration with DOJ's Office

of Legal Policy (OLP), the FBI, and the

State criminal records repositories

developed a questionnaire for collecting data on the second requirement of

the Attorney General's Directive. The

survey was fielded in early September

with data for all States now complete.

The survey sought information on: 

(1) procedures for transmission of

arrest and disposition data from law

enforcement agencies and the

courts to the repository

(2) processes for integrating justice

systems records in terms of disposition capture and linking of dispositions to arrest records 

(3) participation in national programs

of the FBI such as the Interstate

Identification Index and the National

Fingerprint File 

(4) NICS and POCs inquiries and

record accessibility

(5) an analysis of the age of records

and their completeness.

Survey findings will assist BJS in

assessing such concerns as "defaultproceed sales," participation in the

FBI's "denied persons" file, and the

extent to which retrievals of firearms

for which an erroneous clearance

occurred are a consequence of record

inadequacies. 

Preliminary findings from the AG

Survey of the State Criminal Records

Repositories include:

Repository databases

! There were 64.3 million records in

the criminal history files of the State

criminal history repositories at yearend

2001. Approximately 90% of these

criminal history records were

automated. Since 1995, the number of

criminal history records held nationwide

grew 29% while the number of

automated records increased 35%.

! The States have made significant

improvements in automating their

records in recent years. In 2001, 30

States had over 90% of their criminal

history records automated, compared

to 22 states in 1995.

! The number of States with relatively

low levels of automation (defined as

having less than 70% of records

automated) declined from 13 States in

1995 to 6 States in 2001.

! Over 29 million III records (60% of all

III records) are supported by the State

rather than the FBI. The FBI maintains

another 19.2 million records for States

which are accessible under the III

system. Some States have significantly

increased the number of III records

that are supported by the State. From

1999 to 2001, the number of Statesupported III records increased by

nearly 7 times in West Virginia, quadrupled in Maryland, and more than

quadrupled in Arizona.

! Of those States that maintain

partially automated criminal history

files, 21 have a policy to automate the

offender’s entire record if an offender

with a prior manual record is arrested.

Four States and the District of Columbia only automate the new information

on the record.

Identifying dispositions 

in the criminal history file 

! There was considerable variation

among the States in the method they

use to measure a missing final disposition by using an arrest event or an

arrest charge. Twenty-one States

measure a final disposition by an arrest

event, 17 States identify it by an arrest

charge, and 10 States and the District

of Columbia measure a missing final

disposition by both an arrest event and

an arrest charge. 

! There is considerable variation

among the States’ definitions of a

“missing disposition.” Thirty-four States

and the District of Columbia consider

any arrest event or charge without 

a disposition to be a “missing disposition,” while 16 States require a specified amount of time to pass before an

arrest event or charge will be officially

considered a “missing disposition.” 

! Of the 16 States requiring a specified time period to pass, 6 States

require that 1 year pass before a

missing disposition is considered a

final missing disposition, 2 States

require that more than 1 year elapse,

and the remaining 7 States use

another time interval. In some States,

4 Improving Criminal History Records
the time period depends on the

offense.

! The source of missing dispositions

varies among the States. The court is

the primary source in 25 States and the

District of Columbia; a statewide court

administrator system is the primary

source in 12 States; and the prosecutor

is the primary source in 5 States. 

! By far, the most common method for

obtaining a missing disposition — used

by 45 States — is to make a manual

inquiry to a specific court or statewide

court administrator after receiving a

query. Twenty-seven States make a

manual inquiry to the prosecutor’s

office upon receipt of a criminal history

inquiry. Twenty-six States made

manual inquiries to both the prosecutor

and the courts.

! Only 11 States used automated

inquiries to obtain missing dispositions.

Upon receipt of a query, eight States

made an automated inquiry only to 

the courts, and three States made

automated inquiries to the courts as

well as the prosecutor’s office. One

State (Pennsylvania) reported that 

they rely only on automated inquiries 

in order to obtain missing dispositions.

One State (Michigan) made automated

inquiries to the prosecutor on a

monthly basis. Six States made

automated inquiries to the courts on a

regular basis (typically on an annual

basis).

