Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1995 

Criminal Justice Information Policy

Millions of criminal history records

0 20 40 60 10 30 50

1993 1995

50.5 

52.2 

25.5 50% 

29.1 56%

15 (est.) 29%

17.4 (est.) 33%

Total records

Available through

Interstate Identification

Index (III)

Disposition included

million
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal

History Information

Systems, 1995

A Criminal Justice Information Policy

Report

May 1997, NCJ-163918
ii Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

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

Information and Statistics, Maj. James V. Martin, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive

Director. The project director and author of the report was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Director.

Support was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant; Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager,

Corporate Communications; and Teresa E. Nyberg, Executive Secretary. The Federal project

monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 95-RU-RX-K001, 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 views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1997.

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise

use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items

indicating they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 iii

Contents

List of data tables iv

Foreword v

Glossary of terms vii

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 4

Status of State criminal history files 4

Completeness of data in State criminal history

repository 5

Disposition data 5

Correctional data 6

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 6

—Arrests 6

—Disposition data 7

—Admission to correctional facilities 7

Procedures to improve data quality 7

Linking of arrests and dispositions 8

Other data quality procedures 9

Audits 9

Data tables 11

Methodology 56
iv Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

List of data tables

1. Overview of State criminal history record

systems, December 31, 1995 13

2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in

State criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and

1995 15

3. Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and

1995 17

4. Automation of master name index and

criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and 1995 19

5. Data required by State law to be submitted to

State criminal history repository, 1995 21

6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993

and 1995 23

7. Notice to State criminal history repository of

release of arrested persons without charging,

1989, 1993 and 1995 25

8. Completeness of prosecutor and court

disposition reporting to State criminal history

repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 27

9. Policies/practices of State criminal history

repository regarding modification of felony

convictions, 1995 29

10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and

linkage to records maintained by State

criminal history repository, 1995 31

11. Probation and parole data in State criminal

history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 33

12. Average number of days to process arrest data

submitted to State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog, 1995 35

13. Average number of days to process disposition

data submitted to State criminal history

repository and current status of backlog, 1995 37

14. Average number of days to process

correctional admission data submitted to State

criminal history repository and current status of

backlog, 1995 39

15. Procedures employed by State criminal history

repository to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1995 41

16. Methods used to link disposition information to

arrest/charge information on criminal history

record, 1995 43

17. Procedures followed when linkage cannot be

made between court or correctional

information and arrest information in the

criminal history database, 1995 45

18. Strategies employed by State criminal history

repository to ensure accuracy of data in

criminal history database, 1995 47

19. Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995 49

20. Data quality audits of State criminal history

repository, 1995 51

21. Criminal history records of Interstate

Identification Index (III) participants

maintained by the State criminal history

repository and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 1995 53

22. Fingerprint cards and dispositions received by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1995 55
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 v

Foreword

Three previous surveys in this

series also were carried out by

SEARCH for the Bureau of

Justice Statistics and covered

the years 1989, 1992 and 1993.

This year’s report is focused on

updating the information

collected in previous years.

Computerized versions of

fingerprint-based “rap” sheets

are playing increasingly

important roles in criminal

justice processing of offenders;

records are necessary for such

purposes as identifying

perpetrators of crimes from

latent fingerprints, making bail

and pretrial release decisions,

determining which defendants

are subject to “three strikes”

laws, making appropriate

sentencing decisions, and

determining conditions of

correctional supervision or

release. Noncriminal uses of

criminal history records include

background checks for

employment, licensing, security

clearances, and determining

eligibility to purchase firearms.

Records are also used to assure

that unsuitable persons are not

given positions of trust

involving children, the elderly,

or the disabled.

The Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act mandates a

national instant criminal

background check system, to be

operational no later than

November 1998. To achieve a

workable and dependable

national system requires that all

States achieve high levels of

coverage, completeness,

accuracy, and accessibility of

their criminal record systems.

The results of this survey

provide quantitative information

for monitoring progress toward

these goals, and the Bureau of

Justice Statistics hopes they

will help in developing

comprehensive state plans that

most effectively achieve the

goals.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director
Electronic Editor's Note: This page was intentionally left blank.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Glossary vii

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) which 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

may in some States be maintained by the State

Police or some other State agency.

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI)

or Criminal History Record Information

System: A record (or the system maintaining such

records) which 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, but in most cases do not

include data describing involvement of an

individual in the juvenile justice system. All 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. 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 and

the readability of criminal history records.

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 five

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 January 1997, 32 States participate in III and

the system operates for criminal justice inquiries

only. Responses are provided from FBI files when

the State originating the record is not a participant
Glossary viii Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

in III. 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. If

extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as

planned, the III system would eliminate the need

for duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and

State level since it would no longer be necessary

for the FBI to maintain records on State offenders.

At present, III ensures higher quality criminal

justice responses because, in most cases, reply data

are supplied directly by the State from which the

record originates.

Interstate Identification Index (III) Compact:

An interstate and Federal/State compact 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 would be

overseen by a policymaking council comprised of

representatives of the Federal and State

governments, as well as system users. The key

concept underlying the compact is agreement

among all 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 which is inquiring about the

data — rather than the law of the State which

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

FBI cannot abandon the duplicate records without a

formal compact, however, since subsequent failure

of a State to continue participation after cessation

of the FBI’s State offender files would jeopardize

future noncriminal justice services to the Federal

and State agencies that now rely on those files. The

compact has been approved by the U.S. Attorney

General and it is expected that it will be considered

by the U.S. Congress in 1997. After Congressional

approval, the compact will be submitted for

ratification by State legislatures.

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 are not

required to submit such records to the FBI,

however.

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject

identification index maintained by criminal record

repositories that includes names and other

identifiers for all persons about whom a record is

held in the systems. As of 1992, almost all State

MNIs were automated and included almost 100

percent of record subjects in the repositories. 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.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Glossary ix

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and

procedures designed as a component of the III

system, which, when fully implemented, would

establish a totally decentralized system for the

interstate exchange of criminal history records. The

NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders

and a single set of fingerprints on State offenders

from each State in which an offender has been

arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor.

Under the NFF concept, States will forward only

the first-arrest fingerprints of an individual to the

FBI accompanied by other identification data such

as name, date of birth, etc. Fingerprints for

subsequent arrests would not be forwarded.

Disposition data on the individual would also be

retained at the State repository and would not be

forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the first-arrest

fingerprint cards (or electronic images when new

technologies are implemented), the FBI will enter

the individual’s fingerprint impressions in the NFF

and will enter the person’s name and identifiers in

the III, together with an FBI Number and a State

Identification Number for each State maintaining a

record on the individual. Charge and disposition

information on State offenders will be maintained

only at the State level and State repositories will

be required to respond to all authorized record

requests concerning these individuals for both

criminal justice and noncriminal justice purposes.

States would have to release all data on record

subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries regardless

of whether the data could be released for similar

purposes within the State. The NFF concept is

presently being tested in four States, Florida, New

Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon. All of these

States are in a position to conduct the test since

they have nonrestrictive laws governing release of

data for noncriminal justice purposes.

Positive Identification: Identification of an

individual using biometric characteristics which are

unique and not subject to alteration. In present

usage the term refers to identification by

fingerprints but may also include identification by

retinal images, voiceprints or other techniques.

Positive identification is to be distinguished from

identification using name, sex, date of birth, etc.,

as shown on a document subject to alteration or

counterfeit such as a birth certificate, Social

Security card or driver’s license. Because

individuals can have identical or similar names,

ages, etc., identifications based on such

characteristics are not reliable.
Electronic Editor's Note: This page was intentionally left blank.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 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.

Justice Department 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 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 July-December

1996. Fifty-four jurisdictions

were surveyed, including the 50

States, American Samoa, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses were received from 53

jurisdictions. Only Rhode Island

did not submit a complete survey.

Throughout this report, the 50

States will be referred to as

“States”; American Samoa, 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 provided

information relating to the

number of fingerprint cards and

dispositions received by the FBI

during Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 and

the number of criminal history

records of the States participating

in the Interstate Identification

Index system that are maintained

by the State criminal history

repositories and the number of

records maintained by the FBI for

the States.

Major Findings

Level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history files

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1995 (Table 1):

• Forty-seven States, the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico

have automated at least some

records in the criminal history

record file.

• Nineteen States (Alabama,

Colorado, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland,

Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Jersey, New

Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island,

Tennessee, Texas, Washington

and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico

have fully automated criminal

history files and master name

indexes.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1995

(Table 4):

• Forty-four States and Puerto

Rico have fully automated master

name indexes. The Virgin Islands

does not maintain a master name

index.

• Three States (Maine,

Mississippi and Vermont) and

two territories (American Samoa

and the Virgin Islands) have no

automated criminal history files.

• Two territories (American

Samoa and the Virgin Islands)

maintain totally manual criminal

history information.
Page 2 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

• 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 19

States. In five States (California,

Delaware, Minnesota, New

Hampshire and Ohio) and the

District of Columbia, only the

new information is automated. In

Pennsylvania, the prior manual

record is automated only when a

request for the record is made.

Level of disposition reporting

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1995 (Table 1):

• Twenty States (Alabama,

Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii,

Iowa, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan,

Montana, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, North Dakota, South

Carolina, South Dakota,

Vermont, Virginia and

Wyoming) and the District of

Columbia representing

approximately 32% of the

Nation’s population (based on 54

jurisdictions) and 37% of the

Nation’s criminal history records,

report that 80% or more arrests

within the past 5 years in the

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

• A total of 25 States and the

District of Columbia,

representing approximately 40%

of the Nation’s population and

48% 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 29 States and the

District of Columbia,

representing approximately 50%

of the Nation’s population and

56% 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.

• Overall, the figures are lower

when arrests older than 5 years

are considered. Fourteen States

report that 80% or more arrests in

the entire criminal history

database have final dispositions

recorded. Twenty States report

that 70% or more arrests in the

entire criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

Twenty-six States report that

60% or more arrests in the entire

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

Number of final dispositions

reported to State criminal history

repository, 1995 (Table 3):

Thirty States, American Samoa

and the District of Columbia

provided data on the number of

final dispositions reported to their

criminal history repositories

indicating that over 4.36 million

final dispositions were reported

in 1995. The responding

jurisdictions represent

approximately 69% of the

Nation’s population.

Level of felony flagging

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1995 (Table 1):

• Thirty-seven States and Puerto

Rico currently flag some or all

felony convictions in their

criminal history databases.

• Nineteen States collect

sufficient data to permit them to

flag at least some previously

unflagged felony convictions.

Timeliness of trial court

disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

13):

• An average 34 days separates

the final court dispositions and

receipt of that information by the

State criminal history

repositories, ranging from less

than 1 day in Massachusetts and

New York to 145 days in

Missouri. The majority of

repositories receive the data in 30

days or less.

• An average 27 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 300 in Connecticut. Half of

the jurisdictions enter the data in

10 days or less.

• Thirty-two States indicate

having backlogs in entering

disposition data into the criminal

history database.
January 1997

PARTICIPANTS

Interstate Identification Index Program

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

Interstate Identification Index States

National Fingerprint File States

Washington

Minnesota

Interstate Identification Index (III) States

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida*

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

New Jersey*

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

*Also a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state.

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems Introduction • Page 3

Alaska
Page 4 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal history

files

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal

history file, 1995 (Table 2):

• Over 49.8 million criminal

history records were in the

criminal history files of the State

criminal history repositories on

December 31, 1995. (An

individual offender may have

records in several States.)

• Eighty-six percent of the

criminal history records

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories are

automated. Approximately 7.2

million records, or 14%, are not

automated.

• Five States (Maine,

Mississippi, North Dakota,

Vermont and West Virginia) and

three territories (American

Samoa, the District of Columbia

and the Virgin Islands) have

fewer than 30% automated

criminal history files.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1995

(Table 4):

• The 50 States and two

territories have automated at least

some records in either the

criminal history record file or the

master name index. In Maine, a

portion of the master name index

has been automated but was

currently not available for use.

• Two territories, American

Samoa and the Virgin Islands,

have no automated criminal

history information.

• Of the responding jurisdictions,

44 States and Puerto Rico have

fully automated master name

indexes. Eight jurisdictions do

not have fully automated master

name indexes. Of those eight

jurisdictions, five States and the

District of Columbia have

partially automated master name

indexes. The Virgin Islands does

not maintain a master name

index, and the master name index

in American Samoa is manual.

• Of those jurisdictions

maintaining partially automated

criminal history files, when an

offender with a prior manual

record is arrested, the record is

automated in 20 States. In five

States (California, Delaware,

Minnesota, New Hampshire and

Ohio) and the District of

Columbia, only the new

information is automated. In

Pennsylvania, the prior manual

record is automated only when a

request for the record is made.

Data required by State law to be

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

5):

• Thirty-four States and

American Samoa require

prosecutors to report to State

criminal history repositories their

decisions to decline prosecution

in criminal cases. In Michigan,

arrest fingerprints are submitted

after the prosecutor’s decision to

charge a crime punishable by

over 92 days.

• Forty-four States, American

Samoa, the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico require felony

trial courts to report the

dispositions of felony cases to the

State criminal history repository.

In North Dakota, the reports are

made by the prosecutors’ offices

in lieu of the courts.

• State prison admission on

felony cases must be reported to

the State criminal history

repository in 37 States and 2

territories. State prison release

information on felony cases must

be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 32 States

and 2 territories.

