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

Survey of State Criminal

History Information Systems,

2001

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Criminal Justice Information Policy
 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

World Wide Web site:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence A. Greenfeld

Director

World Wide Web site:

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

For information contact:

BJS Clearinghouse

1-800-732-3277
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal

History Information

Systems, 2001

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report

August 2003, NCJ 200343
ii Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Lawrence Greenfeld

Director

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

Information and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive

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

Director. Support for the project was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist, Corporate

Communications. 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

view 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 2003.

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 State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 iii

Contents

List of data tables iv

Glossary of terms v

Introduction 1

Major findings 1

Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal

history files 1

Level of disposition reporting 2

Level of felony flagging 2

Timeliness of trial court disposition data 2

Detailed findings 3

Status of State criminal history files 3

Completeness of data in State criminal history

repository 4

Disposition data 4

Correctional data 5

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 5

—Arrests 5

—Disposition data 6

—Admission to correctional facilities 6

Procedures to improve data quality 6

Linking of arrests and dispositions 7

Other data quality procedures 7

Audits 8

Data tables 11

Methodology 56
iv Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

List of data tables

1. Overview of State criminal history record

systems, December 31, 2001 13

2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State

criminal history file, 1997, 1999 and 2001 15

3. Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1995, 1997, 1999,

and 2001 17

4. Automation of master name index and criminal

history file, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 19

5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal

history repository, 2001 21

6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1993, 1997,

1999 and 2001 23

7. Notice to State criminal history repository of

release of arrested persons without charging,

1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 25

8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition

reporting to State criminal history repository,

1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 27

9. Policies/practices of State criminal history

repository regarding modification of felony

convictions, 2001 29

10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and

linkage to records maintained by State criminal

history repository, 2001 31

11. Probation and parole data in State criminal

history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

33

12. Average number of days to process arrest data

submitted to State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog, 2001 35

13. Average number of days to process disposition data

submitted to State criminal history repository and

current status of backlog, 2001 37

14. Average number of days to process correctional

admission data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current status of backlog,

2001 39

15. Procedures employed by State criminal history

repository to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 2001 41

16. Methods used to link disposition information to

arrest/charge information on criminal history

record, 2001 43

17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made

between court or correctional information in the

criminal history database, 2001 45

18. Strategies employed by State criminal history

repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal

history database, 2001 47

19. Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001 49

20. Data quality audits of State criminal history

repository, 2001 51

21. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification

Index (III) participants maintained by the State

criminal history repository and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, March 1, 2003 53

22. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes, 2001 55
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Glossary v

Glossary of terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS): An automated system for searching

fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint images.

AFIS computer equipment can scan fingerprint

impressions (or utilize electronically transmitted

fingerprint images) and automatically extract and

digitize ridge details and other identifying

characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the

computer’s searching and matching components to

distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or even

millions of fingerprints previously scanned and stored

in digital form in the computer’s memory. The

process eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint

files and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print

processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal

justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment

also can be used to identify individuals from “latent”

(crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of

single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint

images generated by AFIS equipment can be

transmitted electronically to remote sites, eliminating

the necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and

providing remote access to AFIS fingerprint files.

Central Repository: The database (or the agency

housing the database) that maintains criminal history

records on all State offenders. Records include

fingerprint files and files containing identification

segments and notations of arrests and dispositions.

The central repository is generally responsible for

State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly

serves as the central control terminal for contact with

FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a

national record check (for criminal justice or firearm

check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central

repository. Although usually housed in the

Department of Public Safety, the central repository is

maintained in some States by the State Police or other

State agency.

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI)

or Criminal History Record Information

System: A record (or the system maintaining such

records) that includes individual identifiers and

describes an individual’s arrests and subsequent

dispositions. Criminal history records do not include

intelligence or investigative data or sociological data

such as drug use history. CHRI systems usually

include information on juveniles if they are tried as

adults in criminal courts.

Most, however, do not include data describing

involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice

system. Data in CHRI systems are usually backed by

fingerprints of the record subjects to provide positive

identification. State legislation varies concerning

disclosure of criminal history records for noncriminal

justice purposes.

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history

records are complete, accurate and timely. In addition,

accessibility sometimes is considered a data quality

factor. The key concern in data quality is the

completeness of records and the extent to which

records include dispositions as well as arrest and charge

information. Other concerns include the timeliness of

data reporting to State and Federal repositories, the

timeliness of data entry by the repositories, the

readability of criminal history records and the ability

to have access to the records when necessary.

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category

of offenses for which fingerprints and criminal history

information are accepted by the FBI and entered in the

Bureau’s files, including the III system. Serious

misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain minor

offenses, such as drunkenness or minor traffic

offenses.

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

history records. Under III, the FBI maintains an

identification index to persons arrested for felonies or

serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law. The

index includes identification information, (such as

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

State Identification Numbers (SID) from each State

holding information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide are

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

Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications lines.

Searches are made on the basis of name and other

identifiers. The process is entirely automated and takes

approximately 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 September 30, 2000, 41 States participate in III.

Responses are provided from FBI files when the State

originating the record is not a participant in III.
Glossary vi Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 

Participation requires that the State maintain an

automated criminal history record system capable of

interfacing with the III system and capable of

responding automatically to all interstate and

Federal/State record requests.

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of

juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal

history record systems do not accept such records,

which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and

which usually are confidential under State law.

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

accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the

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

required to submit such records to the FBI

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject

identification index maintained by criminal history

record repositories that includes names and other

identifiers for each person about whom a record is held

in the systems. As of 2001, only the U.S. Virgin

Islands did not have at least a partially automated

MNI; almost all jurisdictions (48 States & Puerto

Rico) had fully automated MNIs. The automated name

index is the key to rapidly identifying persons who

have criminal records for such purposes as presale

firearm checks, criminal investigations or bailsetting.

MNIs may include “felony flags,” which indicate

whether record subjects have arrests or convictions for

felony offenses.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An

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

includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing persons,

stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen property,

including firearms. Access to NCIC files is through

central control terminal operators in each State that are

connected to NCIC via dedicated telecommunications

lines maintained by the FBI. Local agencies and

officers on the beat can access the State control

terminal via the State law enforcement network.

Inquiries are based on name and other nonfingerprint

identification. Most criminal history inquiries of the

III system are made via the NCIC telecommunications

system. NCIC data may be provided only for criminal

justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For

criminal history searches, this includes criminal

justice employment, employment by Federally

chartered or insured banking institutions or securities

firms, and use by State and local governments for

purposes of employment and licensing pursuant to a

State statute approved by the U.S. Attorney General.

Inquiries regarding presale firearm checks are included

as criminal justice uses.

National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact

which establishes formal procedures and governance

structures for the use of the Interstate Identification

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

criminal history data among States for noncriminal

justice purposes and to eliminate the need for the FBI

to maintain duplicate data about State offenders. Under

the Compact, the operation of this system is overseen

by a policymaking council comprised of Federal and

State officials. The key concept underlying the

Compact is agreement among all signatory States that

all criminal history information (except sealed records)

will be provided in response to noncriminal justice

requests from another State — regardless of whether

the information being requested would be permitted to

be disseminated for a similar noncriminal justice

purpose within the State holding the data. (That is, the

law of the State that is inquiring about the data —

rather than the law of the State that originated the data

— governs its use.) In some cases, ratification of the

Compact will have the effect of amending existing

State legislation governing interstate record

dissemination, since most States do not currently

authorize dissemination to all of the Federal agencies

and out-of-State users authorized under the Compact.

At present, noncriminal justice inquiries are handled

by the FBI from its files of voluntarily contributed

State arrest and disposition records. This requires that

the FBI maintain duplicates of State records and

generally results in less complete records being

provided, since FBI files of State records are not

always complete due to reporting deficiencies. The

Compact was passed by Congress and signed into law

by the President in October 1998. The Compact

became effective in April 1999, following ratification

by two State legislatures, those being Montana on

April 8, 1999 and Georgia on April 28, 1999. Since

that time, 12 additional States have entered into the

Compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida (June 1999);

Colorado (March 2000); Iowa (April 2000);

Connecticut (June 2000); South Carolina (June 2000);

Arkansas (February 2001); Kansas (April 2001);

Alaska (May 2001); Oklahoma (May 2001); Maine

(June 2001); New Jersey (January 2002); Minnesota

(March 2002); and Arizona (April 2002).

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

forward only the first-arrest fingerprints of an

individual to the FBI accompanied by other

identification data such as name and date of birth.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Glossary vii

Fingerprints for subsequent arrests are not forwarded.

Disposition data on the individual also is retained at

the State repository and is not forwarded to the FBI.

Upon receipt of the first-arrest fingerprint cards (or

electronic images), the FBI enters the individual’s

fingerprint impressions in the NFF and enters the

person’s name and identifiers in the III, together with

an FBI Number and a State Identification (SID)

Number for each State maintaining a record on the

individual. Charge and disposition information on

State offenders are maintained only at the State level,

and State repositories are required to respond to all

authorized record requests concerning these individuals

for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice

purposes. States 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 has been implemented in

five States: Florida, New Jersey, Montana, North

Carolina and Oregon.

Positive Identification: Identification of an

individual using biometric characteristics that 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, or other personal identifiers 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.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 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 as accurately reflect

the status of the Nation’s

criminal history records as

the current data considered

alone.

Introduction

This report is based upon the

results from a two-part survey

conducted of the administrators

of the State criminal history

record repositories in January –

July 2002. Fifty-three

jurisdictions were surveyed,

including the 50 States, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses were received from all

53 jurisdictions. Throughout this

report, the 50 States will be

referred to as “States”; the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands will

be referred to as “territories,”

consistent with prior surveys;

“Nation” refers collectively to

both the States and territories.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation was the source for

information relating to the

number of criminal history

records of the States participating

in the Interstate Identification

Index (III) system that are

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories and the

number of records maintained by

the FBI for the States, as of

March 1, 2003.

Major Findings

Level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history files

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2001 (Table 1):

• Forty-nine reporting States, the

District of Columbia and Puerto

Rico have automated at least

some records in the criminal

history record file.

• Twenty-seven States (Arizona,

Colorado, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky,

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,

New Jersey, New Mexico, New

York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, Washington,

Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and

Puerto Rico have fully automated

criminal history files.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 2001

(Table 4):

• All 50 reporting States and

Puerto Rico have fully automated

master name indexes. The Virgin

Islands does not maintain a

master name index.

• The Virgin Islands has no

automated criminal history files.
Page 2 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

• 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 18

States. In three States (Kansas,

Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and

the District of Columbia, only the

new information is automated. In

Delaware, the new information is

added to the manual file. In

California, if a manual record

contains seven or more arrests,

only the new information is

automated; thus creating a

“hybrid record” that is part

manual and part automated. If the

manual record contains less than

seven arrests, the entire record is

automated.

Level of disposition reporting

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2001 (Table 1):

• Sixteen States (California,

Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,

Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New

Jersey, New York, North Dakota,

Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont

and Virginia) and Puerto Rico,

representing approximately 43%

of the Nation’s population (based

on 53 jurisdictions) and 43% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 80% or more

arrests within the last 5 years in

the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

• A total of 21 States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands,

representing approximately 54%

of the Nation’s population and

53% 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 24 States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands,

representing approximately 59%

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.

• When arrests older than 5 years

are considered, 14 States and

Puerto Rico, representing 27% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 80% or more

arrests in the entire criminal

history database have final

dispositions recorded. Twenty

States and Puerto Rico,

representing 46% of the Nation’s

records, report 70% or more

arrests in the entire criminal

history database have final

dispositions recorded. Twentyseven States, Puerto Rico and the

Virgin Islands, representing 59%

of the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 60% or more

arrests in the entire database have

final dispositions recorded.

Number of final dispositions

reported to State criminal history

repository, 2001 (Table 3):

• Thirty-nine States and Puerto

Rico provided data on the

number of final dispositions

reported to their criminal history

repositories indicating that nearly

6.8 million final dispositions

were reported in 2001. The

responding jurisdictions represent

approximately 80% of the

Nation’s population.

Level of felony flagging

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 2001 (Table 1):

• Thirty-nine States currently

flag some or all felony

convictions in their criminal

history databases.

• Twelve States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands

collect sufficient data to permit

them to flag at least some

previously unflagged convictions.

Timeliness of trial court

disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2001

(Table 13):

• An average of 18 days

separates the final court

dispositions and receipt of that

information by the State criminal

history repositories, ranging from

1 day in Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, North Carolina and Puerto

Rico, to 80 days in North Dakota.

• An average of 29 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 330 days in Washington.

Twenty-four of the 40 reporting

jurisdictions enter the data in less

than 10 days.

• Twenty-seven States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands

indicate having backlogs in

entering disposition data into the

criminal history database.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Introduction • Page 3

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal history

files

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal

history file, 2001 (Table 2):

• Over 64 million criminal

history records were in the

criminal history files of the State

criminal history repositories on

December 31, 2001. (An

individual offender may have

records in more than one State.)

• Eighty-nine percent of the

criminal history records

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories are

automated. Approximately 6.8

million, or 11%, are not

automated.

• The Virgin Islands has no

automated criminal history files.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 2001

(Table 4):

• All 50 States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico have

automated at least some records

in either the criminal history file

or the master name index.

• Forty-nine States and Puerto

Rico have fully automated master

name indexes. Maine and the

District of Columbia have

partially automated master name

indexes. The Virgin Islands does

not maintain a master name

index.

• Of those States maintaining

partially automated criminal

history files, when an offender

with a prior manual record is

arrested, the prior manual record

is subsequently automated in 18

States. In three States (Kansas,

Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and

the District of Columbia, only the

new information is automated. In

Delaware, the new information is

added to the manual file. In

California, if a manual record

contains seven or more arrests,

only the new information is

automated; thus, creating a

“hybrid record” that is part

manual and part automated. If the

manual record contains less than

seven arrests, the entire record is

automated.

Data required to be submitted to

State criminal history repository,

2001 (Table 5):

• Thirty-two States and the

Virgin Islands require

prosecutors to report to State

criminal history repositories their

decisions to decline prosecution

in criminal cases.

• Forty-five States, the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico and the

Virgin Islands require felony trial

courts to report the dispositions

of felony cases to the State

criminal history repository.