Capabilities of State repository

databases to detect missing

dispositions

! There were 41 State databases that

could distinguish between new arrests

(less than 1 year old) that lack a disposition and older arrests. Nine States

and the District of Columbia reported

that their databases cannot make this

distinction.

! Of the States with databases that 

are capable of making the distinction,

14 States indicated that the information

is available without needing special

computer programming. Twenty-seven

States reported that special programming would be needed to generate this

information.

! Forty-five States and the District of

Columbia have databases that are 

able to distinguish between felony

arrests/charges and misdemeanor

arrests/charges. Of these, 27 States

are able to retrieve this information

without special programming, and 18

States and the District of Columbia are

not.

Integrating Justice System

Decisions into Criminal Records

At each decision-point in the criminal

justice system — determinations by law

enforcement agencies, prosecutors’

offices, and trial courts — decisions are

made with respect to further caseprocessing. A case may terminate

further processing or continue to move

through the justice system. In order to

address the problem of “open arrests,”

the results of a case passing through a

decision-point or the disposition of the

case must be entered into the criminal

record. 

The Survey queried States about their

ability to associate decisions or case

dispositions made by justice system

components back to an arrest transaction on an individual’s criminal history

record. Thirty-two States reported that

they received prosecutor dispositions

during the year which could not be

linked to arrest information on a criminal history record; 45 States and the

District of Colombia said they had

received final court dispositions which

could not be linked; and 34 States said

they had received correctional disposition information which was insufficiently

identifiable to enter on a criminal

record. For the year ending on July 1,

2001, some States indicated substantial numbers of dispositions which

could not be initially linked to a record

— about half the States indicated that

they had received correctional information for individuals for whom no prior

conviction record existed.

The link between the State 

repository and law enforcement

State criminal history repositories

receive final disposition information

from law enforcement in a variety of

ways. Twenty-six States receive final

disposition information from law

enforcement agencies. Twelve of these

States rely only on the mail to receive

disposition information. One State

repository (Hawaii’s) receives disposition information only in an electronic

format from law enforcement. Pennsylvania’s repository only receives this

information by fax. The remaining

States receive disposition information

from law enforcement agencies by

some combination of electronic transmission, fax transmission, and the

mail. 

The link between the State 

repository and prosecutors

Thirty-six States receive final disposition information from prosecutors.

Nearly half of these States (16) only

receive this information through the

mail. There are four States that rely

solely on the electronic transmission of

this information. The remaining States

receive final disposition information

from prosecutors by some combination

of mail, fax, and electronic

transmission.

The link between the State 

repository and trial courts

Forty-five States and the District of

Columbia receive final disposition information from the trial courts, and 15 of

the States receive this information only

through the mail. 

Thirty-two States and the District of

Columbia relied on the electronic transmission of disposition information from

either the trial court or the State court

administrator’s office. Of these States,

there were 19 States that relied exclusively on the electronic transmission of

final disposition information from the

trial courts or from the State court

administrator’s offices.

 Improving Criminal History Records 5
6. Protecting Records from

Terrorism

Following the September 11 terrorist

attacks, BJS determined that a major

concern for the adequacy of criminal

records was the ability of States to

insure the backup maintenance of

records in the event of the destruction

of primary record holdings. In early

October, BJS conducted a special

survey of the States to learn more

about the backup procedures in place

across the States. 

Findings

All States (but not the District of

Colombia) responded to a BJS special

survey addressing records redundancy

and the findings are:

! All of the States maintain a backup

of their criminal history record systems.

! All States except three (New

Hampshire, New Jersey, and New

Mexico) have their backups located

offsite from the repository.

! The data in the backup systems are

updated frequently. Six States update

their backup systems in real time, and

24 States update on a daily basis.

Fifteen States have a policy to update

their systems on a weekly basis. The

remaining five States update their

backup systems on some other time

interval.

The content of the backup systems

varied among the States:

! Seventeen States reported that their

backup systems contained automated

criminal history records, hard copies of

criminal history records, and electronic

fingerprint images. 