• Admission data on felons

housed in local correctional

facilities must be reported to the

State criminal history repository

in 25 States and 1 territory.

Release data on felons housed in

local correctional facilities must

be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 19 States.

• The reporting of probation

information is mandated in 30

States and the District of

Columbia, while 32 States and

the District of Columbia require

the reporting of parole

information.

Arrest records with fingerprints,

1995 (Table 6):

• During 1995, over 6.9 million

arrest fingerprint cards (or

electronic substitutes) were

submitted to the State

criminal history repositories.

• Thirty-seven States,

representing 71% of the Nation’s

population, have records that are

100% fingerprint-supported. In

10 States and 2 territories, some

of the arrests in the criminal

history files are fingerprintsupported. In Mississippi, Rhode

Island and the Virgin Islands, the

inquiry regarding fingerprintsupported criminal history files

was either not applicable or the

percentage was unknown.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Introduction • Page 5

Completeness of data in State

criminal history repository

Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 1995

(Table 7):

• More than half of the

jurisdictions (33 States and the

District of Columbia) 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. In Michigan, police

must charge a suspect prior to

sending fingerprints to the State

criminal history repository.

Disposition data

Completeness of prosecutor and

court disposition reporting to

State criminal history

repository, 1995 (Table 8):

• Nineteen States (Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,

Iowa, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Montana, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, North Carolina, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,

Utah, Vermont and Virginia) and

American Samoa report that

criminal history repositories

receive final felony trial court

dispositions for 80% or more of

the cases.

Eight of those jurisdictions

(American Samoa, Colorado,

Connecticut, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Texas and Utah) estimate that

they receive notice in 100% of

the cases.

A. A total of 25 jurisdictions, or

4 additional States and 1 territory

(California, Idaho, Kentucky,

New York and Puerto Rico)

report that final felony trial court

dispositions in 70% or more of

the cases in their jurisdictions are

received by the State criminal

history repositories.

B. A total of 30 jurisdictions, or

5 additional States (Arkansas,

Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and

Washington), report that final

felony trial court dispositions in

60% or more of the cases in their

jurisdictions are received by the

State criminal history

repositories.

C. A total of 31 jurisdictions, or

one additional State (Wyoming),

report that final felony trial court

dispositions in 50% or more of

the cases in their jurisdictions are

received by the State criminal

history repositories.

• Of the respondents indicating

that there is either a legal

requirement for prosecutors to

notify the State criminal history

record repository of declinations

to prosecute or where the

information is reported

voluntarily, nine States and one

territory (Delaware, District of

Columbia, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Texas and

Wyoming) estimate that they

receive notice in 80% or more of

such cases. Seven jurisdictions

(Delaware, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New

York, Texas and Wyoming)

estimate that notice is received in

100% of the cases. All but

Massachusetts report a legal

requirement to notify the

repository.

• Twelve States were able to

estimate the number of

prosecutor declinations received.

The numbers ranged from 200 in

Wyoming to 195,000 in

California.

Policies/practices of State

criminal history repository

regarding modification of felony

convictions, 1995 (Table 9):

• Expungements: Twenty-four

States and three territories have

statutes that provide for the

expungement of felony

convictions. In eight States and

Puerto Rico, the record is

destroyed by the State criminal

history repository. In

Pennsylvania, the record is

expunged only if there has been a

pardon. In Washington, the

record is returned to the court. In

eight States and the Virgin

Islands, the record is retained

with the action noted on the

record. Louisiana, Nevada (by

practice), New Hampshire and

Utah seal the record. In

Delaware, only juvenile records

are expunged. In Massachusetts,

the record is retained with the

action noted, and the record is

sealed.

• Setting aside of convictions:

Forty States and two territories

have statutes which provide for

setting aside felony convictions.

In two States, the record is

destroyed. In 34 States and

Puerto Rico, the record is

retained with the action noted

only. In Minnesota, the record is

retained either with the action

noted and sealed or is expunged.

In New York, the fingerprints are

destroyed, but the text is retained;

and in Oregon, a manual record is

retained.
Page 6 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

• Pardons: Almost all of the

jurisdictions (48 States and four

territories) have statutes that

provide for the granting of a

pardon. In 43 States and three

territories, the criminal history

record is retained with the action

noted. In three States

(Connecticut, South Dakota and

Vermont), the record is

destroyed. In Tennessee,

although the State law provides

for pardons, none have been

received by the repository.

• Restoration of civil rights:

Forty-one States and three

territories have legal provisions

for the restoration of a convicted

felon’s civil rights. In the

majority of those jurisdictions

(34 States and two territories),

the record is retained with the

action noted. In two States

(South Dakota and Vermont), the

record is destroyed. Restoration

of civil rights is not tracked in

Alaska, and in Missouri, no

action is taken. In Tennessee,

although the State law provides

for restoration of civil rights,

none have been received by the

repository.

Correctional data

Fingerprinting of incarcerated

offenders and linkage to records

maintained by State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

10):

• In 32 States, American Samoa

and the District of Columbia,

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 21 States and the

District of Columbia, have the

same legal requirement for

reporting by local jails.

• In the 44 jurisdictions where

State correctional facilities are

legally required to report

information or the information is

reported voluntarily, the majority

of jurisdictions (34 States)

estimate that in at least 95% of

the cases, admission information

is reported to the State repository.

Twenty-nine of those

jurisdictions estimate that 100%

of the admissions are reported to

the repository. Five States

estimate a reporting rate of less

than 95%, ranging from 85% in

Virginia to 0% in Florida.

• For reporting from local jails

where required by law or

completed voluntarily, eight

States report that 90% or more of

the admissions are reported to the

State repositories. Nine States

report rates of less than 90%

ranging from 70% in New

Hampshire to less than 5% in

Pennsylvania.

• In 41 States, American Samoa

and the District of Columbia,

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.

Probation and parole data in

State criminal history repository,

1995 (Table 11):

• Of the 34 jurisdictions where

reporting of probation data is

legally required or voluntarily

reported, 8 estimate that 100% of

the cases in which probation is

ordered are reported to the State

criminal history repository. An

additional six States report that in

at least 75% of the cases, the

State criminal

history repository receives

probation information. Five

States report that information is

received in 50% or less of the

cases. California and

Massachusetts receive admission

to probation information in 100%

of the cases, but do not receive

release from probation

information.

• Seventeen jurisdictions where

reporting of parole data is legally

required or voluntarily reported,

estimate that parole information

is reported in 90% of the cases.

Three States and the District of

Columbia report receiving parole

information in less than 90% of

the cases, ranging from 75% in

Illinois to 0% in the District of

Columbia and Idaho. In

California, 100% of admission to

parole information is received;

release from parole is not

reported.

Timeliness of data in State

criminal history repository

—Arrests

Average number of days to

process arrest information

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

12):

• The average number of days

between arrest and receipt of

arrest data and fingerprints by the

State criminal history repositories

is 12, ranging from 0 in

American Samoa to 48 days in

Missouri. The majority (30)

receive the data in 14 days or

less.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Introduction • Page 7

• 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

23, ranging from 0 in American

Samoa and Delaware to 300 days

in Connecticut. Since

Connecticut's system conversion

in 1996, the time to enter the

information is one day. The

majority of jurisdictions (29)

enter the data in 10 days or less.

• The average number of days

between receipt of fingerprints

and entry of arrest data into the

criminal history databases is 24,

ranging from less than one day in

American Samoa, Delaware, the

District of Columbia and North

Dakota to 300 days in

Connecticut. Since Connecticut's

system conversion in 1996, the

time to enter the information is

one day. The majority of

jurisdictions (28) enter the data in

10 days or less.

• Thirty-three jurisdictions

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

Colorado, Maine and Wyoming

to 1,200 person-days to clear an

estimated 52,000 unprocessed or

partially processed fingerprint

cards in Texas. Initial fingerprint

classification is a more timeconsuming task than entry of

disposition data into the database.

—Disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 1995 (Table

13):

• The average number of days

between the final court

dispositions and receipt of that

information by the State criminal

history repositories is 34, ranging

from less than one day in

Massachusetts and New York to

145 days in Missouri. The

majority of jurisdictions receive

the data in 30 days or less.

• The average number of days

between receipt of final trial

court dispositions and entry of

disposition data into the criminal

history databases is 27, ranging

from 0 in States where

dispositions are entered either

directly by the courts or by tape

to 300 in Connecticut. One half

of the jurisdictions enter the data

in 10 days or less.

• Thirty-two States indicate that

they have, or had at the end of

1995, backlogs in entering

disposition data into the criminal

history database.

—Admission to correctional

facilities

Average number of days to

process correctional admission

data submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

14):

• 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 26, ranging

from less than 1 day in American

Samoa and New York to 200

days in California. Most

jurisdictions (20) receive the

information in 15 days or less.

• The average number of days

between the admission of

offenders to local jails and receipt

of the information by the State

criminal history repository is 33,

ranging from less than 1 day in

New York to 200 days in

California. Almost half of the

reporting jurisdictions (7) receive

the information in 15 days or

less.

• The average number of days

between receipt of correctional

admissions information by the

State criminal history repository

and entry into the criminal

history databases is 24, ranging

from 1 day in Delaware, to

approximately 200 days in

California. (California currently

processes forms within 30 days.)

The majority of the jurisdictions

(26) enter the information in 15

days or less.

• Fifteen States indicate that they

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

North Dakota to clear an

estimated 50-100 unprocessed or

partially processed custodysupervision forms to 169 persondays to clear an estimated 8,900

forms in Hawaii. California had a

backlog of 250,000 forms, but

anticipated currency by January

1997.

Procedures to improve data

quality

Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1995

(Table 15):

• The method most used to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting is telephone

calls conducted by 37 States and

3 territories.

• Twenty States and two

territories generate lists of arrests

with missing dispositions as a

means of monitoring disposition

reporting.
Page 8 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

• Thirty-three States and two

territories report using field visits

to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

• Twenty-seven States and

American Samoa generate form

letters as a method of

encouraging complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

• Other jurisdictions report using

such methods as training, audits,

special projects, electronic

contact, pursuing legislative and

administrative changes, and

returning the information to the

submitting agency as methods to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

Linking of arrests and

dispositions

Methods used to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record, 1995 (Table 16):

• Thirty-three States and three

territories 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 reporting jurisdictions but

Mississippi 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-three States and three

territories employ a unique

tracking number for the

individual subject. 

– Thirty-eight States and two

territories use a unique arrest

event identifier.

– Twenty-three States, the

District of Columbia and Puerto

Rico utilize a unique charge

identifier.

– Thirty-eight States, American

Samoa and the District of

Columbia use the arrest date;

thirty-eight States and four

territories use the subject’s name.

– Thirty-one States and three

territories report using the

subject’s name and the reporting

agency’s case number.

– Individual jurisdictions also

report using the court case

number, the Criminal Justice

Information System case number,

and unique combinations of

numbers.

Procedures followed when

linkage cannot be made between

court or correctional information

and arrest information in the

criminal history database, 1995

(Table 17):

• Forty-one jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive final

court dispositions that cannot be

linked to arrest information in the

criminal history record database.

The jurisdictions vary in the

percentage of court dispositions

that cannot be linked to arrest

cycles in the criminal history

database from less than 1% in

Nevada and Virginia to 55% in

California. Seven jurisdictions

(District of Columbia,

Massachusetts, Ohio, Puerto

Rico, Texas, Vermont and

Wyoming) report that all final

court dispositions can be linked

to the arrest cycle in the criminal

history database.

 • Thirty-one jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive

correctional information that

cannot be linked to arrest

information in the criminal

history record database. The

percentage of correctional

dispositions that cannot be linked

to arrest cycles in the criminal

history database range from less

than 1% in Nevada to 100% in

North Carolina, where

correctional information is not

linked to arrest information.

Fifteen jurisdictions report that

all correctional dispositions can

be linked to the arrest cycle in the

criminal history database.

• The jurisdictions use a variety

of procedures when a linkage

cannot be established. Ten States

create “dummy” arrest segments

from court disposition records;

seven States create “dummy”

court segments from custody

records. Twelve States enter

court information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior arrest; and 23 States enter

custody information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior court disposition. Twentyone States and the Virgin Islands

do not enter the unlinked court

information. Six jurisdictions do

not enter unlinked custody

information. Nine States utilize

other procedures, such as

contacting or returning the

information to the originating or

contributing agency or using

temporary or pending files until a

match can be established.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Introduction • Page 9

Other data quality procedures

Strategies employed by State

criminal history repository to

ensure accuracy of data in

criminal history database, 1995

(Table 18):

• To prevent the entry and

storage of inaccurate data and to

detect and correct inaccurate

entries in the criminal history

database, a large majority of the

jurisdictions, a total of 44 States

and three territories complete a

manual review of incoming

source documents or reports.

• Other methods used most

frequently include computer edit

and verification programs

employed by 42 States and three

territories. Manual review of

transcripts before dissemination

is performed in 30 jurisdictions.

• Manual double-checking

before data entry is completed in

26 jurisdictions.

• Eighteen States, American

Samoa and the District of

Columbia perform random

sample comparisons of the State

criminal history repository files

with stored documents.

• Sixteen States and three

territories generate error lists

which are returned to the

reporting agencies.

• Twelve jurisdictions use

various methods, such as audits

and comparison of data in the

criminal history database to other

sources of information.