• State prison admission on

felony cases must be reported to

the State criminal history

repository in 37 States, the

District of Columbia and Puerto

Rico. State prison release

information on felony cases must

be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 28 States,

the District of Columbia and

Puerto Rico.

• Admission data on felons

housed in local correctional

facilities must be reported to the

State criminal history repository

in 26 States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Release data on felons housed in

local correctional facilities must

be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 15 States,

the District of Columbia and

Puerto Rico.

• The reporting of probation

information is mandated in 31

States, the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico, while 30 States,

the District of Columbia and

Puerto Rico require reporting of

parole information.

Arrest records with fingerprints,

2001 (Table 6):

• During 2001, almost 9.7

million fingerprint cards and

livescan images were submitted

to the State criminal history

repositories.

• Forty-two States and Puerto

Rico, representing 94% of the

Nation’s population, have records

that are 99-100% supported. A

total of 44 States, or an additional

2 States, and Puerto Rico,

representing 95% of the Nation’s

population, have records that are

at least 90% fingerprintsupported. In 4 States and the

District of Columbia, some of the

arrests in the criminal history

files, ranging from 30% to 85%,

are fingerprint-supported. In

Massachusetts, there are no

fingerprint-supported criminal

history records.
Page 4 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Completeness of data in State

criminal history repository

Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 2001

(Table 7):

• Thirty-five 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.

Disposition data

Completeness of prosecutor and

court disposition reporting to

State criminal history repository,

2001 (Table 8):

• Eighteen States (Arkansas,

Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia,

Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,

Minnesota, Nebraska, New

Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon,

Rhode Island, South Carolina,

South Dakota, Utah and

Vermont) and Puerto Rico report

that criminal history repositories

receive final felony trial court

depositions for 80% or more of

the cases.

Ten States (Colorado,

Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,

Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon,

Rhode Island, South Carolina and

Utah) estimate that they receive

notice in 100% of the cases.

A. A total of 20 States, or 2

additional States (California and

Hawaii) and Puerto Rico report

that dispositions in 70% or more

of the cases are received by the

State criminal history

repositories.

B. A total of 23 States, or 3

additional States (Delaware,

Montana and Wisconsin) and

Puerto Rico report that

dispositions in at least 57% of the

cases in their States are received

by the State criminal history

repositories.

• Of the respondents indicating

that there is a legal requirement

for prosecutors to notify the State

criminal history record repository

of declinations to prosecute, 5

States (Delaware, Maryland, New

Jersey, Oklahoma and Rhode

Island) estimate that notice is

received in 100% of the cases.

• Thirteen States were able to

estimate the number of

prosecutor declinations received.

The number of declinations

received range from 1 in

Mississippi to 197,500 in

California.

Policies/practices of State

criminal history repository

regarding modification of felony

convictions, 2001 (Table 9):

• Expungements: Twenty-four

States, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico and the Virgin

Islands have statutes that provide

for the expungement of felony

convictions. In 11 States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands, the

record is destroyed by the State

criminal history repository. In

Minnesota, although State law

does not provide for destroying

conviction data, the State does

get orders issued pursuant to the

inherent authority of the courts.

In 11 States, the record is

retained with the action noted on

the record. Three States seal the

record. In Virginia, although the

State law does not provide for

expungement of convictions, if

expungement orders are received,

the files are sealed. In

Mississippi, records that are

expunged are deleted from the

database; however, the State

criminal history repository is

authorized to maintain an internal

record of action in some cases.

• Setting aside of convictions:

Thirty-eight jurisdictions have

statutes that provide for setting

aside felony convictions. In 2

States, South Dakota and

Tennessee, the record is

destroyed. In 33 jurisdictions (31

States, the District of Columbia

and Puerto Rico), the record is

retained with the action noted. In

Nevada and Michigan, the record

is sealed. In Mississippi, records

are deleted from the database;

however, the State criminal

history repository is authorized to

maintain an internal record of

action in some cases.

• Pardons: All reporting

jurisdictions (50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands) have

statutes that provide for the

granting of a pardon. In 45 States

and the District of Columbia, the

criminal history record is retained

with the action noted. In 6

jurisdictions (4 States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands), the

record is destroyed. In

Mississippi, records are deleted

from the database; however, the

State criminal history repository

is authorized to maintain an

internal record of action in some

cases.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Introduction • Page 5

• Restoration of civil rights:

Forty-two States and the District

of Columbia have legal

provisions for the restoration of a

convicted felon’s civil rights. In

the majority of those jurisdictions

(35 States and the District of

Columbia), the record is retained

with the action noted. In 2 States,

the record is destroyed. In

Missouri, no action is taken. In

Alaska and Maryland, although

there are legal provisions for

restoration of civil rights, such

actions are not reported to the

State criminal history repository.

In Mississippi, records are

deleted from the database;

however, the State criminal

history repository is authorized to

maintain an internal record of

action in some cases.

Correctional data

Fingerprinting of incarcerated

offenders and linkage to records

maintained by State criminal

history repository, 2001 (Table

10):

• In 38 States and Puerto Rico,

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 26 States and Puerto

Rico have the same legal

requirement for reporting by

local jails.

• In jurisdictions where State

correctional facilities are legally

required to report information or

the information is reported

voluntarily, the majority (31

States and Puerto Rico) estimate

that in at least 98% of the cases,

admission information is reported

to the State repository. Twentynine of those States and Puerto

Rico estimate that 100% of the

admissions are reported to the

repository. Four States estimate a

reporting rate of less than 98%,

ranging from less than 5% in

Pennsylvania to 90% in

Washington.

• For reporting from local jails,

where required by law or

completed voluntarily, 12 States

and Puerto Rico report that 95%

or more of the admissions are

reported to the State repositories.

Four States report rates of less

than 95%, ranging from less than

5% in Pennsylvania to 87% in

Montana.

• In 44 States and Puerto Rico,

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,

2001 (Table 11):

• Of the 20 responding

jurisdictions where reporting of

probation data is legally required

or voluntarily reported, 10

estimate that at least 95% of the

cases in which probation is

ordered are reported to the State

criminal history repository by the

probation authority. One

additional State (Arkansas)

reports that in at least 60% of the

cases, the State criminal history

repository receives probation

information. Arkansas also

reported that it expected to

receive 100% reporting by late

2002 with the implementation of

a new system. Six States report

that information is received on

less than 60% of the cases. In

Texas, probation sentences are

reported; releases are not.

• Seventeen jurisdictions (16

States and Puerto Rico) where

reporting of parole data is legally

required or voluntarily reported,

estimate that parole information

is reported in 95% or more of the

cases. Four States report

receiving parole information in

less than 95 % of the cases.

Timelines of data in State

criminal history repository

—Arrests

Average number of days to

process arrest data submitted to

State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog,

2001 (Table 12):

• Based on the responses of 48

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between arrest and

receipt of arrest data and

fingerprints by the State criminal

repositories is 13.7, ranging from

1 day or less in 5 States and the

District of Columbia to 169 in

Mississippi. The majority (30)

receive the data in 10 days or

less.

• Based on the responses of 47

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between receipt of

fingerprints by the State criminal

history repository and entry into

the master name index by the

State criminal history repositories

is 14.4, ranging from 0 in

Delaware to 180 days in

Oklahoma. The majority (36) of

jurisdictions enter the data in 10

days or less.
Page 6 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

• Based on the responses of 48

jurisdictions, the average number

of days between receipt of

fingerprints by the State criminal

history repository and entry of

arrest data into the criminal

history databases is 18.8, ranging

from 0 in Delaware to 180 in

Oklahoma. The majority (34) of

jurisdictions enter the data in 10

days or less.

• Twenty-six States indicate that

they have, or had at the time of

the survey, backlogs in entering

arrest data into the criminal

history database. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs

range from 2 days in Rhode

Island to clear an estimated 200

unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards, to

over 12,600 in Washington to

clear an estimated 129,000

unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards.

—Disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2001

(Table 13):

• An average of 17.5 days

separates the final court

dispositions and receipt of that

information by the State criminal

history repositories, ranging from

1 day in Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, North Carolina and Puerto

Rico, to 80 days in North Dakota.

• An average of 29.5 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 330 days in Washington.

Twenty-four of the 39 reporting

jurisdictions enter the data in less

than 10 days.

• Twenty-seven States, Puerto

Rico and the Virgin Islands

indicate having backlogs in

entering disposition data into the

criminal history database,

ranging from 5 days to clear a

backlog of 200 dispositions in

Utah, to over 6,300 days to clear

338,000 dispositions in

Washington.

—Admission to correctional

facilities

Average number of days to

process correctional admission

data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 2001

(Table 14):

• Based on 33 applicable

jurisdictions providing responses,

the average number of days

between the admission of

offenders to State correctional

facilities and receipt of the

information by the State criminal

history repository is 13, ranging

from 1 day or less in 9 States, to

60 days in North Carolina.

• Based on the responses of 21

applicable States, the average

number of days between the

release of offenders from State

correctional facilities and receipt

of the information by the State

criminal history repository is 16,

ranging from 1 day or less in 5

States, to 30-45 days in Florida.

• The responses from 31

applicable jurisdictions indicate

that the average number of days

between the receipt of

correctional information and

entry by the State criminal

history repository into the

criminal history database is 14.5,

ranging from 1 day or less in 9

jurisdictions, to 90 days in

Illinois.

• Thirteen jurisdictions indicate

that they have or had backlogs in

entering the correctional

information into the criminal

history databases. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs

range from 10 in Nebraska to

clear an estimated 120

unprocessed or partially

processed custody-supervision

forms, to 666 person-days in

Missouri to clear an estimated

100,000 unprocessed or partially

processed custody-supervision

forms.

Procedures to improve data

quality

Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 2001

(Table 15):

• The method most used to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting is telephone

calls, conducted by 42 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands.

• Twenty-seven States, the

District of Columbia and Puerto

Rico generate lists of arrests with

missing dispositions as a means

of monitoring disposition

reporting. Twenty of those

jurisdictions use the lists to

provide notice to criminal justice

agencies in order to obtain the

missing dispositions.

• Thirty-three States generate

form letters to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting.

• Thirty States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico report

using field visits to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Introduction • Page 7

• Other jurisdictions report using

such methods as audits, training,

and electronic contact as methods

to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

Linking of arrests and

dispositions

Methods used to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record, 2001 (Table 16):

• Thirty-three States, the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the

Virgin Islands utilize methods for

linking disposition information

and arrest/charge information,

which also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges

and/or specific counts.

• All responding jurisdictions

report using at least one method

for linking disposition

information and arrest/charge

information on criminal history

records, and nearly every

jurisdiction indicates multiple

mechanisms to ensure linkage:

- Thirty-two States, the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico

employ a unique tracking number

for the individual subject.

- Thirty-seven States, the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico use

a unique arrest event identifier.

- Fifteen States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico utilize

a unique charge identifier.

- Thirty-seven States, the District

of Columbia and the Virgin

Islands use the arrest date to link

disposition data.

- Thirty-five States, the District

of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the

Virgin Islands use the subject’s

name as a method to link

disposition information to arrest

information.

- Twenty-three States, the District

of Columbia and Puerto Rico

report using the reporting

agency’s case number.

- Individual jurisdictions also

report using other methods, such

as the originating agency (ORI)

number, the Social Security

number and other unique

combinations of numbers.

Procedure followed when linkage

cannot be made between court or

correctional information in the

criminal history database, 2001

(Table 17):

• Forty-seven jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive final

court dispositions that cannot be

linked to arrest information in the

criminal history database.

The jurisdictions vary in the

percentage of court dispositions

that cannot be linked to arrest

cycles in the criminal database

from less than 1% in Nevada to

50% in Indiana. Seven States

(Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, North Carolina,

Vermont, West Virginia and

Wyoming) report that all final

court dispositions can be linked

to the arrest cycle in the criminal

history database.

• Thirty-four 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 a

“minimal amount” in Nevada and

less than 1% in Montana and

South Dakota, to 100% in

Wisconsin, where correctional

information is posted to the

criminal history record as an

independent event.

• The jurisdictions use a variety

of procedures when a linkage

cannot be established. Seven

States create “dummy” arrest

segments from court disposition

records; five States create

“dummy” court segments from

custody records. Three States and

the District of Columbia enter

court information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior arrest, and 15 States enter

custody information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior court disposition. Twentythree States and the Virgin

Islands do not enter the unlinked

court information. Fifteen States

do not enter unlinked custody

information. Fifteen States utilize

other procedures, such as

returning the information to the

originating or contributing

agency or using temporary or

pending files until a match can be

established.

Other data quality procedures

Strategies employed by State

criminal history repository to

ensure accuracy of data in

criminal history database, 2001

(Table 18):

• To prevent the entry and

storage of inaccurate data and to

detect and correct inaccurate

entries in the criminal history

database, all 50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico

and the Virgin Islands use at least

one strategy to circumvent this

problem.

• Forty-three States, the District

of Columbia and the Virgin

Islands manually review

incoming source documents or

reports.

• The other most-frequently

utilized strategy is the use of

computer edit and verification

programs employed by 42 States,

the District of Columbia and

Puerto Rico.
Page 8 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

• Twenty-nine States and the

Virgin Islands perform manual

double-checking before data

entry. Manual review of criminal

record transcripts before

dissemination is performed in 28

States and the Virgin Islands.

• Twenty-one States and the

District of Columbia perform

random sample comparisons of

the State criminal history files

with stored documents.

• Twenty-one States and Puerto

Rico generate error lists that are

returned to the reporting

agencies.

• Seventeen States use various

strategies, such as audits and

contacting contributing agencies

for more information.

Audits

Audit activities of State criminal

history repository, 2001 (Table

19):

• Forty-nine States and Puerto

Rico maintain transaction logs to

provide an audit trail of all

inquiries, responses and record

updates or modifications.

• More than half of the

repositories, a total of 35 States,

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, 2001

(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 27 States to

determine the level of accuracy

and completeness of the criminal

history file.

• Of the States where audits were

performed, 21 States report that

another agency conducted the

audit; the repository conducted

its own audit in 3 States; and 3

States indicated that auditing was

conducted by both an outside

agency and the repository.

• Twenty-five jurisdictions in

2001 reported that no data quality

audit had been conducted during

the previous 5 years, and 24

reported that they are not

planning to audit in the coming 3

years.

