SURVEY.PRN (p. 3 of 3-- one copy of 3 pages)

Survey of State Criminal

History Information Systems,

2003

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Criminal Justice Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20531

Alberto R. Gonzales

Attorney General

 

Office of Justice Programs

Partnerships for Safer Communities

Regina B. Schofield

Assistant Attorney General

World Wide Web site:

http//www.ojp.usdoj.gov

 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Maureen A. Henneberg

Acting Deputy Director

World Wide Web site:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

 

For information contact

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

1-800-851-3420
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal

History Information

Systems, 2003

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report

February 2006, NCJ 210297
ii Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Maureen A. Henneberg

Acting Deputy Director

Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for

Justice Information and Statistics, Francis X. Aumand III, Chairman, and Ronald P. Hawley,

Executive Director. The project directors and authors of the report were Owen M. Greenspan,

Director, Law and Policy, and Eric C. Johnson, Justice Information Services Specialist. Support

for the project was provided by Adonica McGarr, Administrative Assistant; Twyla R. Putt,

Manager, Corporate Communications; and Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, Corporate

Communications. The Federal project monitor was Dr. Gerard F. Ramker, Chief, Criminal

Statistics Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 2004-RU-BX-K005, awarded

to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven 

Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily 

reflect the view or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 iii

Contents

List of data tables iv

Glossary of terms v

Introduction 1

Major findings 1

Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal

history files 1

Level of disposition reporting 2

Level of felony flagging 2

Timeliness of trial court disposition data 2

Detailed findings 2

Status of State criminal history files 2

Completeness of data in State criminal history

repository 3

Disposition data 3

Correctional data 4

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 5

—Arrests 5

—Disposition data 5

—Admission to correctional facilities 5

Procedures to improve data quality 6

Linking of arrests and dispositions 6

Missing dispositions 7

Other data quality procedures 7

Audits 7

Data tables 11

Methodology 58
iv Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

List of data tables

1. Overview of State criminal history record

systems, December 31, 2003 13

2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in

State criminal history file, 1999, 2001, and 2003

15

3. Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001,

and 2003 17

4. Automation of master name index and criminal

history file, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 19

5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal

history repository, 2003 21

6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1997, 1999,

2001, and 2003 23

7. Notice to State criminal history repository of

release of arrested persons without charging,

1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 25

8. Completeness of prosecutor and court

disposition reporting to State criminal history

repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 27

9. Policies/practices of State criminal history

repository regarding modification of felony

convictions, 2003 29

10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and

linkage to records maintained by State criminal

history repository, 2003 31

11. Probation and parole data in State criminal

history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

33

12. Average number of days to process arrest data

submitted to State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog, 2003 35

13. Average number of days to process disposition data

submitted to State criminal history repository and

current status of backlog, 2003 37

14. Average number of days to process correctional

admission data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current status of backlog,

2003 39

15. Procedures employed by State criminal history

repository to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 2003 41

16. Methods used to link disposition information to

arrest/charge information on criminal history

record, 2003 43

17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be

made between court or correctional information

in the criminal history database, 2003 45

17a. Procedure followed to obtain missing

dispositions, 2003 47

18. Strategies employed by State criminal history

repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal

history database, 2003 49

19. Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 51

20. Data quality audits of State criminal history

repository, 2003 53

21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification

Index (III) participants maintained by the State

criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), October 1, 2004 55

22. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes, 2003 57
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Glossary v

Glossary of terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS): An automated system for searching

fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint images.

AFIS computer equipment can scan fingerprint

impressions (or utilize electronically transmitted

fingerprint images) and automatically extract and

digitize ridge details and other identifying

characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the

computer’s searching and matching components to

distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or

even millions of fingerprints previously scanned and

stored in digital form in the computer’s memory. The

process eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint

files and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print

processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal

justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment

also can be used to identify individuals from “latent”

(crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of

single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint

images generated by AFIS equipment can be

transmitted electronically to remote sites, eliminating

the necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and

providing remote access to AFIS fingerprint files.

Central Repository: The database (or the agency

housing the database) that maintains criminal history

records on all State offenders. Records include

fingerprint files and files containing identification

segments and notations of arrests and dispositions.

The central repository is generally responsible for

State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly

serves as the central control terminal for contact with

FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for

a national record check (for criminal justice or firearm

check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central

repository. Although usually housed in the

Department of Public Safety, the central repository is

maintained in some States by the State Police or other

State agency.

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) or

Criminal History Record Information System:

A record (or the system maintaining such records) that

includes individual identifiers and describes an

individual’s arrests and subsequent dispositions.

Criminal history records do not include intelligence or

investigative data or sociological data such as drug

use history. CHRI systems usually include

information on juveniles if they are tried as adults in

criminal courts.

Most, however, do not include data describing

involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice

system. Data in CHRI systems are usually backed by

fingerprints of the record subjects to provide positive

identification. State legislation varies concerning

disclosure of criminal history records for noncriminal

justice purposes.

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history

records are complete, accurate, and timely. In

addition, accessibility sometimes is considered a data

quality factor. The key concern in data quality is the

completeness of records and the extent to which

records include dispositions as well as arrest and

charge information. Other concerns include the

timeliness of data reporting to State and Federal

repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the

repositories, the readability of criminal history

records, and the ability to have access to the records

when necessary.

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category

of offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history

information are accepted by the FBI and entered in the

Bureau’s files, including the III system. Serious

misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor

offenses, such as drunkenness or minor traffic

offenses.

Interstate Identification Index (III): An “indexpointer” system for the interstate exchange of criminal

history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an

identification index to persons arrested for felonies or

serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. The

index includes identification information, (such as

name, date of birth, race, and sex), FBI Numbers, and

State Identification Numbers (SID) from each State

holding information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide

are transmitted automatically via State telecommunications networks and the FBI’s National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications lines.

Searches are made on the basis of name and other

identifiers. The process is entirely automated and

takes approximately 5 seconds to complete. If a hit is

made against the Index, record requests are made

using the SID or FBI Number, and data are

automatically retrieved from each repository holding

records on the individual and forwarded to the

requesting agency. As of March 2005, 47 States

participate in III. Responses are provided from FBI

files when the State originating the record is not a

participant in III.
Glossary vi Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Participation requires that the State maintain an

automated criminal history record system capable of

interfacing with the III system and capable of

responding automatically to all interstate and

Federal/State record requests.

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of

juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal

history record systems do not accept such records,

which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and

which usually are confidential under State law.

Pursuant to an order dated July 15, 1992, the FBI now

accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the

same basis as adult records. States, however, are not

required to submit such records to the FBI.

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject identification

index maintained by criminal history record

repositories that includes names and other identifiers

for each person about whom a record is held in the

systems. As of 2003, only the U.S. Virgin Islands did

not have at least a partially automated MNI; almost all

jurisdictions (46 States and Puerto Rico) had fully

automated MNIs. The automated name index is the

key to rapidly identifying persons who have criminal

records for such purposes as presale firearm checks,

criminal investigations, or bailsetting. MNIs may

include “felony flags,” which indicate whether record

subjects have arrests or convictions for felony

offenses.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An

automated database of criminal justice and justicerelated records maintained by the FBI. The database

includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing

persons, stolen vehicles, and identifiable stolen

property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is

through central control terminal operators in each

State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated

telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI.

Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the

State control terminal via the State law enforcement

network. Inquiries are based on name and other

nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history

inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC

telecommunications system. NCIC data may be

provided only for criminal justice and other

specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history

searches, this includes criminal justice employment,

employment by Federally chartered or insured

banking institutions or securities firms, and use by

State and local governments for purposes of

employment and licensing pursuant to a State statute

approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries

regarding presale firearm checks are included as

criminal justice uses.

National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact

that establishes formal procedures and governance

structures for the use of the Interstate Identification

Index (III). It is designed to facilitate the exchange of

criminal history data among States for noncriminal

justice purposes and to eliminate the need for the FBI

to maintain duplicate data about State offenders.

Under the Compact, the operation of this system is

overseen by a policymaking council comprised of

Federal and State officials. The key concept

underlying the Compact is agreement among all

signatory States that all criminal history information

(except sealed records) will be provided in response to

noncriminal justice requests from another State —

regardless of whether the information being requested

would be permitted to be disseminated for a similar

noncriminal justice purpose within the State holding

the data. (That is, the law of the State that is inquiring

about the data — rather than the law of the State that

originated the data — governs its use.) In some cases,

ratification of the Compact will have the effect of

amending existing State legislation governing

interstate record dissemination, since most States do

not currently authorize dissemination to all of the

Federal agencies and out-of-State users authorized

under the Compact. At present, noncriminal justice

inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files of

voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition

records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates

of State records and generally results in less complete

records being provided, since FBI files of State

records are not always complete due to reporting

deficiencies. The Compact was passed by Congress

and signed into law by the President in October 1998.

The Compact became effective in April 1999,

following ratification by two State legislatures, those

being Montana on April 8, 1999, and Georgia on

April 28, 1999. Since that time, 21 additional States

have entered into the Compact: Nevada (May 1999);

Florida (June 1999); Colorado (March 2000); Iowa

(April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); South

Carolina (June 2000); Arkansas (February 2001);

Kansas (April 2001); Alaska (May 2001); Oklahoma

(May 2001); Maine (June 2001); New Jersey (January

2002); Minnesota (March 2002); Arizona (April

2002); Tennessee (May 2003); North Carolina (June

2003); New Hampshire (June 2003); Missouri (July

2003); Ohio (January 2004); Wyoming (February

2005); and Idaho (March 2005).
S

urveyofStateCriminalHistoryInformationSystems,2003Glossaryvii

NationalFingerprintFile(NFF):Asystemand

proceduresdesignedasacomponentoftheIIIsystem,

which,whenfullyimplemented,wouldestablisha

totallydecentralizedsystemfortheinterstate

exchangeofcriminalhistoryrecords.TheNFFwill

containfingerprintsofFederaloffendersandasingle

setoffingerprintsonStateoffendersfromeachState

inwhichanoffenderhasbeenarrestedforafelonyor

aseriousmisdemeanor.UndertheNFFconcept,

Statesforwardonlythefirst-arrestfingerprintsofan

individualtotheFBIaccompaniedbyother

identificationdatasuchasnameanddateofbirth.

Fingerprintsforsubsequentarrestsarenotforwarded.

Dispositiondataontheindividualalsoareretainedat

theStaterepositoryandnotforwardedtotheFBI.

Uponreceiptofthefirst-arrestfingerprintcards(or

electronicimages),theFBIenterstheindividual’s

fingerprintimpressionsintheNFFandentersthe

person’snameandidentifiersintheIII,togetherwith

anFBINumberandaStateIdentification(SID)

NumberforeachStatemaintainingarecordonthe

individual.Chargeanddispositioninformationon

StateoffendersaremaintainedonlyattheStatelevel,

andStaterepositoriesarerequiredtorespondtoall

authorizedrecordrequestsconcerningthese

individualsforbothcriminaljusticeandnoncriminal

justicepurposes.Stateshavetoreleasealldataon

recordsubjectsfornoncriminaljusticeinquiries

regardlessofwhetherthedatacouldbereleasedfor

similarpurposeswithintheState.TheNFFhasbeen

implementedinsevenStates:Colorado,Florida,

Montana,NewJersey,NorthCarolina,Oklahomaand

Oregon.

PositiveIdentification:Identificationofan

individualusingbiometriccharacteristicsthatare

uniqueandnotsubjecttoalteration.Inpresentusage,

thetermreferstoidentificationbyfingerprintsbut

mayalsoincludeidentificationbyretinalimages,

voiceprints,orothertechniques.Positive

identificationistobedistinguishedfromidentification

usingname,sex,dateofbirth,orotherpersonal

identifiersasshownonadocumentsubjectto

alterationorcounterfeitsuchasabirthcertificate,

SocialSecuritycard,ordriver’slicense.Because

individualscanhaveidenticalorsimilarnames,ages,

etc.,identificationsbasedonsuchcharacteristicsare

notreliable.

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Introduction • Page 1

Note to readers: This is a

report of the results of the

Survey of State Criminal

History Information

Systems. In some of the

tables that follow, data

from earlier data quality

surveys are included.

Caution should be used in

drawing comparisons

between the results of

earlier surveys and the

survey reported here.

Since the last national data

quality survey, the U.S.

Department of Justice has

continued to implement

assistance programs

dedicated to improving

criminal history records.

As a result, some States

are focusing new or

additional resources on the

condition of their records

and, in many cases, know

more about their records

today than in the past. A

number of State

repositories have suffered

fiscal cutbacks and have

had to shift priorities away

from certain criminal

history information

management tasks. For

these and other reasons,

trend comparisons may

not as accurately reflect

the status of the Nation’s

criminal history records as

the current data considered

alone.

Introduction

This report is based upon the

results from a survey conducted

of the administrators of the State

criminal history record

repositories in May–December

2004. Fifty-three jurisdictions

were surveyed, including the 50

States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses were received from all

53 jurisdictions. Throughout this

report, the 50 States will be

referred to as “States”; the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands will

be referred to as “territories,”

consistent with prior surveys;

“Nation” refers collectively to

both the States and territories.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) was the

source for information relating to

the number of criminal history

records of the States participating

in the Interstate Identification

Index (III) system that are

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories and the

number of records maintained by

the FBI for the States, as of

March 1, 2003.

Major findings

Level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history files

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2003 (Table 1):

• Forty-nine reporting States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico have automated at least

some records in the criminal

history record file.

• Twenty-five States (Colorado, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Indiana, Kentucky, Maine,

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,

New Jersey, New Mexico, New

York, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 

Washington, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming) and Puerto Rico have

fully automated criminal history 

files.

Automation of master name index 

and criminal history file, 2003 

(Table 4):

• All 50 reporting States and 

Puerto Rico have fully or 

partially automated master name 

indexes. The Virgin Islands does 

not maintain a master name 

index.

• The Virgin Islands has no 

automated criminal history files.

• Of those States maintaining 

partially automated criminal 

history files, when an offender 

with a prior manual record is 

arrested, the prior manual record 

is subsequently automated in 20 

States. In four States (California, 

Delaware, Kansas, and 

Pennsylvania) and the District of 

Columbia, only the new 

information is automated. In 

Arizona, the new information is 

added to the manual file. 
Page 2 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Level of disposition reporting

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2003 (Table 1):

• Eighteen States (California,

Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,

Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New

Hampshire, New York, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,

Vermont, Virginia, West

Virginia, and Wisconsin) and

Puerto Rico, representing

approximately 44% of the

Nation’s population (based on 53

jurisdictions) and 41% of the

Nation’s criminal history records,

report that 80% or more arrests

within the last 5 years in the

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

• A total of 21 States and Puerto

Rico, representing approximately

49% of the Nation’s population

and 47% of the Nation’s criminal

history records, report that 70%

or more arrests within the past 5

years in the criminal history

database have final dispositions

recorded.

• A total of 27 States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands,

representing approximately 60%

of the Nation’s population and

58% of the Nation’s criminal

history records, report that 60%

or more arrests within the past 5

years in the criminal history

database have final dispositions

recorded.

• When arrests older than 5 years

are considered, 15 States and

Puerto Rico, representing 30% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 80% or more

arrests in the entire criminal

history database have final

dispositions recorded. Twentytwo States, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands, representing 53%

of the Nation’s records, report

70% or more arrests in the entire

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

Twenty-six States, Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands,

representing 57% of the Nation’s

criminal history records, report

that 60% or more arrests in the

entire database have final

dispositions recorded.

Number of final dispositions

reported to State criminal history

repository, 2003 (Table 3):

• Thirty-eight States and the

District of Columbia provided

data on the number of final

dispositions reported to their

criminal history repositories,

indicating that nearly 6.4 million

final dispositions were reported

in 2003. The responding

jurisdictions represent

approximately 71%

of the Nation’s population.

Level of felony flagging

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2003 (Table 1):

• Thirty-two States and Puerto

Rico currently flag some or all

felony convictions in their

criminal history databases.

• Eight States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands

collect sufficient data to permit

them to flag at least some

previously unflagged convictions.