! Twenty-four States reported that

their backup systems contained automated criminal history records and

electronic fingerprint images. 

! Seven States reported that their

backup systems contained only

automated criminal history records.

! One State reported that its backup

systems contained automated criminal

history records and hard copies of

criminal history records.

! One State reported that its backup

system contained only electronic

fingerprint images. 

! Among the States that include hard

copies of criminal history records in

their backup systems, four States

update those records by creating an

automated version and six States add

updated information in a

non-automated fashion. 

7. New NCHIP Initiatives to Improve

Disposition Coverage and Address

Terrorism

Survey of Prosecutors

BJS has recently awarded a grant to

the American Prosecutors Research

Institute (APRI), which is the research

arm of National District Attorneys

Association, to field a survey of prosecutors’ offices across the Nation to see

how they can work to improve the

problem of missing dispositions in

criminal history records. Of particular

concern is measuring the extent to

which prosecutors provide information

identifiable to a particular criminal

history record, on non-prosecution

outcomes such as nolle prosequis. 

An examination of the “open arrest”

problem clearly reveals that prosecutors may not be systematically providing such information. This survey will

provide an improved understanding of

the impact of this problem on disposition completeness. 

NCHIP supports antiterrorism efforts

BJS has initiated changes to the

NCHIP Program based upon our

preliminary findings and, of course, the

September 11 events. BJS recently

published a program announcement to

the States for FY 2003 and expects to

make funds available to support the

traditional records improvement activities such as improvements in disposition reporting, NICS, III participation,

systems integration, IAFIS, sex

offender registries, and protection

order files. 

The 2003 program announcement

asks the States to undertake new initiatives using criminal records to support

anti-terrorism efforts. New concerns

about the adequacy of redundant and

backup records systems, building

better ties between immigration and

criminal records, and better coordination with homeland defense and

emergency management agencies

within the States are all matters where

BJS would like to assist State efforts.

However, it is important to reiterate that

all of these efforts must be focused on

the development of better records

systems.

Supporting the NICS Index

One other potential area for funding 

in FY 2003 which BJS encourages the

States to consider is the transmittal 

of rejected firearms purchasers and

denied applicants to the FBI's NICS

Index. The Denied Persons file in the

NICS Index can be an important

resource for improving the timeliness 

of NICS checks and insuring that repeated record research is not needed.

The submission of data by POC States

on persons prohibited from purchasing

firearms due to non-felony background

characteristics will also assist the NICS

to conduct more comprehensive background checks. Asking jurisdictions to

research “open arrests” has become a

very time-consuming and burdensome

activity for localities when an “open

arrest” is identified in the course of a

background check. A more coordinated

approach to building the national database will help ameliorate this problem. 

6 Improving Criminal History Records
The FBI study of failed instant checks,

noted earlier, was critical to determining that open arrest problems are most

often occurring when an older record is

being checked. Better development

and use of the NICS Index files, particularly by POC States in submitting

such data, should avert recurring

checks of the same person and will

help to alleviate the problem of insufficient access to databases on nonfelony categories of denied persons. 

It is important to note that BJS survey

data indicate that there are about 63

million criminal records in the United

States, and there are still approximately 7 million manual criminal

records among these holdings. There

are also an estimated 16 million automated records that are not accessible

to III for background checks. Of the

remaining 40.7 million records which

are automated and accessible under

III, the most recent BJS data indicate

that perhaps 37% may not be fully

useful for an instant check due to

missing data on arrest dispositions.

This may mean that as many 15 million

additional criminal records will need 

to be evaluated for the presence or

absence of sufficient information on

dispositions if they are to be useable

for the instant check. 

The BJS survey of the State criminal

records repositories also revealed that

NICS and other background checks will

be conducted with far greater accuracy

if justice system components provide

improved data and identifiers to link

arrest transactions to case-processing

outcomes. The problem of disposition

coverage in criminal records is not

simply a problem of missing data; it is

also a problem of data that have been

received but cannot be properly associated with an individual or an arrest

event. 