• In 22 States where audits were

conducted, changes were made as

a result of the audits to improve

the data quality of records.

• Twenty-five States and Puerto

Rico had data quality audits

planned or scheduled for

sometime in the next 3 years.

• Forty-nine States and Puerto

Rico had initiatives underway at

the repository or contributing

agencies to improve data quality.

Initiatives included audit

activities (31); automation

changes (41); disposition or

arrest reporting enhancements

(42); felony flagging (18);

fingerprint enhancements (30);

agency interfaces (36); legislation

(10); plan development (25);

establishment of task forces (17);

implementation of tracking

numbers (19); and training (40).

Criminal history records of

Interstate Identification Index

(III) participants maintained by

the State criminal history

repository and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 2001

(Table 21):

• As of March 1, 2003, over 29

million III records are indexed

with the State’s identification

(SID) pointers. Approximately

19.1 million records are

maintained by the FBI for the

States.

Fees charged by State criminal

history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes,

2001 (Table 22):

• Almost all of the responding

States (49) and the Virgin Islands

currently charge fees for

conducting criminal history

record searches for noncriminal

justice requesters. Mississippi

and Puerto Rico do not charge

fees.

• Fees for fingerprint-supported

searches range from $6 in

Arizona to up to $52 in

California. In some cases,

California does not charge a fee

for the search.

• Fees for name searches range

from $1 in Texas to $25 in

Alabama, Connecticut,

Massachusetts and South

Carolina. Ten States (Arizona,

California, Delaware, Georgia,

Maryland, New York, Ohio,

South Dakota, Tennessee and

Wyoming) do not conduct name

searches for noncriminal justice

purposes.

• Eighteen jurisdictions

(California, Connecticut,

Delaware, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, Tennessee,

Virgin Islands, Virginia,

Washington and Wyoming)

charge different fees for

volunteer searches.
March 2003

Participants

Interstate Identification Index Program

National Fingerprint File

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Interstate Identification Index States

National Fingerprint File States

Washington

Minnesota

Interstate Identification Index (III) States

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana*

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey*

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

*Also a National Fingerprint File (NFF) State.

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Introduction • Page 9

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida*
March 2003

Compact States

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Compact States

Washington

Minnesota

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Iowa

Page 10 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Kansas

Maine

Minnesota

Montana

Nevada

New Jersey

Oklahoma

South Carolina
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 11

Data Tables
Page 12 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

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

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

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

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

not include release by police without charging, declinations to proceed

by prosecutor, or final trial court dispositions.

 ± The total figure does not include Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New

Mexico, the Virgin Islands and West Virginia, for which no data

was submitted.

... Not available.

∆ The following methods identified for measuring dispositions were

provided by the respondent states on the “Current Status of

Criminal History Record Systems,” conducted by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice and SEARCH,

2001.

1. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge without a disposition.

2. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that still lacks a disposition after six months.

3. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that still lacks a disposition for one year.

4. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that still lacks a disposition for more than a

year.

5. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that still lacks a disposition for another

specified period of time.

6. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that is not being actively

prosecuted—determined by assuming that an arrest

event/charge over one year old is completed.

7. A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest

event/charge that is not being actively

prosecuted—determined by providing lists of open arrests to

the prosecutor for confirmation of action/inaction.

8. Other.

*The flag is set:

** At both arrest and conviction.

= When conviction information is entered. == When arrest information is entered.

 

a For reporting purposes, a disposition is not counted as missing for

six months, however, by law, a disposition is considered missing if not

reported within 40 days after the final disposition is decided.

b Figure is for 1994-1998 and includes both felonies and

misdemeanors.

c Additional disposition data is available in imaged records indexed to

the computerized criminal history system to complete the record if

dissemination is requested.

d If the arrest is pending longer than one year, it is treated as a nonconviction.

e For past 4 years.

f

 Not currently setting at this time.

g The decline in final disposition reporting from 1999 is reflective of the

larger metropolitan area’s decline in reporting and the State central

repository’s electronic integration project that is currently being

implemented with the courts case management system.

h Telephone call to verify status.

i

 A missing final disposition is defined as any arrest event/charge that

still lacks a disposition for 90 days.

j

 Notification by court..

k Since 1993.

l

 For the year 2001, a number of cases were still pending disposition at

the Administrative Office of the Courts.

m No system to report this information.

n 1996-2000.

o The amount of time depends on the offense.

p Disposition is considered miss if no disposition is received

subsequent to arraignment.

q At arraignment and conviction.

r

 A missing final disposition for a misdemeanor is defined as any arrest

event/charge that still lacks a disposition after six months. A missing

final disposition for a felony is defined as any arrest event/charge that

still lacks a disposition for one year.

s The “decline to prosecute” disposition is received from the clerk of

court.

t

 Due to backlog, 2000 and 2001 are not included in the calculation for

the last five years.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 13

Table 1: Overview of criminal history record systems, December 31, 2001

State

Criminal

history

records

automated

in whole

or in part

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file– 

 Total Automated

Percent of arrests in database that

have final dispositions recorded–

 Arrests within

 All arrests past 5 years

How State

defines

missing

dispositions∆

System

flags

subjects with

felony

convictions*

System has

information to

identify unflagged

felony

conviction

Total 64,282,700 57,437,800

Alabama Y 1,200,000 900,000 ... ... 1 All**

Alaska Y 240,600 229,800 87% ... 3 All†

Arizona Y 1,031,300 1,031,300 45 51% 2a All**

Arkansas Y 606,300 372,600 81 NA 1 All=

California Y 7,619,200 5,631,900 75 85 1 Some=

Colorado Y 989,200 989,200 13% 77% 1 All**

Connecticut Y 881,600 608,600 90 90 4 All=

Delaware Y 347,500 299,800 73 95 1 All

District of Columbia Y 551,300 444,800 ... ... 1 Some

Florida Y 4,221,300 4,221,300 69 70b 1

Georgia Y 2,336,900 2,336,900 70% 80% 1 All=

Hawaii Y 397,800 397,800 90 83 1 All=

Idaho Y 191,300 170,500 61 51 1 All**

Illinois Y 3,928,100 3,346,000 ... 44 1 All=

Indiana Y 913,900 913,900 25 25 3 All=

Iowa Y 435,300 403,600 91% 91% 1 Some=

Kansas Y 897,400 452,400 44c 19a 3 Some** Some

Kentucky Y 784,000 784,000 58 28 1 Some

Louisiana Y 1,970,300 1,199,800 35 45 1 Some=

Maine Y 446,900 149,900 ... ... 3,8d All=

Maryland Y 843,300 843,300 90% 97% 1 Some

Massachusetts Y 2,662,300 1,929,300 100 100 1 All

Michigan Y 1,372,300 1,372,300 81 82e 3,7 Some=

Minnesota Y 468,200 411,800 64 48 1 All=

Mississippi Y 225,600 225,600 3 3 1 Allf

Missouri Y 1,013,700 849,200 60% 55%g 1 All=

Montana 151,000 151,000 ... 46 1

Nebraska Y 223,100 223,100 57 39 1,8h All=

Nevada Y 339,600 339,600 40 29 1 All

New Hampshire Y 282,500 250,200 ... ... 5i,8j Some Some

New Jersey Y 1,602,700 1,602,700 85% 95% 1 All=k

New Mexico Y 400,000 400,000 30 35 1 All=

New York Y 5,320,000 5,320,000 82 86 2 All**

North Carolina Y 889,700 889,700 88l 68l 1 Some=

North Dakota Y 115,000 115,000 70 80 1 Some** Some

Ohio Y 1,600,000 1,550,000 62% 82% 1 All**

Oklahoma Y 584,500 513,400 45 47 1 Some= Some

Oregon Y 1,039,000 1,039,000 72 51 1 Some= Some

Pennsylvania Y 1,817,900 1,436,900 ...m ...b 1 All**

Puerto Rico Y 193,600 193,600 86 81 2

Rhode Island Y 240,000 240,000 60% 70% 1

South Carolina Y 1,076,300 1,076,300 ... ... 3

South Dakota Y 176,800 157,600 98 98n 5 Some= Some

Tennessee Y 1,028,200 1,028,200 ... ... 1 All==

Texas Y 6,639,500 6,639,500 ... ... 5o Some

Utah Y 437,500 437,500 62% 71% 1 All=

Vermont Y 181,100 119,600 ... 96 8p Allq

Virgin Islands N ... 0 60 75 4 All

Virginia Y 1,304,700 1,134,900 83 83 5r,8s All†

Washington Y 1,049,500 1,049,500 ... 65 4 All**

West Virginia Y ... ... ... ... 1 Some All

Wisconsin Y 910,900 910,900 76% 76% 1 All=

Wyoming Y 104,000 104,000 83 61t 1 All=
Page 14 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

Except for Kentucky, Nebraska and Puerto Rico, for which corrected

data was submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 2. Except

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

columns for 1999 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 2.

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

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

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

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

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

not include the master name index.

± The total figure for 2001 does not include Colorado, Illinois,

Montana, New Mexico, the Virgin Islands and West Virginia, for

which no data was submitted.

... Not available.

 

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

years. A method of accurately counting manual records has been

developed, resulting a determination that there are, in fact, only 10,800

manual records.

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

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

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

records.

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

therefore, the total appears to be a decrease.

d As of January 21, 2000.

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

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

records with multiple state identification numbers and incomplete

records.

f

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

all arrests end up on individual rap sheets.

g Elimination of the manual file resulted from converting qualifying

records to the automated file, and exclusion of deceased subjects, FBI

records, and other out-of-state records.

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

being implemented that offset the number of new arrests.

i

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

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

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1997, 1999 and 2001

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

manual and automated files automated files, 2001 Percent of automated files total files 

2001 Manual Automated 1999-

State 1997 1999 total file file 1997 1999 2001 1997-99 2001

Total 54,180,400 59,230,000 64,282,700 6,844,900 57,437,800 86% 89% 89% 9% 9%

Alabama 1,091,000 1,077,000 1,200,000 300,000 900,000 100% 69% 75% -1% 11%

Alaska 201,900 251,100 240,600 10,800 229,800 85 88 96 24 -8a

Arizona 798,700 915,100 1,031,300 0 1,031,300 100 100 100 15 13

Arkansas 484,700 499,800 606,300 233,700 372,600 55 57 61 3 21

California 5,349,700 6,166,000 7,619,200 1,987,300 5,631,900 84 86 74 15 24

Colorado 900,000 886,300b 989,200 0 989,200 100% 100% 100% -2% 12%

Connecticut 811,200 825,600 881,600 273,000 608,600 61 72 69 2 7

Delaware 566,500 713,300 347,500c 47,700 299,800 92 93 86 26 -51

District of Columbia 507,000 532,000 551,300 106,500 444,800 30 80 81 5 4

Florida 3,369,500 3,754,200 4,221,300 0 4,221,300 100 100 100 11 12

Georgia 1,922,200 2,132,600 2,336,900 0 2,336,900 100% 100% 100% 11% 10%

Hawaii 359,700 379,400d 397,800 0 397,800 100 100 100 5 5

Idaho 159,700 180,600 191,300 20,800 170,500 79 83 89 13 6

Illinois 3,042,600 3,280,000 3,928,100 582,100 3,346,000 93 94 85 8 20

Indiana 850,000 900,000 913,900 0 913,900 94 94 100 6 2

Iowa 363,400 401,900 435,300 31,700 403,600 91% 92% 93% 11% 8%

Kansas 748,400 821,000 897,400 445,000 452,400 41 46 50 10 9

Kentucky 644,200 850,900 784,000 0 784,000 85 86 100 32 -8

Louisiana 1,730,000 1,654,000e 1,970,300 770,500 1,199,800 51 59 61 -4 19

Maine 350,000 359,500 446,900 297,000 149,900 0 43 34 3 24

Maryland 723,500 1,053,700 843,300f 0 843,300 100% 100% 100% 46% -20%

Massachusetts 2,344,800 2,530,000 2,662,300 733,000 1,929,300 69 72 72 8 5

Michigan 1,155,200 1,259,500 1,372,300 0 1,372,300 100 100 100 9 9

Minnesota 333,600 384,000 468,200 56,400 411,800 82 85 88 15 22

Mississippi 368,000 250,000 225,600 0 225,600 ... 100 100 -32 -10

Missouri 824,300 914,500 1,013,700 164,500 849,200 80% 82% 84% 11% 11%

Montana 152,700 141,800 151,000 0 151,000 100 100 100 -7 6

Nebraska 173,300 197,600 223,100 0 223,100 100 100 100 14 13

Nevada 245,500 305,600 339,600 0 339,600 100 100 100 24 11

New Hampshire 392,900 409,900 282,500 32,300 250,200 100 100 89 4 -31

New Jersey 1,300,000 1,304,300 1,602,700 0 1,602,700 100% 100% 100% <1% 23%

New Mexico 310,000 352,000 400,000 0 400,000 100 93 100 14 14

New York 4,563,800 4,765,700 5,320,000 0 5,320,000 99 99 100 4 12

North Carolina 697,400 793,500 889,700 0 889,700 99 100 100 14 12

North Dakota 223,900 230,400 115,000 0g 115,000 34 37 100 3 -50d

Ohio 1,483,000 1,600,000 1,600,000h 50,000 1,550,000 81% 94% 97% 8% 0%

Oklahoma 710,000 782,000 584,500 71,100 513,400 70 74 88 10 -25i

Oregon 879,200 965,200 1,039,000 0 1,039,000 100 100 100 10 8

Pennsylvania 1,550,700 1,667,800 1,817,900 381,000 1,436,900 71 77 8 9

Puerto Rico 131,000 164,400 193,600 0 193,600 100 100 100 25 18

Rhode Island 225,000 240,000 240,000 0 240,000 100% 100% 100% 7% 0%

South Carolina 902,400 1,002,600 1,076,300 0 1,076,300 100 95 100 11 19

South Dakota 138,600 159,500 176,800 19,200 157,600 82 87 89 15 11

Tennessee 727,700 826,700 1,028,200 0 1,028,200 61 100 100 14 24

Texas 5,556,200 6,157,100 6,639,500 0 6,639,500 100 100 100 11 8

Utah 346,400 392,800 437,500 0 437,500 100% 100% 100% 13% 11%

Vermont 150,900 164,900 181,100 61,500 119,600 36 52 66 9 10

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

Virginia 1,124,200 1,245,900 1,304,700 169,800 1,134,900 84 86 87 11 5

Washington 885,000 974,800 1,049,500 0 1,049,500 100 100 100 10 8

West Virginia 478,900 488,100 ... ... ... 13% 22% ... 2% ...