Audits

Audit activities of State criminal

history repository, 1995 (Table

19):

• Forty-six States and three

territories maintain transaction

logs to provide an audit trail of

all inquiries, responses and

record updates or modifications.

• Slightly more than half of the

repositories, a total of 29

jurisdictions 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.

Data quality audits of State

criminal history repository, 1995

(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 32 States and 2

territories to determine the level

of accuracy and completeness of

the criminal history file.

• Of the jurisdictions where

audits were performed, in 26

States, American Samoa and the

District of Columbia, another

agency conducted the audit; in 4

States the repository conducted

its own audit; and in 2

jurisdictions the audit was

conducted with a combination of

an outside agency and the

repository.

• Twelve jurisdictions in 1995

reported not having conducted an

audit during the previous 5 years

and not planning to audit in the

coming 3 years.

• In 31 of the jurisdictions where

audits were conducted, changes

were made as a result of the audit

to improve data quality of the

records. In three jurisdictions,

changes were underway prior to

the audit or were in the planning

stage at the time of the survey.

• Twenty-nine States and three

territories had data quality audits

planned or scheduled for the next

3 years.

• Forty-five States and four

territories had initiatives

underway at the repository or

contributing agencies to improve

data quality. Initiatives included

audit activities (31); automation

changes (40); disposition or

arrest reporting enhancements

(41); felony flagging (24);

fingerprint enhancements (39);

agency interfaces (37); legislation

(21); plan development (30);

establishment of task

forces/advisory groups (23);

implementation or improvement

of tracking numbers (26); and

training (35).

Criminal history records of

Interstate Identification Index

(III) participants maintained by

the State criminal history

repository and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1995

(Table 21):

• As of 1995, approximately 15.2

million III records are indexed

with the State’s identification

(SID) pointers. Over 10.2

million records are maintained by

the FBI for the States.
Page 10 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Fingerprint cards and

dispositions received by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

FY 1995 (Table 22):

• Over 4.8 million fingerprints

were received by the FBI in

1995. Of that number, over 4.4

million were for criminal justice

purposes, and 379,400 were for

noncriminal justice purposes.

California submitted the highest

number of both criminal justice

(738,000) and noncriminal justice

(56,700) fingerprints. Florida,

New Jersey, North Carolina and

Oregon were participants in the

National Fingerprint File in 1995,

and therefore submitted only the

first fingerprint card of an

individual to the FBI.

• Almost 5.2 million final

dispositions were received by the

FBI in 1995, with California

submitting the highest number

(3,110,500).
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 11

Data Tables
Page 12 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

The notes below expand on the data in Table 1. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: 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 numbers in the column “Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history file” apply only to the criminal history

file, including partially automated files and do not include the master name

index. Final dispositions include release by police without charging,

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

. . . Not available.

† Flag is set when arrest information is entered.

†† Flag is set when conviction information is entered.

** Flag is set at both arrest and conviction.

a The automation of the records was started but had to be temporarily

suspended due to a change in system application.

b Only automated records are included in the total number of records, since

the number of manual records is unknown.

c All records are automated; total number of records is unknown.

d Felonies only.

e It is not known how many manual records prior to 1979 exist at local police

departments; therefore only automated records are included in the total

number of records.

f The state’s delinquent disposition rate is based only on those cases actually

entered into the Offender-Based Transaction System (OBTS)/computerized

criminal history (CCH) system; therefore, it does not include arrest cases

never entered, nor does it include penal summons type court cases. Although

the law provides for the fingerprinting of offenders convicted via penal

summonses, many cases are never ordered down for processing. The

repository is aware that this situation may represent a major gap in conviction

information carried on OBTS/CCH; however, efforts to address these,

especially in the area of Family Court cases (which include child abuse

offenses), await the availability of resources and the restructuring of

OBTS/CCH.

g Flagging is done by violation code at the event level.

h Due to backlogs, no disposition processing was done in 1995 other than

disposition information received from the Louisiana Department of

Corrections, State Penitentiary, probation and parole.

i

 The flag is generated on an ad hoc basis when an inquiry is made against the

file.

j

 The severity of the original charge is set when arrest information is entered.

k Response includes noncriminal applicants, but does not include approximately

1,100,000 criminal records that are sealed and would not be accessible as a part

of an interstate firearms check.

l

 As of February 1996, all historical records that can be flagged have been

flagged. The remainder of the records cannot be flagged.

m Programming to permit flagging is almost completed.

n Rhode Island tracks charges, not arrests; therefore, disposition percentages

apply to charges in the system. Felony dispositions are captured from two

sources: prosecutor and courts; so felony disposition completeness is very high.

The system, however, also includes misdemeanors. Since the responses shown

here include misdemeanor and other non-felony charges, the responses are

lower.

o Responses represent July 1996 audit totals, not totals as of December 31,

1995.

p Responses represent the total as of August 7, 1996, not as of December 31,

1995.

q A system to monitor disposition reporting will be implemented in the near

future.

r

 Initiatives are underway to add this capability to the criminal history record

database.

s Records were recently thoroughly cleaned and aliases deleted.

t

 Flag is set at arraignment.

u Flags for felonies are set at conviction; if the disposition is outstanding, the

flag is set at arrest.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 13

Table 1: Overview of criminal history record systems, December 31, 1995

System has

information

Percent of arrests in database that System flags to identify

Criminal history Number of subjects (individual offenders) have final dispositions recorded subjects with unflagged

records automated in State criminal history file Arrests within felony felony

State in whole or in part Total Automated All arrests past 5 years convictions convictions

Total 49,851,600 42,652,600

Alabama Y 1,800,000 1,800,000 60% 90% All**

Alaska Y 195,100 150,100 86 86 All††

American Samoa N 1,100a 0 20 . . . Some

Arizona Y 711,600b 711,600 45 47 All**

Arkansas Y 395,000 182,300 37 70 All††

California Y 4,630,800 4,085,500 58% 43% Some †† All

Colorado Y . . .c . . . 22 . . . All††

Connecticut Y 744,000 413,000 60 80 All††

Delaware Y 476,600 428,900 70 70 Some

District of Columbia Y 507,000 152,000 45 84

Florida Y 3,172,700 3,172,700 53% 73%d All**

Georgia Y 1,700,600 1,700,600 62 62 All††

Hawaii Y 338,300e 338,300 89f 81 All††

Idaho Y 152,000 111,100 61 59 All**

Illinois Y 2,613,600 2,413,600 50 42 All††

Indiana Y 1,200,000 1,200,000 40% 45%

Iowa Y 349,500 289,400 87 87 Some †† Some

Kansas Y 697,100 230,900 70 70 Some ** Some

Kentucky Y 574,700 489,700 70 71 Some g

Louisiana Y 1,651,000 740,000 . . .h . . .h Some †† Some

Maine N 350,000 0 90% 97%

Maryland Y 908,300 908,300 . . . 96 Alli

Massachusetts Y 2,100,000 1,400,000 100 100 Some

Michigan Y 1,074,100 1,074,100 75 81 Some ††

Minnesota Y 294,100 230,100 . . . . . . Some †† Some

Mississippi N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri Y 738,600 569,400 56% 47% All††

Montana Y 133,900 133,900 80 80 Some

Nebraska Y 149,800 149,800 57 54 All††

Nevada Y 204,500 204,500 40 60 Allj

New Hampshire Y 163,300 108,600 100% 100% All

New Jersey Y 1,800,000 1,800,000 85 95 All††

New Mexico Y 260,000 260,000 30 35 All††

New York Y 4,851,100 k 4,319,100 k 82 82 All

North Carolina Y 623,000 593,000 89 95 Some ††l

North Dakota Y 227,200 69,200 92% 85% Some †† Some

Ohio Y 909,700 799,700 35-50 50-60 All**

Oklahoma Y 656,700 416,700 39 . . . Some †† Some

Oregon Y 788,600 788,600 62 48 Some †† Some

Pennsylvania Y 1,431,400 943,900 74% 68% Allm

Puerto Rico Y 105,200 105,200 . . . . . . All†

Rhode Island Y 213,400 213,400 56n 58n

South Carolina Y 843,700 785,400 70 80 All††

South Dakota Y 130,800o 97,200 o 60 81 Some

Tennessee Y 655,400p 655,400p 40% 40% All**

Texas Y 4,912,100 4,912,100 40q 40q Some r

Utah Y 359,700 309,700 56 41 All

Vermont N 133,500s 0 . . . 96 Allt

Virgin Islands N 13,700 0 . . . . . .

Virginia Y 1,015,400 819,600 85% 86% Allu

Washington Y 782,000 782,000 80 66 All††

West Virginia Y 362,800 2,400 . . . . . . Some All

Wisconsin Y 666,200 508,900 . . . 58 All††

Wyoming Y 82,700 82,700 85 80 Some ** All
Page 14 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

The notes below expand on the data in Table 2. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: In 1989, data were not collected from American Samoa, the Northern

Marianas and the Virgin Islands. In 1993, data were not collected from the

Northern Marianas. Except for Arkansas, Idaho, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico

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

for 1989 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March

1991), Table 2. The data in the columns for 1993 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), 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.

. . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Figure includes adults and subjects under 18 years of age.

b The automation of the records was started but had to be temporarily

suspended due to a change in system application; this figure represents the

total number of records maintained for the years 1989-95.

c Figure represents subjects as of March 25, 1994.

d Only automated records are included in the total number of records, since

the number of manual records is unknown; figure represents total records as

of July 1, 1996.

e The response for 1995 is an accurate number based on an intensive study of

the file completed since 1993. The 1993 figure was an estimate.

f Figure represents subjects as of March 28, 1994.

g More accurate information was available for this response. Previous response

was based on an estimate.

hFigure is as of February 4, 1994.

i

Although Mississippi maintained some automated records in 1993, the State is

undergoing a complete system change and has not operated any automated

database during this rebuilding period.

j

 Response includes noncriminal applicants, but does not include approximately

1,100,000 criminal records that are sealed and would not be accessible as a part

of an interstate records check.

k Decrease is due to purging of old records.

l

 A massive purge of records was completed recently in preparation for the

implementation of the automated fingerprint identification system; figure

represents July 1996 audit total.

m Figure is as of August 7, 1996.

n Records recently were cleaned thoroughly and aliases deleted.

o Total figure includes applicants and corrections-based records.

p More information was available for 1993 response than previous response;

therefore, the 1993 estimate is more accurate.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 15

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and 1995

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

and automated files automated files, 1995 Percent of automated files total files 

1995 Manual Automated

State 1989 1993 Total file file 1989 1993 1995 1989-93 1993-95

Total 42,476,400 47,827,100 49,851,600 7,199,000 42,652,600

Alabama 1,000,000 1,800,00 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 50% 100% 100% 80% 0%

Alaska 143,000 184,300 195,100 45,000 150,100 86 73 77 29 6

American Samoa . . . 10,800 a 1,100b 1,100 0 . . . 0 0 NA -90

Arizona 742,100 612,900c 711,600d . . .d 711,600 39 60 . . . -17 16

Arkansas 480,000 448,000 395,000 212,700 182,300 0 41 46 -7 -12

California 4,500,000 5,316,900 4,630,800 e 545,300 4,085,500 67% 72% 88% 18% -13%

Colorado 489,000 612,700 . . . 0 . . . 100 100 100 25 . . .

Connecticut 401,400 681,000 744,000 331,000 413,000 58 . . . 56 70 9

Delaware 600,000 245,900 476,600 47,700 428,900 83 73 90 -59 94

District of

Columbia

427,000 497,900 507,000 355,000 152,000 0 29 30 17 2

Florida 2,427,900 2,729,000 3,172,700 0 3,172,700 95% 100% 100% 12% 16%

Georgia 1,055,000 1,532,100 1,700,600 0 1,700,600 100 100 100 45 11

Hawaii 270,500 318,300 338,300 0 338,300 100 100 100 18 6

Idaho 105,000 138,700 152,000 40,900 111,100 30 66 73 32 10

Illinois 2,152,300 2,558,000 f 2,613,600 200,000 2,413,600 86 92 92 19 2

Indiana 670,000 1,241,800 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 10% 100% 100% 85% -3%

Iowa 300,000 367,100 349,500 60,100 289,400 43 66 83 22 -5

Kansas 520,000 627,400 697,100 466,200 230,900 3 27 33 21 11

Kentucky 535,100 . . . 574,700 85,000 489,700 72 . . . 85 . . . . . .

Louisiana 1,449,000 1,338,800 g 1,651,000 911,000 740,000 33 50 45 -8 23

Maine 270,000 300,000 350,000 350,000 0 0% 0% 0% 11% 17%

Maryland 649,300 834,100 908,300 0 908,300 69 100 100 28 5

Massachusetts 2,260,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 700,000 1,400,000 21 100 75 -12 40

Michigan 771,800 970,400 1,074,100 0 1,074,100 100 100 100 26 11

Minnesota 190,600 258,300h 294,100 64,000 230,100 61 75 78 36 14

Mississippi 350,000 368,000 . . . . . . . . . 0% 7% . . .i 5% . . .