Timeliness of trial court

disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2003

(Table 13):

• An average of 21 days

separates the final court

dispositions and receipt of that

information by the State criminal

history repositories, ranging from

1 day in Colorado, Delaware,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and

North Carolina, to 120 days in

Illinois.

• An average of 50 days

separates the receipt of final trial

court dispositions and entry of

disposition data into the criminal

history databases, ranging from

less than 1 day in States where

dispositions are entered either

directly by the courts or by tape,

to 1,000 days in Mississippi.

Twenty-three of the 40 reporting

jurisdictions enter the data in

fewer than 10 days.

• Twenty-seven States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands

indicate having backlogs in

entering disposition data into the

criminal history database.

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal history

files

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal

history file, 2003 (Table 2):

• Over 71 million criminal

history records were in the

criminal history files of the State

criminal history repositories on

December 31, 2003. (An

individual offender may have

records in more than one State.)

• Ninety-three percent of the

criminal history records

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories are

automated. Approximately 4.8

million, or 7%, are not

automated.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Introduction • Page 3

• The Virgin Islands has no

automated criminal history files.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 2003

(Table 4):

• All 50 States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico have

automated at least some records

in either the criminal history file

or the master name index.

• Forty-six States and Puerto

Rico have fully automated master

name indexes. The District of

Columbia, Maine, New

Hampshire, North Dakota, and

Tennessee have partially

automated master name indexes.

The Virgin Islands does not

maintain a master name index.

• Of those States maintaining

partially automated criminal

history files, when an offender

with a prior manual record is

arrested, the prior manual record

is subsequently automated in 20

States. In four States (California,

Delaware, Kansas, and

Pennsylvania) and the District of

Columbia, only the new

information is automated. In

Arizona, the new information is

added to the manual file.

Data required to be submitted to

State criminal history repository,

2003 (Table 5):

• Thirty-one States, the District

of Columbia, and the Virgin

Islands require prosecutors to

report to State criminal history

repositories their decisions to

decline prosecution in criminal

cases.

• Forty-six States, the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands require felony trial

courts to report the dispositions

of felony cases to the State

criminal history repository.

• State prison admission on

felony cases must be reported to

the State criminal history

repository in 34 States and Puerto

Rico. State prison release

information on felony cases must

be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 31 States,

the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico.

• Admission data on felons

housed in local correctional

facilities must be reported to the

State criminal history repository

in 23 States and the District of

Columbia. Release data on felons

housed in local correctional

facilities must be reported to the

State criminal history repository

in 16 States.

• The reporting of probation

information is mandated in 29

States, the District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico, while 29 States,

the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico require reporting of

parole information.

Arrest records with fingerprints,

2003 (Table 6):

• During 2003, almost 10.5

million fingerprint cards and

livescan images were submitted

to the State criminal history

repositories.

• Forty States, representing 92%

of the Nation’s population, have

records that are 99-100%

supported. A total of 42 States, or

an additional 2 States, and the

District of Columbia,

representing 94% of the Nation’s

population, have records that are

at least 90% fingerprintsupported. In 6 States and the

Virgin Islands, some of the

arrests in the criminal history

files, ranging from 25% to 85%,

are fingerprint-supported. In

Massachusetts and Puerto Rico,

there are no fingerprint-supported

criminal history records.

Completeness of data in State

criminal history repository

Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 2003

(Table 7):

• Twenty-five States and Puerto

Rico require law enforcement

agencies to notify the State

criminal history repository when

an arrested person is released

without formal charging but after

the fingerprints have been

submitted to the repository.

Disposition data

Completeness of prosecutor and

court disposition reporting to

State criminal history repository,

2003 (Table 8):

• Nineteen States (California,

Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,

Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Nebraska, New Jersey, New

York, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,

Vermont, and West Virginia),

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands report that criminal

history repositories receive final

felony trial court dispositions for

80% or more of the cases.

Eight States (Colorado,

Connecticut, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey,

Rhode Island, South Carolina,

and Utah) estimate that they

receive notice in 100% of the

cases.

A. A total of 22 States, or 3

additional States (Hawaii,

Montana, and Virginia), Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands

report that dispositions in 70% or

more of the cases are received by

the State criminal history

repositories.
Page 4 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

B. A total of 24 States, or 2

additional States (Arizona and

Arkansas), Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands report that

dispositions in at least 57% of the

cases in their States are received

by the State criminal history

repositories.

• Of the respondents indicating

that there is a legal requirement

for prosecutors to notify the State

criminal history record repository

of declinations to prosecute, 4

States (California, Delaware,

Maryland, and New Jersey) and

the District of Columbia estimate

that notice is received in 100% of

the cases.

• Fourteen States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico were

able to estimate the number of

prosecutor declinations received.

The number of declinations

received range from 147 in

Puerto Rico to 162,300 in

California.

Policies/practices of State

criminal history repository

regarding modification of felony

convictions, 2003 (Table 9):

• Expungements: Twenty-six

States, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands have statutes that provide

for the expungement of felony

convictions. In 10 States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the

record is destroyed by the State

criminal history repository. In 12

States and the District of

Columbia, the record is retained

with the action noted on the

record. Three States seal the

record. In Minnesota, although

State law does not provide for

destroying conviction data, the

State does get orders issued

pursuant to the inherent authority

of the courts. In Mississippi,

records that are expunged are

deleted from the database;

however, the State criminal

history repository is authorized to

maintain an internal record of

action in some cases.

• Setting aside of convictions:

Thirty-six States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico have

statutes that provide for setting

aside felony convictions. In 33

States, the District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico, the record is

retained with the action noted. In

2 States, South Dakota and

Tennessee, the record is

destroyed. In Nevada, the record

is sealed.

• Pardons: All reporting

jurisdictions (50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands)

have statutes that provide for the

granting of a pardon. In 46 States

and the District of Columbia, the

criminal history record is retained

with the action noted. In 3 States,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands, the record is destroyed.

In Maine, the record is treated as

a nonconviction.

• Restoration of civil rights:

Forty-three States and the District

of Columbia have legal

provisions for the restoration of a

convicted felon’s civil rights. In

the majority of those jurisdictions

(37 States and the District of

Columbia), the record is retained

with the action noted. In Vermont

and Puerto Rico, the record is

destroyed. In Alaska and

Maryland, although there are

legal provisions for restoration of

civil rights, such actions are not

reported to the State criminal

history repository. In New

Hampshire, the record is sealed

with no action noted.

Correctional data

Fingerprinting of incarcerated

offenders and linkage to records

maintained by State criminal

history repository, 2003 (Table

10):

• In 38 States there is a legal

requirement (State statute or

State administrative regulation

having the force of law) that the

State prison system must

fingerprint admitted prisoners

and send the fingerprints to the

State criminal history repository.

• A total of 22 States have the

same legal requirement for

reporting by local jails.

• In jurisdictions where State

correctional facilities are legally

required to report information or

the information is reported

voluntarily, the majority (31

States) reported that 100% of the

admissions are reported to the

repository. Two States estimate a

reporting rate of less than 100%,

ranging from 10% in New

Hampshire to 30% in Kansas.

• For reporting from local jails,

where required by law or

completed voluntarily, 10 States

report that 95% or more of the

admissions are reported to the

State repositories. Eight of those

States reported that 100% of the

admissions are reported to the

repository.

• In 44 States fingerprints

received from State and local

correctional facilities are

processed by the State criminal

history record repository to

establish positive identification of

incarcerated offenders and to

ensure that correctional

information is linked to the

proper records.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Introduction • Page 5

Probation and parole data in

State criminal history repository,

2003 (Table 11):

• Of the 15 responding

jurisdictions where reporting of

probation data is legally required

or voluntarily reported, 12

estimate that at least 95% of the

cases in which probation is

ordered are reported to the State

criminal history repository by the

probation authority. Nine of those

states reported that 100% of the

cases are reported to the State

criminal history repository.

Minnesota reports that in at least

75% of the cases, the State

criminal history repository

receives probation information.

Two States (Nebraska and

Oklahoma) report that

information is received on less

than 40% of the cases.

• Of the 16 responding States

where reporting of parole data is

legally required or voluntarily

reported, 15 estimate that parole

information is reported in 95% or

more of the cases. Oklahoma

estimated that parole information

is reported in 20% of its cases to

the State criminal history

repository.

Timeliness of data in State

criminal history repository

—Arrests

Average number of days to

process arrest data submitted to

State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog,

2003 (Table 12):

• Based on the responses of 46

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between arrest and

receipt of arrest data and

fingerprints by the State criminal

repositories is 14, ranging from 1

day or less in 9 States and the

District of Columbia to 105 days

in Mississippi. The majority (32)

receive the data in 10 days or

less.

• Based on the responses of 45

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between receipt of

fingerprints by the State criminal

history repository and entry into

the master name index by the

State criminal history repositories

is 18.1, ranging from 0 days in

Delaware to 210 days in

Connecticut. The majority (34) of

jurisdictions enter the data in 10

days or less.

• Based on the responses of 48

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between receipt of

fingerprints by the State criminal

history repository and entry of

arrest data into the criminal

history databases is 18.3, ranging

from 0 days in Delaware to 210

days in Connecticut. The

majority (32) of jurisdictions

enter the data in 10 days or less.

• Nineteen States indicate that

they have, or had at the time of

the survey, backlogs in entering

arrest data into the criminal

history database. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs

range from 2 days in Maine to

clear an estimated 100

unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards, to

over 1,100 days in Connecticut to

clear an estimated 112,700

unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards.

—Disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2003

(Table 13):

• An average of 21.5 days

separates the final court

dispositions and receipt of that

information by the State criminal

history repositories, ranging from

0 days in Maine and New York to

80 days in Illinois.

• An average of 50.2 days

separates the receipt of final trial

court dispositions and entry of

disposition data into the criminal

history databases, ranging from 0

days in New York and Oregon to

1,000 days in Mississippi.

• Twenty-seven States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands

indicate having backlogs in

entering disposition data into the

criminal history database,

ranging from 7 days to clear a

backlog of 500 dispositions in

New Hampshire, to over 3,800

days to clear 382,600 dispositions

in Kansas.

—Admission to correctional

facilities

Average number of days to

process correctional admission

data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2003

(Table 14):

• Based on 32 applicable

jurisdictions providing responses,

the average number of days

between the admission of

offenders to State correctional

facilities and receipt of the

information by the State criminal

history repository is 13, ranging

from 1 day or less in 14 States, to

90 days in Kentucky.

• Based on the responses of 21

applicable States, the average

number of days between the

release of offenders from State

correctional facilities and receipt

of the information by the State

criminal history repository is 16,

ranging from 1 day or less in 7

States, to 60 days in Iowa.
Page 6 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

• The responses from 31

applicable jurisdictions indicate

that the average number of days

between the receipt of

correctional information and

entry by the State criminal

history repository into the

criminal history database is 14.5,

ranging from 1 day or less in 16

jurisdictions, to 730 days in

Missouri.

• Twelve jurisdictions indicate

that they have or had backlogs in

entering the correctional

information into the criminal

history databases. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs

range from 2 in California to

clear an estimated 17,700

unprocessed or partially

processed custody-supervision

forms, to 730 person-days in

Missouri to clear an estimated

100,000 unprocessed or partially

processed custody-supervision

forms.

Procedures to improve data

quality

Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 2003

(Table 15):

• The method most used to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting is telephone

calls, conducted by 44 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

• Twenty-nine States and Puerto

Rico generate lists of arrests with

missing dispositions as a means

of monitoring disposition

reporting. Twenty-two of those

States and Puerto Rico use the

lists to provide notice to criminal

justice agencies in order to obtain

the missing dispositions.

• Thirty-one States and the

District of Columbia generate

form letters to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting.

• Thirty States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico report

using field visits to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting.

• Other jurisdictions report using

such methods as audits, training,

and electronic contact as methods

to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

Linking of arrests and

dispositions

Methods to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record, 2003 (Table 16):

• Thirty-eight States, the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands utilize methods

for linking disposition

information and arrest/charge

information, which also permit

the linking of dispositions to

particular charges and/or specific

counts.

• All responding jurisdictions

report using at least one method

for linking disposition

information and arrest/charge

information on criminal history

records, and nearly every

jurisdiction indicates multiple

mechanisms to ensure linkage:

- Thirty-five States and the

District of Columbia employ a

unique tracking number for the

individual subject.

- Forty States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico use a

unique arrest event identifier.

- Twenty-one States, the District

of Columbia, and the Virgin

Islands utilize a unique charge

identifier.

- Thirty-seven States, the District

of Columbia, and the Virgin

Islands use the arrest date to link

disposition data.

- Thirty-five States, the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands use the

subject’s name as a method to

link disposition information to

arrest information.

- Twenty-four States and Puerto

Rico report using the reporting

agency’s case number.

- Individual jurisdictions also

report using other methods, such

as the originating agency (ORI)

number, the Social Security

number, date of birth, and other

unique combinations of numbers.

Procedure followed when linkage

cannot be made between court or

correctional information in the

criminal history database, 2003

(Table 17):

• Forty-seven jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive final

court dispositions that cannot be

linked to arrest information in the

criminal history database.

The jurisdictions vary in the

number of court dispositions that

cannot be linked to arrest cycles

in the criminal database from 24

in Wyoming to 148,400 in Texas.

Four States (Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, and

Vermont,) report that all final

court dispositions can be linked

to the arrest cycle in the criminal

history database.

• Thirty jurisdictions report that

they sometimes receive

correctional information that

cannot be linked to arrest

information in the criminal

history record database. The

number of correctional

dispositions that cannot be linked

to arrest cycles in the criminal

history database range from

19,200 in Minnesota to 58,300 in

Texas.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Introduction • Page 7

• Thirty-four jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive

prosecutor dispositions that

cannot be linked to arrest

information in the criminal

history record database. The

number of prosecutor

dispositions that cannot be linked

to arrest cycles in the criminal

history database range from 400

in West Virginia to 71,000 in

Indiana.

• The jurisdictions use a variety

of procedures when a linkage

cannot be established. Four States

create “dummy” arrest segments

from court disposition records;

three States create “dummy”

segments from correctional data.

Seven States and the Virgin

Islands enter court information

into the database without any

linkage to a prior arrest, and 16

States enter correctional

information into the database

without any linkage to a prior

court disposition. Twenty-three

States, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands do not enter the

unlinked court information. Ten

States, the District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico do not enter

unlinked correctional

information. Fifteen jurisdictions

utilize other procedures, such as

returning the information to the

originating or contributing

agency or using temporary or

pending files until a match can be

established.

Missing dispositions

Procedure(s) followed to obtain

missing dispositions, 2003 (Table

17a):

• Two States (Maryland and

New Jersey) report that they do

an automated inquiry to the

prosecutor upon a predetermined

period of time. Ten States report

that they do an automated inquiry

to a specific court or statewide

court administrator upon a

predetermined period of time.

• Nevada reports that an

automated inquiry to the

prosecutor upon a criminal

history query is done to obtain

missing dispositions. Eleven

States report that they do an

automated inquiry to a specific

court or statewide court

administrator system upon a

criminal history query.

• Thirty-one States, Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands report that

a manual inquiry to the

prosecutor upon a criminal

history query is done to obtain

missing dispositions. Thirtyeight States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands

report that a manual inquiry is

done to a specific court or

statewide court administrator

upon a criminal history query.

Other data quality procedures

Strategies employed by State

criminal history repository to

ensure accuracy of data in

criminal history database, 2003

(Table 18):

• To prevent the entry and

storage of inaccurate data and to

detect and correct inaccurate

entries in the criminal history

database, all 50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands use

at least one strategy to

circumvent this problem.

• The most-frequently utilized

strategy is the use of computer

edit and verification programs,

which is employed by 43 States,

the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico.

• Forty-two States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands

manually review incoming source

documents or reports.

• Twenty-nine States and the

Virgin Islands perform manual

double-checking before data

entry. Manual review of criminal

record transcripts before

dissemination is performed in 26

States, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands.

• Twenty-six States and the

District of Columbia perform

random sample comparisons of

the State criminal history files

with stored documents.

• Twenty-two States, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands

generate error lists that are

returned to the reporting

agencies.

• Twenty States and Puerto Rico

use various strategies, such as

audits and contacting

contributing agencies for more

information.