Wisconsin 752,400 828,100 910,900 0 910,900 81 85 100% 10 10%

Wyoming 89,500 97,300 104,000 0 104,000 100 100 100 9 7
Page 16 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 Connecticut and

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

1995 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1995 (May 1997), Table 3. Except for Connecticut and Puerto Rico, for

which corrected data were submitted, the data for 1997 were taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

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

Table 3. Except for Georgia, Nebraska and Puerto Rico, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data for 1999 were taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

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

Table 3.

... Not available.

 

a Figure represents felonies and misdemeanors.

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

of final dispositions has increased due to several factors, including: the

majority of final dispositions are being regularly reported to the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement in an automated fashion by individual

counties, and several internal programming enhancements now enable

a higher percentage of submitted dispositions to be matched

electronically without need for manual intervention.

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

testing of an electronic interface and tracking drawbacks in 2001,

during which a number of dispositions could not be obtained.

d Kentucky no longer enters dispositions for the courts and

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

a count to include in the dispositions figure.

e The Bureau of Identification previously was unable to process

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

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

increased disposition reporting.

f

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

backlogged dispositions.

g Figure represents court dispositions. Although prosecutor

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

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

repository was working on a National Criminal History Improvement

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

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

h Increase reflects extra efforts expended to electronically receive

dispositions for prior years.

i

 Court dispositions only.

j

 Final charge dispositions entered in 1997.

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

to assist in reducing the backlog.

l

 The decrease from 1999 in dispositions is reflective of the larger

metropolitan area decline in reporting and the central repository

electronic integration project that is currently being implemented with

the courts case management system.

m During 1997, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

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

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

dispositions received in 1997 than in 1999.

n Figure represents final charge dispositions.

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

from previous years was processed.

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

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

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

four additional temporary employees were hired to process delinquent

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

than the number reported for 1999.

r

 The reason for the increase in 2001 is that five fulltime staff were

hired to research missing dispositions.

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

(King County) to obtain disposition reports by downloading the

information from the court’s database. The initial download was 65,000

disposition reports. As a result, the number of dispositions received

during 1999 shows a decrease from the 1997 figure.

t

 Represents counts of 1999 arrest dispositions posted to the

computerized criminal history. Previous years are counts of charge

dispositions.

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

increased civil card processing created a backlog that resulted in

reduced disposition form collections.

v The decrease is due to lack of staff and backlog.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 17

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2001

 Number of dispositions Percent change 

State 1995 1997 1999 2001 1995-97 1997-99 1999-2001

Alabama 107,000 121,700 115,900 ... 14% -5% ...

Alaska 38,200 41,200 43,000 46,500 8 4 8%

Arizona 140,800 170,100 190,500 296,800a 21 12 56

Arkansas 32,000 40,100 93,700 127,400 25 134 36

California 1,100,000 1,134,500 1,381,000 1,058,000 3 22 -23

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

Connecticut 111,200 107,400 102,200 108,100 -4% -5% 6

Delaware 64,900 ... 78,700 104,900 ... ... 33

District of Columbia 1,600 1,900 ... ... 18 ... ...

Florida 174,300 ... 259,800 843,900b ... ... 225

Georgia 265,000 303,600 331,000 360,000 15% 9% 9%

Hawaii 57,800 87,300 70,500 99,000 51 -19 40

Idaho ... ... 10,600 21,600 ... ... 104

Illinois 115,000 98,700 393,700 400 299 -999

Indiana 26,500 ... 40,000 113,000 ... ... 183

Iowa 48,200 45,300 70,700 67,400c -6% 56% -5%

Kansas ... ... 40,000 86,700 ... ... 117

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

Louisiana ... 16,300 36,200e 21,200 ... 122 -41

Maine 20,400 34,500 36,700 ... 69 6 ...

Maryland ... 210,400 ... 190,800 ... ... ...

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

Michigan 207,200 240,600f 214,200g 559,800h 16% -11% 161%

Minnesota 2,500 84,000i 101,000 ...

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

Missouri 62,800 72,000j 132,200k 105,000l 15% 84% -21%

Montana 78,400 ... 30,400 15,000 ... ... -51

Nebraska 22,300 24,400 29,200 38,900 9 20 33

Nevada 32,500 79,000 31,900m 45,000 143 -60 41

New Hampshire ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

New Jersey 280,000 285,000 287,500 337,500n 2% 1% 17%

New Mexico 12,000 12,500 16,000 ... 4 28 ...

New York 399,900 523,900 698,900 679,200 31 33 -3

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

North Dakota 3,200 4,600 6,000 8,800 44 30 47

Ohio ... ... 100,000 76,000o ... ... -24%

Oklahoma 37,200 57,700 152,000 4,600p 53% 163% -97

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

Pennsylvania 274,300 ... 167,600 102,600 ... ... -39

Puerto Rico 44,100 44,500 49,100 59,900 1 10 31

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

South Carolina 194,100 282,400 211,200q ... 45% -25% ...

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

Tennessee ... 26,000 ... ... ... ...

Texas ... ... 723,000 ... ... ... ...

Utah 22,900 26,300 35,800 61,400r 15% 36% 72%

Vermont ... 22,300 25,900 28,700 ... 16 11

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

Virginia 231,500 211,100 272,400 335,900 -9 29 23

Washington 178,000 277,800 246,300s 289,200 56 -11 15

West Virginia ... ... 24,500 ... ... ... ...

Wisconsin 103,600 123,000 55,900t 63,200 19% -55% 13%

Wyoming 5,700 7,800 5,500u 5,200v 37 -29 -6
Page 18 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

The notes below expand on the data in Table 4. The 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 1993 are

taken from Bureau Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January

1995), Table 4. Except for Puerto Rico and South Carolina, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data for 1997 are taken from

Bureau Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey

of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 4.

Except for Puerto Rico, for which additional information was submitted,

the data in the columns for 1999 are taken from Bureau Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000).

Y Yes

N No

P Partial

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

* Jurisdiction is fully manual.

 

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

records being automated upon request.

b Only the new information is automated.

c If a manual record contains seven or more arrests, on the new

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

manual/part automated). If the manual record contains less than seven

arrests, the entire record is subsequently automated.

d The new information is added to the manual file.

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

index (MNI).

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

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

time due to lack of personnel.

h The manual file is not in the automated MNI.

i

 Fingerprint-supported subjects are in an automated MNI; prior

records are completely manual.

j

 If arrest is fingerprint-supported.

k 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.

l

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

the automated MNI.

m The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

n Subjects with dates of birth prior to 1940 are in the manual file. A

conversion project is underway.

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

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

have been automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint

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

q 169,800 non-automated records consist of older misdemeanors only.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 19

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

Prior manual record is automated

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

State 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001

Alabama Y YYYPYPPY ...Y

Alaska Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Arizona Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y YNa Na Na

Arkansas P YYYPPPPYYYY

California Y Y Y Y P P P P NNb Nb Nc

Colorado Y YYYYY

Connecticut Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Delaware Y Y Y Y P P P PNd ... Nd Nd

District of Columbia Pe Pe P P P P P PNb Nb Nb Nb

Florida Y YYYYYYY

Georgia Y YYYYYYY

Hawaii Y YYYYYYY

Idaho Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Illinois Yf YYYPPPPYYYY

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

Iowa Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Kansas Y Y Y Y P P P PNg Y YNb

Kentucky Ph YYYPYPYYYY

Louisiana Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Maine Pi Pi NPNNPP Nb Yj

Maryland Y YYYYYYY

Massachusetts Y YYYYPPP YYY

Michigan Y YYYYYYY

Minnesota Y Y Y Y P P P P YNb Nb Nb

Mississippi P PYYPPYYNN

Missouri Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Montana Y Y Y YYYY

Nebraska Y Y Y Y Yk YYYY

Nevada Y YYYYYYY

New Hampshire Y Y Y YYYYP ...

New Jersey Y YYYPYYYY

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

New York Y YYYPPPYYYY

North Carolina Y YYYPPYYYY

North Dakota Pl Pl Pl YPPPYYYY

Ohio Pm P Pn YPPPPNYYY

Oklahoma Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Oregon Y YYYYYYY

Pennsylvania Y Y Y Y P P P PNo Y Nb Nb

Puerto Rico Y YYYYYYY

Rhode Island Y Y Y YYYYY

South Carolina Y YYYPPPYYYY

South Dakota Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Tennessee Y YYYPPYYN

Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YYp Yp Yp Yp

Utah Y YYYYYYY

Vermont Y Y Y Y N P P P Y Y Y

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

Virginia Y Y Y Y Pq Pq Pq Pq YYYY

Washington Y YYYYYYY

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

Wisconsin Y YYYPPPYYYY

Wyoming Y YYYYYYY
Page 20 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 5

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

information was provided by the respondent.

* Admission information only.

** Release information only.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Reporting will be addressed in the developing Offender Based

Tracking System (OBTS).

b Detention records are not entered to the criminal history. The

Michigan Department of Corrections system is linked to the criminal

history record system with state identification number (SID) and prison

numbers as cross references. A criminal history record inquiry

provides records from both systems since 1995.

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

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

other grades of offenses.

d There is a legal requirement for probation sentences at the court, but

not from the corrections agency.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 21

Table 5: Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 2001

 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* X X

Alaska X XXXXX

Arizona X X X*

Arkansas X X X* X* X X

California X XXXXX

Colorado X X* X* X

Connecticut a X X*a X*a X

Delaware X X X X X

District of Columbia XXXXX

Florida X X X X

Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii X XXXXX

Idaho X X X* X X

Illinois X XXXXX

Indiana X X* X*

Iowa X X X* X* X X

Kansas X XXXXX

Kentucky X

Louisiana X XXXXX

Maine X

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts XXXX

Michigan X X X*b

Minnesota X X**

Mississippi X XXXXX

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X XXXXX

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X*

New Jersey X X X X* X X

New Mexico X X

New York X XXXXX

North Carolina X X*

North Dakota X XXXXX

Ohio X X X*

Oklahoma X XXXX

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X Xc X X

Puerto Rico XXXXX

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X X* X* X

South Dakota X XXXXX

Tennessee X X

Texas X X Xd

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X X**

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin XXXXX

Wyoming X X X X* X X
Page 22 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded o the nearest whole number. The total number of arrest

fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal history repositories in

1993 was calculated using the mid-point of the range where a range is

indicated 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 Alabama

and Oregon, for which corrected were submitted, 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. Except for Puerto Rico, for

which corrected data was submitted, the data in the columns for 1997

are taken from Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State

Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 6.

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

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

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 6.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Figure is for fiscal year 1999.

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

from final dispositions, which are not fingerprinted-supported.

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

from final dispositions and criminal summonses, which are not

fingerprint-supported.

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

e Figure is for fiscal year1997-98.

f

 Arrest information is entered from final dispositions, which are not

fingerprint-supported.

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

not fingerprint-supported.

h Arrest information is entered from criminal summonses, which are

not fingerprint-supported.

i

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

the time period.

j

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

require arrest information be supported by fingerprints; arrest

information is entered from final dispositions and criminal summonses,

which are not fingerprint-supported.

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

supported by fingerprints.

l

 Figure includes adult and juvenile records.

m In 1997 and 1999, the counts ere taken based on statistics available

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

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

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

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

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

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

1997 and 1999.

n 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 is unable to be

fingerprinted.

o Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

summonses which are not fingerprint-supported; also cases handled in

other ways, such as diversion agreements, are unsupported by

fingerprints.

p Arrest information for older records was entered from final

dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported.

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

supported by fingerprints; booking fingerprints are occasionally

unusable for comparison.

r

 Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

summonses, which are not fingerprint-supported.

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

for identification purposes only.

t

 Figure includes felony and most misdemeanor arrest cards.

u Pre-1968 arrests are supported by FBI fingerprints.

v New York law requires that fingerprints associated with sealed

records must be purged.

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

fingerprints.

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

arrest event are not fingerprint-supported.

y Arrests for "not sufficient funds" checks are entered with only an

index fingerprint.

z Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and citations that

are not supported by fingerprints. The State regulations requiring

fingerprints also are not enforced.

aa In 1999, State law and/or policy did not require that arrest

information be supported by fingerprints. Effective July 1, 2000, all

felonies and most misdemeanors are required by law to be fingerprintsupported.

bb 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 State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 23

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

Number of arrest fingerprint cards and livescan

images submitted to State criminal history Percent Percent Percent Percent of arrest events in State criminal

repository change change change history files that are fingerprint-supported 

State 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993-97 1997-99

1999-

2001 1993 1997 1999 2001

Total 6,255,800 7,625,900 8,852,400 9,723,000 22% 16% 10%

Alabama 192,300 253,500 290,600 300,000 32% 15% 3% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Alaska 14,000 18,700 25,100a 27,900 34 34 11 39 48b 62b 70c

Arizona 114,800 192,500 209,000 208,000d 68 9 -<1 100 100 100 100

Arkansas 36,000 82,000 68,800 66,200 128 -16 -4 100 100 100 100

California 1,100,000 1,170,600e 1,456,000 1,318,200 6 24 -9 100 99f 99e 99f

Colorado 129,000 ... 223,300 ... ... ... 100% 100% 100%

Connecticut 115,000 139,500 138,000 128,300 21% -1% -7% 100 70 90%g 85h

Delaware 44,700 49,200 52,000 51,500i 10 6 -1 90h 90h 90h 90j

District of

Columbia 41,800 38,900 33,200 ... -7 -15 ... 100 80k 80i 80i

Florida 500,600 637,500 831,700 912,800 27 30 10 100 100 100 100

Georgia 350,000 397,500 441,300 432,800 14% 11% -2% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Hawaii 53,200 66,900 67,000l 56,000m 26 <1 -16 <100n 100 99k 99k

Idaho 34,300 59,200 54,800 57,200 73 -7 4 100 100 100 100

Illinois 336,700 448,700 530,000 566,400 33 18 6 100 100 100 100

Indiana 50,400 75,000 86,600 123,000 49 15 42 100 100 100 100

Iowa 53,100 61,800 66,600 63,400 16% 8% -5% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Kansas 64,500 79,900 84,000 94,200 24 5 12 80o 85p 85m 96q