Missouri 593,000 673,900 738,600 169,200 569,400 81 75 77 14 10

Montana 86,000 108,900 133,900 0 133,900 100 100 100 27 23

Nebraska 300,000 138,000 149,800 0 149,800 40 100 100 -54 9

Nevada 31,300 130,300 204,500 0 204,500 100 100 100 316 57

New Hampshire 155,000 180,600 163,300 54,700 108,600 93% 100% 67% 17% -10%

New Jersey 1,090,200 1,508,800 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 77 80 100 38 19

New Mexico 207,000 230,000 260,000 0 260,000 0 0 100 11 13

New York 3,812,100 4,314,200 4,851,100 j 532,000 4,319,100 j 82 87 89 13 12

North Carolina 432,800 560,400 623,000 30,000 593,000 83 92 95 29 11

North Dakota 202,000 216,000 227,200 158,000 69,200 21% 27% 30% 7% 5%

Ohio 2,315,700 1,700,000 909,700 110,000 799,700 25 48 88 -27 -46

Oklahoma 500,000 582,200 656,700 240,000 416,700 33 54 63 16 13

Oregon 548,500 699,900 788,600 0 788,600 100 100 100 28 13

Pennsylvania 1,265,800 1,462,700 1,431,400 487,500 943,900 39 55 66 16 -2k

Puerto Rico 45,400 78,500 105,200 0 105,200 100% 100% 100% 73% 34%

Rhode Island 156,900 199,000 213,400 0 213,400 100 100 100 27 7

South Carolina 572,900 737,200 843,700 58,300 785,400 87 91 93 29 14

South Dakota 144,000 128,600 130,800l 33,600 l 97,200 l 0 55 74 -11 2

Tennessee 500,000 600,000 655,400m 0 655,400m 0 32 100 20 9

Texas 3,789,500 4,504,100 4,912,100 0 4,912,100 99% 100% 100% 19% 9%

Utah 210,300 276,300 359,700 50,000 309,700 77 100 86 31 -30

Vermont 118,000 135,000 133,500n 133,500 0 0 0 0 14 -1

Virgin Islands . . . 13,700 13,700 13,700 0 0 0 0 . . . 0

Virginia 744,000 921,100 1,015,400 195,800 819,600 56 75 81 24 10

Washington 474,100 677,000o 782,000 0 782,000 100% 100% 100% 43% 16%

West Virginia 650,000 375,000p 362,800 360,400 2,400 0 0 <1 -42 17

Wisconsin 491,000 611,100 666,200 157,300 508,900 55 71 76 24 9

Wyoming 62,000 72,200 82,700 0 82,700 84 100 100 16 15
Page 16 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 3

The notes below expand on the data in Table 3. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina

and Utah, for which corrected data were submitted, the data for 1989 are

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 3.

Except for Arkansas and Indiana for which new data were submitted, the data

for 1993 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993

(January 1995).

. . . Not available.

a Response is based on information from the judicial branch and is for FY

1995-96.

b This figure includes 155 [200] releases by police without charging and

15,000 prosecutor declinations; final trial court dispositions are not reported

to the repository.

c Figure represents the number received as of April 11, 1994.

d During 1993, the State repository concentrated on State’s Attorneys’ filing

charges. In 1994, the focus was changed to court dispositions. Since January 1,

1994, a total of 489,013 court dispositions were posted to the database.

e Police release and prosecutor declinations are reported on the arrest card.

f Arrest and prosecution dispositions currently are not indexed by disposition

type.

g A significant backlog developed in 1993 due to delays in providing and

receiving reporting forms from contributors.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 17

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995

 Number of dispositions Percent change 

State 1989 1993 1995 1989-93 1993-95

 

Alabama 35,000 . . . 107,600 . . . . . .

Alaska 40,800 31,300 38,200 -23% 22%

American Samoa . . . . . . 900 . . . . . .

Arizona 112,500 117,500 . . . 4 . . .

Arkansas 7,000 21,000 32,000 200 52

California 850,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 29% 0%

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut 142,900 135,300 140,000a -5 . . .

Delaware 57,000 80,000 64,900 40 -19

District of

Columbia

. . . 15,200 b 1,600 . . . -89

Florida 110,000 162,000c 174,300 47% 8%

Georgia 260,000 545,000 265,000 110 -51

Hawaii 54,800 51,700 57,800 -6 12

Idaho . . . 19,300 . . . . . . . . .

Illinois 135,000 95,600 d 115,000 -29 20

Indiana 20,000 23,500 26,500 18% 13%

Iowa 23,000 54,200 48,200 136 -11

Kansas 28,900 34,300 . . . 19 . . .

Kentucky 6,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana 30,000 21,400 . . . -29 . . .

Maine 30,000 29,000 20,400 -3% -30%

Maryland 436,600 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . 300,000 . . . . . . . . .

Michigan 78,800 178,100e 207,200e 126 16

Minnesota 45,000 60,000 2,500 33 -96

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . 65,100 62,800 . . . -4%

Montana 9,600 26,200 78,400 173% . . .

Nebraska 12,400 23,000 22,300 85 -3

Nevada 20,000 . . . 32,500 . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . 31,000 . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey 200,000 260,000 280,000 30% 8%

New Mexico 2,600 11,100 12,000 327 8

New York 443,000 383,500 399,900 -13 4

North Carolina 60,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Dakota 4,000 6,500 3,200 63% -51%

Ohio 65,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma 15,000 15,000 37,200 0 81

Oregon . . . 36,900 . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania 74,200 203,700 274,300 175 35

Puerto Rico 20,100 24,300 . . . 21% . . .

Rhode Island . . . 10,000 . . .

South Carolina 103,700 212,600 194,100 105 -9

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Texas . . . . . .f . . . . . . . . .

Utah 17,100 17,800 22,900 4% 29%

Vermont 18,700 20,000 22,200 7 11

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

Virginia 141,600 211,500 231,500 49 9

Washington . . . 157,800 178,800 . . . 13%

West Virginia 38,000 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin 58,800 99,000 103,600 41% 5

Wyoming 6,000 6,600g 5,700 10 -14 
Page 18 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

The notes below expand on the data in Table 4. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Except for Arkansas and Puerto Rico, for which additional

information has been submitted, the data in the columns for 1989 are taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 4.

The data for 1993 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1993 (January 1995), Table 4.

* State is fully manual.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a All automated records and approximately 50% of the manual records are

contained in an automated master name index (MNI).

b Only the new arrest information is automated.

c The new information is added to the manual file.

d Traffic and misdemeanor cases are not included in the MNI.

e All subjects with dates of birth 1920 or later are automated.

f

 Only new arrest information since July 1, 1993, is automated at this time

due to lack of personnel.

g The manual file is not in the automated MNI.

h Fingerprint-supported subjects are in an automated MNI that is not complete

or accurate at this time.

i

 Records automated since 1989 are in the automated MNI; prior records are

completely manual.

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 Only those with a date of birth of 1940 and later are included in the

automated MNI.

l

 The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

m The record is automated only upon a request for the record.

n If an offender’s prior fingerprint record was of poor quality, it was not

automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System)

quality fingerprints, the record will be automated.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 19

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993 and 1995

Criminal history file is automated in Prior manual record is automated if

 Master name index is automated whole or in part offender is re-arrested 

State 1989 1993 1995 1989 1993 1995 1989 1993 1995 

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Alaska Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

American Samoa . . . No* No* . . . No* No* . . .

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Arkansas Partial Partiala Yes No Partial Partial No Yes Yes

California Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial No No No b

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes . . .

Delaware Partial Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial No b No c No b

District of

Columbia

Partial Partiald Partial No Partial Partial No b No b

Florida Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes

Illinois Partial Yes e Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Indiana Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial No No f Yes

Kentucky Partial Partialg Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Maine No Partialh Partialh No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes . . .

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial No Yes No b

Mississippi No Partiali Partial No Partial . . . . . . No No

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nebraska Partial Yes Yes Partial Yesj Yes Yes

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Hampshire Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Partial Yes No b

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

New York Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

North Dakota Partial Partialk Partialk Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Ohio Partial Partiall Partial Partial Partial Partial No No No b

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Nom Nom

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee Partial Yes Yes No Partial Yes No

Texas Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes n

Utah Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes

Vermont Yes Yes Yes No No No

Virgin Islands NA NA NA . . . No* No*

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Yes

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

West Virginia No Partial Yes No No Partial Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes . . .

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes
Page 20 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 5

The notes below expand on the data in Table 5. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

a Admission information only.

b Data are submitted by court clerks.

c Data are submitted by the charging law enforcement agency.

d By statute, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor decision to

charge with an offense punishable by over 92 days. Prosecutor dispositions

are reported on the arrest fingerprint card.

e Prosecutors report in lieu of courts.

f Prosecutor declinations are reported as part of the court disposition;

therefore, they are not reported separately.

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

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

of crimes.

h Releases only.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 21

Table 5: Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1995

 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 X X X

Alaska X X X X

American Samoa XXXX

Arizona X X

Arkansas XXXXXX

California XXXX X

Colorado X X X Xa X X

Connecticut X

Delaware X X X X X

District of

Columbia

X XX

Florida Xb X Xa X

Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii XXXXXX

Idaho X X X X

Illinois XXXXXX

Indiana XXXXX

Iowa X X Xa X X

Kansas XXXXXX

Kentucky XXXX

Louisiana X X X X X

Maine Xc X

Maryland XXXXXX

Massachusetts

Michigan Xd X Xa

Minnesota XXXXX

Mississippi XXXXXX

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska XXXXXX

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X X X Xa X X

New Mexico Xa Xa

New York X X X Xa X X

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota X Xe XXXX

Ohio XXXXXX

Oklahoma

Oregon X

Pennsylvania Xf Xg XXXX

Puerto Rico X X

Rhode Island

South Carolina X Xa

South Dakota XXXXXX

Tennessee Xa Xa

Texas X X

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands

Virginia XXXXX

Washington X X Xh X X

West Virginia XXXXXX

Wisconsin XXXXX

Wyoming XXXXXX
Page 22 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 6

The notes below expand on the data in Table 6. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are the results of estimates.

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

rounded to the nearest whole number. The total number of arrest fingerprint

cards submitted to State criminal history repositories in 1989 and in 1993 was

calculated using the mid-point of the range where a range appears in the

underlying data. Except as noted in the “Explanatory Notes for Table 6”,

arrest information is reported to all State criminal history repositories by

arrest fingerprint cards only. Except for Louisiana, Maryland, Montana,

Utah and Wisconsin, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the

columns for 1989 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information

Systems (March 1991), Table 6. The data in the columns for 1993 are taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995),

Table 6.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Figure is for fiscal year 1994-95.

b The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than

100% because of court dispositions that are not fingerprint-supported.

c Arrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, judgments and

computers.

d The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than

100% because arrests are reported by terminal; arrest information is entered

from final dispositions and from criminal summonses which are not

supported by fingerprints; and lack of personnel resources to audit

discrepancies between arrest information and the fingerprint cards submitted.

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

by fingerprints; and arrest information is entered from final dispositions and

from criminal summonses which are not supported by fingerprints.

f

 Figure is for fiscal year 1995-96.

g The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than

100% because arrest information is entered from final dispositions which are

not supported by fingerprints.

h Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and on uniform

arrest reports which may not have included fingerprints.

i

 Arrest information is reported by fingerprint cards and criminal

summonses.

j

 The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than 100%

because arrests are reported by terminal; State law and/or policy does not

require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints; and arrest

information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal summonses

which are not supported by fingerprints.

k Figure is for fiscal year 1989 rather than calendar year 1989.

l

 Arrest information was reported by a hard copy of the arrest report.

m The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than

100% because State law and/or policy does not require arrest information to

be supported by fingerprints.

n Arrest information is reported by computers.

o The small percentage of arrests that are not supported by fingerprints are

assigned State identification numbers with a “U” (unknown) prefix. This

allows for easy identification of these exceptions. Unsupported arrests

sometimes occur when an offender is hospitalized , or refuses, or for some

other reason, or is unable to be fingerprinted.

p Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards, terminal, final

dispositions, FBI abstracts and other documents.

q Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal summonses

which are not supported by fingerprints; also cases handled in other ways, such

as diversion agreements, are unsupported by fingerprints.

r

 The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than 100%

because arrest information is entered from final dispositions which are not

supported by fingerprints and reporting agencies fail to submit the fingerprint

cards.

s Approximately 70% of all persons charged with a criminal offense are

summoned to appear in court rather than being arrested. In 1987, the

fingerprint law was changed to provide that persons being summoned in

addition to those arrested are to be fingerprinted. Prior to the change, the law

mandated that a person had to be in custody charged with the “commission of a

crime” to be fingerprinted. Training is ongoing to bring the submission rate

into compliance.

t

 Arrest information was entered from criminal summonses which were not

fingerprinted-supported.

u Although arrests were fingerprinted-supported , the arrests were not linked

by the case cycle; therefore, the criminal history file is not fingerprintsupported.

v Pre-1968 arrests are supported by FBI fingerprints.

w Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and court abstracts.

x The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than 100%

because arrest information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal

summonses which are not supported by fingerprints.

y New York law requires that fingerprints associated with sealed records must

be purged.

z Arrests for “not sufficient funds” checks are entered with only an index

fingerprint.

aa Figure is lower than figure for 1989 because the figure for 1993 does not

include applicant cards, as did the 1989 figure.

bb The percentage of arrest events in the criminal history file is less than 100%

because of a delay in the fingerprint classification by the police department.

cc Arrest information was reported on an arrest/custody form which need not

be accompanied by fingerprints.