Audits

Audit activities of State criminal

history repository, 2003 (Table

19):

• Forty-nine States and Puerto

Rico maintain transaction logs to

provide an audit trail of all

inquiries, responses, and record

updates or modifications.

• More than half of the

repositories, a total of 35 States

and Puerto Rico, report that the

State criminal history repository

or some other agency performed

random sample audits of user

agencies to ensure accuracy and

completeness of repository

records and to ensure that the

agencies comply with applicable

laws and regulations.
Page 8 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Data quality audits of State

criminal history repository, 2003

(Table 20):

• During the 5 years before the

survey, an audit of the State

criminal history repository’s

database (other than ongoing

systematic sampling) was

conducted in 33 jurisdictions to

determine the level of accuracy

and completeness of the criminal

history file.

• Of the jurisdictions where

audits were performed, 25

jurisdictions report that another

agency conducted the audit; the

repository conducted its own

audit in 6 jurisdictions; and 2

States indicated that auditing was

conducted by both an outside

agency and the repository.

• Twenty jurisdictions in 2003

reported that no data quality audit

had been conducted during the

previous 5 years, and 22 reported

that they are not planning to audit

in the coming 3 years.

• In 27 jurisdictions where audits

were conducted, changes were

made as a result of the audits to

improve the data quality of

records.

• Twenty-seven States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico had data quality audits

planned or scheduled for

sometime in the next 3 years.

• Forty-nine States and Puerto

Rico had initiatives underway at

the repository or contributing

agencies to improve data quality.

Initiatives included audit

activities (33); automation

changes (46); disposition or

arrest reporting enhancements

(46); felony flagging (14);

fingerprint enhancements (38);

agency interfaces (34); legislation

(13); plan development (32);

establishment of task forces (21);

implementation of tracking

numbers (23); and training (44).

Criminal history records of

Interstate Identification Index

(III) participants maintained by

the State criminal history

repository and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 2003

(Table 21):

• As of December 31, 2003, over

31 million III records are indexed

with the State’s identification

(SID) pointers. Approximately 19

million records are maintained by

the FBI for the States.

Fees charged by State criminal

history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes,

2003 (Table 22):

• Almost all of the responding

States (49), the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands

currently charge fees for

conducting criminal history

record searches for noncriminal

justice requesters. Louisiana and

Puerto Rico do not charge fees.

• Fees for fingerprint-supported

searches range from $5 in

Arizona and Mississippi up to

$52 in California. In some cases,

California does not charge a fee

for the search.

• Fees for name searches range

from $2 in Wisconsin for

nonprofit organizations to $30 in

North Dakota. Eleven States

(Arizona, California, Delaware,

Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi,

New York, Ohio, South Dakota,

West Virginia, and Wyoming) do

not conduct name searches for

noncriminal justice purposes.

• Twenty States (Alaska,

Arkansas, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,

New Hampshire, New Jersey,

Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,

West Virginia, and Wyoming)

charge different fees for

volunteer searches.
March 2005

Participants

Interstate Identification Index Program

National Fingerprint File

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Interstate Identification Index States

National Fingerprint File States

Washington

Minnesota

Interstate Identification Index (III) States

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana*

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey*

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma*

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

*Also a National Fingerprint File (NFF) State.

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Introduction • Page 9

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado*

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida*

Georgia
March 2005

Compact States

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Compact States

Washington

Minnesota

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Page 10 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Iowa

Kansas

Maine

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Tennessee

Wyoming

MOU Signatory States/Territories

American Samoa

Guam

Hawaii

Illinois

Kentucky

Mississippi

Nebraska

New Mexico

North Dakota

South Dakota

Vermont
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 11

Data tables
Page 12 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 1

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to

the nearest whole number. The "number of subjects (individual

offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies only

to the criminal history file, including partially automated files and does

not include release by police without charging, declinations to proceed

by prosecutor, or final trial court dispositions.

± The total figure does not include Louisiana, Rhode Island, and the

Virgin Islands, for which no data were submitted.

... Not available.

*The flag is set:

** At both arrest and conviction.

= When conviction information is entered.

== When arrest information is entered.

a Additional disposition information is available in nonautomated

records linked to a database and available to complete the record if

dissemination is requested.

b Not currently setting at this time.

c Montana implemented its new criminal history record system in

December 1999. All legacy data were dumped into the new system;

however Montana is manually “converting” the information. The 30%

indicates how many of the records have actually been converted, not

the number that have disposition information.

d The Rhode Island Criminal History (RICH) System is automated as

far as 90% of the police departments forwarding fingerprint

cards/arrest information via a livescan. Currently, the arrest

information is manually entered into the RICH System. The RI

Attorney General’s Office hopes to go live with the Connecticut IAFIS

System, which will automate all arrest information.

e Arraignment and conviction.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 13

Table 1: Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 2003

State

Criminal

history

records

automated

in whole

or in part

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file±

Total Automated

Percent of arrests in database that

have final dispositions recorded–

Arrests within

All arrests past 5 years

System

flags

subjects with

felony

convictions*

System has

information to

identify unflagged

felony

conviction

Total 71,028,500 66,232,100

Alabama Y 1,150,000 895,000 45% 65% All**

Alaska Y 222,500 211,800 ... ... All

=

Arizona Y 1,689,800 1,146,700 58 60 All

=

Arkansas Y 683,500 451,100 81 79 All

California Y 6,099,100 5,994,800 75 85 All**

Colorado Y 1,136,600 1,136,600 17% 78%

Connecticut Y 1,427,700 1,213,800 100 100 All

=

Delaware Y 488,600 440,900 94 92 Some** All

District of Columbia Y 670,500 564,000 ... ... All

Florida Y 4,606,700 4,606,700 73 60 Some

Georgia Y 2,542,700 2,542,700 70% 82%

Hawaii Y 444,500 444,500 90 91

Idaho Y 212,800 212,800 66 67 All**

Illinois Y 4,162,000 3,587,300 ... 52 All

Indiana Y 1,061,100 1,061,100 45 50

Iowa Y 536,600 536,400 95% 84% All

Kansas Y 882,400 490,200 43a 22a Some**

Kentucky Y 865,700 865,700 ... ...

Louisiana Y ... ... ... ... Some=

Maine Y 313,900 313,900 ... ... Some**

Maryland Y 1,162,400 1,162,400 90% 97%

Massachusetts Y 3,533,300 2,800,300 100 100 All

Michigan Y 1,521,700 1,521,700 80 87

Minnesota Y 532,000 477,500 41 55 All

=

Mississippi Y 291,200 291,200 2 2 All

b All

Missouri Y 1,328,300 1,166,200 76% 54% All

=

Montana Y 164,000 164,000 30c 65

Nebraska Y 280,000 280,000 62 57

Nevada Y 448,500 448,500 37 30

New Hampshire Y 310,500 280,600 80 87 All

==

New Jersey Y 1,747,400 1,747,400 84% 72%

New Mexico Y 844,500 844,500 32 ... Some

New York Y 5,976,200 5,976,200 88 90 All**

North Carolina Y 1,077,300 1,077,100 89 ...

North Dakota Y 114,200 94,900 ... 86 Some** Some

Ohio Y 1,835,700 1,785,700 65% 85% All**

Oklahoma Y 655,600 584,800 32 33 Some= Some

Oregon Y 1,112,100 1,112,100 ... ...

Pennsylvania Y 1,869,900 1,506,600 ... ... Some

Puerto Rico Y 209,200 209,200 89 84 All**

Rhode Island N 229,000 0d 86% ... Some==

South Carolina Y 1,192,400 1,141,800 70 ... Some=

South Dakota Y 192,600 174,300 98 98% Some= Some

Tennessee Y 3,000,000 3,000,000 23 30 All

==

Texas Y 7,184,500 7,184,500 ... ...

Utah Y 487,500 487,500 64% 60%

Vermont Y 193,100 135,300 ... 96 All

e

Virgin Islands N ... ... 70 60 All

Virginia Y 1,487,600 1,330,500 84 84 All

Washington Y 1,194,000 1,194,000 ... ...

West Virginia Y 530,600 210,800 40% 90% Some== All

Wisconsin Y 1,007,400 1,007,400 77 83 All

=

Wyoming Y 119,100 119,100 73 ... All

=
Page 14 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 2

Except for Puerto Rico, for which additional data were submitted, the

data in the columns for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 2. The data in the

columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 2.

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been rounded to

the nearest whole number. The "number of subjects (individual

offenders)" in the State criminal history file for each year applies only

to the criminal history file, including partially automated files and does

not include the master name index. The total figure for 2003 does not

include Louisiana, Rhode Island, and the Virgin Islands, for which no

data were submitted.

... Not available.

a The decrease is due to estimates of the manual file in previous

years. A method of accurately counting manual records has been

developed, resulting a determination that there are, in fact, only 10,700

manual records.

b The decrease in the total number of records is the result of a more

accurate computer-generated number, as well as file maintenance,

deletion of subjects over 80 years of age, and deletion of duplicate

records.

c The 1999 figure included traffic violations; the 2001 figure does not;

therefore, the total appears to be a decrease.

d As of January 21, 2000.

e The decrease in the total number of records is due to updating the

file by the deletion of “wants,” records of individuals presumed dead,

records with multiple state identification numbers, and incomplete

records.

f The decrease is due to counting all arrests for the 1999 response; not

all arrests end up on individual rap sheets.

g The size of the file remained constant from 1999 due to purge criteria

being implemented that offset the number of new arrests.

h The decrease is due to civilian files being inadvertently included in

the 1999 figure. The 2001 figure represents only criminal offenders.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 15

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Number of subjects in Number of subjects in manual and Percent change in

manual and automated files automated files, 2003 Percent of automated files total files

2003 Manual Automated

State 1999 2001 total file file 1999 2001 2003 1999-2001 2001-03 

Total 59,230,000 64,282,700 71,028,500 4,796,400 66,232,100 89% 89% 93% 9% 10%

Alabama 1,077,000 1,200,000 1,150,000 255,000 895,000 69% 75% 78% 11% -4%

Alaska 251,100 240,600 222,500 10,700 211,800 88 96 95 -8a -8

Arizona 915,100 1,031,300 1,689,800 543,100 1,146,700 100 100 61 13 64

Arkansas 499,800 606,300 683,500 232,400 451,100 57 61 66 21 13

California 6,166,000 7,619,200 6,099,100 104,300 5,994,800 86 74 98 24 -20

Colorado 886,300b 989,200 1,136,600 0 1,136,600 100% 100% 100% 12% 15%

Connecticut 825,600 881,600 1,427,700 213,900 1,213,800 72 69 85 7 62

Delaware 713,300 347,500c 488,600 47,700 440,900 93 86 90 -51 41

District of Columbia 532,000 551,300 670,500 106,500 564,000 80 81 84 4 22

Florida 3,754,200 4,221,300 4,606,700 0 4,606,700 100 100 100 12 9

Georgia 2,132,600 2,336,900 2,542,700 0 2,542,700 100% 100% 100% 10% 9%

Hawaii 379,400d 397,800 444,500 0 444,500 100 100 100 5 12

Idaho 180,600 191,300 212,800 0 212,800 83 89 100 6 11

Illinois 3,280,000 3,928,100 4,162,000 574,700 3,587,300 94 85 86 20 6

Indiana 900,000 913,900 1,061,100 0 1,061,100 94 100 100 2 16

Iowa 401,900 435,300 536,600 200 536,400 92% 93% 99% 8% 23%

Kansas 821,000 897,400 882,400 392,200 490,200 46 50 56 9 -2

Kentucky 850,900 784,000 865,700 0 865,700 86 100 100 -8 10

Louisiana 1,654,000e 1,970,300 ... ... ... 59 61 ... 19 ...

Maine 359,500 446,900 313,900 0 313,900 43 34 100 24 -30

Maryland 1,053,700 843,300f 1,162,400 0 1,162,400 100% 100% 100% -20% 38%

Massachusetts 2,530,000 2,662,300 3,533,300 733,000 2,800,300 72 72 79 5 33

Michigan 1,259,500 1,372,300 1,521,700 0 1,521,700 100 100 100 9 11

Minnesota 384,000 468,200 532,000 54,500 477,500 85 88 90 22 14

Mississippi 250,000 225,600 291,200 0 291,200 100 100 100 -10 29

Missouri 914,500 1,013,700 1,328,300 162,100 1,166,200 82% 84% 88% 11% 31%

Montana 141,800 151,000 164,000 0 164,000 100 100 100 6 9

Nebraska 197,600 223,100 280,000 0 280,000 100 100 100 13 26

Nevada 305,600 339,600 448,500 0 448,500 100 100 100 11 32

New Hampshire 409,900 282,500 310,500 29,900 280,600 100 89 90 -31 10

New Jersey 1,304,300 1,602,700 1,747,400 0 1,747,400 100% 100% 100% 23% 9%

New Mexico 352,000 400,000 410,000 0 410,000 93 100 100 14 3

New York 4,765,700 5,320,000 5,976,200 0 5,976,200 99 100 100 12 12

North Carolina 793,500 889,700 1,077,300 200 1,077,100 100 100 99 12 21

North Dakota 230,400 115,000 114,200 19,300 94,900 37 100 83 -50d -1

Ohio 1,600,000 1,600,000g 1,835,700 50,000 1,785,700 94% 97% 97% 0% 15%

Oklahoma 782,000 584,500 655,600 70,800 584,800 74 88 89 -25h 12

Oregon 965,200 1,039,000 1,112,100 0 1,112,100 100 100 100 8 7

Pennsylvania 1,667,800 1,817,900 1,869,900 363,300 1,506,600 77 81 9 8

Puerto Rico 164,400 193,600 209,200 0 209,200 100 100 100 18 8

Rhode Island 240,000 240,000 229,000 229,000 0 100% 100% 100% 0% -5%

South Carolina 1,002,600 1,076,300 1,192,400 50,600 1,141,800 95 100 96 19 11

South Dakota 159,500 176,800 192,600 18,300 174,300 87 89 90 11 9

Tennessee 826,700 1,028,200 1,846,343 0 1,846,343 100 100 100 24 80

Texas 6,157,100 6,639,500 7,184,500 0 7,184,500 100 100 100 8 8

Utah 392,800 437,500 487,500 0 487,500 100% 100% 100% 11% 11%

Vermont 164,900 181,100 193,100 57,800 135,300 52 66 70 10 7

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... 0 0 0 0 ... ... 

Virginia 1,245,900 1,304,700 1,487,600 157,100 1,330,500 86 87 89 5 14

Washington 974,800 1,049,500 1,194,000 0 1,194,000 100 100 100 8 14

West Virginia 488,100 ... 530,600 319,800 210,800 22% ... 40% ... ... 

Wisconsin 828,100 910,900 1,007,400 0 1,007,400 85 100% 100 10% 11%

Wyoming 97,300 104,000 119,100 0 119,100 100 100 100 7 15
Page 16 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 3

The notes below expand on the data in Table 3. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Final dispositions include release by police without charging,

declination to proceed by prosecutor, or final trial court disposition.

Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers

have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Connecticut and

Puerto Rico, for which corrected data were submitted, the data for

1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999), Table 3. Except for Georgia, Nebraska, and Puerto

Rico, for which corrected data were submitted, the data for 1999 were

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

(October 2000), Table 3. The data in the columns for 2001 were taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (September 

2003), Table 3.