Kentucky ... ... 46,600 145,100 ... ... 211 ... 48 ... 100

Louisiana 154,700 206,400 307,800 307,500 33 49 -<1 100 100 100 100

Maine 5,500 4,800 7,200 6,200 -13 50 -14 30g 30g 30g 33o

Maryland 162,400 228,700 115,100 158,200 41% -50% 37% 75%g 100% 100% 100%

Massachusetts 65,000 85,000 87,500 ... 31 3 ... 0 0 0r 0

Michigan 114,800 131,200 159,900s 250,800 14 22 57 100 100 100 100

Minnesota 40,000 48,500 60,000 102,800 21 24 71 100 100 100 100

Mississippi 9,000 12,000 43,600 66,500 33 263 53 100 0 100 100

Missouri 89,500 135,000 139,900t 147,300 51% 4% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana ... 28,700 25,600 20,600 ... -11 -20 100 100 100 100

Nebraska 16,500 44,400 21,600 34,000 169 -51 57 98u 100 100 100

Nevada 49,600 50,300 78,500 84,000 1 56 7 100 100 100 100

New Hampshire 20,100 17,500 18,500 36,100 -13 6 95 100 65e 75e 80o

New Jersey 110,900 129,400 150,400 173,000 17% 16% 15% 100% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico 34,800 38,000 46,000 48,000 9 21 4 100 100 100 100

New York 492,900 611,200 583,600 550,300 24 -5 -6 70v ...w 99x 100

North Carolina 76,300 141,900 145,100 153,100 86 2 6 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 7,200 9,300 10,800 6,500 29 16 -40 94y 90e 100 100

Ohio 149,200 165,000 158,000 269,400 11% -4% 71% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Oklahoma 46,000 71,900 79,000 92,300 56 10 17 100 100 100 100

Oregon 102,000 141,000 148,200 150,100 38 5 1 100 100 100 100

Pennsylvania 143,700 191,500 305,900 252,300 33 60 -18 100 100 100 100

Puerto Rico 15,800 29,700 45,500 60,000 88 53 32 17 ... 100

Rhode Island 25,000 ... 33,000 37,000 ... ... 12% 100% 100% 100% 100%

South Carolina 167,300 180,400 184,900 188,900 8% 2% 2 100 100 100 100

South Dakota 19,000-

20,000

27,800 26,700 25,000 46 -4 -6 100 100 100 100

Tennessee 83,200 ... 198,300 293,000 ... ... 48 100 ... 100 100

Texas 581,400 575,800 588,000 755,300 -<1 2 28 100 100 100 100

Utah 44,400 ... 61,800 63,000 ... ... 4% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Vermont 5,000 7,800 11,300 11,700 56% 45% 4 25z 30j 35aa 37g

Virgin Islands NAbb NAy NAy NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia 136,400 196,200 216,700 240,500 44 10 11 100 100 100 100

Washington 168,300 199,400 211,800 198,400 18 6 -6 100 100 100 100

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

Wisconsin 100,000 125,400 119,900 154,300 25% -4% 29% 100 100 100 100

Wyoming 9,800 8,300 11,000 12,600 -15 33 15 100 100 100 100
Page 24 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 7

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers are results of estimates. Except for Louisiana, Oregon,

Pennsylvania and Texas, for which corrected data were 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. Except for Puerto

Rico, for which corrected data was submitted, the data in the column

for 1997 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

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

data was submitted, the data in the column for 1999 are taken from

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

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

Table 7.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

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

b Figure reflects the number of dispositions received that were “not

referred for prosecution.”

c Both the fingerprinting and filing of charges are performed at the

same unit.

d Cases are not tracked; action is treated as a favorable disposition

and sealed.

e Police must release or charge an individual before sending

fingerprints to the repository.

f

 Notification is accomplished by disposition forms.

g Police departments report dispositions.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 25

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

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

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

State 1993 1997 1999 2001 2001

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Alaska No Yes Yesa Yesa ...

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes 800b

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

California Yes Yes Yes Yes 78,000

Colorado Yes Yes No NA

Connecticut No No No No NA

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes <100

District of Columbia Yesc ... Yes Yes ...

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes 12,100

Idaho Yes Yes No Yes ...

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Indiana Yes No No No NA

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Kentucky ... No No No NA

Louisiana No No No No NA

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Massachusetts No No No No NA

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Minnesota Yes No No No NA

Mississippi No Yes Yes Yes 0

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Montana Yes Yes Yes No

Nebraska Yes No No No NA

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

New Hampshire No Yes Yes Yes ...

New Jersey No No No No NA

New Mexico No No No No

New York No Yes Yes Yes ...d

North Carolina Yese Yesd Yesd Yesd ...

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Ohio Yesf Yes No No NA

Oklahoma No No Yes Yes 500

Oregon No No No No NA

Pennsylvania No Yes No No NA

Puerto Rico No No No No NA

Rhode Island Nog No No Yes 2,500

South Carolina No No No No NA

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Tennessee No ... No No NA

Texas Yesa Yesa Yesa Yes 7,000

Utah Yes Yes Yes No NA

Vermont No No No No

Virgin Islands NA No No No ...

Virginia No No No No NA

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

West Virginia No No Yes Yes ...

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes ...
Page 26 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 8

The notes below expand on the data in Table 8. The 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 South Carolina

and Georgia, for which corrected data were 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. The data in the columns for

1997 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999), Table 8. The data in the columns for 1999 are

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 (October

2000), Table 8.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Based on audit sample of one jurisdiction.

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

therefore, percentage cannot be determined.

c The State repository only records the number of dispositions

received by courts. Since the actual total is unknown, the percentage

cannot be determined. The number of dispositions received for 2001

was 52,637.

d Estimate as of April 1994.

e The decrease from 1999 is due to more accurate measurement

using a different measurement tool.

f

 Through monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent prosecutor

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

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

situation is compounded by the fact that the largest prosecutor in the

State does not actively submit information on a timely basis to the

repository.

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

cases not reported is unknown. Through current monitoring

procedures, the number of delinquent prosecutor dispositions existing

on the system is estimated to be 9,082. It is unknown how many of

those are actual decisions to prosecute. This situation is compounded

by the fact that the largest prosecutor in the State does not actively

submit information on a timely basis to the repository.

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

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

those missing final dispositions are still active cases; therefore, the

percentage reflects the “worst case” scenario.

i

 This percentage is based on the number of 2001 felony arrest

charges that have a final disposition. The number of 2001 felony

arrests with final dispositions has remained about the same as 1999

(13,000); however, the overall number of arrests has increased by

about 10 percent. Due to this increase, the courts are experiencing a

larger felony caseload and may be taking longer to report dispositions.

Delinquent dispositions are actively monitored and researched by the

criminal history repository. The 2001 percentage represents the “worst

case” scenario because even active cases are counted as unreported

until a final disposition has occurred and has been posted in the

database.

j

 The result for 1993 is based on the results of a baseline audit.

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

l

 Seventy-one percent of 1999 arrests have dispositions recorded.

m Figure represents 24,200 charges not filed, and 1,800 nolle

prosequis.

n A major contributor, the St. Louis Police Department, stopped

reporting dispositions for the courts, and the courts subsequently did

not begin reporting.

o Felony case dispositions entered in 1997.

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

When the current backlog is processed, the reporting level will

increase.

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

currently exists.

r

 This number reflects all charges that were dismissed, nolle

prosequis, administrative dismissals and dismissed incompetent in

2001.

s Percentage represents final dispositions for 1993 felony arrests

received as of February 15, 1994.

t

 All actions, including prosecution actions, are reported as final

dispositions to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

u Prosecutor declinations are reported as part of court dispositions;

therefore, they are not reported separately.

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

the Pennsylvania Courts, with no separation of felony versus other

grades of offenses.

w Due to discrepancies, however, only 90 percent could be posted.

x Requirement for reporting prosecutor dispositions was relatively new.

y Percentage is estimated based upon the number of arrests received

at the State criminal history repository.

z Reporting is not required by law, but some dispositions are

voluntarily submitted.

aa Due to computer conversion and no report writing ability at this

time, percentage is unknown.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 27

Table 8: Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

Number of

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

declinations Prosecutor declinations Felony trial court dispositions 

State 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001

Alabama ... NA NA NA 30% ... ... ...

Alaska ... ... 57%a ... ... 90 100%a ... ...

Arizona 50,200 ... ... ... ...b ... ... ... ...c

Arkansas ... <1% ... ... ... 58 70 70% 94%

California 197,500 ... 68 72% 72% 47 80 77 77

Colorado NA 0% ... NA 60% 100% 100%

Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100% 100

Delaware ... ... 100% 100% 100% 72 95 75 63

District of Columbia ... 50 90 90 ... ... 84 ... ...

Florida ... ... ... ... ... 30-50d .........

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

Hawaii 7,800 ... ... ...f ...g 74 84h 76 70i

Idaho NA NA NA NA NA 70 95 95 95

Illinois 8,900 ... 95% 95% ... ... 68 ... 43

Indiana NA NA ... NA NA 12j 25 25 40

Iowa ... ... NA ... ... 98% 85% 85% 90%

Kansas ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Kentucky NA NA NA NA NA 60 20 ... 5

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

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

Maryland 8,200 ... 100% ... 100% ... 100% ... 100%

Massachusetts 100% 100 100% 100% 100 100%

Michigan ... ... ... ... ... ...k ... ...l ...

Minnesota NA ... ... ... NA 98 99 99 100

Mississippi 1 NA NA ... ... NA NA ... ...

Missouri 26,000m 10% 20% ... ... 35%n 60%o 45%p 32%q

Montana ... ... ... ... ... 73 80 ... 62

Nebraska 9,600 NA 75 75% 75% 75 95 95 95

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

New Hampshire NA NA NA NA NA 80 ... ... ...

New Jersey 74,100r 95% 100% 100% 100% 90% 98% 98% 100%

New Mexico NA 2 NA NA 25 10 ... NA 25

New York ... 100 ... 59s ... ...

North Carolina NA ...t 95 ... NA 90 95 ... ...

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

Ohio NA NA ... ... NA 35% 31% 42% ...

Oklahoma 1,400 NA NA ... 100% 60 65 65 ...

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100%

Pennsylvania ...u ... ... ......t 65 50 ...u ...v

Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA 17 86

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

South Carolina NA NA NA NA NA 98 100% 100 100w

South Dakota ... 5% ... ... 1 81 84 97 98

Tennessee NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Texas 28,500 ...x 60% 50% ... 50 60y 50 ...

Utah 2,500 64% 70% 80% ... 91% 64% 100% 100%

Vermont NA 95 NA NA NA 95 95 95 95

Virgin Islands ... NA NA NA ... NA ... 60z ...

Virginia 69,400 NA 96 ... ... 96 96 96 ...

Washington ... ... ... ... ... 78 57 ...aa ...

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

Wisconsin NA NA NA NA NA 58% 98% 39% 57%

Wyoming ... ... 100% ... ... ... 28 ... ...
Page 28 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 9

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

provided by the respondent.

... Not available.

= 1 Record is destroyed by State criminal history repository.

2 Record is retained with action noted.

3 Record is sealed.

4 No action is taken.

5 Other.

 

a Restoration of civil rights is not reported to the repository.

b Records for pardons and expungements are removed from the

criminal history record system only upon written request for a return of

fingerprints. If requested, the record is removed from both the

electronic and manual files.

c Or delivered to the record subject.

d Restoration of civil rights is not a reportable event in Maryland.

e Although the State does not provide for destroying conviction data,

the State repository does get orders issued pursuant to the inherent

authority of the courts.

f

 All records are deleted from the database, however the Mississippi

Justice Information Center is authorized to maintain an internal record

of action in some cases.

g Expungements are deleted from the automated files and physical

files, but maintained in a file cabinet for five years.

h Only for the conviction of the offense of felony possession of less

than one gram of cocaine.

i

 Law provides for expungements in very limited cases.

j

 Unless expunged.

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

if expungement orders are received, the files are sealed.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 29

Table 9: Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 2001

 Expungements Set-asides Pardons Restoration of civil rights 

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Alaska Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5a

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

California Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Colorado Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Connecticut Yes 2 Yesb 2

Delaware Yes 2 Yes 2

District of

Columbia

Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Florida Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Georgia Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Hawaii Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Idaho Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Illinois Yes 2 Yes 2

Indiana Yes 1c 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 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Maine Yes 2

Maryland Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5d

Massachusetts Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Michigan Yes 3 Yes 1 Yes 3

Minnesota 1e Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Mississippi Yes 5f Yes 5f Yes 5f Yes 5f

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 4

Montana Yes 1g Yes 2 Yes 2

Nebraska Yes 2 Yes 2

Nevada Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2

New

Hampshire

Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Jersey Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 2 Yes 2

New York Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Carolina Yesh 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Ohio Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oklahoma Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oregon Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Pennsylvania Yesi 1 Yes 2j Yes 2h

Puerto Rico Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 1

Rhode Island Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

South Carolina Yes 2

South Dakota Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Tennessee Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 2

Texas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Utah Yes 3 Yes 2

Vermont Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Virgin Islands Yes 1 Yes 1

Virginia 3k Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Washington Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

West Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2

Wisconsin Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2
Page 30 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 fingerprint to the

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

The absence of a response indicated 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.

 

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

b A total of 2,520 transactions were received during 2001.

c Only of those offenders convicted of certain crimes, such as sexual

and violent offenses.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 31

Table 10: Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 2001

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

admitted prisoners and sending whom State repository receives fingerprints to make

fingerprints to State repository fingerprints positive identification

and to link correctional

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

Alabama Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Alaska Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Arizona

Arkansas Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

California Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Colorado Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes 100 a Yes

Delaware Yes 100 Yes

District of Columbia

Florida Yes ...

Georgia Yes 100% Yes

Hawaii

Idaho Yes 100 Yes

Illinois Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Indiana Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Iowa Yes Yes 100% ... Yes

Kansas Yes Yes <10 0 Yes

Kentucky Yes ... Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Maine ... ... Yes

Maryland

Massachusetts Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Michigan Yes 100 Yes

Minnesota 80 ... Yes

Mississippi Yes Yes ...b ... Yes

Missouri Yes 100% Yes

Montana 98 87% Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Nevada

New Hampshire Yes 100 Yes

New Jersey Yes 100% Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes 100 75% Yes

New York Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

North Carolina Yes 100 Yes

North Dakota Yes Yes 100 40 Yes

Ohio Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Oklahoma Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Oregon 100 Yes

Pennsylvania <5 <5 Yesc

Puerto Rico Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Rhode Island Yes 100% Yes

South Carolina Yes Yes 99 95% Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Texas 100 Yes

Utah

Vermont Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Virgin Islands

Virginia Yes 90 Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes 100 ... Yes
Page 32 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 Arizona, Georgia,

Indiana, Massachusetts and North Carolina, 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. Except for Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington, for

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

were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999), Table 11. Except for Arizona for which corrected

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

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

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

Table 11.