To address the record completeness

problem with criminal records, the FY

2004 President’s Budget includes

funds for a supplement for the Courts

to the NCHIP Program. This funding

initiative would focus upon the task of

cleaning up the older criminal history

records which, as our research reveals,

are a large part of the problem associated with completing instant checks

instantly. The funds will be distributed

primarily to those States with high

volume firearms sales and for whom a

substantial fraction of older records

have not been automated and may not

be accessible under the III system. In

addition, BJS NCHIP funds may also

be devoted to system upgrades which

allow justice system components to

better link dispositions and case

outcomes to the arrested individual and

the arrest event.

BJS has also funded the continued

evaluation of NCHIP. The evaluators,

at BJS's request, will construct an

index of the key components of background check systems and score

States on their relative strengths and

weaknesses to perform specific tasks

associated with these checks. The

Index will be a barometer of performance (i.e. time it takes to post a transaction to a record) that will permit BJS

to target very specific problems and

deficiencies in future funding at the

individual State level. 

 Improving Criminal History Records 7

Incorrect approval for purchase resulted in retrieval 7,900 0.1

Rejection for purchase reversed on appeal 10,900 0.1

Rejection for purchase confirmed 139,600 1.8

Approval for purchase confirmed 7,807,500 98.1%

Less than .2% of Pre-Sale Firearms Background Checks Resulted 

in Inaccurate Decisions, 2001
 

8 Improving Criminal History Records

*1998 awards include National Sex Offender Registry Assistance Program awards.

Total $79,285,167 $33,145,313 $50,277,330 $67,630,359 $43,119,765 $41,482,328 $38,205,171 $36,842,228 $390,987,661

Wyoming 479,856 285,482 237,035 50,016 240,104 529,417 285,000 2,106,910

Wisconsin 1,700,000 396,000 770,000 1,671,700 730,000 760,000 681,000 647,000 7,355,700

West Virginia 1,919,000 75,000 230,000 641,688 518,876 668,422 500,000 270,000 4,822,986

Washington 1,200,000 594,682 1,298,000 1,330,000 689,000 846,000 674,000 800,000 7,431,682

Virginia 2,215,105 383,669 940,312 2,044,470 924,021 1,082,781 1,035,143 1,203,182 9,828,683

Virgin Islands 203,157 300,000 503,157

Vermont 1,975,279 199,500 1,168,966 657,690 513,375 729,157 683,459 609,688 6,537,114

Utah 692,653 338,000 538,706 948,254 555,472 540,256 530,000 475,600 4,618,941

Texas 4,961,200 2,000,000 4,200,000 3,585,075 2,500,000 795,000 2,000,000 20,041,275

Tennessee 1,250,000 419,155 993,000 765,830 738,832 780,161 550,000 531,000 6,027,978

South Dakota 530,000 145,270 403,080 603,120 330,741 672,693 452,172 488,156 3,625,232

South Carolina 1,293,020 693,000 2,354,683 925,890 990,000 1,195,406 822,000 8,273,999

Rhode Island $541,804 $322,000 $455,040 526,450 520,000 $520,000 500,000 $475,000 3,860,294

Puerto Rico $342,722 $469,714 $300,000 $1,112,436

Pennsylvania 2,632,984 1,369,000 2,170,000 4,003,553 1,220,000 916,600 1,392,000 1,322,000 15,026,137

Oregon 1,526,850 355,000 603,000 666,498 527,000 1,000,000 807,300 122,861 5,608,509

Oklahoma 612,741 499,350 436,776 476,650 602,681 702,681 549,999 475,000 4,355,878

Ohio 2,410,571 1,455,772 1,920,000 2,580,183 1,090,000 1,368,256 1,320,627 1,389,214 13,534,623

N. Mariana Islands 300,000 285,000 585,000

North Dakota 697,862 475,000 541,051 697,305 520,000 562,710 544,470 475,824 4,514,222

North Carolina 1,704,955 344,500 1,100,000 1,048,195 610,003 809,498 635,000 603,000 6,855,151

New York 5,042,375 1,768,720 4,360,000 4,211,174 2,090,000 2,210,000 2,225,000 2,112,000 24,019,269