... Not available.

a Figure represents felonies and misdemeanors.

b Figure includes all charge levels for calendar year 2001. The

number of final dispositions has increased due to several factors,

including: the majority of final dispositions are being regularly reported

to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in an automated fashion

by individual counties, and several internal programming

enhancements now enable a higher percentage of submitted

dispositions to be matched electronically without need for manual

intervention.

c The decrease from 1999 in the number of dispositions is due to the

testing of an electronic interface and tracking drawbacks in 2001,

during which a number of dispositions could not be obtained.

d Kentucky no longer enters dispositions for the courts and

prosecutors; they are entered by tape, so the repository does not have

a count to include in the dispositions figure.

e The Bureau of Identification previously was unable to process

incoming dispositions due to lack of personnel. In 1998, disposition

reporting was given priority, and since that time, many agencies have

increased disposition reporting.

f The State of Maine is currently working on building an interface

between the CHRI and the District Attorneys IT system so that the

CHRI will electronically receive prosecutors’ transactions as they

occur.

g Massachusetts does not distinguish entries of a final disposition from

any other charge to a record.

h The figure represents 190,600 processed dispositions and 50,000

backlogged dispositions.

i The figure represents court dispositions. Although prosecutor 

declinations are reported, the number is unknown. The number of

dispositions decreased from 1997 to 1999 because in 1997, the State

repository was working on a National Criminal History Improvement

Project (NCHIP) to resolve missing dispositions. The count provided in

1997 includes the dispositions provided in this project during that year.

j The increase reflects extra efforts expended to electronically receive

dispositions for prior years.

k Court dispositions only.

l Final charge dispositions entered in 1997.

m This was the result of a disposition backlog and an overtime project

to assist in reducing the backlog.

n The decrease from 1999 in dispositions is reflective of the larger 

metropolitan area decline in reporting and the central repository

electronic integration project that is currently being implemented with

the courts case management system.

o During 1997, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

processed a backlog of dispositions, which were then passed on the

State repository for entry. This accounts for the larger number of

dispositions received in 1997 than in 1999.

p The figure represents final charge dispositions.

q The reason for the decrease from 1999 is that in 1999, a backlog

from previous years was processed.

r This figure includes only dispositions received in 2001; the figure for

1999 includes dispositions received for the period of 1995-1999.

s In fiscal year 1997, in order to alleviate a backlog of current work,

four additional temporary employees were hired to process delinquent

dispositions; therefore, the number of dispositions in 1997 is greater 

than the number reported for 1999.

t The reason for the increase in 2001 is that five full-time staff were

hired to research missing dispositions.

u In 1997, the State repository worked with the Seattle Municipal Court

(King County) to obtain disposition reports by downloading the

information from the court’s database. The initial download was

65,000 disposition reports. As a result, the number of dispositions

received during 1999 shows a decrease from the 1997 figure.

v Represents counts of 1999 arrest dispositions posted to the

computerized criminal history. Previous years are counts of charge

dispositions.

w During the latter part of 1998 and 1999, personnel turnover and

increased civil card processing created a backlog that resulted in

reduced disposition form collections.

x The decrease is due to lack of staff and backlog.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 17

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Number of dispositions Percent change

State 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997-99 1999-2001 2001-03

Alabama 121,700 115,900 ... ... -5% ... ...

Alaska 41,200 43,000 46,500 51,000 4 8% 10%

Arizona 170,100 190,500 296,800a 406,700 12 56 -100

Arkansas 40,100 93,700 127,400 96,500 134 36 32

California 1,134,500 1,381,000 1,058,000 ... 22 -23 ...

Colorado ... 5,900 29,900 46,900 ... 407% 57%

Connecticut 107,400 102,200 108,100 68,900 -5% 6 -57

Delaware ... 78,700 104,900 105,900 ... 33 1

District of Columbia 1,900 ... ... 21,000 ... ... ...

Florida ... 259,800 843,900b 644,700 ... 225 24

Georgia 303,600 331,000 360,000 397,400 9% 9% 10%

Hawaii 87,300 70,500 99,000 68,800 -19 40 -44

Idaho ... 10,600 21,600 37,000 ... 104 71

Illinois 98,700 393,700 400 ... 299 -999 ...

Indiana ... 40,000 113,000 222,000 ... 183 96

Iowa 45,300 70,700 67,400c 121,900 56% -5% 81%

Kansas ... 40,000 86,700 99,100 ... 117 14

Kentucky 18,000 6,200d 31,900 20,000 -66 415 -60

Louisiana 16,300 36,200e 21,200 26,200 122 -41 24

Maine 34,500 36,700 ... ...f 6 ... ...

Maryland 210,400 ... 190,800 190,800 ... ... 0%

Massachusetts ... 417,700 ... ...g ... ... ...

Michigan 240,600h 214,200i 559,800j 332,200 -11% 161% -69

Minnesota 84,000k 101,000 131,500 ... 30

Mississippi ... 1,500 <100 1,600 ... -975 15

Missouri 72,000l 132,200m 105,000n 159,400 84% -21% 52%

Montana ... 30,400 15,000 16,900 ... -51 13

Nebraska 24,400 29,200 38,900 55,000 20 33 41

Nevada 79,000 31,900o 45,000 180,000 -60 41 300

New Hampshire ... ... ... 45,100 ... ... ...

New Jersey 285,000 287,500 337,500p 354,100 1% 17% 5%

New Mexico 12,500 16,000 ... ... 28 ... ...

New York 523,900 698,900 679,200 722,500 33 -3 6

North Carolina ... 106,000 ... ... ... ... ...

North Dakota 4,600 6,000 8,800 10,900 30 47 24

Ohio ... 100,000 76,000q 83,000 ... -24% 9%

Oklahoma 57,700 152,000 4,600r ... 163% -97 ...

Oregon ... 116,300 176,200 ... ... 52 ...

Pennsylvania ... 167,600 102,600 195,900 ... -39 91

Puerto Rico 44,500 49,100 59,900 ... 10 31 ...

Rhode Island ... 18,000 72,000 ... ... 300% ...

South Carolina 282,400 211,200s ... ... -25% ... ...

South Dakota ... 19,600 ... ... ... ... ...

Tennessee 26,000 ... 94,500 ... ... ...

Texas ... 723,000 ... 744,500 ... ... ...

Utah 26,300 35,800 61,400t 26,600 36% 72% -230%

Vermont 22,300 25,900 28,700 36,400 16 11 27

Virgin Islands ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Virginia 211,100 272,400 335,900 353,900 29 23 5

Washington 277,800 246,300u 289,200 221,400 -11 15 -31

West Virginia ... 24,500 ... 111,600 ... ... ...

Wisconsin 123,000 55,900v 63,200 301,700 -55% 13% 377%

Wyoming 7,800 5,500w 5,200x 9,800 -29 -6 88
Page 18 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 4

The notes below expand on the data in Table 4. The information was

provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Except for Puerto Rico and South Carolina, for which corrected

data were submitted, the data for 1997 were taken from Bureau Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 4. Except for

Puerto Rico, for which additional information was submitted, the data in

the columns for 1999 were taken from Bureau Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000). The data in the columns

for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

2001 (September 2003), Table 4.

Y Yes

N No

P Partial

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

* Jurisdiction is fully manual.

a Only the new information is automated, while the manual, older

records are being automated upon request.

b The new information is added to the manual file.

c Only the new information is automated.

d If a manual record contains seven or more arrests, only the new

information is automated, thus creating a “hybrid record” (part

manual/part automated). If the manual record contains fewer than

seven arrests, the entire record is subsequently automated.

e Traffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the master name

index (MNI).

f Fingerprint-supported subjects are in an automated MNI; prior 

records are completely manual.

g The Maine State Bureau of Identification (SBI) implemented its

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) system August 28, 2002.

All names and dates of birth are indexed for all records within the

CHRI. The total number for the database in 363,179; however, only

31.6% of this total number have been converted from “Index” format

(name and date of birth) to “Contents” format. “Contents” means all

associated criminal history record information has been data entered

into the CHRI and these records are fully automated and available

electronically 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

h If arrest is fingerprint-supported.

i At this time the priorities for SBI are to build records based upon

inquiry, first-time arrests, and updates to already built records. A prior 

manual record only gets built, based on the priorities given, if there is

an inquiry against the individual. When an individual is “brand new” to

the repository, the automated record building is initiated when SBI

receives either an arrest fingerprint card or a Uniform Summons and

Complaint (USAC).

j Although the criminal history database that is utilized in Nebraska is

fully automated, there are approximately 6,000 partially automated

records that are in the process of being deleted.

k Old records still need to be automated.

l Only those subjects with dates of birth of 1940 or later are included in

the automated MNI.

m Subjects with DOB 1940 or later are in the MNI.

n Currently automating all records.

o If a subject’s prior fingerprint record was of poor quality, it would not

have been automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint

Identification System)-quality fingerprints, the record will be automated.

p 169,800 nonautomated records consist of older misdemeanors only.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 19

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Prior manual record is automated

Master name index is automated Criminal history file is automated if offender is re-arrested

State 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003

Alabama Y Y Y Y Y P P P ... Y Y

Alaska Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Arizona Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Na Na Na Nb

Arkansas Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

California Y Y Y Y P P P P Nc Nc Nd Nc

Colorado Y Y Y Y Y Y

Connecticut Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Delaware Y Y Y Y P P P P ... Nb Nb Nc

District of Columbia Pe P P Pc P P P P Nc Nc Nc Nc

Florida Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Georgia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hawaii Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Idaho Y Y Y Y P P P Y Y Y Y

Illinois Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Indiana P Y Y P P Y Y ... Y

Iowa Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Kansas Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Nc Nc

Kentucky Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y

Louisiana Y Y Y Y P P P ... Y Y Y Y

Maine Pf N P Pg N P P Y Nc Yh Yi

Maryland Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Massachusetts Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Michigan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Minnesota Y Y Y Y P P P P Nc Nc Nc Y

Mississippi P Y Y Y P Y Y Y N

Missouri Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Montana Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nebraska Y Y Y Y Yj Y Y Y

Nevada Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

New Hampshire Y Y Y Pk Y Y P P ... Y

New Jersey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

New Mexico Y Y Y Y P Y Y ...

New York Y Y Y Y P P Y Y Y Y

North Carolina Y Y Y Y P Y Y P Y

North Dakota Pl Ph Y Pm P P Y P Y Y Y

Ohio P Ph Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Oklahoma Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Oregon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pennsylvania Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Nc Nc Nc

Puerto Rico Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Rhode Island Y Y Y P Y Y Y N

South Carolina Y Y Y Y P P Y P Y Y Y

South Dakota Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Tennessee Y Y Y Pn P Y Y Y

Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yo Yl Yl

Utah Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Vermont Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Virgin Islands NA N N N N* N* N* N*

Virginia Y Y Y Y Pi Pi Pp P Y Y Y Y

Washington Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

West Virginia Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Wisconsin Y Y Y Y P P Y Y Y Y

Wyoming Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Page 20 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 5

The notes below expand on the data in Table 5. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

* Admission information only.

** Release information only.

... Not available.

a Montana Code Annotated specifies that the arresting agency is

required to notify the repository when charges are not filed. The State

does not govern the prosecutors, therefore statistics are not available

for this question. The figures identified in question 12 best describe

charges not being filed.

b The New York State Department of Corrections submits correctional

data online.

c Dispositions are reported by the Administrative Office of the

Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) with no separation of felony versus other

grades of offenses.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 21

Table 5: Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2003

Data required to be submitted to repositories

Felony dispositions

Prosecutor by courts with Admission/release of felons Probation Parole

State declinations felony jurisdiction State prisons Local jails information information

Alabama

Alaska X X X X X X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X X* X* X X

California X ... X X* X X

Colorado X X* X* X

Connecticut X

Delaware X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X** X* X X

Florida X X X X

Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii X X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X X

Indiana X X X

Iowa X X X X X

Kansas X X X X X X

Kentucky X* X*

Louisiana X X X X X

Maine X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X X X X

Michigan X X X*

Minnesota X X**

Mississippi X X X X X X

Missouri X X X X X

Montana a X

Nebraska X X X X X X

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X X X* X X

New Mexico X X** X X

New York X X Xb X X X

North Carolina X X*

North Dakota X X X X X X

Ohio X X X*

Oklahoma X X X X X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X Xc X X X X

Puerto Rico X X X X

Rhode Island X X X** X

South Carolina X X* X* X

South Dakota X X X X X X

Tennessee X

Texas X X X

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X X**

West Virginia X X X X

Wisconsin X X X X X

Wyoming X X X* X X
Page 22 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 6

The notes below expand on the data in Table 6. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Puerto Rico,

for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for

1997 were taken from Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table

6. Except for Puerto Rico and South Carolina, for which corrected data

were submitted, the data in the columns for 1999 were taken from

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 6. The data in the

columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 6.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Figure is for fiscal year 1999.

b Arrests are reported by terminal, and arrest information is entered

from final dispositions, which are not fingerprinted-supported.

c Arrests are reported by terminal, and arrest information is entered

from final dispositions and criminal summonses, which are not

fingerprint-supported.

d Number represents a decrease in arrests for the time period.

e Arrest information is entered from final dispositions, which are not

fingerprint-supported.

f Some arrest information is entered from final dispositions, which are

not fingerprint-supported.

g Arrest information is entered from criminal summonses, which are

not fingerprint-supported.

h The number reflects a decrease in the number of arrests made

during the time period.

i Arrests are reported by terminal; State law and/or policy does not

require arrest information be supported by fingerprints. Arrest

information is entered from final dispositions and criminal summonses,

which are not fingerprint-supported.

j State law and/or policy does not require arrest information to be

supported by fingerprints.

k Figure includes adult and juvenile records.

l In 1997 and 1999, the counts were taken based on statistics available

on the State’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), and

an estimate of repeater work for AFIS displays at the workstation. For

2001, the actual arrest count from the criminal history repository was

used in conjunction with the number of first-timers in AFIS, which is a

more accurate reflection of the workload of fingerprint records on AFIS.

The count for 2001, therefore, is more accurate than the estimates for

1997 and 1999.

m Arrest information for older records was entered from final

dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported.

n Arrest information is entered from final dispositions, which are not

supported by fingerprints; booking fingerprints are occasionally

unusable for comparison.

o Historic data are now included in the computerized criminal history

(CCH) system that were previously separate.

p Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

summonses that are not supported by fingerprints, compliance with

State law regarding submission of fingerprints.

q Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

summonses, which are not fingerprint-supported.

r Massachusetts has a bifurcated process in which case and

disposition data are reported directly to the Criminal History Systems

Board and fingerprint cards and arrest data go directly to the State

Police.

s The increase in volume is due to livescan and fingerprints submitted

for identification purposes only.

t Figure includes felony and most misdemeanor arrest cards.

u With few exceptions, most unsealed arrest events are supported by

fingerprints.

v Reported case dispositions that can be linked to a record but not an

arrest event are not fingerprint-supported.

w There is no integration between AFIS and CCH.

x State law and/or policy does not require arrest information to be

supported by fingerprints and arrest information is entered from final

dispositions, which are not supported by fingerprints.

y Fingerprints retained by Forensic Bureau.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 23

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Number of arrest fingerprint cards and livescan Percent Percent Percent Percent of arrest events in State criminal

images submitted to State criminal history repository change change change history files that are fingerprint-supported

State 1997 1999 2001 2003

1997-

1999

1999-

2001

2001-

2003 1997 1999 2001 2003

Total 7,625,900 8,852,400 9,723,000 10,478,100 16% 10% 8%

Alabama 253,500 290,600 300,000 289,300 15% 3% -3% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Alaska 18,700 25,100a 27,900 31,000 34 11 11 48b 62b 70c 73c

Arizona 192,500 209,000 208,000d 209,600 9 -<1 1 100 100 100 100

Arkansas 82,000 68,800 66,200 74,400 -16 -4 12 100 100 100 100

California 1,170,600e 1,456,000 1,318,200 1,485,600 24 -9 13 99e 99e 99f 99e

Colorado ... 223,300 232,800 ... ... 4% 100% 100% 100%

Connecticut 139,500 138,000 128,300 121,800 -1% -7% -5 70 90%f 85g 85g

Delaware 49,200 52,000 51,500h 36,700 6 -1 -40 90i 90i 90i 90g

District of

Columbia 38,900 33,200 ... -15 ... 80j 80i 80i 90j

Florida 637,500 831,700 912,800 994,000 30 10 9 100 100 100 100

Georgia 397,500 441,300 432,800 437,500 11% -2% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Hawaii 66,900 67,000k 56,000l 29,600 <1 -16 -90 100 99 99j 99j

Idaho 59,200 54,800 57,200 50,700 -7 4 -13 100 100 100 100

Illinois 448,700 530,000 566,400 573,100 18 6 1 100 100 100 100

Indiana 75,000 86,600 123,000 192,000 15 42 56 100 100 100 100

Iowa 61,800 66,600 63,400 122,600 8% -5% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Kansas 79,900 84,000 94,200 111,100 5 12 18 85m 85m 96n 96n