... Not available.

 

a A new system will provide 100 percent reporting, beginning in late

2002.

b Probation information is no longer added to the criminal history

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

agencies. Currently 32 counties enter data into the supervised release

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

percentage of total probation actions cannot be determined.

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

State criminal history repository.

d Eleven out of 13 supervision agencies currently report information.

e Response is based on the result of a baseline audit.

f

 No probation or parole data has been received. The Department of

Corrections has been unable to send data due to a software problem.

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

releases from, probation.

h There is no system to report this information.

i

 The percentage was estimated due to being unable to determine all

probation orders assigned in 1993.

j

 Probation sentences are reported; probation releases are not

reported.

k The percentage reflects the data reported directly to the State

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

maintained by the Department of Criminal Justice.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 33

Table 11: Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

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

 Probation Parole 

State 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001

Alabama ... ...

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

Arizona 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Arkansas 30 55 60 60a 90 95 100 100

California 30 b b 100

Colorado <10% 100% 100%

Connecticut 0%

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

District of Columbia 0 100 ... ... 0 100 ... ...

Florida ... ... c 0......

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

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

Idaho 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

Illinois 0 .....................

Indiana 87 16e

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

Kansas 100% 90% 90% ... 100% 90% 90% ...

Kentucky 80 90 80 90 ...

Louisiana 100 98 95 95% 100 95 95 95%

Maine

Maryland ... 100% ... 100%

Massachusetts 100% 100 100% 100% ... 100 100% 100%

Michigan

Minnesota 75 75 75 100 75 75 100

Mississippi ... ... 0f ... ...0f

Missouri 50%g 100%g 100%g ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana

Nebraska 20 20% ... 99 99

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey 90% 95% 100%g 100%g 89% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico ... ...

New York ... 100 100 100 100 100 100

North Carolina ... ... 100 100 100

North Dakota 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

Oklahoma 10% 25% ... 20% 10% 25% ... 20%

Oregon 100 100% 100

Pennsylvania ... ... ... ...h ... ... ... ...h

Puerto Rico 1 100 2 100

Rhode Island ...

South Carolina 98% 100% 99% 99%

South Dakota 80 81 95 95 95% 95% 95% 95%

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

Texas 50i <50j 100 80 50k 100

Utah ... ...

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

Virgin Islands

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

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

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

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

Wyoming 10% 10 10% 10% 100% 100 100% 100%
Page 34 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 Judicial department receives arrest information from all arresting

agencies manually; they then enter the information into their computer,

and it is automatically (overnight) transmitted to the State repository.

b Figure represents the number of days from arrest to entry of data

into the criminal history file.

c For felony charges.

d Livescan is entered within 15 minutes; manual cards are entered

within 2 days.

e The backlog accumulated in the latter part of 2001 due to loss of

State funding used to pay contract staff responsible for data entry and

clerical functions associated with fingerprint card processing. The

backlog was subsequently eliminated in June 2002 after State funds

were reinstated.

f

 Arrest data is entered directly into the State repository under a

temporary State identification. Upon positive identification by

fingerprint comparison, the arrested offender is assigned a new or

existing State identification as appropriate.

g Livescan is received the same day; inked fingerprints are received

up to 90 days.

h The arrest booking system processing currently accounts for 67

percent of arrests and is less than one day. Processing for the

remaining 33 percent of manually process cards can only be

calculated from the date of arrest to date of entry in the name index

and the criminal history databases and is 25 days for both.

i

 This number represents the number of arrest booking system

agencies submitting electronically.

j

 Automated cards are received within 1 day; manual cards are

received within 10 days.

k Automated data is entered within 1 day; manual data is entered

within 2 days.

l

 Approximately 75-80 percent of arrest reports are transmitted online

and entry of data is immediate; approximately 20-25 percent of arrests

are reported on mailed-in fingerprint cards, and receipt varies from 10-

30 days.

m Livescan is received within 1 day; mailed cards are received in 5-10

days.

n Correctional facilities have become regional facilities, serving many

law enforcement agencies through booking and incarceration services.

Five of these facilities use live scan equipment on behalf of numerous

law enforcement agencies. The actual number of those agencies is an

estimate.

o Increase in time is due to employee shortage and age of the

automated fingerprint Identification system (AFIS). The State is in the

process of upgrading the AFIS, which should result in a shorter

processing time.

p Livescan is received immediately; the number of days for mail-in

cards is unknown.

q Figure represents time for receipt of livescan; no information is

available for manual.

r

 During 2001, the State repository was experiencing change

associated with the AFIS/computerized criminal history (CCH) system

interface. This transition caused personnel and training issues

adversely affecting processing at the State repository.

s Two hours for livescan; 7 days for paper.

t

 Livescan is received and entered within 10 minutes; manual cards

are received and entered within 5 days or less.

u Livescan are entered within 10 minutes; manual cards are entered

within 3 days or less.

v Livescan is entered within 10 minutes; manual cards are entered

within 5 days or less.

w A project staff of 24 has been hired; 528 days are anticipated for

completion (24 x 528 = 12,672).
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 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, 2001

Percentage

Average of daily

number Average number of days Number of arrests

of days between receipt of arresting in State

between fingerprints and entry of agencies represented Backlog of Number of

arrest data into: reporting by arresting entering unprocessed Number of

and receipt arrest agencies data into or partially person-days

of arrest Criminal data by reporting by criminal processed needed to

data and Master name history automated automated database fingerprint eliminate

State fingerprints index database means means exists cards backlog

Alabama 7 7 7 2 15% Yes ... 180

Alaska ... ... ... 1 25 Yes 3,100 80

Arizona 3 2 13 191 93 No

Arkansas 7-14 3-5 7-14 19 58 Yes 5,100 90

California <1-30 1-30 1-30 620 95 No

Colorado 1-3 1 1 19 80% No

Connecticut 3-5 20 48 1a 100 Yes 8,000 48

Delaware 3 0 0 65 100 Yes 400 5-10

District of Columbia 1 1 <1 23 100 No

Florida 25b 1c 1c 72 73 No

Georgia 1 2 <1-2d 243 77% Yes 7,500e 15

Hawaii 1-7 ...f ...e 4 88 Yes 200 30

Idaho 14 5 5 2 15 No

Illinois ... 4-6 3-5 220 70 No

Indiana 7-30 60 70 30 20 Yes 10,000 150

Iowa 5 2 2 10 45% No

Kansas 14 1 3 4 30 No

Kentucky 1-90g ... 90 Yes 5,700 90

Louisiana 1-3 1-3 1-3 108 90 Yes 4,000 20

Maine 10-14 2 ... 2 1 No

Maryland >1h <1g <1g 8i 67% No

Massachusetts 30 10 10 No

Michigan ... 30 30 50 40 Yes 24,300 20

Minnesota <1-28 90 90 101 10 Yes 11,700 21

Mississippi 169 ... ... 181 50 Yes 6,000 120

Missouri ... 90 90 8 6% Yes 15,000 100

Montana 5 3 3 No

Nebraska 30-45 10-20 30-60 Yes 1,000 30

Nevada 1 1 1 41 95 Yes 12,000 120

New Hampshire 30 7 7 24 ... Yes 10,000 ...

New Jersey 1-10j 1-2k 1-2l 23 43% No

New Mexico 15 15 15 10 65 Yes 1,500 160

New York <1-30l <1 <1 50 75-80 No

North Carolina 1-10m 1 1 ... ... No

North Dakota 7-10 6-10 6-10 30n 52 No

Ohio 14 1 1 135 85% No

Oklahoma 5-7 180o 180 3 25 Yes 72,000 540

Oregon <1p 8 8 Yes 4,800 11

Pennsylvania <1q 1 1 80 68 No

Puerto Rico 15 5 15-30 49 100 No

Rhode Island 21 7-10 7-10 10 50% Yes 200 2

South Carolina 3 10 10 2 5 Yes 2,000r 5

South Dakota 1-10 1 1 10 70 No

Tennessee 8 10 10 60 60 No

Texas <1-7s 2 2 51 55 No

Utah 3-7 30 30 7 60% Yes 4,000 20

Vermont 10 7 7 ... 11 No

Virgin Islands 2 NA 2 No

Virginia <1-5t <1-3u <1-5v 195 82 No

Washington 25 ... 30c 4 4 Yes 129,000 12,672w

West Virginia ... 3 5 Yes ... ...

Wisconsin 8 4 4 110 85% No

Wyoming 10 ... ... Yes 16,800 250
Page 36 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

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

information was provided by the repositories.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable—no legal requirement mandates the reporting of

the information to the State criminal history repository.

 

a Number represents counties reporting by automated means.

b Figure represents pre-1997 cases.

c Another seven are currently in testing.

d This backlog has been document-imaged and indexed to the

corresponding records in the computerized criminal history (CCH)

system. When a CCH record is requested, the disposition is entered

to complete the record.

e Figure includes 24 circuit courts and 1 district court.

f

 Between occurrence and date of entry.

g Automated reporting of court dispositions has been partially

implemented. All courts except Jackson County and the St. Louis area

report dispositions through the Office of State Courts Administrator

(OSCA). OSCA then reports the court actions to the central repository

on diskettes, which are then printed and re-entered into the criminal

history database. Complete integration of the two databases is

scheduled for December 2002.

h All courts, with the exception of Jackson County and the St. Louis

area, send disposition information to the Office of State Courts

Administrator, which in turn provides the information to the State

repository. It is then printed and entered into the system. A new

system is currently being designed that will replace this method.

i

 All felony court dispositions are reported online, and entry is

immediate.

j

 All disposition information is reported to the Administrative Office of

the Courts, which in turn sends tapes to the State criminal history

repository.

k The backlog is due to allocating resources to enter backlog of

criminal arrest fingerprints; many dispositions were not being posted

because the underlying arrests had not been posted.

l

 A project staff of 12 has been hired; anticipate 528 days to clear

backlog (12 x 528 = 6,336).
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 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, 2001

Average number

of days between Percent of

Average number receipt of cases disposed Number of

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama 7 7 ... ... Yes ... 300

Alaska ... ... Yes 3,600 80

Arizona ... 30 3 1% No

Arkansas 30 30 25 4 Yes 300 30

California 1-55 7-70 45a 80 No

Colorado 1 1 ... 100% Yes 159,200b 248

Connecticut 1 1 23 100 No

Delaware 1 1 29 100 No

District of Columbia ... 1 1 75 No

Florida ... 7 67 100 No

Georgia 45 35 121 20% Yes 45,000 30

Hawaii 7 2-7 16 100 Yes 103,300 1,844

Idaho 15 5 44 100 Yes ... ...

Illinois ... 5-10 63c 80 No

Indiana 14 90 78 40 Yes 220,000 444

Iowa 30 2 7 10% No

Kansas 21 ... Yes 426,300d 4,263

Kentucky ... 30 No

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

Maine 1-5 2 49 100 No

Maryland ... 1-3 25e 100% No

Massachusetts 1 1 83 100 No

Michigan ... 53 52 91 Yes 57,700 13

Minnesota 3 1 87 100 No

Mississippi ... 158f Yes 100,000 900

Missouri ... g ...h ... Yes 25,000 80

Montana 10 37 5 4% No

Nebraska 30 >180 Yes 242,800 630

Nevada 60 ... Yes 80,000 200

New Hampshire 10 5 Yes 2,000 30

New Jersey 1 1 584 100% No

New Mexico ... ... Yes 50,000 1,460

New York ... <1i

North Carolina 1 1 100 100 No

North Dakota 80 30 60 No

Ohio 21 1 60 50% No

Oklahoma ... ... ... ... Yes 30,000 1,000

Oregon 30 ... 36 56 Yes 4,200 19

Pennsylvania ... ... j 100 Yes 130,100 867

Puerto Rico 1 5 Yes 6,500 30

Rhode Island 7-10 20 Yes 2,500 21

South Carolina 1-3 1 46-47 100% Yes 13,600 54

South Dakota 14 14 ... 100 No

Tennessee ... ... Yes 12,000k 60

Texas 30 1-60 59 65 No

Utah 30 1 40 22% Yes 200 5

Vermont 10 14 No

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

Virginia 2-14 1-2 370 95 No

Washington 15 330 Yes 338,000 6,336l

West Virginia ... ... Yes ... ...

Wisconsin 15 4 68 80% No

Wyoming ... ... Yes 1,800 90
Page 38 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable-no legal requirement mandates the reporting of the

information to the State criminal history repository.