dd Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and citations which are

not supported by fingerprints. The State regulations requiring fingerprints also

are not enforced.

ee Arrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the Records

Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and retained in the

Forensic Bureau.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 23

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993 and 1995

Number of arrest fingerprint cards Percent Percent Percent of arrest events in criminal

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

State 1989 1993 1995 1989-93 1993-95 1989 1993 1996

Total 6,012,400 6,255,800 6,945,200 4% 11%

Alabama 292,900 192,300 205,900a -34% 7% 100% 99% 95%b

Alaska 15,900 14,000 15,800 -12 13 75c 39 41d

American Samoa . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . <100 e 60e

Arizona 101,900 114,800 167,200 13 46 100 100 100

Arkansas 23,000 36,000 71,000 57 97 100 100 100

California 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 f 10% 5% 100% 100% 99%g

Colorado 137,000 129,000 . . . -6 . . . 100 100 100

Connecticut 97,100 115,000 140,000 18 22 75h 100 100

Delaware 40,000 44,700 41,900 12 -6 95i 90 90j

District of

Columbia

10,000 k 41,800 29,500 318 -29 95l 100 80m

Florida 585,400 500,600 588,200 -14% 17% 100% 100% 100%

Georgia 330,000 350,000 335,000 6 -4 100 100 100

Hawaii 52,700 53,200 60,300 1 13 98n <100 o 100

Idaho 27,300 34,300 48,600 26 42 100 100 100

Illinois 200,300 336,700 356,200 75 6 100 100 100

Indiana 46,400 50,400 53,700 9% 7% 100% 100% 100%

Iowa 30,000 53,100 61,400 77 16 100 100 100

Kansas 46,800 64,500 80,200 38 24 70-75 p 80q 85r

Kentucky 22,500 14,300 . . . . . . 98 100

Louisiana 135,900 154,700 155,400 14 .04 100 100 100

Maine 6,500 5,500 5,200 15% -5% 30%s 30%m 30%g

Maryland 103,000 162,400 169,800 58 5 100 75t 100

Massachusetts 50,000-

55,000

65,000 80,000 38 23 0u 0m 0m, x

Michigan 116,800 114,800 131,800 -2 15 100 100 100

Minnesota 26,500 40,000 48,000 51 20 100 100 100

Mississippi 9,000 9,000 . . . 0% . . . 100% 100% . . .

Missouri 92,000 89,500 107,200 -3 20% 100 100 100

Montana 13,000 . . . 25,900 . . . . . . 100 100 100

Nebraska 13,700 16,500 16,100 20 -2 100 98v 100

Nevada 36,300 49,600 54,800 37 10 100 100 100

New Hampshire 9,300 20,100 17,800 116% -11% 25-35% w 100% 50%x

New Jersey 145,700 110,900 120,100 -24 8 100 100 100

New Mexico 26,200 34,800 38,000 33 9 98 100 100

New York 520,100 492,900 578,000 -5 17 90 70y 80

North Carolina 63,200 76,300 82,200 21 8 100 100 100

North Dakota 5,000 7,200 7,100 44% -1% 100% 94%z 82%z

Ohio 114,500 149,200 162,700 30 9 100 100 100

Oklahoma 60,000 46,000 aa 77,000 -23 67 100 100 100

Oregon 92,100 91,400 127,500 -1 39 100 100 100

Pennsylvania 166,700 143,700 177,100 -14 23 100 100 100

Puerto Rico . . . 15,800 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17% 32%bb

Rhode Island 30,000 25,000 17% 100% 100

South Carolina 154,400 167,300 185,600 8 11% 100 100 100

South Dakota 17,600 19,000-

20,000

21,700 11 11 100 100 100

Tennessee 75,000 83,200 110,500d 11 33 100 100 100

Texas 398,400 581,400 437,200 46% -25% 100% 100% 100%

Utah 35,200 44,400 52,400 26 18 100 100 100

Vermont 9,000 5,000 8,500 -44 70 35-40 cc 25dd 17dd

Virgin Islands . . . NAee NAee . . . NA . . . NA NA

Virginia 110,000 136,400 155,800 24 14 100 100 100

Washington 131,600 168,300 200,700 28% 19% 100% 100% 100%

West Virginia 37,200 . . . 42,500 . . . . . . 100 100 100

Wisconsin 78,600 100,000 119,300 27 19 100 100 100

Wyoming 11,100 9,800 10,100 -12 3 100 100 100
Page 24 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 7

The notes below expand on the data in Table 7. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Percentages reported are results of estimates. Except for Delaware,

Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont and

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

for 1989 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1992

(November 1993) Table 7. Except for Louisiana and Pennsylvania, for

which corrected data was submitted, the data in the column for 1993 are

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table

7.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Both the fingerprinting and filing of charges are performed at the same

unit.

b The number of such cases reflects only those actually reported and entered

in the repository. It is unknown how many of those cases were not reported

or erroneously reported; therefore, a percentage is unavailable.

c The law requires the total expungement of arrests that result in acquittals or

dismissals. “No charges filed” are considered dismissals; therefore, no statistics

are maintained.

d Police must release or charge an individual before sending fingerprints to the

repository.

e Notification is accomplished by disposition forms.

f Police departments do report dispositions.

g Arrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the Records

Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and retained in the

Forensic Bureau.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 25

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993 and 1995

If an arrestee is not charged after submission of

fingerprints, State law requires notification of repository Number of cases 

State 1989 1993 1995 1995

Alabama Yes Yes Yes . . .

Alaska No No No NA

American Samoa . . . No No NA

Arizona No Yes Yes . . .

Arkansas No Yes Yes . . .

California Yes Yes Yes 41,000

Colorado Yes Yes Yes . . .

Connecticut No No No . . .

Delaware Yes Yes Yes . . .

District of

Columbia

. . . Yes a Yes . . .

Florida Yes Yes Yes . . .

Georgia Yes Yes Yes . . .

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes 13,600 b

Idaho Yes Yes Yes . . .

Illinois Yes Yes Yes . . .

Indiana Yes Yes Yes

Iowa Yes Yes c Yes c . . .

Kansas Yes Yes Yes . . .

Kentucky No . . . No NA

Louisiana Yes No No NA

Maine Yes Yes Yes . . .

Maryland Yes Yes Yes . . .

Massachusetts No No No NA

Michigan c . . . Yes Yes . . .

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes 2,500

Mississippi No No Yes . . .

Missouri No Yes Yes . . .

Montana Yes Yes Yes . . .

Nebraska Yes Yes No NA

Nevada Yes Yes Yes . . .

New Hampshire No No No NA

New Jersey No No No NA

New Mexico No No No NA

New York No No Yes 15,000

North Carolina No Yes d Yes d . . .

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes . . .

Ohio No Yes e Yes . . .

Oklahoma No No No NA

Oregon No Yes No NA

Pennsylvania No No No NA

Puerto Rico No No No NA

Rhode Island No No f

South Carolina No No No NA

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes . . .

Tennessee No No No NA

Texas No Yes Yes 30,000

Utah Yes Yes No 2,000

Vermont No No No NA

Virgin Islands . . . NAg NAg NA

Virginia No No No NA

Washington No Yes Yes . . .

West Virginia Yes No Yes . . .

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes . . .

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes . . .
Page 26 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 8

The notes below expand on the data in Table 8. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 Delaware, Puerto Rico, South Carolina

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

1989 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991),

Table 8. Except for South Carolina, for which corrected data was submitted,

the data in the columns for 1993 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 8.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a The prosecutors’ position is that a declination is not a disposition; therefore,

prosecutor declinations are not reported.

b Estimate as of April 1994.

c Approximately 47% of all felony arrests without dispositions are over 1

year old.

d Approximately 37% of all felony arrests do not have a disposition.

e Through current monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent

prosecutor disposition cases existing on the system is 4,800. It is unknown,

however, 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.

f The response for 1993 is based on the results of a baseline audit; previous

response was an estimate.

g By statute, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor decision to

charge with an offense punishable by over 92 days. Prosecutor dispositions are

reported on the arrest fingerprint card.

h Fifty-one percent of the 1993 arrests have dispositions.

i

 The decrease in dispositions resulted when a major contributor, the St. Louis

Police Department, stopped reporting dispositions for the courts. The courts

did not subsequently begin reporting.

j

 Percentage represents final dispositions for 1993 felony arrests received as of

February 15, 1994.

k Percentage represents final dispositions for 1995 felony arrests received as of

July 15, 1996.

l

 All actions, including prosecution actions, are reported as final dispositions by

the Administrative Office of the Courts.

m Figure reflects the percent of dispositions reported in 1987; more current

figures were unavailable.

n Prosecutor declinations are reported as a part of the court dispositions and are

not reported separately.

o Requirement for reporting prosecutor dispositions was relatively new.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 27

Table 8: Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995

Number of

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

 declinations Prosecutor declinations Final felony trial court dispositions 

State 1995 1989 1993 1995 1989 1993 1995

Alabama . . . <1% . . . . . . 30% 30% <1%

Alaska 5,700 NA . . . . . . 85 90 . . .

American Samoa NA . . . NA NA . . . NA 100

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . 15 <1 <5 35 58 66

California 195,000 . . . . . . 68% 85% 47% 73%

Colorado . . . <15% 0% a . . . 100 60 100

Connecticut NA NA NA NA 100 100 100

Delaware . . . . . . . . . 100 60 72 95

District of

Columbia

1,600 0 50 90 5 . . . 45

Florida . . . 60% . . . . . . 50% 30-50% b . . .

Georgia . . . 100 . . . . . . 85 . . .c . . .d

Hawaii 7,500 . . . . . . . . .e . . . 74 84%

Idaho NA 100 NA NA 80 70 70

Illinois 21,400 50 . . . 97 50 . . . 38

Indiana NA 50% NA NA 75% 12%f . . .

Iowa . . . NA . . . . . . . . . 98 98%

Kansas . . . 35-40 . . . . . . 80 . . . . . .

Kentucky NA NA NA NA 75-80 60 70

Louisiana . . . 50 . . . . . . 50 . . . . . .

Maine . . . <1% 1% . . . 100% 99% 99%

Maryland . . . . . . . . . 100% 82 . . . 100

Massachusetts . . . NA 100 100 100 100 100

Michigan . . .g NA . . . . . . 64 . . .h . . .

Minnesota . . . 70 . . . . . . 99 98 99

Mississippi . . . 30% NA . . . 25% NA . . .

Missouri 14,600 80 10% 9% 60 35%i 66%

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 73 80

Nebraska 400 100 NA 43 50 75 40

Nevada 90 . . . 65 . . . . . .

New Hampshire NA NA NA NA 80% 80% 100%

New Jersey 2,500 90% 95% 100% 95 90 95

New Mexico . . . NA 2 10 5 10 10

New York 15,000 . . . . . . 100 . . . 59j 72k

North Carolina . . . NA . . .l 95 93 90 95

North Dakota . . . 80% . . . . . . 80% . . . . . .

Ohio . . . NA NA . . . 55 35% 60%

Oklahoma NA NA NA NA 80 60 65

Oregon 600 NA NA . . . 60m 100 . . .

Pennsylvania . . .n 80 . . . . . . . . . 65 . . .

Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA 14% 17% 78%

Rhode Island 1% NA . . . 100

South Carolina NA NA NA NA 95 98 98

South Dakota . . . 1 5% . . . 75 81 83

Tennessee NA NA NA NA 5 NA NA

Texas . . . 0% . . .o 100% 40% 50% 100%

Utah 2,000 0 64% 3 55 91 100

Vermont NA 100 95 NA 100 95 95

Virgin Islands NA . . . NA NA . . . NA NA

Virginia NA NA NA NA 95 96 96

Washington . . . 40% . . . . . . 7% 78% 65%

West Virginia . . . 85 NA . . . 85 . . . . . .

Wisconsin NA . . . NA NA . . . 58 . . .

Wyoming 200 60 . . . 100% 60 . . . 53
Page 28 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 9

The notes below expand on the data in Table 9. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

. . . Not available.

† 1 Record is destroyed by State criminal history repository.

2 Record is retained with action noted on the record.

3 Record is returned to the court.

4 Record is sealed.

5 No action is taken.

6 Other.

a Restoration of civil rights is not tracked by the State repository.

b Juveniles only.

c Only upon granting of a pardon.

d Prior to 1989, records were destroyed.

e The fingerprints are destroyed; the information is retained.

f A manual record is retained.

g May be used only for criminal justice purposes.

h This information is not received by the State criminal history repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 29

Table 9: Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1995

 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 St ate 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 6a

American Samoa Yes 2

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

California Yes Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Colorado Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Connecticut Yes 1

Delaware Yes b 2b Yes 2 Yes c 2

District of

Columbia

Yes . . . Yes . . . Yes . . . Yes . . .

Florida Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Georgia Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Hawaii Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes c 2

Idaho Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Illinois Yes 2 Yes 2

Indiana Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2

Iowa Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kentucky Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Louisiana Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Maine Yes 2 Yes 2

Maryland Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Massachusetts Yes 2, 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Michigan Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Minnesota Yes 1,2,4 Yes 2 Yes 2

Mississippi Yes . . . Yes . . . Yes . . . Yes . . .