Kentucky ... 46,600 145,100 144,100 ... 211 -1 48 ... 100 74o

Louisiana 206,400 307,800 307,500 319,200 49 -<1 4 100 100 100 100

Maine 4,800 7,200 6,200 21,600 50 -14 248 30g 30g 33o 65p

Maryland 228,700 115,100 158,200 208,700 -50% 37% 32% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Mass. 85,000 87,500 ... 108,800 3 ... ... 0 0q 0 0r

Michigan 131,200 159,900s 250,800 391,500 22 57 56 100 100 100 100

Minnesota 48,500 60,000 102,800 142,000 24 71 38 100 100 100 100

Mississippi 12,000 43,600 66,500 70,600 263 53 6 0 100 100 100

Missouri 135,000 139,900t 147,300 152,600 4% 5% 4% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana 28,700 25,600 20,600 18,900 -11 -20 -9 100 100 100 100

Nebraska 44,400 21,600 34,000 20,000k -51 57 -70 100 100 100 100

Nevada 50,300 78,500 84,000 89,200 56 7 6 100 100 100 100

New Hamp. 17,500 18,500 36,100 37,400 6 95 4 65e 75e 80o 48q

New Jersey 129,400 150,400 173,000 53,300 16% 15% -225% 100% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico 38,000 46,000 48,000 65,000 21 4 35 100 100 100 100

New York 611,200 583,600 550,300 522,900 -5 -6 -5 ...u 99v 100 100

N Carolina 141,900 145,100 153,100 164,400 2 6 7 100 100 100 100

N Dakota 9,300 10,800 6,500 11,800 16 -40 82 90e 100 100 100

Ohio 165,000 158,000 269,400 315,600 -4% 71% 17% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Oklahoma 71,900 79,000 92,300 79,000 10 17 -17 100 100 100 100

Oregon 141,000 148,200 150,100 153,600 5 1 2 100 100 100 100

Penn. 191,500 305,900 252,300 320,600 60 -18 27 100 100 100 100

Puerto Rico 3,000 4,600 4,800 4,200 53 4 -14 ... 100 0w

Rhode Island ... 33,000 37,000 37,500 ... 12% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100%

S Carolina 180,400 184,900 188,900 211,000 2% 2 12 100 100 100 100

S Dakota 27,800 26,700 25,000 25,300 -4 -6 1 100 100 100 100

Tennessee ... 198,300 293,000 286,300 ... 48 -2 ... 100 100 100

Texas 575,800 588,000 755,300 836,500 2 28 11 100 100 100 100

Utah ... 61,800 63,000 40,500 ... 4% -56% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Vermont 7,800 11,300 11,700 21,800 45% 4 86 30j 35 37g 71x

Virgin Islands NAy NAy NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 25y

Virginia 196,200 216,700 240,500 310,600 10 11 29 100 100 100 100

Washington 199,400 211,800 198,400 242,800 6 -6 22 100 100 100 100

West Virginia 41,700 ... ... 40,200 ... ... ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Wisconsin 125,400 119,900 154,300 150,600 -4% 29% -2% 100 100 100 100

Wyoming 8,300 11,000 12,600 16,300 33 15 29 100 100 100 100
Page 24 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 7

The notes below expand on the data in Table 7. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Numbers are results of estimates. Except for Puerto Rico, for

which corrected data were submitted, the data in the column for 1997

were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999), Table 7. Except for Puerto Rico, for which corrected

data were submitted, the data in the column for 1999 were taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000),

Table 7. The data in the columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table

7.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Decision is reported by the prosecutor, not the police.

b This number reflects what has been reported to the repository.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 25

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

If an arrestee is not charged after submission of fingerprints to State

repository, State law requires notification of State repository Number of cases

State 1997 1999 2001 2003 2003

Alabama Yes Yes Yes No NA

Alaska Yes Yesa Yesa Yes NA

Arizona Yes Yes Yes No NA

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

California Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Colorado Yes No No NA

Connecticut No No No No NA

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes >25

District of Columbia ... Yes Yes No NA

Florida Yes Yes Yes No NA

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes 11,100

Idaho Yes No Yes Yes ...

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes 400

Indiana No No No No NA

Iowa Yes Yes Yes No NA

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes 6,400b

Kentucky No No No No NA

Louisiana No No No No NA

Maine Yes Yes Yes No NA

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Massachusetts No No No No NA

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Minnesota No No No No NA

Mississippi Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes 11,100

Montana Yes Yes No Yes 100

Nebraska No No No No NA

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes No NA

New Jersey No No No No NA

New Mexico No No No No NA

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes No NA

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Ohio Yes No No No NA

Oklahoma No Yes Yes Yes 900

Oregon No No No No NA

Pennsylvania Yes No No No NA

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes 300

Rhode Island No No Yes Yes ...

South Carolina No No No No NA

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Tennessee ... No No No NA

Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes 13,500

Utah Yes Yes No No NA

Vermont No No No No NA

Virgin Islands No No No No NA

Virginia No No No No NA

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

West Virginia No Yes Yes Yes ...

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes 300

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes ...
Page 26 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 8

The notes below expand on the data in Table 8. The information was

provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Puerto Rico, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 8.

Except for Puerto Rico, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in

the columns for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1999 (October 2000), Table 8. Except for Puerto Rico, for which corrected

data were submitted, the data in the columns for 2001 were taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 8.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Based on audit sample of one jurisdiction.

b Actual total number of cases declined by prosecutors is unknown;

therefore, percentage cannot be determined.

c The State repository only records the number of dispositions received by

courts. Since the actual total is unknown, the percentage cannot be

determined. The number of dispositions received for 2001 was 52,637.

d The percentage rate for 2001 was higher due to our recordkeeping

system. This information was not separated until 2003. The current

percentage rate is correct.

e The repository received notice of 6,597 cases. However, we are not

aware of how many cases are not reported to us. Through current

monitoring procedures, we estimate the number of delinquent prosecutor

disposition cases existing on the system as approximately 16,039. It is

unknown how many of these are actual decisions not to prosecute. This

situation is compounded by the fact that the largest prosecution agency in

the State does not actively enter information on a timely basis into the

repository.

f Through monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent prosecutor

dispositions existing on the system is 6,800. It, however, is unknown how

many of these are actual decisions not to prosecute. This situation is

compounded by the fact that the largest prosecution agency in the State

does not actively submit information on a timely basis to the repository.

g The State received notice of 7,846 cases; however, the number of cases

not reported is unknown. Through current monitoring procedures, the

number of delinquent prosecutor dispositions existing on the system is

estimated to be 9,082. It is unknown how many of those are actual

decisions to prosecute. This situation is compounded by the fact that the

largest prosecution agency in the State does not actively submit information

on a timely basis to the repository.

h The percentage is based on the number of 1997 felony arrest charges

that have a final disposition. It is not known how many of those missing

final dispositions are still active cases.

i This percentage is based on the number of 2001 felony arrest charges

that have a final disposition. The number of 2001 felony arrests with final

dispositions has remained about the same as 1999 (13,000); however, the

overall number of arrests has increased by about 10 percent. Due to this

increase, the courts are experiencing a larger felony caseload and may be

taking longer to report dispositions. Delinquent dispositions are actively

monitored and researched by the criminal history repository. The 2001

percentage includes active cases which are counted as unreported until a

final disposition has occurred and has been posted in the database.

j This percentage was based on the number of 2003 felony arrest charges

that have a final disposition. It is not known how many of those still missing

final dispositions are still, in fact, active cases. Therefore, the percentage

represents the worst-case scenario.

k This agency receives all felony court dispositions but for those

transactions that do not have an ATN, the information is not being

associated with an individual’s record within the CHRI. We are in the

process of developing an electronic solution to identify these transactions to

perform a clean-up of the data.

l Seventy-one percent of 1999 arrests have dispositions recorded.

m Nolle prosecutions – 3,559, Not filed – 13,345.

n Felony cases dispositions entered in 1997.

o Currently, 45% of 1999 arrests have final dispositions reported. When

the current backlog is processed, the reporting level will increase.

p A backlog of dispositions, which are to be reported by the courts,

currently exists.

q There were 104,620 arrests that Missouri received prosecutor actions on.

r Montana Code Annotated specifies that the arresting agency is required to

notify the repository when charges are not filed. The State does not govern

the prosecutors; therefore, statistics are not available for this question.

s Received 8,992 felony dispositions in 2003; do not know what percentage

of total dispositions that constitutes.

t Prosecutor declinations are reported as part of court dispositions;

therefore, they are not reported separately.

u All actions, including prosecution actions, are reported as final

dispositions to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

v Prosecutor declinations are reported as part of court dispositions;

therefore, they are not reported separately.

w Dispositions of all cases are reported by the Administrative Office of the

Pennsylvania Courts, with no separation of felony versus other grades of

offenses.

x Due to discrepancies, however, only 90% could be posted.

y There is no reliable way to measure what was not sent to the State;

hence, an accurate percentage cannot be calculated.

z Percentage is estimated based upon the number of arrests received at

the State criminal history repository.

aa Tracking of disposition reporting is not broken down by misdemeanor

and felony offenses. Overall disposition reporting for 2003 will not be

available until the end of 2004.

bb During this time period, 2,038 declinations were received.

cc Reporting is not required by law, but some dispositions are voluntarily

submitted.

dd Due to computer conversion and no report writing ability at this time,

percentage is unknown.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 27

Table 8: Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Number of

prosecutor Percent of cases in which State criminal repository is notified of:

declinations Prosecutor declinations Felony trial court dispositions

State 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003

Alabama NA NA NA NA NA ... ... ... NA

Alaska 5,900 57%a ... ... ... 100%a ... ... ...

Arizona 84,900 ... ... ...b 21% ... ... ...c 57%

Arkansas ... ... ... ... ... 70 70% 94% 65d

California 162,300 68 72% 72% 100 80 77 77 82

Colorado NA ... NA NA 100% 100% 100%

Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA 100 100% 100 100

Delaware ... 100% 100% 100% 100% 95 75 63 95

District of Columbia 3,700 90 90 ... 100 84 ... ... 12

Florida ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Georgia ... ... ... ... ... 85% 85% 82% 82%

Hawaii 6,600e ... ...f ...g ... 84h 76 70i 76j

Idaho NA NA NA NA NA 95 95 95 95

Illinois 17,400 95% 95% ... 71% 68 ... 43 82

Indiana NA ... NA NA NA 25 25 40 ...

Iowa ... NA ... ... ... 85% 85% 90% ...

Kansas 4,700 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Kentucky NA NA NA NA NA 20 ... 5 <5%

Louisiana ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Maine ... 99% ... ... 99 100 100 ...k

Maryland 54,100 100% ... 100% 100% 100% ... 100% 100%

Massachusetts NA 100 100% NA 100 100% 100

Michigan ... ... ... ... ... ... ...l ... ...

Minnesota NA ... ... NA NA 99 99 100 99

Mississippi ... NA ... ... ... NA ... ... ...

Missouri 17,000m 20% ... ... 31% 60%n 45%o 32%p ...q

Montana ...r ... ... ... ... 80 ... 62 78%

Nebraska 10,100 75 75% 75% ... 95 95 95 95

Nevada ... ... ... ... ... 27 ... ... ...

New Hampshire NA NA NA NA NA ... ... ... ...s

New Jersey 118,400 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100%

New Mexico NA NA NA 25 NA ... NA 25 32

New York 23,500 100 ... ... ... ... 90

North Carolina NA 95 ... NA NA 95 ... ... ...

North Dakota NA 80 80 ... NA 80 85 80 NA

Ohio NA ... ... NA NA 31% 42% ... ...

Oklahoma 2,700 NA ... 100% ... 65 65 ... NA

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100% ...

Pennsylvania ...t ... ... ...u ... 50 ...v ...w ...

Puerto Rico 147 NA NA NA 92 88 87 83%

Rhode Island ... NA ... 100% ... ... 100% 100% 100%

South Carolina NA NA NA NA NA 100% 100 100x 100

South Dakota ... ... ... 1 1% 84 97 98 98

Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA NA 35

Texas 35,600 60% 50% ... ...y 60z 50 ... ...aa

Utah ... 70% 80% ... ...bb 64% 100% 100% 100%

Vermont NA NA NA NA NA 95 95 95 95

Virgin Islands ... NA NA ... ... ... 60cc ... 90

Virginia 68,500 96 ... ... 21% 96 96 ... 74

Washington ... ... ... ... ... 57 ...dd ... ...

West Virginia ... ... NA ... ... ... ... ... 99%

Wisconsin NA NA NA NA NA 98% 39% 57% ...

Wyoming ... 100% ... ... ... 28 ... ... ...
Page 28 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 9

The notes below expand on the data in Table 9. The information was

provided by the respective respondent.

... Not available.

= 1 Record is destroyed by State criminal history repository.

2 Record is retained with action noted.

3 Record is sealed.

4 No action is taken.

5 Other.

a This can be approved by Attorney General.

b Records are destroyed or delivered to the person.

c Treated as nonconviction.

d Not a reportable event in Maryland.

e Has occurred by court order.

f Although State law does not provide for expungement of convictions,

the repository receives orders issued pursuant to the courts’ inherent

authority.

g All records have been deleted from MJIC database; however, MJIC

is authorized to maintain an internal record of action in some cases.

h Montana removes the information from the file and from the

automated system. However, hard copies of the documentation

received, as well as a copy of the record, are maintained for a period of

5 years in a filing cabinet.

i Noted on CHRI.

j Sealed with action noted.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 29

Table 9: Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2003

Expungements Set-asides Pardons Restoration of civil rights

State law How records State law How records How records State law How records

provides for are treated by provides for are treated by State law are treated by provides for are treated by

expungement State criminal set-asides State criminal provides for State criminal restoration State criminal

of felony history of felony history pardons of history of felons' history

State convictions repository= convictions repository= felons repository= civil rights repository=

Alabama Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Alaska Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

California Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Colorado Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Connecticut Yes 2 Yes 2

Delaware Yes 2 Yes 2

District of

Columbia

Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Florida Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Georgia Noa 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Hawaii Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Idaho Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Illinois Yes 2 Yes 2

Indiana Yes 1b Yes 2 Yes 2

Iowa Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kentucky Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Louisiana Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Maine Yes 5c

Maryland Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5d

Massachusetts Yese 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Michigan Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 2

Minnesota 5f Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Mississippi Yes 5g Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 4

Montana Yesh 1 Yes 2 Yes 2

Nebraska Yes 2 Yes 2

Nevada Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Hamp. Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5i

New Jersey Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 2 Yes 2

New York Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Carolina Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Ohio Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oklahoma Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oregon Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Pennsylvania Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2

Puerto Rico Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 1

Rhode Island Yes 2

South Carolina Yes 2

South Dakota Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2

Tennessee Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 2

Texas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Utah Yes 3j Yes 2

Vermont Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Virgin Islands Yes 1 Yes 1

Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Washington Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

West Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wisconsin Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes 2
Page 30 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 10

The notes below expand on the data in Table 10. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: The figures in the columns represent the estimated percent of

fingerprint cards received from State prisons and local jails both in

States where a legal requirement (State statute or regulation) exists to

fingerprint incarcerated individuals and send the fingerprint to the

repository and in States where the procedure is carried out voluntarily.

The absence of a response indicates that the information is neither 

mandated by a State legal requirement nor is voluntarily submitted.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

a In Connecticut, admitted prisoners are held only in State prisons.

b The Montana State Prison and the Montana Women’s Prison submit

100% of all of their inmates. Individuals that are assigned to the

Department of Corrections for prerelease centers, intensively

supervised probation, or boot camp are not submitted to the repository.

c North Carolina does the positive identification before submitting to

repository.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 31

Table 10: Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2003

Law requires fingerprinting of Percent of admitted prisoners for State repository uses

admitted prisoners and sending whom State repository receives fingerprints to make

fingerprints to State repository fingerprints positive identification

and to link correctional

State State prisons Local jails State prisons Local jails data with proper records

Alabama Yes

Alaska Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Arizona

Arkansas Yes 100% Yes

California Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Colorado Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Connecticut Yes 100 a Yes

Delaware Yes 100 Yes

District of Columbia

Florida Yes 100 Yes

Georgia Yes 100% Yes

Hawaii

Idaho Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Illinois Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Indiana Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Iowa Yes 100% Yes

Kansas Yes Yes 30 0 Yes

Kentucky Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Louisiana Yes ... ... ... Yes

Maine Yes

Maryland

Massachusetts Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Michigan Yes 100 Yes

Minnesota 90 Yes

Mississippi Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Missouri Yes 100% Yes

Montana b Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Nevada

New Hampshire Yes Yes 10 11 Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes 100% ... Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes ... ... Yes

New York Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

North Carolina Yes 100 c

North Dakota Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Ohio Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Oklahoma Yes ... 100% ... Yes

Oregon 100 Yes

Pennsylvania <5 <5% Yes

Puerto Rico 0 0

Rhode Island Yes 100% Yes

South Carolina Yes 100 95% Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Texas Yes 100 Yes

Utah

Vermont Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Virgin Islands

Virginia Yes 100 Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia Yes ... Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes 100 ... Yes
Page 32 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 11

The notes below expand on the data in Table 11. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: The figures reported in this table are from States in which there

is a legal requirement (State statute or regulation) that probation/parole

information must be reported to the State criminal history repository or 

from States where the information is voluntarily reported. The absence

of a response indicates that the State neither statutorily mandates that

the information is reported nor is the information voluntarily reported.