 

a This is an automated process that updates records weekly.

b Response represents the California Department of Corrections and

the California Youth Authority.

c These are non-fingerprint custody status changes. All correctional

fingerprints are current.

d The Michigan Department of Corrections system is linked to the

criminal history record system with State identification (SID) and prison

numbers as cross references. Since 1995, a criminal history record

inquiry provides records from both systems.

e This number represents the prison fingerprints received by the

repository prior to July 2000.

f

 State Department of Corrections.

g Admission, release and status change information for all State

correctional facilities is transmitted online and entered immediately.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 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, 2001

Average Percent of

Average number number of admission/

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

admission or release receipt corrections release activity entering unprocessed

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

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

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

criminal history automated reporting by history supervision to eliminate

State Admission Release database means automated means database reports backlog

Alabama 7 NA 10 NA ... No

Alaska ... ... ...a No

Arizona ... ... 1 100% No

Arkansas 14 NA 30 Yes 900 60

California 1-30 30 1-80 2b 100 No

Colorado <1 NA 1 1 100% No

Connecticut ... ... ... No

Delaware 1 1 1 39 100 No

District of Columbia ... ... ... No

Florida 1-3 30-45 1-2 1 100 No

Georgia 10-15 ... 3 1 100% No

Hawaii ... ... ... Yes 8,400 262

Idaho 14 ... 5 No

Illinois ... ... 90 ... ... Yesc 6,000b 24

Indiana 1 7 1 1 100% No

Iowa 1 NA 2 10 20% No

Kansas ... ... ... No

Kentucky 30 30 30 Yes ... 90

Louisiana ... ... ... 19 60 Yes 1,800 18

Maine NA NA

Maryland 30 30 1-3 61 100% No

Massachusetts 7 7 1 7 65 No

Michigan 1 NA 0d Yes 6,300e 60

Minnesota 10 1 1 90 ... No

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

Missouri 7 7 365 Yes 100,000 666

Montana 1 3 No

Nebraska 45 7 30 ... 100% Yes 120 10

Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 3 NA ... 8 ... Yes 2,000 90

New Jersey 1 1 3 1f 100% No

New Mexico 10 15 1 100 No

New York <1 <1 <1g 72 100 No

North Carolina 60 2 1 1 100 No

North Dakota 30 30 60 6 52 No

Ohio 1-2 10-15 1 33 100% No

Oklahoma 5 30 30 No

Oregon NA 30 NA NA NA NA

Pennsylvania NA NA NA NA NA NA

Puerto Rico ... ... 5 5 100 Yes 113,800 365

Rhode Island

South Carolina 10 NA 10 1 100% No

South Dakota 30 30 2-5 No

Tennessee 1 NA NA 4 100 No

Texas NA NA NA NA NA NA

Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA

Vermont NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia 30 10 3 10 100% No

Washington 3 1 65 1 ... No

West Virginia ... ... ... Yes ... ...

Wisconsin 14 NA 3 1 99% Yes 6,500 45

Wyoming 30 30 ... Yes 2,000 250
Page 40 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 Audits.

b Training.

c Report listing arrests with no dispositions.

d Indiana Criminal Justice Institute offers incentives in the form of grant

money for improvements such as new equipment and software.

e Court Net.

f

 Meetings with court clerks, judges, and other court personnel.

g Electronic mail, training, auditing, computer access to court

databases.

h Includes routine training of contributors, participation by repository

staff at judicial conferences and workshops, and inquiries by facsimile

for missing information.

i

 AFIS Seminars.

j

 Computer access to court database.

k Workshops.

l

 Education and training; software that provides a unique number to

link arrest data to disposition data.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 41

Table 15: Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 2001

List of arrests with

no dispositions

generated to

monitor disposition

State reporting Field visits Form letters Telephone calls Other

Alabama X* X X X

Alaska Xa

Arizona X X Xa

Arkansas X X Xb

California X X X Xb

Colorado X* X X X

Connecticut X

Delaware X* X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X* X X X Xb

Georgia X* X X X

Hawaii X* X X Xc

Idaho Xb

Illinois X* X X X

Indiana X Xd

Iowa X* X X X

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X X Xe

Louisiana

Maine

X X XXb

Maryland Xa

Massachusetts X

Michigan X* X

Minnesota X X

Mississippi X Xf

Missouri X X X X Xb

Montana X* X X

Nebraska X X X

Nevada X X X Xa,b

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X* X X X Xg

New Mexico X X X Xb

New York X X X X Xh

North Carolina X* X X

North Dakota X* X X X Xb

Ohio X X X X Xb

Oklahoma X* X X X

Oregon X X X

Pennsylvania X X Xi

Puerto Rico X* X X

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X X X X

South Dakota X* X X X Xj

Tennessee X

Texas X X X Xk

Utah X X X Xb

Vermont X* X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X* X X X

Washington X* X X X Xb

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X Xl

Wyoming X* X X
Page 42 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

utilized to link disposition information. Matching of several items of

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

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

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

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

information and arrest/charge information also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts.

 

a Date of birth.

b ORI number.

cCriminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) case number.

d Originating agency (ORI) number, Florida Department of Law

Enforcement or FBI number, sex, race, date of birth, Social Security

number (SSN).

e Citation and Social Security numbers.

f

 Docket number.

g When used with name or State Identification (SID) number.

h SID number.

i

 Summons/warrant/indictment/accusation numbers.

j

 SSN.

k Combination of items.

l

 Court case number.

m SID, arrest/charge number
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 43

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 2001

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

Alaska* X X X X X

Arizona* X X X X X X

Arkansas* X X X X X X

California X X X X Xa

Colorado* X X X X X Xb

Connecticut* X

Delaware* X X X X X X Xc

District of Columbia* X X X X X X

Florida* X X X X X X Xd

Georgia X X

Hawaii* X X X

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X

Indiana* X X X X

Iowa* X X X X X

Kansas* X X X X

Kentucky X X X Xe

Louisiana* X X X X

Maine X X X X

Maryland* X X

Massachusetts X Xf

Michigan Xg

Minnesota* X X

Mississippi* X

Missouri* X X X X X

Montana* X X X Xf

Nebraska* X

Nevada* X X X

New Hampshire* X X Xh

New Jersey* X X X X X X Xi

New Mexico X X X X

New York X X X

North Carolina* X X X

North Dakota* X X X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma* X X X X X

Oregon* X X X

Pennsylvania* X

Puerto Rico* X X X X X Xh

Rhode Island X X X X

South Carolina* X X X Xj

South Dakota* X X X X X X

Tennessee* X X X X

Texas* X X X X

Utah X X X X

Vermont* X X X X X

Virgin Islands* X X

Virginia* X X X X X Xk

Washington X X X X X Xl

West Virginia* X

Wisconsin X X X X Xb

Wyoming* X X X X X Xm
Page 44 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 Information is entered into a separate database designated for return

to agencies.

b Return document to arresting agency to obtain arrest fingerprint

card.

c Create non-fingerprint based disposition (DSP) record.

d Court information is held in an automated format and periodically

rerun for linkage to arrests.

e The arrest segment also is created from correctional fingerprint data.

f

 Unlinked dispositions are placed into an automated suspense file.

Posted transactions are continuously searched against new arrest

entries. If matched, the suspended disposition is then applied to the

database. Approximately 100 percent of the suspended dispositions

are eventually applied.

g Information is returned to the contributor.

h A database of court information is maintained.

i

 This number includes summonses, citations and other court cases

that do not originate from an arrest. The number of case dispositions

that should have linked to arrests but did not is approximately 8,331.

j

 Unlinked court dispositions are not tied to an State identification (SID)

number until fingerprints are processed; 40 percent of the originally

unlinked dispositions were linked once fingerprints were processed.

k Correctional data is received from the Department of Corrections

fingerprint cards.

l

 Minimal amount.

m Contact court for additional data.

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

and link it to the court segment.

oAn additional attempt is made to link the information by using the

prison fingerprints in lieu of the arrest fingerprints.

p Download relevant information from related court database.

q Create a “dummy” arrest segment from information provided by

probation and corrections.

r

 Placed in suspense file.

s Enter the court disposition into a “not found” queue. When an arrest

is entered and matched to a disposition in the queue, the disposition is

then linked.

t

 Fingerprint-based.

u These are posted to the criminal history record as an independent

event.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 45

Table 17: Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 2001

Create a "dummy" segment 

Court Enter information

dispositions without linkage to Enter no information Estimated dispositions received which

Arrest assumed arrest/charge data without linkage cannot be linked to arrest/charge information 

assumed from From From Number of Percent of Number of Percent of

from court correctional correctional correctional final court final court correctional correctional

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

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

Alaska X ... ...

Arizona Xa 7,600 ...

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

California X X Xc 184,000 ... 28 ...

Colorado*

Connecticut*

Delaware*

Dist. of Col. X ... ... ... ...

Florida X Xd ...... ......

Georgia Xe Xf 28,100 8% ... ...

Hawaii X ... ...

Idaho X X ... ... ... ...

Illinois X ... ...

Indiana X 61,000 50% 0

Iowa X X ... ... ... ...

Kansas X 21,100 34%

Kentucky X 24,900 ... ... ...

Louisiana X X Xg ...... ......

Maine X ... ...

Maryland X X Xh 35,500i 10% ... ...

Mass. X ... 10%

Michigan X Xj 164,700 28j ... ...

Minnesota X X 49,700 49 8,700 49

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

Missouri X X Xk ...... ......

Montana X X 600 <4% 100 <1%

Nebraska X X ... 25 ... 5

Nevada X Xg ... <1 ... ...l

New Hamp. Xm ... ...

New Jersey Xn ... ...

New Mexico X X ... ... ... ...

New York X X 8,800 3% 45 3%

N. Carolina*

N. Dakota X X ... ... ... ...

Ohio X X ... ... ... ...

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

Oregon X X ... ... ... ...

Penn. X X Xo 69,000 34% ... ...

Puerto Rico ...... ......

Rhode Is. Xp ...... ......

S. Carolina X X Xq ... 5%

S. Dakota X X ... <5 ... <1%

Tennessee X X ... ... ... ...

Texas X X Xr ...... ......

Utah X ... 5%

Vermont*

Virgin Is. X ... ...

Virginia X X 25,000 5

Washington X X Xs ...... ......

W. Virginia Xt ... ...

Wisconsin X X 24,300 38% 100%u

Wyoming*
Page 46 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 18

The notes below expand on the data in Table 18. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

 

a Audits.

b Specific data elements are 100 percent verified.

c Synchronize with FBI tapes, biennial audit of a random sample of

records.

d State audit review program comparing arrest and court documents to

state repository record has been implemented.

e Local audits.

f

 Calls to the courts and arresting agencies to clear up any

discrepancies.

g Key data elements are key verified.

h Interstate Identification Index synchronization tapes.

i

 Arrest analysis and disposition verification.

j

 Includes dissemination of standard practices for processing

fingerprintable criminal cases, and use of statewide data dictionary for

criminal justice.

k On-site audits and training in correctional facilities, law enforcement,

and prosecutors’ offices.

l

 All data entry is dual-entered.

m Periodic visits by the Attorney General.

n Audits by Department of Audit.

o Audit using records from counties.

p Five percent quality control verification on all entries.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 47

Table 18: Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 2001

Random sample

Manual review comparisons

of incoming Manual Manual review of of State criminal Error lists

source double-checking Computer edit criminal record history repository returned

documents before or and verification transcripts before files with to reporting

State or reports after data entry programs dissemination stored documents agencies Other

Alabama X X X X X

Alaska X X X X X Xa

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X X X X

California X X X Xb

Colorado X

Connecticut X X

Delaware X X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X X X X X X Xc

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X X X Xd

Illinois X X X X

Indiana X X X X

Iowa X X X X X Xe

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X X

Maine X X X Xf

Maryland X X X X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X Xg X

Minnesota X X X

Mississippi X X X X Xh

Missouri X X X X Xi

Montana X X X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X X X X X Xf

New Mexico X X X X X

New York X X X Xj

North Carolina X X X

North Dakota X X X X Xk

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X X X Xl

Oregon X X X X X

Pennsylvania X X X Xm

Puerto Rico X X

Rhode Island X X X X Xn

South Carolina X X X X

South Dakota X X X X X X Xf

Tennessee X X X

Texas X X X Xo

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X X

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X Xp

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X
Page 48 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 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 19. Except

for Missouri and Puerto Rico, for which corrected data were submitted,

the data in the columns for 1997 are taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 19. Except for

Puerto Rico, for which corrected data was submitted, the data in the

columns for 1999 are taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems, 1999 (October 2000), Table 19.

... Not available.

 

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

b Random sample audits were scheduled to begin in February 1994,

resources permitting.

c The reviews for accuracy and completeness are self-administered.

For example, the database review is part of the repository evaluation

procedure.

d The expungement process was audited for 1990-92.

e 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.

f

 The program is in the testing stage.

g A formal audit was not conducted; an agency was provided

assistance on improving its procedures.

h The State criminal history repository is currently working with the

State courts on a disposition clean up project that entails the courts’

reviewing the repository database and obtaining missing dispositions.

Meetings are conducted with all reporting agencies within a county, in

conjunction with the State repository, to review agency responsibilities

and data quality issues identified in the reviews by the courts.

i

 The audit program is under development.

j

 Very limited.

k Law enforcement agencies that have terminals are audited every 18

months.

l

 The State repository does not perform random sample audits at this

time; however the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Uniform

Crime Reporting (UCR) component is tasked with all criminal justice

information services-related audits. Its audit process includes

questions to ensure data quality and compliance with laws.

m A one-time audit also was conducted for the years 1935-99.

n Logs are maintained for inquiries and responses only.

o Field staff work with agencies on data quality.

p 1993 was the last audit of the repository; however, user agencies are

audited on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with dissemination

policies.

q Random sample audits are no longer conducted due to lack of staff

and backlog.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 49

Table 19: Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2001

Period of

Transaction logs maintained to provide audit trail Random sample audits of user agencies conducted time

of inquiries, responses, record updates, modifications to ensure data quality and compliance with laws Date of covered

State 1993 1997 1999 2001 1993 1997 1999 2001 last audit by audit

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

Alaska Yesa Yesa Yesa Yesa No Yes Yes Yes 6/99 6/97

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 1/02 7-10/01

Arkansas Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

California Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes continual continual

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yesb Yesc Yes Various 1 yr.

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes Yes ... Yes Yes Yes ... 1996 1 mo.

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Nod Yes Yes Yes 11/00 3 yrs.

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Noe Yes Yes Yes ongoing

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11/94-

12/96

1/93-12/94

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yesf Yesf

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing

Indiana Yes Yes No No Yes No No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes continual last 5 yrs.

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 12/01 1 yr.

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1998 1996-7

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes bi-annual prior 2 yrs.

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 2002 2000

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesg No No

Mississippi No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yesh Yesh Yes ongoing last 5 yrs.

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes continual 2 yrs.

New

Hampshire

Yes No Yes Yes No No No No

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual continual

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes monthly 1 yr.

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4/02 2001

Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yesi Yesi

Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1/02 2001

Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Rhode Island No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 3/01-3/02 1 yr.

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesj Yesk Yes Nol

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoingm

Tennessee No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 2000 2 yrs.

Texas Yesn Yesn Yesn Yesn Noo Yes Yes Yes 1996 5 yrs.