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5

Montana Yes 2d Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Nebraska Yes 2

Nevada 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Hampshire Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Jersey Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 2 Yes 2

New York Yes 2e Yes 2 Yes 2

North Carolina Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2

Ohio Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oklahoma Yes 2 Yes 2

Oregon Yes 1 Yes 8f Yes 2 Yes 2

Pennsylvania Yes 1c Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Puerto Rico Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Rhode Island

South Carolina Yes 2

South Dakota Yes 2g Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Tennessee Yes 1 Yes 6h Yes 6h

Texas Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Utah Yes 4

Vermont Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Virgin Islands Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Washington Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

West Virginia Yes 2 Yes

Wisconsin Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2
Page 30 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 10

The notes below expand on the data in Table 10. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 fingerprints 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 it voluntarily submitted. Percentages are rounded to the

nearest whole number.

. . . Not available.

* Only when on-line data could not be matched were fingerprints requested by

the State repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 31

Table 10: Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1995

Repository uses

Law requires fingerprinting fingerprints to make

of admitted prisoners and Percent of admitted prisoners for positive identifisending fingerprints to repository whom repository receives fingerprints cation and to link

correctional data

State State prisons Local jails Stat e prisons Local jails with proper records

Alabama Yes 100% Yes

Alaska

American Samoa Yes 100 Yes

Arizona

Arkansas Yes Yes 100 . . . Yes

California Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Colorado Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Connecticut

Delaware Yes 100 Yes

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes . . . . . . Yes

Florida Yes 0%

Georgia Yes . . . Yes

Hawaii

Idaho Yes 100 Yes

Illinois Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Indiana Yes Yes 100% 45% Yes

Iowa Yes Yes 98 . . . Yes

Kansas

Kentucky Yes Yes 95 60 Yes

Louisiana 100 Yes

Maine 99% 5% Yes

Maryland Yes 100 Yes

Massachusetts 100 50 Yes

Michigan Yes 100 Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes 100 . . . Yes

Mississippi Yes Yes 100% . . . . . .

Missouri Yes 100 Yes

Montana 100 Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Nevada 100 Yes

New Hampshire 100% 70% Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes 99 90 Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes . . . . . .

New York Yes <5 a Yes*

North Carolina Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

North Dakota Yes Yes 100% 25% Yes

Ohio Yes 100 Yes

Oklahoma Yes 100 Yes

Oregon Yes

Pennsylvania <5 <5 Yes

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina Yes 99% 98% Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes 100 65-70 Yes

Texas 100% Yes

Utah Yes

Vermont Yes 100 Yes

Virgin Islands

Virginia Yes Yes 85 15% Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes . . . . . . Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes 68% . . . Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes 100 . . . Yes
Page 32 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 11

The notes below expand on the data in Table 11. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 Arkansas, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1989 are taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 11.

Except for Indiana, for which additional information was submitted, the data

in the columns for 1993 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1993 (January 1995), Table 11.

. . . Not available.

a The first percentage is for admissions reported; the second percentage is for

releases reported.

b Response is based on the results of a baseline audit.

c The State repository receives information on admissions to, but not releases

from, probation.

d The percentage was estimated due to being unable to determine all probation

orders assigned in 1993.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 33

Table 11: Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995

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

 Probation Parole 

State 1989 1993 1995 1989 1993 1995

Alabama

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona 0% . . .

Arkansas 10% 30 50% . . . 90% 90%

California 85% 100% . . . 100%

Colorado 0 <10% 100%/0%a 100 100% 100/0a

Connecticut

Delaware 100 100 100 100 100 100

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 85% 85% . . . . . .

Georgia 100 100% . . . 100 . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% . . .

Idaho 0 0 0% 0 0%

Illinois 50 0 75 50 . . . 75

Indiana 75% 87% 100% 1% 16%b 100%

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas 98 100 90 90 100 90

Kentucky 100 80 . . . 100 80 . . .

Louisiana 98 100 . . . 95 100 . . .

Maine

Maryland 40% . . . 100% 40% . . . 100%

Massachusetts 100% 100/0a 100% 100

Michigan

Minnesota 99 75 75 99

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri 100% 50%c 100% c 100% 100% 100%

Montana

Nebraska 50 20 100 . . . 99

Nevada . . .

New Hampshire

New Jersey 40% 90% 95% 90% 89% 100%

New Mexico

New York 100 . . . 100 . . .

North Carolina 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Ohio 50 . . . . . . 95 . . . . . .

Oklahoma 10 25 10 25

Oregon 25 25

Pennsylvania 90 . . . . . . 90 . . . . . .

Puerto Rico 16% 1% 2% 2%

Rhode Island . . . . . .

South Carolina 98 98 98%

South Dakota 80 80 81 98 95 95%

Tennessee . . . . . .

Texas 50% 50%d 100% 100% 100%

Utah 75 . . . 100% 100 . . . 100

Vermont 10 . . . . . . 50 . . . . . .

Virgin Islands . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington 100% . . . 100% . . .

West Virginia 85% . . . . . . 90% . . . . . .

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

Wyoming 10 10 10% 100 100 100%
Page 34 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 12

The notes below expand on the data in Table 12. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 Reporting depends on the agency. Alaska law requires submission within

five days.

b Response reflects the status as of 1995; with the conversion in 1996, the

time to enter is one day.

c Beginning in 1996, all arresting agencies representing 100% of the daily

arrests in the State report by automated means.

d Although a backlog existed as of December 31, 1995, no backlog currently

exists.

e Currently the State repository processes fingerprint cards to the FBI for

only small agencies. Since this represents a very small percentage (3%) of all

arrests in the State, the repository is able to process these within one day of

receipt. This, however, does not reflect the projected turnaround time for

fingerprint card processing when the repository becomes a single source

contributor.

f

 As a result of the August 1992 data quality baseline audit, the number of

actual arrests that are not entered into the repository was shown to be nearly

1%. In addition, there are approximately 1,015 Neighbor Island arrests that

are missing arrest fingerprint cards and have not yet been processed for

identification purposes. The backlog of arrests, therefore, is at least 1,015, and

the effort to research these missing arrests is extremely labor-intensive.

g Most New York City arrests are received prior to arraignment.

h This figure represents re-arrest cards that are unprocessed currently.

i

 One agency sent in approximately 2,500 cards that were more than 1 year old.

j

 With the completion of the LiveScan project in 1997, approximately 65% of

the arresting agencies will report arrest data electronically.

k There is no legal requirement to report arrest and fingerprint information to

the repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 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,

1995

Percentage of daily

Number of arrests in State

Average Average number of days arresting represented by Number of

number of days between receipt of fingerprints agencies arresting Backlog of unprocessed Number of

between arrest and entry of data into: reporting agencies entering data or partially person-days

and receipt of arrest data reporting by into criminal processed needed to

arrest data and Master name Criminal history by automated automated history data- fingerprint eliminate

State fingerprints index database means means base exists cards backlog

Alabama 10 5 5 No

Alaska 14a 2 2 No

American Samoa 0 0 0 Yes 168+ 180

Arizona 14 14 14 15 95% Yes 48,900 153

Arkansas 7-14 21 21 Yes 40,000 200

California 7-30 30 30 Yes 57,000 22

Colorado 7-14 <3 <3 . . . . . . Yes . . . 2

Connecticut 5 300 b 300 b . . .c . . .c Yes 120,000 300

Delaware 5 0 0 . . . 100% No

District of

Columbia

1 1 <1 23 100 No

Florida . . . . . . . . . Yes d

Georgia 4 20 20 Yes 42,000 75

Hawaii 3-24 1e 1-3 1 75% Yesf 1,000 138

Idaho 14 5 5

Illinois 7 90 90 6 54 Yes 38,000 145

Indiana 7-25 35 35 Yes 21,000 89

Iowa 12 2 2 Yes 1,300 25

Kansas 10-20 1-2 10 Yes 12,000 100

Kentucky 30 10 10 Yes 300 16

Louisiana 5-10 60 60 Yes 49,000 . . .

Maine 14 1 3 Yes 75 2

Maryland 14 13 13 1 45%

Massachusetts 14 14 NA 1 25 Yes 60,000 400

Michigan . . . 10 10 Yes 8,000 20

Minnesota 4 1 1 No

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri 48 5-7 5-7 Yes 1,500 8

Montana 25 1 3

Nebraska 31 31 31 Yes 2,200 30

Nevada 10 2 2

New Hampshire 7 1-2 1-2 Yes 1,500 14

New Jersey 10-14 2 2 No

New Mexico 10 3 3 Yes 6,000h 120

New York . . .d <7 <7 22 70% Yes 6,300 16

North Carolina . . . 5 5

North Dakota 7-10 0-1 0-1

Ohio 12 4 4 Yes 1,000 4

Oklahoma 5 90 90 Yes 24,600 90

Oregon . . . . . . 33 Yes 5,500 17

Pennsylvania . . . 25 25 Yes 9,700 15

Puerto Rico 3 . . . . . .

Rhode Island

South Carolina 5 15 15

South Dakota 5-10 1 1

Tennessee . . .i . . . . . . Yes 25,000 1000

Texas 7 10 10 3 <5% j Yes 52,000 1,200

Utah 7-10 42 42 1 48 Yes 500-600 6

Vermont 5 . . . Yes k

Virgin Islands e NA NA NA

Virginia 10 5-7 20-25 5 16 Yes 10,000 15

Washington 25 20 20 Yes d

West Virginia . . . 150 150 Yes 18,000 240

Wisconsin 29 3 3 Yes 1,600 30

Wyoming 10 7-10 7-10 Yes 200 2
Page 36 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

The notes below expand on the data in Table 13. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole

number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed disposition forms

have been rounded to the nearest 100.

. . . Not available.

a Administrative Office of Courts.

b It is anticipated that the backlog will be processed by June 30, 1997.

c All courts report through one statewide system.

d Only records that did not match are pending.

e The court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court cases

identified through ongoing delinquent monitoring programs; the State

repository does not receive disposition court forms, per se, for the purpose of

ongoing data entry.

f Generally information is received within 24 hours from the urban/large

automated courts which account for most of the felony trial courts, and the

information is entered immediately at the State repository.

g The majority are posted electronically the day of receipt.

h Dispositions from magistrate courts.

i

 There is no legal requirement to report final felony trial court dispositions to

the repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 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,

1995

Average

Average number of days

number of days between receipt Percent of cases

between of final felony disposed of

occurrence of court in State Number of

final felony disposition Number of represented by Backlog of unprocessed Number of

court and entry of courts currently courts entering court or partially person-days

disposition data into reporting by reporting by data into processed court needed t o

and receipt criminal history automated automated criminal history disposition eliminate

State of data database means means database forms backlog

Alabama . . . 5 1a 20% No

Alaska 30 7 No

American Samoa . . . . . . Yes >1,000 180

Arizona . . . . . . Yes 125,000 355

Arkansas 30 14 30 . . . Yes >1,500 30

California 65 77 54 14% Yes 1,202,000 4,830b

Colorado 2 1 22 100 No

Connecticut 10 300 38c 100 Yes 120,000 300

Delaware 1 1 . . . 100 No

District of

Columbia

1 1 1 75 No

Florida . . . . . . 63 93% Yes d

Georgia 45 80 68 10 Yes 200,000 200

Hawaii 14 1-14 12 67 Yes 113,000e 2,147

Idaho 30 2 44 100 No

Illinois 140 30 11 60 No

Indiana 20 25 Yes 25,000 200

Iowa 30 25 Yes 1,500 30

Kansas 90-120 30 Yes 25,000 200

Kentucky 90 60 Yes 8,500+ 20+

Louisiana . . . . . . Yes 120,000+ . . .

Maine 10 1 No

Maryland 14 0 51 98% No

Massachusetts <1 <1 72 100 No

Michigan . . . 5 42 38 Yes 8,800 30

Minnesota 12 2 86 99 No

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri 145 21 21 . . . Yes 10,000 34

Montana 102 30 Yes 2,500 13

Nebraska 15 >121 Yes 11,800 352

Nevada 30 . . . Yes 35,000 280

New Hampshire 7 14 Yes 300-1,000 10

New Jersey 7 7 470 90% No

New Mexico 30 30 Yes 400 36

New York <1 <1 f . . . <100 Yes 13,000 97

North Carolina <5 1 100 100 No

North Dakota 30 1-5 No

Ohio 21 4 2 . . . Yes . . . 10

Oklahoma 30 60 2 16% No

Oregon . . . . . . 26 65 Yes 21,100 132

Pennsylvania . . . 3 562 69 Yes 125,900 3,702

Puerto Rico 3 1 No

Rhode Island

South Carolina 10 <1 g 45 98% Yes h 300 5

South Dakota 30 14 . . . 100 No

Tennessee i

Texas 30 60 30 45% Yes 36,000 420

Utah 30 30 43 99 Yes 500 3

Vermont 10 60 Yes . . . 114

Virgin Islands 25 1 No

Virginia 90-120 20 21 11 Yes 15,000 20

Washington 15 25 3 . . . Yes 94,000 730

West Virginia . . . . . . Yes 7,000 70

Wisconsin 56 3 No

Wyoming 30-60 3-5 Yes 2,500 31
Page 38 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 14

The notes below expand on the data in Table 14. The explanatory information was provided by the 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.

* No legal requirement mandates the reporting of the information to the

State criminal history repository.

. . . Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Response reflects 1995 status; however, new forms are currently processed

within 30 days.

b Since 1995, most of the forms have been processed, and new forms are

currently processed within 30 days.

c The backlog is being processed currently; it is anticipated that the record

will be current with a 30-day turnaround by January 1997.

d State Department of Corrections.

e Currently there is very limited reporting from the correctional facilities to

the State repository. Except for some Intake Service Center information

(pretrial detainees), capture of correctional information is not done. The

answers on this table reflect this situation.

f For the State prison system.

g Information is entered only if arrest or subject is not indexed in the criminal

history file.

h The information is received immediately when it is entered on-line. If

fingerprints are requested when an on-line data match cannot be made, the time

increases to approximately 21 days.

i

 All State facilities report by automated means to the State Administrative

Office of the Courts; information is received from that office.

j

 The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is the only agency that reports

admission/release/status change information to the repository by automated

means. No information is collected from local correctional institutions.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 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, 1995

Percent of

Average admission/

number of status change/

days release

between activity

receipt of Number of occurring in Backlog of Number of

Average number of days correctional correctional State entering unprocessed

between admission of data and agencies represented by correctional or partially Number of

offender and receipt entry into currently agencies data into processed person-days

 of data from: criminal reporting by reporting by criminal custody- needed to

history automated automated history supervision eliminate

State State prisons Local jails database means means database reports backlog

Alabama 150 NA* 5 No

Alaska NA* NA*

American Samoa <1 . . . No

Arizona NA* NA*

Arkansas 30 . . . 20 No

California 200 200 200 a Yes 250,000b . . .c

Colorado 1 10 <3 2 100% No

Connecticut NA* NA*

Delaware 1 NA* 1 39 100 No

District of

Columbia

NA* NA* 1 . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . 1 100% No

Georgia 10 NA* 20 1d 100 Yes . . . 75

Hawaii e . . . . . . . . . Yes 8,900 169

Idaho 15 NA* 5 No

Illinois 45 45 12 No

Indiana 3-7 30 30 Yes 200 7

Iowa . . . . . . 5 Yes 100 3

Kansas 3-5 . . . 90 1f 80% Yes 1,000 100

Kentucky . . . . . . 30 Yes <300 <16

Louisiana . . . NA* 180 Yes 2,000 90

Maine 10* NA* 1 No

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 100% No

Massachusetts . . . 20 NA 10 75 No

Michigan 10 NA* 10 Yes 3,700 10

Minnesota 15 20 3 10 30 No

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . NA* 10 Yes 2,000 27

Montana NA* NA*

Nebraska 7 . . . 10 1 10% No

Nevada 10* NA* 10g

New Hampshire 14 14* 1-2 No

New Jersey 7 14 5 10 60% No

New Mexico . . . . . . 4 No

New York <1 <1 0-21h . . .i 100 No

North Carolina 15 NA* 5 . . . 100 No

North Dakota 30 30 1-5 Yes 50-100 2

Ohio 20 15 30 Yes . . . . . .

Oklahoma 5* NA* 2 No

Oregon 5* NA* 53+ Yes 1,900 23

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . No

Puerto Rico . . . NA* . . . Yes . . . 40

Rhode Island

South Carolina 5 5* 15 No

South Dakota 30 5-10 2-5 No

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . Yes . . . . . .

Texas NA* NA* 1 1j 100% No

Utah 30* NA* 30 No

Vermont NA* NA*

Virgin Islands NA* NA*

Virginia 42-56 42-56 7 1 100 No

Washington 14* NA* 14 1 . . . No

West Virginia 30 30 5 No

Wisconsin 29 . . . 14 No
Page 40 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 15

The notes below expand on the data in Table 15. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

* Lists generated are used to provide notice to criminal justice agencies in

order to obtain the missing dispositions.

a Disposition monitoring is conducted only for felonies.

b An audit program is being developed to meet the new statutory requirement

that the State criminal history repository and contributing agencies must be

audited, including disposition reporting.

c Interagency agreement and involvement of the agency contact person.

d Biennial audits.

e Training.

f

 Electronic interface with the courts for arrest and disposition reporting.

g Reports listing arrests with no dispositions; Help Desk.

h Returned to reporting agency by mail.

i

 Field and annual audits.

j

 Newsletter updates giving recognition to courts with high rates of

disposition reporting.

k Auditing and training.

l

 New administrative rules require auditing.

m Currently working on an audit function.

n Electronic mail, training and auditing.

o Contact courts electronically.

p Handgun sale and regulatory criminal record information background checks

are researched for accuracy and completeness.

q Automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) seminars.

r

 Repository personnel search the court records and find the missing

dispositions.

s A system to monitor disposition reporting will be implemented in the near

future.

t

 To be implemented in 1996.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 41

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

1995

Lists of arrests with

no dispositions

generated to monitor

State disposition reporting Field visits Form letters Telephone calls Other

Alabama X* a X X

Alaska Xb

American Samoa X* X X X Xc

Arizona Xd

Arkansas X X X X

California X X X Xe

Colorado X X X Xe

Connecticut Xf

Delaware X* X X X

District of

Columbia

Florida X* X X X Xe

Georgia X* X X X

Hawaii X* X X Xg

Idaho X

Illinois X* X X X

Indiana X X X X

Iowa X* X X Xh

Kansas X X X

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine X X X Xe

Maryland X X X Xi

Massachusetts Xe

Michigan X* Xj

Minnesota X X X Xk

Mississippi

Missouri X X Xe

Montana X X X Xl

Nebraska X X Xm

Nevada X X X Xd, e

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X* X X X Xn

New Mexico X* X X Xe

New York X X X X

North Carolina X* X X X Xo

North Dakota X* X X

Ohio X X X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X X Xp

Pennsylvania X X Xq

Puerto Rico X* X Xr

Rhode Island

South Carolina X X X

South Dakota X* X X X Xe

Tennessee Xe

Texass

Utah X X X Xe

Vermont X* X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X* t XXX

Washington X* X X X Xe

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming X* X X X
Page 42 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

The notes below expand on the data in Table 16. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Repositories were asked to list all methods which 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 repository for linking disposition information and

arrest/charge information also permit the linking of dispositions to particular

charges and/or specific counts.

a Name of court and court case number.

b Court case number, if known.

c By aliases.

d By arresting agency and booking numbers.

e Combination of originating agency identifier (ORI), arrest date, arrest

number and charge.

f Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number.

g Agency ORI number, Florida Department of Law Enforcement number, FBI

number.

h By State identification number (SID) and date of arrest.

i

 The date the crime occurred and research of the court and police records.

j

 Annual independent audits.

k Probation Central File (PCF) number.

l

 Date of birth.

m ORI number.

n Arrest offenses.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 43

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1995

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 Xa

Alaska* X X X X Xb

American Samoa* X X X X X Xc

Arizona* X X X X X X

Arkansas X X X X X X

California* X X X X X X Xd

Colorado* X X Xe

Connecticut* X

Delaware* X X X X X X Xf

District of

Columbia*

X XXX XXXf

Florida* X X X X X X Xg

Georgia* X Xh

Hawaii* X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X

Indiana X X X X X

Iowa* X X X X

Kansas* X X X X

Kentucky* X X X X X

Louisiana* X XX

Maine* X X X X X X Xi

Maryland* X X X X X X Xj

Massachusetts X X X X Xk

Michigan X

Minnesota XXXl

Mississippi

Missouri* X X X X X

Montana* X X X X X

Nebraska* X

Nevada* X X X

New Hampshire* X X X

New Jersey* X X X X X X Xm

New Mexico X X X X

New York* X X X

North Carolina X X X X X

North Dakota* X X X X X

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X X X X X X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X

Puerto Rico* X X X X

Rhode Island

South Carolina* X X X

South Dakota X X X X X X

Tennessee X X X X

Texas* X X X X X X Xi

Utah* X X X X X X

Vermont* X X X X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia* X X X

Washington* X X X X X X Xn

West Virginia* X X X

Wisconsin* X X X X

Wyoming* X X X X X X
Page 44 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 17

The notes below expand on the data in Table 17. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 A separate file of court dispositions that lack arrest information is

maintained.

b Court information is held in an automated form and periodically re-run

for linkage to the arrest.

c Data is placed in a suspense file and applied to the computerized criminal

history record when the arrest is entered (automated inquiry and update).

d The arresting agency is called and requested to submit the fingerprint

card.

e The court disposition is placed in a “pending” file and does not show on

the record.

f Due to backlogs, no disposition processing was done in 1995 other than

dispositions received from the Louisiana Department of Corrections, State

penitentiary, probation and parole information.

g Locate the court information in cases where there is custody

information, but the court and arrest information were not reported; then

add the court information followed by the custody information.

h Information is returned to the submitting agency.

i

 If fingerprints are involved.

j

 Correctional information is not linked to arrest information.

k Attempts are made to find the arrest and then link it to the disposition.

l

 An additional attempt to link the arrest is made by using prison

fingerprints in lieu of arrest fingerprints.

m If the fingerprint impression on the disposition form is identifiable, a

record is established.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 45

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

1995

 Create a “dummy” segment 

Court Enter information Estimated dispositions received which

Arrest dispositions without linkage to Enter no information cannot be linked to arrest/charge information 

assumed assumed arrest/charge data without linkage Percent 

from from From From Number of of final Number of Percent of

court correctional From correctional From co rrectional final court court correctional correctional

State disposition data courts agencies courts agencies Other dispositions dispositions dispositions dispositions

Alabama X X . . . <10% . . . <10%

Alaska X 600 6 * *

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona X . . . . . .

Arkansas X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

California X X 460,000 55%

Colorado X Xa

Connecticut X . . . 2

Delaware X X . . . 5 . . . 5%

District of

Columbia

* ** *

Florida X Xb

Georgia X X X Xc . . . . . . 4,000 13%

Hawaii X . . . . . . * *

Idaho X X X,d . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois X Xe 32,300 23% 9,000 23

Indiana X X X X 0 0 0 0

Iowa X . . . 8% * *

Kansas X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana f

Maine X Xg

Maryland X X . . . <4% . . . . . .

Massachusetts * * **

Michigan X X 46,100 22 . . . . . .

Minnesota X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . .

Missouri Xi X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska X X . . . 25% . . . 5%

Nevada X X Xh . . . <1 50 <1

New Hampshire X X . . . . . . * *

New Jersey Xi Xi 20,000 20% 300 1%

New Mexico X . . .. 2-4 * *

New York X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina X X 2,500 3 . . .i 100 j

North Dakota X X . . . 10% . . . 10%

Ohio * ** *

Oklahoma X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon X X Xk . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania X Xa, l 73,000 27 . . . . . .

Puerto Rico * ** *

Rhode Island

South Carolina X X . . . 7% * *

South Dakota X X . . . 5 . . . 1%

Tennessee X X X . . . . . . * *

Texas * ** *

Utah X X . . . 1% . . . 1%

Vermont * ** *

Virgin Islands X . . . 1 * *

Virginia X X Xm . . . <1 . . .i . . .i

Washington X X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin X X . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming * ** *
Page 46 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 18

The notes below expand on the data in Table 18. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

a Obtain missing information from courts and/or arresting agency to ensure

complete and accurate records before dissemination.

b Sight verification.

c Audit procedures are employed.

d Yearly audits and key verification.

e Annual independent audits.

f Computer comparison made with FBI computerized criminal history records.

g All data is dual entered.

h Quarterly audits are conducted as a result of regulatory programs.

i

 Verification of source document after entry.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 47

Table 18: Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1995

Random

sample

Manual review comparisons of

Manual review Manual of criminal State criminal 

of incoming double- record history Error lists

source checking Computer edit transcripts repository files returned to

documents before or after and verification before with stored reporting

State or reports data entry programs dissemination documents agencies Other

Alabama X X X X

Alaska X X X

American Samoa X X X X X X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X X Xa

California X X X Xb

Colorado X X X X X

Connecticut X X X X X

Delaware X X X X X X Xc

District of

Columbia

X X X X X XX

Florida X X X X X

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X

Illinois X X X Xd

Indiana X X X X X X

Iowa X X X X

Kansas X X X X X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X X X X

Maine X X X X Xa

Maryland X X X X X X Xe

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X X

Minnesota X X X

Mississippi

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X X X

New Jersey X X X X Xc

New Mexico X X X X

New York X X

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X Xf

Oklahoma X X X Xg

Oregon X X X Xh

Pennsylvania X X X

Puerto Rico X X X

Rhode Island

South Carolina X X

South Dakota X X X X X

Tennessee X X X

Texas X X X X

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands

Virginia X X X X Xi

Washington X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X
Page 48 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 19

The notes below expand on the data in Table 19. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Except for Wisconsin for which corrected data was submitted, the data

in the columns for 1989 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), Table 18. The data in the columns for 1993 are taken from

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

Criminal History Information Systems 1993 (January 1995), Table 19.

. . . Not available.

a All inquiries are logged; updates are limited to the last transaction.

b Audit program is under development.

c Random sample audits were scheduled to begin in February 1994, resources

permitting.

d Resources to conduct audits were limited.

e The expungement process was audited for 1990-92.

f Scheduled to begin fall 1996.

g Since June 30, 1992, the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC)

auditors have had to reduce the scope of their audits to satisfy National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) audit frequency requirements.

h Record transaction log only.

i

 All court records are compared with arrest information, and any

inconsistencies are resolved before entry on the rap sheet. If problems occur

frequently with a particular department, a visit to provide training is

recommended.

j

 A formal audit was not conducted; an agency was provided assistance on

improving its procedures.

k In-house audits only.

l

 Very limited.

m Law enforcement agencies that have terminals are audited every 18 months.

n Logs are maintained for inquiries and responses only.

o Field staff work with agencies on data quality.

p User agencies are on a 4-year auditing cycle. Data quality is one component

of the audit.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 49

Table 19: Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993 and 1995

Transaction logs maintained to Random sample audits of user

provide audit trail of inquiries, agencies conducted to ensure data

responses, record updates, modifications quality and compliance with laws Period of time

State 1989 1993 1995 1989 1993 1995 Date of last audit covered by audit

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes . . . . . .

Alaska Yes Yes a Yes a No No No b

American Samoa . . . No Yes . . . No No

Arizona Yes Yes Yes No No No

Arkansas No Yes Yes No No No

California Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes continual

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes c Yes 07/96 . . .

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 05/93 . . .

Delaware Yes Yes Yes No No d No

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 10/93 3 months

Florida Yes Yes Yes No No e No f

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes No g No

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 01/94-12/95 01/93-12/94

Idaho Yes Yes Yes No No No

Illinois Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 02/96 05-08/95

Indiana Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 02/95 01-12/94

Iowa Yes Yes Yes No No Yes continual 01/93-12/95

Kansas No Yes Yes Yes No No

Kentucky No Yes Yes No No No 01-12/83 01/76-12/83

Louisiana Yes No No No No No

Maine Yes h Yes h Yes h No i No i No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 07/96 01/93-12/95

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes No No No

Michigan Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 01-12/93 01-12/91

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes No Yesj Yes 10/96 6 months

Mississippi No No . . . No No . . .

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes k No No

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 01-12/93 entire database

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes No No No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 03/96 2 years

New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes No No No

New Jersey No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 01-12/93 01-12/89

New Mexico Yes Yes No No No No

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 08/90 01/70-09/88

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual 01-12/95

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 01-12/90 01/88-12/90

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . . . last 5 years

Oklahoma No Yes Yes No No No

Oregon Yes Yes No Yes No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12/94 01-12/92

Puerto Rico . . . Yes Yes . . . No Yes continual

Rhode Island No No No No

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes No Yesl Yesm continual

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 05/95 01-12/93

Tennessee Yes No Yes No Yes No 01-12/92 . . .

Texas Yes Yes n Yes No No o Yes 01-12/92 . . .

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12/95 01/94-01/95

Vermont Yes Yes n Yes No Yes Yes 01-12/93 01-12/90

Virgin Islands . . . No . . . . . . No . . .

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes p Yes p continual 01-12/91

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes No No Yes in progress entire database

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes No No No

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 07/96 01-12/95
Page 50 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in Table 20. The explanatory information was provided by the 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 Internal controls.

b Missing record resolution for years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

c The criminal history record system rewrite will address items 1-6; 8-11 are

already in place.

d Complete criminal history record system is scheduled for completion in 1997.

e Total system redesign took place before the audit.

f “Best practices” document underway.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 51

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1995

State criminal

history

repository

database Data quality

audited for Changes to audits are Initiatives are

completeness Period of improve data planned or underway to

within last Date of time covered Agency that quality were made scheduled for improve

State 5 years last audit by audit performed audit as a result of audit † next 3 years data quality†

Alabama

Alaska X 1993 1991-93 Other agency 3,7,8,9,10 X 1,2,3,5,6,8,10,11

American Samoa X 1996 1990-95 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Arizona X 1992 1987-91 Other agency 8,9,11 X 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11

Arkansas X

California

Colorado X 2,3,6

Connecticut 3,5,6,7,8,9,10

Delaware X 1992 1986-92 Other agency 2,3,5 X 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,11

District of Columbia X 1993 1989-93 Other agency X 1,2,3,5,6,8,9

Florida X 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

Georgia X 1992 1980-91 Other agency 1,8,11,12a X 1,2,3,5,8,11

Hawaii X 1992 1991-92 Other agency 1,2,3,8 X 1,2,3,6

Idaho X 1993 1988-92 Other agency 2,3,8,9,10,11 1,2,5,6,7,11

Illinois X 1995 1994 Other agency 2,3,6,8 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Indiana X 1995 1994 Other agency 3,4,5,10,11 3,4,5,10,11

Iowa X 1995-96 1991-current Other agency 3,4,6,8,10,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11

Kansas X 1994 random Other agency 3,6,8 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Kentucky 2,4

Louisiana X 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Maine X 1,2,3,4,5,10,11

Maryland X annual prior 3 years Other agency 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Massachusetts 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Michigan X 1993 1991 Other agency 4,5,6,8,9 X 1,3,5,6,7,10,11,12 b

Minnesota X 1992 1990 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Mississippi

Missouri X 1993 1970-93 Repository 1,3,10,11 X 1,2,3,6,10,11

Montana X 1995 prior 5 years Other agency 8 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11

Nebraska 1,4,11

Nevada X 1993 1987-93 Other agency 8,12 c 1,2,3,4,6,7,10,11,12d

New Hampshire X 1994 . . . Other agency 2 2,3,5,6,8,11

New Jersey X 1994 1993 Repository,

other agency

12e X 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,11

New Mexico X 1994 . . . Repository 4,8,10,11 X 1,3,4,6,7,8,10,11

New York X 1990 1985-87 Other agency 2,6 1,2,5,6,9,11,12 f

North Carolina 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9

North Dakota X 1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11

Ohio X . . . last 5 years Repository 2,4 X 2,3,5,10,11

Oklahoma X 1994 . . . Other agency 3,5,7,9,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11

Oregon X 1994 1989-93 Other agency 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11 X 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Pennsylvania X 1993 prior 12 months Other agency 3,11 X 3,4,5,6,7,8,11

Puerto Rico X 2,3,5,6,8,9

Rhode Island

South Carolina 2,3

South Dakota X 1993, 1995 1988-93 Repository 1,2,3,6,7,10,11 X 1,2,3,4,5

Tennessee X 1992 1991-92 Repository, 2,3,5,6,10,11

other agency

Texas X 1,2,3,4,5,6,8

Utah X 1995 1994-95 Other agency 3,5,6,8,10,11 X 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11

Vermont X 1993 1990 Other agency 2,4,5,8,9,11 2,5,6,8,9

Virgin Islands 2,3,5,6,7,9,10

Virginia X 1992 1991 Other agency 1,2,3,6,7,8,11 X 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,11,12

Washington X 1995 1989-92 Other agency X

West Virginia X 1993 entire

database

Other agency 2,4,8,9 2,5,6,7,8,9

Wisconsin X 1993 1992 Other agency 4,8,9 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Wyoming 3,4,11
Page 52 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 21

The notes below expand on the data in Table 21. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice

Information Services Division, FBI. The numbers have been rounded to the

nearest 100. The information is not applicable to States that are not currently

participating in III, and therefore, the cells for non-participant States are

blank.

* State was not a III participant by December 31, 1995, but has since become

one.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 53

Table 21: Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history

repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995

III records indexed with Percent of total records

the State’s identification III records maintained available through III

State (SID) pointers by the FBI for the State maintained by the State

Total 15,212,800 10,261,000

Alabama* 363,500

Alaska 21,600 64,700 25%

American Samoa

Arizona 488,500

Arkansas 29,900 140,600 18

California 2,585,900 823,800 76%

Colorado 311,100 129,400 71

Connecticut 113,000 116,900 49

Delaware 56,000 55,600 50

District of

Columbia

100,500

Florida 1,857,800 386,700 83%

Georgia 1,264,800 116,100 92

Hawaii 92,000

Idaho 82,400 27,900 75

Illinois 163,700 1,064,700 15

Indiana 299,600

Iowa* 229,300

Kansas 264,400

Kentucky 223,500

Louisiana 485,700

Maine 44,500

Maryland 608,400

Massachusetts 177,300

Michigan 619,300 62,600 91%

Minnesota 187,800 29,600 86

Mississippi 137,800

Missouri 233,400 172,200 57%

Montana 36,700 46,200 44

Nebraska 98,200

Nevada 49,500 208,400 19

New Hampshire 64,700

New Jersey 857,400 41,000 95%

New Mexico 196,700

New York 1,916,500 173,900 92

North Carolina 507,000 30,100 94

North Dakota 4,300 28,500 13%

Ohio 571,400 140,700 80

Oklahoma 36,800 220,800 14

Oregon 313,100 65,400 83

Pennsylvania 572,100 297,100 66

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 69,800

South Carolina 583,300 40,000 94%

South Dakota 13,000 80,200 14

Tennessee 412,800

Texas 1,621,700 150,900 91%

Utah 41,600 136,300 23

Vermont 29,700

Virgin Islands

Virginia 425,900 217,600 66

Washington 94,800 404,300 23%

West Virginia 95,000

Wisconsin 289,800

Wyoming 41,000 17,100 71
Page 54 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Explanatory Notes for Table 22

The notes below expand on the data in Table 22. The explanatory information was provided by the respondent.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice

Information Services Division, FBI. Numbers have been rounded to the

nearest 100.

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF) and submits

only the first fingerprint card of an individual to the FBI. The number of

fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI, therefore, is substantially less that the

number received by the State criminal history for processing.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Data Tables • Page 55

Table 22: Fingerprint cards processed and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1995

 Number of fingerprint cards processed by the FBI, FY 1995 

Number of final

Criminal justice Noncriminal dispositions received

State purposes purposes by the FBI, FY 1995

Total 4,439,500 379,400 5,171,600

Alabama 54,300 2,300 49,300

Alaska 12,300 1,000 17,200

American Samoa

Arizona 85,800 15,000 69,100

Arkansas 51,200 5,500 198,300

California 738,000 56,700 3,110,500

Colorado 87,500 6,400 <100

Connecticut 31,900 3,400 7,200

Delaware 22,900 2,000 9,300

District of Columbia 23,800 29,200 8,500

Florida* 219,600 27,800 1,000

Georgia 218,400 14,400 113,800

Hawaii 15,100 1,800 3,600

Idaho 22,400 2,100 200

Illinois 270,500 13,100 14,000

Indiana 34,800 4,400 10,000

Iowa 32,700 1,200 46,600

Kansas 47,400 2,200 12,400

Kentucky 28,900 1,700 5,600

Louisiana 66,700 3,500 5,000

Maine 3,200 500 1,100

Maryland 135,300 10,900 1,700

Massachusetts 15,300 2,800 200

Michigan 88,600 7,500 200

Minnesota 36,600 1,700 100

Mississippi 23,100 2,800 4,600

Missouri 81,800 6,400 66,200

Montana 18,400 400 11,900

Nebraska 11,600 1,000 212,900

Nevada 62,900 2,700 100

New Hampshire 8,700 800 2,900

New Jersey* 119,200 11,800 400

New Mexico 34,000 2,300 6,900

New York 527,200 33,300 196,000

North Carolina* 37,500 11,500 400

North Dakota 5,100 <100 3,900

Ohio 138,200 5,700 38,100

Oklahoma 55,500 2,400 18,200

Oregon* 28,800 5,200 600

Pennsylvania 154,800 8,100 80,000

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 7,900 200 3,100

South Carolina 140,300 6,400 117,400

South Dakota 18,300 500 9,900

Tennessee 53,600 5,900 8,800

Texas 239,400 29,700 35,300

Utah 31,200 1,400 <100

Vermont 5,500 200 2,700

Virgin Islands

Virginia 108,600 12,100 62,400

Washington 110,600 6,300 577,900

West Virginia 7,600 900 15,500

Wisconsin 57,000 3,400 2,100

Wyoming 9,500 800 8,600
Page 56 • Methodology Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995

Methodology

This report is based upon

the results from a survey

conducted of the

administrators of the State

criminal history record

repositories in July -

December 1995. A total of

54 jurisdictions were

surveyed, including the 50

States, American Samoa,

the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands. Responses

were received from 53

jurisdictions. Rhode Island

did not submit a complete

survey response.

The five-part survey

instrument consisted of 235

questions, having several

parts. The survey was

designed to collect

comprehensive data in five

major subject areas:

criminal history information

systems; searching methods

and policies regarding

firearms purchases; the

maintenance and use of

civil justice information for

purposes other than

determining firearms

eligibility; the National

Child Protection Act of

1993, as amended; and

States’ participation in the

Interstate Identification

Index (III) and the National

Fingerprint File (NFF). The

14 topical areas covered in

this report are 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 fingerprintsupported 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 prosecutorreported information in

criminal history databases;

• level and timeliness of

disposition reporting by the

courts to the State

criminalhistory 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 the State

repositories to ensure

accuracy of the data in the

criminal history record

databases; and

• participation of the States

in III and NFF.

The Federal Bureau of

Investigation also provided

information in two areas.

The information reported by

the FBI relates to the

number of fingerprint cards

and dispositions received by

the FBI during FY 1995 and

the number of criminal

history records of the States

participating in the

Interstate Identification

Index system that are

maintained by the State

criminal history repositories

and the number of records

maintained by the FBI for

the States.

Following the receipt of the

responses, all data were

automated. Survey

respondents were requested

to respond to particular

questions relating to the

current data compared to

data from earlier surveys.

Respondents also were

permitted a final review of

the data after it was placed

in the tables that appear in

this report.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1995 Methodology • Page 57

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 1989 was

taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Survey of

Criminal History Information

Systems (March 1991).

Data reported for 1993 was

taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Survey of

Criminal History Information

Systems, 1993 (January

1995).