See Table 5 for States that have a legal requirement that

probation/parole information must be reported to the repository.

Percentages reported are the results of estimates. Percentages are

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Arizona,

Massachusetts, and Washington, for which corrected data were

submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 11.

Except for Arizona, for which corrected data were submitted, the data

in the columns for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 11. The data in the

columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 11.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Beginning in 2002, a new system was implemented which provides

100% reporting.

b Probation information is no longer added to the criminal history

system. It is directly added to the supervised release file by local

agencies. Currently, 32 counties enter data into the supervised

release file, and some do not enter all probation actions. Accordingly,

the percentage of total probation actions cannot be determined.

c 100% of probation data are entered directly by agencies to the

supervised release file.

d 100% of all California Youth Authority probations/paroles are entered

into the supervised release file.

e Probation information is maintained on the hot files, not within the

State criminal history repository.

f Eleven out of 13 supervision agencies currently report information.

g No probation or parole data have been received. The Department of

Corrections was unable to send data due to a software problem.

h The State repository receives information on admissions to, but not

releases from, probation.

i There is no system to report this information.

j Probation sentences are reported; probation releases are not

reported.

k The percentage reflects the data reported directly to the State

repository; however, there is a link to the parole and probation system

maintained by the Department of Criminal Justice.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • 33

Table 11: Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Percent of cases where admission to and release from supervision is reported to the State repository

Probation Parole

State 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003

Alabama ... ...

Alaska ... ... ... ... ...

Arizona 0% 0% 0% ... 0% 0% 0%

Arkansas 55 60 60a 100% 95 100 100 100%

California 30 b b 100c 100 100d

Colorado 100% 100%

Connecticut 0% 0%

Delaware 100% 100% 100 100 100% 100% 100 100

District of Columbia 100 ... ... ... 100 ... ...

Florida ... ... e NA 0 ... ... NA

Georgia ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Hawaii ... ... ...f ... ... ... ... ...

Idaho 0% 0% 0% ... 0% 0% 0% ...

Illinois ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Indiana

Iowa ... ... ... 100% ... ... ... 99%

Kansas 90% 90% ... ... 90% 90% ... ...

Kentucky 90 90 ...

Louisiana 98 95 95% ... 95 95 95% ...

Maine ...

Maryland 100% 100%

Massachusetts 100 100% 100% 100% 100 100% 100% 100%

Michigan

Minnesota 75 75 100 75 75 75 100

Mississippi ... 0g ... ... 0g ...

Missouri 100%h 100%h ... ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana 0% 0

Nebraska 20 20% 30 99 99 99

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey 95% 100%h 100%h 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico ... ... ... ...

New York ... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

North Carolina ... 100 100

North Dakota 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Ohio ... ... ... ...

Oklahoma 25% ... 20% 20% 25% ... 20% 20%

Oregon 100 100% 100 100

Pennsylvania ... ... ...i ... ... ... ...i ...

Puerto Rico 100 0 100 0

Rhode Island ... 100%

South Carolina 100% 99% 99% 99%

South Dakota 81 95 95 95 95% 95% 95% 95

Tennessee ... ... ... ...

Texas <50j ... 80 50k 100

Utah

Vermont ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Virgin Islands 0% 0%

Virginia 95% 95% ... 95 95% 95% ... 95

Washington ... ... ... ...

West Virginia 75% ... ... ... 98% ... ...

Wisconsin ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Wyoming 10 10% 10% ... 100 100% 100% ...
Page 34 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 12

The notes below expand on the data in Table 12. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

fingerprint cards have been rounded to the nearest 100.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Arrests are entered by arresting agency, often before fingerprints are

received.

b Strictly for livescan submissions only.

c Electronic/livescan submissions entered in 1 day.

d Arrest data are entered directly into the central repository of criminal

history information (OBTS/CCH) under a temporary SID. Upon positive

identification by fingerprint comparison, the arrested offender is

assigned a new or existing SID appropriately.

e Criminal justice agencies request an Arrest Tracking Number (ATN)

when charges are initiated so arrest information is known immediately

to the CHRI since it is the system that generates ATNs. However, the

arrest information is not available for dissemination until receipt of

support documents. The receipt of hard copy fingerprint cards are

generally between 10 to 14 days, unless received via livescan, which

occurs at time of arrest.

f The arrest data are entered into the CHRI upon receipt of the support

documents (fingerprint card, warrants, or USACs). Data entry is

usually completed for fingerprint cards within 5 workdays or less, for all

other documents, usually 3 workdays or less.

g This applies to 70% of the arrests.

h Approximately 68% of arrests are instantaneous. Nonautomated

arrest data takes approximately 30 days.

i This statistic does not account for a minority of arrests where

fingerprints are not taken.

j State has two livescan devices that submit electronically to the

repository. One machine is used strictly for civil processing. The other 

machine is used by a law enforcement entity for submission of all

Sexual and Violent Offenders, as well as civil submissions. State has

recently signed a contract with Cross Match Technologies that

provides for 11 devices throughout the State of Montana. These

devices will be installed by September 2004 and will be submitting

electronically. The installation of these devices will account for 

approximately 70% of Montana’s criminal arrests, correctional cycles,

and Sexual and Violent Offender registrations.

k This number refers to counties.

l Provided there are no backlogs.

m Of these, 25 are Pennsylvania State Police Stations.

n Fingerprints never received.

o State has livescan sites statewide at law enforcement agencies;

however, those sites are shared with a variety of agencies.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 35

Table 12: Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003

Percentage

Average of daily

number Average number of days Number of arrests

of days between receipt of arresting in State

between fingerprints and entry of agencies represented Backlog of Number of

arrest data into: reporting by arresting entering unprocessed Number of

and receipt arrest agencies data into or partially person-days

of arrest Criminal data by reporting by criminal processed needed to

data and Master name history automated automated database fingerprint eliminate

State fingerprints index database means means exists cards backlog

Alabama <30 <7 <7 50 60% Yes 100,000+ 200

Alaska ... NA NAa 1 25 Yes 5,800 93

Arizona 1b 1 1 296 95

Arkansas 7-14 7-14 30 22 65 Yes 20,700 90

California 1 1 1 1,100 99

Colorado 1-3 1 1 80 98%

Connecticut 3-5 210 210 Yes 112,700 1,120

Delaware 2a 0 0 65 100

District of Columbia 1 1 <1 25 100

Florida 11 1 1 83 89

Georgia 1c 2 1-23a 350 80% Yes 8,500 15-25

Hawaii 1-7 d b 4 87 Yes 4,000 600

Idaho 5 37 37 9 75

Illinois ... NA 10a ... 79

Indiana 16 1 1 36 75

Iowa ... 2 2 ... ...

Kansas 10 1 1 15 21%

Kentucky 1-90a 1-90a 1-90a Yes 18,000 160

Louisiana 2 1-14a 1-14a 99 94

Maine 10-14e ... 3-5f 149 70 Yes <100 2-3

Maryland <1g 1 1 9 67%

Massachusetts 30h h h 97 68i

Michigan 15-30a 30 30 329 64 Yes 22,500 200

Minnesota 18 2 2 261 74

Mississippi 105 ... ... 141 73

Missouri 54 60 60 33 49% Yes 11,000 75

Montana 25 3 3 j j

Nebraska 15-30 10-20 30-40 Yes 700 20

Nevada 1 1 1 53 100

New Hampshire 14 21-42 21-42 25 25 Yes 500 14-21

New Jersey 1-10 1-2 1-2 199 49%

New Mexico 36 39 39 8 30 Yes 14,000 233

New York 1-30a 1 1 107 79

North Carolina 1-10a 1-4a 1-4a 95 80

North Dakota ... ... ... ... ...

Ohio 14 1 1 138 85%

Oklahoma 5-7 90 90 3 25

Oregon ...a 22 22 2k 8 Yes 23,400 695

Pennsylvania ...a 1l 1l 103m 75 Yes 1,200 4

Puerto Rico 7n 5 15 0 0

Rhode Island 7a 60 60 34 90% Yes 4,300 40

South Carolina 3 10 10 55 35

South Dakota 1-10a 1 1 10 70

Tennessee 1-7a 1-5a 1-5a 91 86

Texas 1-7a 2 2 65 70

Utah 3-7 45 45 24 70% Yes 4,500 50

Vermont 10 7 7 8o 16

Virgin Islands 2 ... 2

Virginia 1-5 1-3 1-5 74 81

Washington 3 1 1 45 70

West Virginia ... 10 10 Yes 798 5

Wisconsin 6 3 3 107 88%

Wyoming 7 2 2 8 60 Yes 13,200 200
Page 36 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 13

The notes below expand on the data in Table 13. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective repositories.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed court

disposition forms have been rounded to the nearest 100.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable—no legal requirement mandates the reporting of

the information to the State criminal history repository.

a Received nightly.

b This agency receives all felony court dispositions but for those

transactions that do not have an ATN, the information is not being

associated with an individual’s record within the CHRI. Maine is in the

process of developing an electronic solution to identify these

transactions to perform a clean-up of the data.

c Electronic submission – 1 day.

d This number refers to counties.

e Town and Village court dispositions.

f All disposition information is reported to the Administrative Office of

Pennsylvania Courts. They in turn, send the tapes to the Pennsylvania

State Police.

g State law requires this information to be reported in 30 days.

h This number represents counties reporting by automated means.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 37

Table 13: Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 2003

Average number

of days between Percent of

Average number receipt of cases disposed Number of

of days between final felony court Number of of in State Backlog of unprocessed Number of

occurrence of disposition and courts currently represented by entering or partially person-days

final felony court entry of data reporting courts reporting court data processed needed

disposition and into criminal by automated by automated into criminal court disposition to eliminate

State receipt of data history database means means history database forms backlog

Alabama ... >30 ... ... Yes 100,000+ 200

Alaska ... ... Yes 10,200 95

Arizona ... 70 45 14% Yes 29,900 62

Arkansas 30 30 25 4 Yes 8,900 150

California 30 30 1,100 70

Colorado 1 1 65 100%

Connecticut 1-2 1-2 23 100

Delaware 1 1 29 100

District of Columbia ... 1 1 75

Florida 62 1 67 100

Georgia 45 152 172 35% Yes 128,800 165-200

Hawaii 7 50 16 100 Yes 44,300 791

Idaho 14 3 44 100 Yes ... ...

Illinois 120 30 67 ...

Indiana ... 1 NA

Iowa 30 50 99 100%

Kansas 21 ... 0 Yes 382,600 3,800

Kentucky ... 30 NA Yes 40,000 1,250

Louisiana ... ... NA Yes ... ...

Maine 0a ...b 49 100 Yes ...b ...b

Maryland 60 1-3 26 100%

Massachusetts 1 1 83 100

Michigan 10c 180c 148 51 Yes 130,700 654

Minnesota 3 1 87 100

Mississippi ... 1,000 Yes 50,000 450

Missouri ... ... 30d 28% Yes 160,000 365

Montana 2 1 5 4

Nebraska >180 93 100 Yes 74,000 90

Nevada 60 ... ... Yes 150,000 400

New Hampshire ... 7-14 Yes 500 7-14

New Jersey 1 1 584 100%

New Mexico ... 3 NA

New York Real time Real time 252 96 Yes 9,500e 30

North Carolina 1 1 100 100

North Dakota

Ohio 21 1 60 50% Yes 3,000 21

Oklahoma ... ... Yes 28,900 180

Oregon 30 0 36 56 Yes 70,400 440

Pennsylvania ... ... f f Yes 135,000 900

Puerto Rico 30 20 0 0 Yes 70,000 30

Rhode Island 5 ... 5 100% Yes 111,200 ...

South Carolina 1-3 1 47 100 Yes 14,000 56

South Dakota 14 14 All 100

Tennessee 30 5 1 15

Texas 30g 5 76h 70

Utah 30 1 130 76% Yes 187,800 150

Vermont 10 14 NA

Virgin Islands 30 ... Yes ... ...

Virginia 2-14 1-2 370 95

Washington 2 30 ... ...

West Virginia ... ... Yes 28,000 60

Wisconsin 4 2 71 90%

Wyoming ... ... Yes 3,000 20
Page 38 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 14

The notes below expand on the data in Table 14. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

custody-supervision reports have been rounded to the nearest 100.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable — no legal requirement mandates the reporting of

the information to the State criminal history repository.

a This requirement is currently waived due to technological issues.

b 100% of all adult correction admissions are reported. 100% of all

California Youth Authority status changes are reported.

c 99% for status changes.

d The priorities for Maine are to build records based upon inquiry, firsttime arrests, and updates to already built records. A prior manual

record only gets built, based on the priorities given, if there is an

inquiry against the individual. When an individual is “brand new” to the

repository, the automated record building is initiated when the State

Bureau of Identification receives either an arrest fingerprint card or a

Uniform Summons and Complaint (USAC).

e Computer interface.

f New York State Department of Corrections submits correctional data

online.

g Automated – 1 day, Manual – 5 days.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 39

Table 14: Average number of days to process correctional admission data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of

backlog, 2003

Average Percent of

Average number number of admission/

of days between days between Number of status change/ Backlog of Number of

admission or release receipt corrections release activity entering unprocessed

of State prison inmate of corrections agencies occurring in corrections or partially Number of

and receipt of data by data and currently State represented data into processed person-days

State repository entry into reporting by by agencies criminal custody- needed

criminal history automated reporting by history supervision to eliminate

State Admission Release database means automated means database reports backlog

Alabama 30 30 <30 1 80% No

Alaska ...a ...a ...a 0 NA NA

Arizona NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arkansas 14 0 30 Yes 3,700 60

California 1 1 1 2 100b Yes 17,700 2

Colorado >1 NA 1 1 100% No

Connecticut NA NA NA No

Delaware 1 1 1 39 100 No

District of Columbia NA 30 14 No

Florida 1-2 30 1 1 100 No

Georgia 10-15 ... 23 1 ... Yes 1,000 3-5

Hawaii ... ... ... Yes 8,900 279

Idaho 14 ... 80 11 25% No

Illinois ... ... 1-10 ... 9c No

Indiana 8 ... 1 4 98 No

Iowa 1 60 1 No

Kansas 1 ... ... 1 ... No

Kentucky 90 ... 90 Yes ... ...

Louisiana ... ... ... ... ... No

Maine 5-10 ... ...d No

Maryland 30 30 1-3 62 100% No

Massachusetts 7 7 1 7 65 No

Michigan 1 NA 0e No

Minnesota 1 1 1 98 90 No

Mississippi ... ... ... 1 ... No

Missouri 2 7 730 4 75% Yes 100,000 730

Montana 1 NA 3 No

Nebraska 30 10 30 ... ... Yes 50 5

Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 1 NA 7-14 12 100 Yes 100 7

New Jersey 1 1 3 17 85 No

New Mexico NA 10-15 21 Yes 724 30

New York Real time Real time Real timef 72 100% No

North Carolina 60 1 1 1 100 No

North Dakota ... ... ... 6 ... No

Ohio 2 12 1 32 100% No

Oklahoma 1 30 1 1 100 No

Oregon ... 30 6 Yes 200 2

Pennsylvania ... ... ... Yes 500,000 489

Puerto Rico ... ... ... Yes ... ...