New Mexico 2,126,328 1,019,143 890,995 559,950 579,942 686,860 555,998 6,419,216

New Jersey 2,559,221 634,581 859,920 1,476,811 1,170,000 1,200,000 892,980 848,000 9,641,513

New Hampshire 1,200,000 567,513 410,000 869,200 520,000 381,073 407,462 476,996 4,832,244

Nevada 940,000 325,000 425,000 810,000 610,000 810,000 513,000 4,433,000

Nebraska 830,330 425,000 440,000 784,643 557,080 560,200 553,237 616,825 4,767,315

Montana $335,000 $273,270 $462,223 $983,993 $520,000 $512,389 $546,842 $475,341 $4,109,058

Missouri 1,869,570 387,648 913,465 1,357,429 644,403 899,133 904,000 652,000 7,627,648

Mississippi 1,725,000 250,000 364,442 742,094 666,543 560,000 534,717 500,000 5,342,796

Minnesota 1,736,360 544,000 510,000 950,540 516,089 413,454 984,320 502,000 6,156,763

Michigan 1,124,874 1,806,000 1,460,000 1,745,051 1,015,365 1,153,032 1,200,199 881,382 10,385,903

Massachusetts 1,901,209 1,324,041 2,000,000 1,950,000 1,100,000 819,762 1,028,000 976,000 11,099,012

Maryland 1,700,000 400,000 760,000 1,000,000 770,000 922,500 630,462 595,117 6,788,079

Maine 1,975,000 199,000 807,500 629,666 520,000 90,000 453,000 4,674,166

Louisiana 1,300,000 327,665 426,296 1,110,476 739,314 739,436 578,698 499,000 5,720,885

Kentucky 1,200,000 250,000 715,000 1,300,961 519,000 499,536 507,000 482,000 5,473,497

Kansas 903,000 325,000 659,000 565,319 480,000 520,000 540,359 475,000 4,467,678

Iowa 792,036 405,164 769,849 458,158 358,318 238,537 208,915 420,620 3,651,597

Indiana 1,581,442 550,831 1,230,000 880,000 780,000 900,000 964,500 736,000 7,622,773

Illinois 3,050,000 1,112,000 2,540,000 2,370,000 1,300,000 $1,590,000 1,352,000 1,284,000 14,598,000

Idaho $490,000 $250,000 $195,000 $344,272 $275,289 $342,873 $170,000 $2,067,434

Hawaii 600,000 507,125 440,000 900,000 520,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 4,567,125

Guam 200,000 200,000 399,796 300,000 300,000 285,000 1,684,796

Georgia 1,749,910 505,000 545,000 1,564,911 1,778,528 803,768 498,979 691,628 8,137,724

Florida 3,144,331 833,835 1,250,000 1,648,820 2,496,500 1,980,000 1,650,787 1,369,000 14,373,273

District of Columbia 862,576 386,100 277,131 278,288 350,000 329,916 2,484,011

Delaware 1,125,089 310,930 465,000 708,258 521,560 491,470 500,000 475,000 4,597,307

Connecticut 853,191 975,000 576,000 1,193,777 520,000 700,000 545,000 518,000 5,880,968

Colorado 986,315 340,635 419,464 1,182,297 599,402 960,000 507,000 485,000 5,480,113

California 3,525,542 5,400,000 4,950,000 6,350,000 2,870,138 2,350,000 2,238,414 2,200,000 29,884,094

Arkansas 659,390 393,720 620,886 747,109 555,752 694,330 630,000 475,000 4,776,187

Arizona 1,099,147 625,000 605,000 1,000,169 559,672 980,000 1,000,000 750,000 6,618,988

American Samoa 200,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 285,000 1,685,000

Alaska 1,001,318 340,000 440,000 955,000 720,000 760,000 585,000 475,000 5,276,318

Alabama $552,733 $337,637 $1,010,729 $476,004 $750,000 $879,447 $521,574 $499,880 $5,028,004

Jurisdiction 1995 1996 1997 1998* 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total 1995-2002

Direct awards

NCHIP funding, 1995-2002