This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and 

Statistics, using federal funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Document Title: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016: A 

Criminal Justice Information Policy Report 

Author(s): Becki R. Goggins and Dennis A. DeBacco, Law and 

Policy Program. 

Document No.: 251516 

Publication Date: February 2018 

Award No.: This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 

2015-RU-BX-K001 

This report is based upon the results from a survey conducted of the administrators of the state 

criminal history record repositories in March–June 2017. SEARCH surveyed 56 jurisdictions, 

including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All 

50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico submitted survey responses. In addition, the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation was the source for some of the information relating to criminal history. This 

report presents a snapshot as of December 31, 2016. Although this is the fourteenth survey 

since 1989, trend comparisons may not accurately reflect the status of each state’s criminal 

history records due to shifts in fiscal priorities or the advancement, expansion or adoption of 

technology. Findings, opinions, or points of view expressed in this report are those of the 

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect official findings, positions or policies of the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information Systems, 

2016 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
_______ 

_______ 

_______ 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Office of Justice Programs 

Alan R. Hanson 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

World Wide Web site: 

http://www.ojp.gov 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Jeffrey H. Anderson

Director 

World Wide Web site: 

http://www.bjs.gov

For information, contact 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

1-800-851-3420 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Survey of State Criminal 

History Information 

Systems, 2016 

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report 

January 2018 

Criminal Justice Information Policy 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Jeffrey H,. Anderson

Director 

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

Information and Statistics, Brad Truitt, Chairman, and David J. Roberts, Executive Director. The 

project director was Becki R. Goggins, Director, Law and Policy. Ms. Goggins and Dennis A. 

DeBacco, Justice Information Services Specialist, Law and Policy, authored the report. Mr. 

DeBacco conducted the survey and compiled the results. Support was provided by Twyla R. 

Putt, Corporate Communications Specialist, and Christine E. Lee, Webmaster. This project was 

supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 2015-RU-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) to SEARCH, 

The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1900 Point West Way, Suite 

275, Sacramento, California 95815. The Federal project monitor was Devon B. Adams, Chief, 

Criminal Justice Data Improvement Program, USDOJ/BJS. Points of view in this document are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

List of data tables iv 

Glossary of terms v 

Maps ix 

Compact States and Territories ix 

Interstate Identification Index (III) – National Fingerprint File (NFF) x 

Note to readers 1 

Survey revisions 1 

Introduction 2 

Major findings 2 

Criminal history files 2 

Level of disposition reporting 2 

Detailed findings 3 

Status of state criminal history files 3 

Biometric and image data 3 

Protection order information 4 

Warrants and wanted persons 4 

Flagging of records 5 

Accessibility of records and services through state repositories 6 

Dispositions 6 

State criminal history repository practices, technology refreshment, and 

equipment purchasing 9 

Noncriminal justice background checks 11 

Rap back 13 

Data tables 15 

Survey instrument: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of data tables 

Table 1. Overview of state criminal history record 

systems, December 31, 2016 

Table 1a. Overview of state criminal history record 

system functions, 2016 

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in 

state criminal history file, 2012, 2014, and 

2016 

Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by state 

criminal history repository, 2016 

Table 4. State protection order information and record 

counts, 2016 

Table 4a Entry of state protection order information 

onto FBI-NCIC and record counts, 2016 

Table 5. Warrant information and entering agencies, 

2016 

Table 5a. Warrant record counts and state severity 

breakdowns, 2016 

Table 5b. Timeliness of warrant entry, 2016 

Table 6. Flagging of records, 2016 

Table 6a. Access to records, 2016 

Table 7. Number of final dispositions reported to state 

criminal history repository, 2010, 2012, 2014, 

and 2016 

Table 7a. Disposition reporting to the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2016 