Rhode Island NA ... ... 1 100% No

South Carolina 1 NA 1 2 100 No

South Dakota 30 30 2-5 No

Tennessee NA NA 1-5g 4 95 No

Texas NA NA NA 1 100 No

Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA

Vermont NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA No

Virginia 30 10 3 42 100% No

Washington 3 1 1 ... ... No

West Virginia ... ... 10 No

Wisconsin 11 ... 2 1 99% No

Wyoming 14 NA 30 No
Page 40 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 15

The notes below expand on the data in Table 15. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

* Lists generated are used to provide notice to criminal justice

agencies in order to obtain the missing dispositions.

a Automated court system.

b Audits.

c Training of local/county jurisdictions.

d Onsite collection electronic submission and training.

e Training.

f Regional and agency training.

g Direct link to courts database.

h Report listing arrests with no dispositions.

i Audits of agency records.

j Newsletters, presentations to meetings/conferences.

k When disposition information is required.

l Teletype METRO, Maine State Police to all law enforcement

agencies.

m External audits.

n Meetings with court clerks, judges, etc.

o Criminal history reporting training sessions.

p TAC, Training – Agency Audits.

q Routing training of contributors, participation of repository staff at

judicial conferences and workshops, and inquiries via fax for missing

information.

r Faxes.

s AFIS seminars.

t Computer access to court database.

u Tennessee hopes to have 90% of dispositions received electronically

by the end of 2004.

v The comparison of the repository’s records with those of the Virginia

Supreme Court.

w Training and newsletters.

x Training and arrest-linking software.

y Disposition forms mailed to courts for completion.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 41

Table 15: Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2003

List of arrests with

no dispositions

generated to

monitor disposition

State reporting Field visits Form letters Telephone calls Other

Alabama X X X Xa

Alaska X X Xb

Arizona X X Xc

Arkansas X X X Xd

California X X Xe

Colorado X* X X X Xf

Connecticut X

Delaware X* X X X

District of Columbia X X X Xg

Florida X* X X X Xe

Georgia X* X X X

Hawaii X* X X Xh

Idaho X* X X Xb,e

Illinois X* X X X

Indiana

Iowa X* X X X Xi

Kansas X X X Xj

Kentucky

Louisiana Xk Xh

Maine X X X Xl

Maryland X X X Xm

Massachusetts X

Michigan X* X

Minnesota X X X X Xb

Mississippi X Xn

Missouri X* X X X Xo

Montana X* X X

Nebraska X* X X X

Nevada X X Xp

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X* X X X

New Mexico

New York X* X X X Xq

North Carolina Xr

North Dakota X* X X X Xe

Ohio X* X X X Xe

Oklahoma X* X X X

Oregon X X X

Pennsylvania X X Xs

Puerto Rico X* X X

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X X X X Xd

South Dakota X* X X X Xt

Tennessee X* Xu

Texas X* X X X X

Utah X X X Xd

Vermont X* X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X X Xv

Washington X* X X X Xw

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X Xx

Wyoming X X Xy
Page 42 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 16

The notes below expand on the data in Table 16. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: State repositories were asked to list all methods that may be

utilized to link disposition information. Matching of several items of

information may be used to confirm that the appropriate link is being

made. Also, if information of one type is missing, repositories may

look to other types of information contained on the disposition report.

* Method(s) utilized by the State repository for linking disposition

information and arrest/charge information also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts.

a Confirming initial disposition report and arrest fingerprints were done

at the same time.

b Date of Birth/Arresting Agency.

c Docket number, or ORI.

d CJIS case number.

e ORI, FL SID#, FBI #, Sex, Race, DOB, SSN.

f Yes, for those fully automated records.

g Probation Central File (PCF).

h Court docket numbers.

i Date of Birth, Reporting Agency ORI.

j Disposition changes are linked to arraignment charges.

k Date of Birth.

l Social Security Number.

m Correctional data are received from Virginia Department of

Corrections.

n Agency ORI.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 43

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2003

Unique tracking Name and

number for reporting

individual Unique arrest Unique charge agency case

State subjects event identifier identifier Arrest date Subject name number Other

Alabama* X X X X X

Alaska* X X X X X

Arizona* X X X X X X Xa

Arkansas* X X X X X X

California* X X X X Xb

Colorado* X X X X X X Xc

Connecticut* X X X X X

Delaware* X X X X X X Xd

District of Columbia* X X X X X

Florida* X X X X X X Xe

Georgia X X

Hawaii* X X X

Idaho X X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X

Indiana X X X X X X

Iowa* X

Kansas* X X X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana* X X X X X X

Maine*f X X X X X X

Maryland* X

Massachusetts* Xg Xh

Michigan* X

Minnesota X X Xi

Mississippi* X X

Missouri* X X X X X

Montana* X X X Xh

Nebraska* X

Nevada* X X X

New Hampshire* X X X

New Jersey* X X X X X X

New Mexico* X X X X

New Yorkj X X X

North Carolina* X X X

North Dakota* X X X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X X Xh

Oregon* X X X X Xk

Pennsylvania* X

Puerto Rico* X X X

Rhode Island* X

South Carolina* X X X Xl

South Dakota* X X X X X X

Tennessee* X X X X X X

Texas*

Utah X X X X

Vermont* X X X X X X

Virgin Islands* X X X

Virginia* X X X X X Xm

Washington X X X X X Xh

West Virginia* X X X X X

Wisconsin X X X X Xn

Wyoming* X X X X X X
Page 44 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 17

The notes below expand on the data in Table 17. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

* All data received can be linked.

a Return disposition for clarification and enter identification information

to another system.

b Return documents to arresting agency to obtain arrest-fingerprinting

cards.

c All correctional information is not linked and entered as a stand-alone

cycle.

d Individual courts are not available. Total dispositions that could not

be linked are 15.

e For court data, hold in automated format and reran periodically for 

linkage.

f The Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center (HCJDC) does receive

notices of final court dispositions through court judgments and

automated interface records that cannot be matched to an arrest

segment. This includes convictions for cases such as penal summons

for which no booking occurred even after conviction, as provided by

law. The actual number of missing cases is not available. The HCJDC

does not currently receive correctional data.

g Request original fingerprint card.

h Fingerprints only.

i Nonfingerprint-based.

j Goes to “Hold” table.

k In cases where the repository receives a disposition from the court

but has not received the arrest fingerprint card, a letter is sent to the

arresting agency requesting the fingerprint card. In cases where the

repository receives a correctional cycle fingerprint card but has not

received the original arrest fingerprint card, the information is still

entered into the criminal history system but is not linked to an arrest or 

court cycle.

l Return disposition to contributor.

m Create a “dummy” arrest segment with information from corrections

and link it to the court segment.

n NCDOC creates a cycle alone, no need for linkage.

o Information returned.

p Make more attempts to link disposition by using prison fingerprint in

lieu of arrest fingerprint.

q Search documents and then proceed to enter complete record.

r Contact police department for prints.

s Approximately 5% of final court dispositions received by the

repository cannot be linked to arrest/charge information. Actual number 

not available.

t The repository attempts to obtain arrest information for the

dispositions in question, so the number of dispositions without arrest

changes on a daily basis. The numbers reflect the total number of

unresolved dispositions without arrests since 1994.

u The repository requires the submission of a unique arrest tracking

number in order to link a custody to an arrest. The prison system does

not require that number to be reported at the times of receipt.

v Enter disposition information in a “not found” queue – if arrest

entered subsequently, they are linked.

w Correctional information is submitted on fingerprint cards.

x Correctional information posted as independent event.

y If fingerprint card from facility is available.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 45

Table 17: Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2003

Create a "dummy" segment

Court Enter information

dispositions without linkage to Enter no information

Arrest assumed arrest/charge data without linkage

assumed from From From

Estimated dispositions received which cannot be

linked to arrest/charge information

from court correctional correctional correctional Prosecutor Final court Correctional

State disposition data From courts agencies From courts agencies Other dispositions dispositions information

Alabama X X ... ... ...

Alaska X ... ...

Arizona X Xa 1,900 3,000

Arkansas X X Xb ... ... ...

California X Xc ...d ...d ...d

Colorado*

Connecticut*

Delaware*

Dist. of Columbia X ... ... ...

Florida X X Xe ... ... ...

Georgia X X 23,400 23,400

Hawaii X ...f

Idaho ...

Illinois X X ... 13,000

Indiana X 71,000

Iowa Xg ... ...

Kansas X 6,200 ... ...

Kentucky X X ... ...

Louisiana X ... ... ...

Maine X ... ... ...

Maryland X ... ... ...

Massachusetts X ...

Michigan X 116,000

Minnesota Xh X Xi 5,800 29,500 19,200

Mississippi X X ... ... ...

Missouri X Xj ... ... ...

Montanak ... ...

Nebraska X X ... ...

Nevada X Xl ... ...

New Hampshire X X ... 31,700 ...

New Jersey Xm ... ... ...

New Mexico X X ... ... ...

New York X X 7,200 ...

North Carolina X ...n

North Dakota X X ... ...

Ohio X X Xo ... ...

Oklahoma X X ... ... ...

Oregon X X ... ... ...

Pennsylvania X Xp 14,900 ...

Puerto Rico X X Xq ... ... ...

Rhode Island Xr ... ... NA

South Carolina X X ...s ...

South Dakota X X ... ... ...

Tennessee X X ... ... ...

Texas X 36,200t 148,400 58,300u

Utah X 900 110,400

Vermont*

Virgin Islands X X ...

Virginia X 30,200

Washington Xv ... ...

West Virginia X Xw 400 15,000

Wisconsin X X Xx 9,400

Wyoming Xy X X ... 24
Page 46 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 17a

The notes below expand on the data in Table 17a. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

a Three months after arrest.

b If requested for a lawful purpose (as defined by State law).

c Every 4 years.

d Only if fingerprints accompanied the information.

e Public inquiry access to court system (MEJIS).

f One year.

g Manual inquiry to law enforcement agency.

h Thirty days or less.

i Montana’s repository has the ability to generate a report indicating all

arrests that are 30 days old for which dispositions are missing. The

reports are sent to the courts periodically. After a court does not

respond to two such requests, the information is requested from the

prosecutor’s office. Requests for missing dispositions are sent to the

repository when legacy records are converted.

j Six months.

k Various audits.

l One year and 1 month.

m Only prior to court system automation in 1989.

n Two years or more.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 47

Table 17a: Procedure followed to obtain missing dispositions, 2003

Impute a conviction

for correctional

Automated inquiry upon a predetermined

period of time________________________

Automated inquiry upon a criminal

history query__________________________

Manual inquiry upon a criminal history query information that was

received with no

Specific court or Specific court or Specific court or underlying court

State The prosecutor statewide administrator The prosecutor Statewide administrator The prosecutor Statewide administrator information

Alabama Xa X X X Yes

Alaska X X

Arizona X Xb

Arkansas X X Yes

California X X

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia X

Florida X X

Georgia Yes

Hawaii X X X

Idaho

Illinois X X X

Indiana

Iowa Xc X Yes

Kansas X X Yes

Kentucky X Yes

Louisiana X X Yesd

Mainee X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan Xf Yes

Minnesotag X X Yes

Mississippi X X Yes

Missouri Xh X X X Yes

Montanai X X Yes

Nebraska Xj X X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey Xk Xk X X Yes

New Mexico X X

New York X X X X

North Carolina X

North Dakota X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X Yes

Puerto Rico X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X Yes

South Dakota Xl X Xm Yes

Tennessee Yes

Texas X X

Utah X X

Vermont

Virgin Islands X X

Virginia Xn X X Yes

Washington X X

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin

Wyoming X X Yes
Page 48 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 18

The notes below expand on the data in Table 18. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

a Audits.

b Jurisdictional lists generated by the courts for agency review.

c Synchronize with FBI tapes, audits of random sample records.

d Audit of agency records.

e For newer employers.

f Internal and external audits.

g III Synchronization Reports.

h Arrest analysis and disposition verification.

i An exceptions report is checked every weekday morning to ensure

accurate information.

j Distribution of standard practices manual and statewide directory of

criminal justice agencies.

k Onsite training.

l Dual data entry.

m Manual review after data entry.

n Periodic audits by the Attorney General.

o Verification after data entry.

p Biannual III synchronization of South Dakota records with FBI.

q Reporting agencies have access to records for their review.

r III Synchronization Project.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 49

Table 18: Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2003

Random sample

Manual review comparisons

of incoming Manual Manual review of of State criminal Error lists

source double-checking Computer edit criminal record history repository returned

documents before or and verification transcripts before files with to reporting

State or reports after data entry programs dissemination stored documents agencies Other

Alabama X X X X X X

Alaska X X X X X Xa

Arizona X X X X X X

Arkansas X X X X X

California X

Colorado X X Xb

Connecticut X X X X

Delaware X X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X X X X X X Xc

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X X Xa

Illinois X X X Xa

Indiana X X X

Iowa X X X X X X Xd

Kansas X X

Kentucky X X X X

Louisiana X X

Maine X Xe X X X

Maryland X X X X Xf

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X X X Xa

Minnesota X X X X Xa

Mississippi X X X X Xg

Missouri X X X X X Xh

Montana X X X X Xi

Nebraska X X X

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X X X X X X

New Mexico X X X

New York X X X Xj

North Carolina X X X

North Dakota X X X X Xk

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X X X X Xl

Oregon X X X X Xm

Pennsylvania X X X Xn

Puerto Rico X X X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X X Xo

South Dakota X X X X X X Xp

Tennessee X X X X

Texas X X X X X Xq

Utah X X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X X

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X

Wyoming X X X X Xr
Page 50 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 19

The notes below expand on the data in Table 19. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

Note: Except for Missouri and Puerto Rico, for which corrected data

were submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999),

Table 19. Except for Puerto Rico, for which corrected data were

submitted, the data in the columns for 1999 are taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 19.

The data in the columns for 2001 were taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 2001 (September 2003), Table 19.

a All inquires are logged; updates are limited to the last transaction.

b Inquiries and responses only.

c Seven agencies validated/audited.

d Kauai Prosecutors (pilot) – November 1994, Kauai County – October 

1995, Hawaii County – December 1996.

e Kauai Prosecutors (pilot) – January 1993 - December 1993, Kauai

County – January 1993 - December 1993, Hawaii County – January

1994 - December 1994.

f The only quality control being performed at this time is random

sampling by supervisors. Maine plans to implement a more formal

procedure for quality control sampling using selectable criteria.

g Audits are conducted on a running cycle.

h Audits have now moved to a 3-year cycle. The next audit will cover

July 2002-June 2005.

i Montana intends to re-establish a quality control unit in 2004. The unit

ceased operation in June 2003.

j Audit program under development.

k 1993 was the last audit of the repository, but there are ongoing audits

of contributing/user agencies.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 51

Table 19: Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003

Transaction logs maintained to provide audit trail Random sample audits of user agencies conducted Period of

of inquiries, responses, record updates,

modifications

to ensure data quality and compliance with laws

Date of

time

covered

State 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 last audit by audit

Alabama No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Alaska Yesa Yesa Yesa Yesa Yes Yes Yes Yes 5/03 01-00

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7/04 2003

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes continual back-1998

California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual continual

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes random yearly

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes ... No Yes Yes ... No

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yesb Yes Yes Yes Yes 6/04 6 monthsc

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes d e

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes ongoing

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Indiana Yes No No Yes No No No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 5/04 Prev. 2 yrs

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 11/10/03-

12/11/03

1/03-2/03

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Nof

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6/11/04 30 days

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes g 6/00-6/02h

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 2001

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes ongoing 3 mo, 1 yr

Mississippi Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 2003 1998-2002

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing

co. audits

5 yrs of

arrests

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noi

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual 2 years

New Hampshire No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual continual

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 5/24/04 1 year

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4/03 2002

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Noj

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7/03 2000-2001

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes partial 04 random

Rhode Island Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

Tennessee Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 2002 2 years

Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5/02 2001

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8/03 2002

Vermont Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1993k 1992

Virgin Islands No No No No No No No No

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12/10/03 5 yrs,

random

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10/02 1999-2001

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1995 entire

database

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9/99 1998

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 4/04 01/02-

03/02
Page 52 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in Table 20. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

... Not available.