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1999 total

database

Vermont Yesp Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1993p 1992

Virgin Islands No No No No No No No No

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9-11/00 5 yrs. and

random

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1997 1994-96

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1995

entire

database

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9/99 1998

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noq 7/96 7-9/97
Page 50 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

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 System statistics implemented to track the number of dispositions

received from each of the three types of reporting entities: police

agencies, prosecutors, and courts .

b Data standardization tables.

c Changes that are planned include the implementation of the

offender-based tracking system, online booking, purchase of updated

automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), and a computerized

criminal history system enhancement project.

d Missing disposition research; additional electronic interfaces with

neighbor island police departments.

e Court disposition interface project.

f

 Web-based computerized criminal history dissemination.

g State is currently under contract to build a new repository to be

completed in January 2004.

h Internal training of staff; notification to law enforcement agencies to

correct procedures.

i

 Community outreach.

j

 Newsletters.

k Consultant review and recommendations to further automate courts.

l

 Privacy and security.

m Hiring of additional personnel to upgrade database.

n Cooperative initiative with state courts is in process.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 51

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 2001

State criminal

history Data

repository quality

database audits

audited for Changes to planned or Initiatives

completeness Period of improve data scheduled underway

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

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

Alabama No No

Alaska Yes ... ... Repository 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,11

Arizona Yes 2002 1994-2000 Other agency 12a Yes 1,2,3,6,11

Arkansas No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,11

California No No 2,3,6,12b

Colorado Yes Ongoing Ongoing Repository; 2,3,4,5,9,11 Yes 2,3,5,9,11

Other agency

Connecticut No No 1,2,5,6,10,11,12c

Delaware Yes 1997 1986-97 Other agency 1,2,3,6,8,9 No 5

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

Florida Yes 1998;2000;

 2002

Various

1997-2001

Other agency;

repository

2,3,7,8,9,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Georgia No No 1,2,3

Hawaii No No 2,4,5,6,12d

Idaho No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11

Illinois Yes 1997 1996 Other agency 2,3,5,8,9,11 ... 1,3

Indiana Yes ... ... Other agency No 1,2,3,5,6,10

Iowa Yes 2000 1995-99 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,12e Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,11,12f

Kansas No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11

Kentucky Yes 2001 2000 Other agency Yes 2,3,4,6,10,11,12g

Louisiana No ... 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11

Maine No Yes 1,2,3,10,11

Maryland Yes 1996-97 1996-97 Other agency 12h Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,11,12i

Massachusetts No No 2,5,6,8,9,10,11

Michigan Yes 1996 1993-1996 Other agency 1,11 Yes 2,5,6,11

Minnesota No Yes 2,3,5,6,9,10,11

Mississippi No Yes 3,11

Missouri Yes 1997-98 1991-96 Other agency 2,5,6,7,11 No 1,2,3.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Montana No No 1,2,3,5,7,9,11

Nebraska No No 1,3,4,7,11

Nevada Yes 2001 1999-2000 Other agency 1,2,4,5 No 1,2,3,4,6,11

New Hampshire No No 3,4,5,6,8,10

New Jersey Yes Multiple Various Repository 3,4,6,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11,12j

New Mexico No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11

New York No No 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,11,12

North Carolina Yes 2001 1999-2000 Other agency 2,5,6 No 2,3

North Dakota Yes 1999 1998 Other agency 2,3,6 Yes 1,3,5,6,8,11

Ohio Yes 2001 2001 Repository 1,2,3,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,6,8,11,12k

Oklahoma Yes 2001 ... Other agency No 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Oregon No Yes 1,9,11

Pennsylvania Yes 1998 1997 Other agency 3,8 Yes 2,3,6,8,9,10,11

Puerto Rico No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,11,12l

Rhode Island Yes 8/5/02 2 yrs. Other agency,

repository

1,2,3,5,8,12m Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,11

South Carolina Yes 2002 2001 Other agency No 3,5,6,11

South Dakota Yes 2002 1935-2002 Other agency 3,5,6,8,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Tennessee No Yes 1,2,3,7,8,9,10

Texas Yes 1996; 2001 1991-2001 Other agency 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,11

Utah Yes 1999 All Other agency 6,11 No 2,3,5,6,11

Vermont No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,11

Virgin Islands No No

Virginia Yes 2000 Random Other agency 2,5,6,8 No 2,11

Washington Yes 1997 1994-96 Other agency Yes 2,3,5,6,8,11

West Virginia No Yes 2,4,8,9

Wisconsin Yes 1999 1998 Other agency 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11 No 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12n

Wyoming No No 3,4,11
Page 52 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 21

The notes below expand on the data in Table 21.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal

Justice Information Services Division, FBI.

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 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, March 1, 2003

State Current III

Status Total III records

State-supported

records

FBI-supported

records

Percent

supported by

State

Percent

supported by

FBI

Total 48,233,583 29,083,532 19,150,051 60% 40%

Alabama Yes 585,640 137,372 448,268 23% 77%

Alaska† Yes 143,086 68,081 75,005 48 52

Arizona† Yes 966,907 292,637 674,270 30 70

Arkansas† Yes 378,775 220,583 158,192 58 42

California Yes 6,134,855 5,267,127 867,728 86 14

Colorado† Yes 857,745 662,133 195,612 77% 23%

Connecticut† Yes 358,166 198,773 159,393 55 45

Delaware Yes 196,897 151,784 45,113 77 23

District of

Columbia No 184,312 0 184,312 0 100

Florida*† Yes 3,659,883 3,037,328 622,555 83 17

Georgia† Yes 2,178,538 1,973,891 204,647 91% 9%

Hawaii No 162,378 2 162,376 0 100

Idaho Yes 191,773 151,500 40,273 79 21

Illinois Yes 2,151,389 611,243 1,540,146 28 72

Indiana Yes 632,368 213,688 418,680 34 66

Iowa† Yes 405,526 127,003 278,523 31% 69%

Kansas† Yes 441,040 3,766 437,274 1 99

Kentucky No 420,952 2 420,950 0 100

Louisiana No 791,701 2 791,699 0 100

Maine† Yes 80,561 2 80,559 0 100

Maryland Yes 900,787 146,726 754,061 16% 84%

Massachusetts No 390,489 48,900 341,589 13 87

Michigan Yes 1,142,754 966,273 176,481 85 15

Minnesota† Yes 436,133 381,521 54,612 87 13

Mississippi Yes 233,241 42,317 190,924 18 82

Missouri Yes 773,959 519,367 254,592 67% 33%

Montana*† Yes 134,391 80,505 53,886 60 40

Nebraska Yes 197,172 47,583 149,589 24 76

Nevada† Yes 437,948 214,261 223,687 49 51

New Hampshire Yes 128,052 21,148 106,904 17 83

New Jersey*† Yes 1,373,022 1,277,222 95,800 93% 7%

New Mexico Yes 341,719 83,688 258,031 24 76

New York Yes 2,881,538 2,702,129 179,409 94 6

North Carolina* Yes 927,577 845,285 82,292 91 9

North Dakota Yes 61,540 27,497 34,043 45 55

Ohio Yes 1,200,551 926,792 273,759 77% 23%

Oklahoma† Yes 463,823 197,331 266,492 43 57

Oregon* Yes 647,096 549,665 97,431 85 15

Pennsylvania Yes 1,442,020 1,006,005 436,015 70 30

Puerto Rico No 105,634 0 105,634 0 100

Rhode Island Yes 122,401 86,572 35,829 71% 29%

South Carolina† Yes 977,890 915,957 61,933 94 6

South Dakota Yes 164,282 74,681 89,601 45 55

Tennessee Yes 835,234 567 834,667 0 100

Texas Yes 3,377,462 3,092,216 285,246 92 8

Utah Yes 321,598 264,002 57,596 82% 18%

Vermont Yes 55,966 2 55,964 0 100

Virgin Islands No 13,147 0 13,147 0 100

Virginia Yes 1,135,379 833,928 301,451 73 27

Washington Yes 862,649 386,888 475,761 45 55

West Virginia Yes 172,972 36,657 136,315 21% 79%

Wisconsin Yes 590,660 114,303 476,357 19 81

Wyoming Yes 98,291 76,627 21,664 78 22

Federal NA 4,269,772 0 4,269,772 0% 100%

Foreign NA 93,942 0 93,942 0 100
Page 54 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Explanatory Notes for Table 22

The notes below expand on the data in Table 22. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

NA Not applicable.

 

a To record subject only, or to agencies that have previously

conducted a fingerprint-supported search.

b The same fee schedule applies for volunteers, except that volunteers

for non-profit agencies who work with children are exempt from paying

fees. In addition, there is a Public Access Authority facility available to

the general public at the State criminal history repository, the main

County Police Stations, and the Hilo District Court, through which

conviction information may be viewed free of charge, or for a fee of

$10 per offender if a hard-copy printout is provided.

c The fee for a livescan search is $12; the fee for a cardscan

fingerprint search is $14.

d The fee for an automated name search is $7; a mail-in name search

is $10.

e The fee for a dial-in search is $10; by mail, the fee is $13; by

facsimile, the fee is $15.

f

 A fingerprint search pursuant to a statute requiring retention is $25;

all other fingerprint searches are $8.

g The fee is not charged for a government agency that is not engaged

in licensing.

h Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not fingerprint volunteers.

i

 The fee for a public record is $4; the fee for the record subject or

charitable non-profit organizations is $8; the fee for all others is $15.

j

 If a charitable non-profit agency.

k New York State law does not authorize criminal history record

checks for volunteers.

l

 Most volunteer record checks require the $20 fee; however, for nonprofit, charitable organizations that provide services exclusively to

juveniles, the fee is $3.

m There is no fee for non-profit organizations that have a mentor or

tutoring program for either fingerprint-supported search or name

search.

n The fee for a State check is $15; if an FBI check is conducted, the

fee is $24.

o The fee for an electronic search is $1; the fee for a manual search is

$10.

p For non-profit agencies only.

q The fee for a non-profit agency is $2; for government agencies, $5;

and for all others, $13. For caregivers, an additional $2.50 is collected

for the Division of Health and Family Services.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Data Tables • Page 55

Table 22: Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 2001

State currently charges

fee for conducting Amount of fee charged is: Amount of fee charged for volunteers is:

criminal history record State charges

search for noncriminal Fingerprint- different fee FingerprintState justice requester supported search Name search for volunteers supported search Name search

Alabama Yes $25 $25 No

Alaska Yes 35 20a No

Arizona Yes 6 NA No

Arkansas Yes 18 15 No

California Yes 0-52 NA Yes varies NA

Colorado Yes $13-14 $5.50-10 No

Connecticut Yes 25 25 Yes $18 $18

Delaware Yes 25 NA Yes 18

District of Columbia ...

Florida Yes 15 15 No

Georgia Yes $15 NA No

Hawaii Yes 25 $15 Nob

Idaho Yes 10 10 No

Illinois Yes 12-14c 7-10d No

Indiana Yes 10 7 No

Iowa Yes NA $10-15e Yes NA $5

Kansas Yes $30 15 Yes $20 10

Kentucky Yes 10 10 No

Louisiana Yes 10 10 No

Maine Yes 8-25f 8g

Maryland Yes $18 NA No

Massachusetts Yes NA $10 or 25 NAh

Michigan Yes 30 10 Yes $30 $0

Minnesota Yes NA 4-15i Yesj NA 8

Mississippi No No

Missouri Yes $14 $5 No

Montana Yes 8 8 No

Nebraska Yes 10 10 No

Nevada Yes 15 15 No

New Hampshire Yes 24 10 Yes $18 $5

New Jersey Yes $25 $15 Yes $18 $10

New Mexico Yes 9 7 No

New York Yes 50 NA NAk

North Carolina Yes 14 10 No

North Dakota Yes 20 20 Yes 3l 3h

Ohio Yes $15 NA No

Oklahoma Yes 19 $15 No

Oregon Yes 12 15 Yes $0m $0i

Pennsylvania Yes NA 10 No

Puerto Rico No No

Rhode Island Yes $24 $5 Yes $24 $0

South Carolina Yes 24-25 24-25 Yes 8-18 8-18

South Dakota Yes 15 NA No

Tennessee Yes 24 NA Yes 18 NA

Texas Yes 15-24n 1-10o No

Utah Yes $15 $10 No

Vermont Yes 10 10 No

Virgin Islands Yes 9 Yes $0

Virginia Yes 37 15 Yes $26 8

Washington Yes 25 10 Yes 0 0p

West Virginia Yes $20 $20 No

Wisconsin Yes 10 2-13q No

Wyoming Yes 15 NA Yes $10 NA
Page 56 • Methodology Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 2001

Methodology

This report is based upon the

results from a two-part survey

conducted of the administrators

of the State criminal history

record repositories in January –

July 2002. A total of 53

jurisdictions were surveyed,

including the 50 States, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses to the survey were

received from all 53

jurisdictions.

The survey instruments

consisted of 63 questions,

having several parts. The

survey was designed to collect

comprehensive data relating to

State criminal history

information systems. Fifteen

topical areas are covered in this

report, as follows:

• current quality and quantity of

records in the criminal history

databases;

• level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history records maintained by

the State repositories;

• capacity of criminal history

system to flag convicted felons

in the database;

• level of fingerprint-supported

arrest reporting to the State

repositories and the processing

and timeliness of the

information that is entered into

criminal history record

databases;

• notice to the State repository

of persons released without

charging following submission

of fingerprints to the State

repository;

• level of prosecutor-reported

information in criminal history

databases;

• level and timeliness of

disposition reporting by the

courts to the State criminal

history repositories;

• types and timeliness of

information reported to the State

criminal history repositories by

State and local correctional

facilities;

• level of probation/parolerelated information in State

criminal history databases;

• extent to which the records in

State criminal history databases

contain final disposition

information;

• policies and practices of the

State repository regarding

modification of felony

convictions;

• ability of the State repositories

to link reported disposition data

to arrest data in State criminal

history record databases;

• level of audit activity in the

States and the strategies

employed the State repositories

to ensure accuracy of the data in

the criminal history record

databases; and

• participation of the States in

III and NFF; and

• fees charged by State criminal

history repositories for

conducting record searches for

noncriminal justice requesters.

The Federal Bureau of

Investigation also provided

information for the report. The

information includes the number

of criminal history records of the

States participating in the

Interstate Identification Index

(III) system that are maintained

by the State criminal history

repositories and the number of

III records maintained by the

FBI for the States.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 Methodology • Page 57

Following the receipt of the

responses, all data were

tabulated. 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.

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 1993 was

taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

1993 (January 1995). Data

reported for 1995 was taken

from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

1997 (April 1999). Data

reported for 1995 was taken

from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems,

1999 (October 2000).