* 1 Audit/audit functions/procedures

2 Automation conversion/redesign enhancements

3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements

4 Felony flagging

5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements

6 Inter-agency/local agency interface

7 Legislation

8 Plan/strategy development

9 Task force/advisory group establishment

10 Tracking number implementation/improvements

11 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals

12 Other

a 5/03 3rd judicial district only (by repository).

b Final results have not been received as of this date.

c Attorney General’s Committee on Integration.

d There are no immediate plans for data quality audits of repository’s

criminal history records. The State has experienced severe budgetary

cutbacks, which resulted in reductions in the data processing

resources available at the HCJDC. Subsequently, the State was no

longer able to retain the data quality audit program undertaken in

1994-1995.

e Missing disposition research; additional electronic interfaces with

user agencies.

f Applicant submission process (i.e. rejects).

g Recommendations made to improve results.

h (2) Validation edits, new interfaces, (5) Interface between CHRI and

Omnitrack 8/2005.

i Quality Edit Team.

j Statute table standardization.

k Automatic notification to law enforcement agencies when

unsupported court dispositions are received.

l In February 2003, the repository brought up its electronic interface to

the Western Identification Network (WIN) as well as an electronic

interface with the FBI. This allows Montana to submit criminal and civil

fingerprint cards to both agencies electronically, thereby reducing the

number of times the cards are manually input. The State signed a

contract with CrossMatch Technologies allowing the installation of 11

livescan devices throughout Montana that will have interfaces between

the local booking system, the State, WIN, and the FBI. These devices

will be installed by September 2004. An Operational Impact Group has

been established that includes members from the Department of

Justice and Department of Corrections, as well as local law

enforcement entities. The State has also established some training

seminars and will be adding additional training services. In October

2003, an internal policy and procedure manual was completed; a guide

for local law enforcement entities is in the process of being rewritten.

The State anticipates establishing a charge tracking number by the

summer of 2006 that will enable better tracking of arrest and

disposition information. A Quality Control Unit that will conduct audits

will be re-established.

m Cooperative format with Attorney General, prosecutors, and

municipal agencies.

n Distribution of standard practices manual and statewide directory of

criminal justice agencies.

o Consultant review and recommendations.

p In the beginning stages of looking at possible changes and

improvements.

q Random.

r Justice information sharing to automate data flow.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 53

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 2003

State criminal

history Data

repository quality

database audits

audited for Changes to planned or Initiatives

completeness Period of improve data scheduled underway

within last Date of time covered Agency that quality were made for next to improve

State 5 years last audit by audit performed audit as a result of audit * 3 years data quality*

Alabama No Yes 2,3,4,5,6,8,11

Alaska Yes 7/02 -FBI

a 1/00 Repository;

Other agency

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,11

Arizona Yes 2000 01/01/99-

12/31/98

Repository 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,

11

Yes 1,2,3,5,8,11

Arkansas Yes 02-05/04 99-current Other agency 12b Yes 1,2,3,5,6,11

California No No 2,3,5,12c

Colorado Yes ongoing ongoing Repository;

Other agency

2,3,4,5,9,11 Yes 2,3,5,9,11

Connecticut No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Delaware No No 3,5

District of Columbia Yes 2002-2003 1999-2003 Other agency 2,3,5,6 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

Florida Yes 6/04 01/01-12/02 Repository 1,2,3,5,6,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Georgia No No 1,2,3,6

Hawaii No Nod 5,6,8,12e

Idaho No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11

Illinois Yes ... ... Other agency Yes 1,2,3,6,8,9,11

Indiana Yes ... ... Other agency No 2,3,5,6,7,9,10

Iowa Yes 7/03 2 years Other agency 11,12f Yes 2,3,5,6,11

Kansas No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11

Kentucky Yes 11/10/03-

12/11/03

01-02/2003 Other agency 12g Yes 2,3,5,6,8,11

Louisiana No No 1,2,11

Maine No No 2,3,5,6,8,10,11h

Maryland Yes 7/1/2003 3 years Other agency 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,

i Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12g

Massachusetts No No 3,5,6,8,9,10,11

Michigan Yes 2003 2001-2002 Other agency 1,2,3,5,6,8 ... ...

Minnesota Yes 4/02 1990-2001 Other agency 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,

j Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12k

Mississippi Yes 2003 1998-2002 Other agency 1,2,3,5,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,8,11

Missouri No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Montana Yes 1997-1999 1992-1997 Repository 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11l Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11j

Nebraska No No 1,2,3,7,11

Nevada Yes 2001 1999-2000 Other agency 1,2,4,5 No 1,2,3,4,6,11

New Hampshire Yes 09/11/03 2 years Other agency No 2,3,5

New Jersey Yes continual various Repository 1,3,4,5,6,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11m

New Mexico No No 1,3,10,11

New York No No 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,12n

North Carolina Yes 2001 2000-2001 Other agency ... Yes 1,2,11

North Dakota Yes 2001 2000 Other agency 2,3,11 Yes 1,3,6,8,11

Ohio Yes 2003 2002 Repository 1,2,3,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,6,8,11,12o

Oklahoma Yes 10/03 2001-2002 Other agency Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

Oregon Yes 9/03 2000-2001 Other agency 12p No 2,5,11

Pennsylvania Yes 7/03 2000-2001 Other agency 2,3,5,6,8 Yes 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11

Puerto Rico Yes 11-12/03 1 year

n Repository 1,2,3,5,7,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11

Rhode Island No Yes 1,2,3,11

South Carolina Yes 2/04 2003 Other agency 1,2,3,9 ... 2,3,5,6,9,11

South Dakota Yes 4/04 1935-now Other agency 3,5,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Tennessee No Yes 1,2,3,4,10

Texas Yes 5/03 2000-2001 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,

11

No 1,2,3,4,11

Utah Yes 8/03 2002 Other agency 2,3,5,8,11 No 2,3,5,8,11

Vermont No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Virgin Islands No No

Virginia Yes 12/10/03 5 yearsq Other agency 2,5,6,8 No 2,3,5,7,8,10,11

Washington Yes 10/02 1999-2001 Other agency 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 No 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

West Virginia No Yes 2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11

Wisconsin Yes 9/99 1998 Other agency 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11 Yes 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12r

Wyoming Yes 3/03 ... Other agency Yes 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,11
Page 54 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 21

The notes below expand on the data in Table 21.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal

Justice Information Services Division, FBI.

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 55

Table 21: Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 31, 2003

State

Total III records

State-supported

records

FBI-supported

records

Percent supported

by State

Percent supported

by FBI

Total 50,511,192 31,336,618 19,149,612 62% 38%

Alabama 612,704 163,436 449,268 27% 73%

Alaska† 149,126 74,221 74,905 50 50

Arizona† 1,018,183 342,623 675,560 34 66

Arkansas† 396,227 238,241 157,986 60 40

California 6,405,444 5,521,472 883,972 86 14

Colorado† 897,132 700,001 197,131 78% 22%

Connecticut

† 359,920 200,445 159,475 56 44

Delaware 202,159 156,578 45,581 77 23

District of Columbia 190,498 0 190,498 0 100

Florida*

† 3,811,455 3,187,202 624,253 84 16

Georgia† 2,249,445 2,043,404 206,041 91% 9%

Hawaii 168,124 2 168,122 0 97

Idaho 202,137 161,627 40,510 80 20

Illinois 2,247,692 703,873 1,543,819 31 69

Indiana 689,755 268,051 421,704 39 61

Iowa† 425,192 147,540 277,652 35% 65%

Kansas† 466,734 30,029 436,705 6 94

Kentucky 444,983 2 444,981 0 100

Louisiana 845,116 2 845,114 0 100

Maine† 88,147 2 88,145 0 100

Maryland 928,725 489,281 439,444 53% 47%

Massachusetts 426,034 108,265 317,769 25 75

Michigan 1,208,465 1,029,724 178,741 85 15

Minnesota† 471,648 417,085 54,563 88 12

Mississippi 242,718 51,361 191,357 21 79

Missouri 813,579 557,462 256,117 69% 31%

Montana*

† 140,277 87,772 52,505 63 37

Nebraska 210,295 59,579 150,716 28 72

Nevada† 453,234 228,366 224,868 50 50

New Hampshire 137,328 30,566 106,762 22 78

New Jersey*

† 1,418,676 1,321,030 97,646 93% 7%

New Mexico 356,246 97,794 258,452 27 73

New York 2,941,029 2,758,003 183,026 94 6

North Carolina* 968,261 884,245 84,016 91 9

North Dakota 65,057 31,432 33,625 48 52

Ohio 1,256,673 981,651 275,022 78% 21%

Oklahoma† 501,417 233,425 267,992 47 53

Oregon* 674,442 576,476 97,966 85 15

Pennsylvania 1,507,659 1,068,569 439,090 71 29

Puerto Rico 109,599 0 109,599 0 100

Rhode Island 127,080 95,102 31,978 75% 25%

South Carolina† 1,012,928 954,331 58,597 94 6

South Dakota 171,161 81,374 89,787 48 52

Tennessee 890,277 54,690 835,587 6 94

Texas 3,580,378 3,310,813 269,565 92 8

Utah 343,377 285,268 58,109 83% 17%

Vermont 59,997 2 59,995 0 100

Virgin Islands 13,540 0 13,540 0 100

Virginia 1,188,661 887,196 301,465 75 25

Washington 910,760 435,152 475,608 48 52

West Virginia 185,714 49,995 135,719 27% 73%

Wisconsin 621,619 144,029 477,590 23 77

Wyoming 106,390 87,829 18,561 83 17

Federal 4,478,320 0 4,478,320 0% 100%

Foreign 94,493 0 94,493 0 100
Page 56 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Explanatory notes for Table 22

The notes below expand on the data in Table 22. The explanatory

information was provided by the respective respondent.

NA Not applicable.

a A pilot project is underway in Fairbanks, waiving the name search

fee for volunteers.

b The Arkansas State Police does not conduct fingerprint-based

searches at this time.

c The same fee schedule applies for volunteers, except that volunteers

for nonprofit agencies who work with children are exempt from paying

fees for criminal history record information. In addition, there is a

public access facility available to the general public at the central

repository, the main county police stations, and the Hilo District Court

through which conviction information can be viewed at a terminal free

of charge or a hard-copy printout provided for a $10 fee per offender.

d Automated $12.

e Discounted fee for agencies conducting record checks on persons

providing care to children, the elderly, and the disabled.

f For Maine individuals and/or business entities, if they subscribe to the

State’s Website (annual subscription fee), the fee cost is reduced from

$25 to $15. As of October 2004, SBI has received 259,620 record

requests; 88% of these requests are received and returned

electronically either through the Maine Telecommunications and Radio

Operations (METRO) system for criminal justice agencies or the

Internet for the public at www.maine.gov.pcr. For the week ending

October 2, 2004, SBI received a record 8,357 requests for that week.

When SBI managed a mostly manual system, a high-volume week

was 3,200 per week.

g $8 for subject or charitable nonprofit.

h Only for charitable nonprofits.

i Civil name check program users.

j $12 nonretained, $15 retained.

k Fee waived if certain criteria are met – tax exempt, provides one-onone mentoring or tutoring for youth, dependant, or elderly person.

l $8 for charitable nonprofit organizations.

m $10 written, $1 electronic.

n $2 – Nonprofit, $5 – Government, $13 – All others.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003 Data Tables • Page 57

Table 22: Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2003

State currently charges

fee for conducting Amount of fee charged is: Amount of fee charged for volunteers is:

criminal history record State charges

search for noncriminal Fingerprint- different fee FingerprintState justice requester supported search Name search for volunteers supported search Name search

Alabama Yes $25 $25 No

Alaska Yes 35 20 Yes $35 $20a

Arizona Yes 5 NA No 5 NA

Arkansas Yes b 20 Yes b 10

California Yes 0-52 NA No 0-42 NA

Colorado Yes $16.50/17.50 $6.85/13 No

Connecticut Yes 25 25 Yes $18 $18

Delaware Yes 30 NA Yes 18 NA

District of Columbia Yes 35 7 No

Florida Yes 23 23 Yes 18 NA

Georgia Yes $15 NA No

Hawaii Yes 25 $15 Noc $25 $15

Idaho Yes 10 10 No

Illinois Yes 12-14d 7-12 No

Indiana Yes 10 7 No

Iowa Yes $5-15 Yes $5

Kansas Yes $30 17.50 Yese

Kentucky Yes 10 10 No

Louisiana Yes 26 26 No

Maine Yes 25 25f No

Maryland Yes $18 NA No

Massachusetts Yes NA $15 No

Michigan Yes 30 10 Yes $30 NA

Minnesota Yes NA 8-15g Yesh NA $8h

Mississippi Yes 5 NA No

Missouri Yes $14 $5 No

Montana Yes 8 8 No

Nebraska Yes 10 10 No

Nevada Yes 21 12i Yes $15 NA

New Hampshire Yes 34 10 Yes 23 $5

New Jersey Yes $30 $18 Yes $18 $10

New Mexico Yes 31 7 No

New York Yes 75 NA No

North Carolina Yes 14 10 No

North Dakota Yes 30 30 No

Ohio Yes $15 NA Yes $15 NA

Oklahoma Yes 19 $15 No

Oregon Yes 12, 15j 15 Yesk

Pennsylvania Yes NA 10 No

Puerto Rico No No

Rhode Island Yes $24 $5 No

South Carolina Yes 25 25 Yesl $18 $18

South Dakota Yes 15 NA No

Tennessee Yes 24 29 Yes 18 NA

Texas Yes 15 1-10m No

Utah Yes $15 $10 No

Vermont Yes 10 10 Yes $10

Virgin Islands Yes ... 9 No

Virginia Yes 15 15 Yes NA $8

Washington Yes 25 10 No

West Virginia Yes $20 NA Yes $20 NA

Wisconsin Yes 15 $2, 5,13n No

Wyoming Yes 15 NA Yes 10 NA
Page 58 • Methodology Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2003

Methodology

This report is based on the

results from a survey conducted

of the administrators of the State

criminal history record

repositories in May–December

2004. A total of 53 jurisdictions

were surveyed, including the 50

States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. Responses to the

survey were received from all 53

jurisdictions.

The survey instruments

consisted of 42 questions,

having several parts. The

survey was designed to collect

comprehensive data relating to

State criminal history

information systems. Fifteen

topical areas are covered in this

report, as follows:

• current quality and quantity of

records in the criminal history

databases;

• level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history records maintained by

the State repositories;

• capacity of criminal history

system to flag convicted felons

in the database;

• level of fingerprint-supported

arrest reporting to the State

repositories and the processing

and timeliness of the

information that is entered into

criminal history record

databases;

• notice to the State repository

of persons released without

charging following submission

of fingerprints to the State

repository;

• level of prosecutor-reported

information in criminal history

databases;

• level and timeliness of

disposition reporting by the

courts to the State criminal

history repositories;

• types and timeliness of

information reported to the State

criminal history repositories by

State and local correctional

facilities;

• level of probation/parolerelated information in State

criminal history databases;

• extent to which the records in

State criminal history databases

contain final disposition

information;

• policies and practices of the

State repository regarding

modification of felony

convictions;

• ability of the State repositories

to link reported disposition data

to arrest data in State criminal

history record databases;

• level of audit activity in the

States and the strategies

employed by the State

repositories to ensure accuracy

of the data in the criminal

history record databases;

• participation of the States in

III and NFF; and

• fees charged by State criminal

history repositories for

conducting record searches for

noncriminal justice requesters.

The FBI also provided

information for the report. The

information includes the number

of criminal history records of the

States participating in the

Interstate Identification Index

(III) system that are maintained

by the State criminal history

repositories and the number of

III records maintained by the

FBI for the States.

Numbers and percentages shown

in the tables were rounded. In

most cases, numbers were

rounded to the nearest 100.

Percentages were rounded to the

nearest whole number.

In the analyses of the tables,

averages and totals were

calculated using the mid-point

of the range where ranges

appear in the underlying data.

In instances where the result is

.5, when it followed an even

number, the number was

rounded down to the even

number (e.g., 4.5 became 4); in

instances where the .5 followed

an odd number, the number was

rounded up to the next even

number (e.g., 1.5 became 2).

Data reported for 1997 was

taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999). Data

reported for 1999 was taken

from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

1999 (October 2000). Data

reported for 2001 was taken

from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

2001 (September 2003).