Table 7b. Interim disposition reporting, posting of 

indictment information, and cite and release 

without fingerprinting, 2016 

Table 7c. Disposition reporting by local prosecutors, 

2016 

Table 7d. Matching of dispositions between prosecutors 

and the repository, 2016 

Table 8. Receipt of court disposition information by 

automated means and record matching, 2016 

Table 8a. Matching of dispositions received to specific 

arrest events, 2016 

Table 8b. Timeliness of receipt and entry of final felony 

court case disposition information, 2016 

Table 9. Arrest fingerprint cards processed, 2010, 2012, 

2014, and 2016 

Table 10. State plans to replace end-of- lifecycle 

Computerized Criminal History (CCH) 

systems and livescan purchasing contracts, 

2016 

Table 10a. State plans to replace its Automated 

Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) due 

to it nearing the end of its life cycle, 2016 

Table 11. Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 2016 

Table 11a. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the 

submission and rejection of arrest fingerprints, 

2016 

Table 11b. Arrest fingerprint card and palm print backlog, 

2016 

Table 11c. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the 

use of livescan/cardscan for criminal and 

noncriminal justice purposes, 2016 

Table 11d. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the 

submission of fingerprints for noncriminal 

justice purposes, 2016 

Table 11e. Mobile technology for capturing and 

transmitting fingerprints, 2016 

Table 12. Privatization of noncriminal justice fingerprint 

capture services, 2016 

Table 13. Felony arrests reported to repositories, livescan 

devices in courtrooms, and disposition 

backlogs, 2016 

Table 14. Noncriminal justice name-based background 

checks, 2016 

Table 15. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2016 

Table 16. Legal authority for conducting noncriminal 

justice background checks, 2016 

Table 17. Lights-out fingerprint processing, 2016 

Table 18. Assessment and allocation of fees, 2016 

Table 19. Web-based services for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2016 

Table 20. Criminal history records of Interstate 

Identification Index (III) participants 

maintained by state criminal history 

repositories and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2016 

Table 21. Criminal justice rap back services, 2016 

Table 22. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 2016 

Table 22a. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 

continued, 2016 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 iv 
 

 

 

 

 

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 use 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. 

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 and 

practices vary widely concerning disclosure of 

juvenile record information and access to 

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. 

Interstate Identification Index (III): A 

fingerprint-supported “index-pointer” system 

for the interstate exchange of criminal history 

records. Under III, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) maintains an identification 

index to persons arrested for felony and 

reportable misdemeanor offenses under state or 

Federal law. The index includes identification 

information (such as name, date of birth, race, 

and sex), Universal Control Numbers (UCN), 

and State Identification Numbers (SID) from 

each state that holds 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. 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 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Glossary v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to the requesting agency. Currently, all 50 

states and the District of Columbia 

participate in III. Responses are provided 

from FBI files when a jurisdiction, such as a 

U.S. territory, is not a participant in III. The 

III system may also be employed when 

responding to fingerprint-based noncriminal 

justice purpose record background checks. 

Participation in III requires that a state 

maintain an automated criminal history 

record system capable of interfacing with 

the III system and also 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. The FBI accepts and disseminates 

juvenile records. States, however, are not 

required to submit such records to the FBI 

and may be legislatively prohibited from 

doing so. 

Lights-out processing: “Lights-out” 

criminal record processing occurs when 

fingerprint data submitted to a criminal 

record repository by a local justice 

jurisdiction for the purpose of determining 

an individual’s identity, and frequently

associated criminal history record 

information, is processed electronically and 

a response is returned electronically to the 

submitting jurisdiction, all without human 

intervention. 

Livescan: The term “livescan” refers to 

both the technique and technology used to 

electronically capture fingerprint and palm 

print images without the need for the more 

traditional ink-and-paper methods. Livescan 

devices also allow the electronic transfer of 

digitized images and accompanying textual 

information to a criminal history repository. 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC): A computerized information system 

available to law enforcement and criminal 

justice agencies maintained by the FBI. The 

system includes records for wanted persons, 

missing persons, other persons who pose a 

threat to officer and public safety, and various 

property files. The III is accessible through the 

NCIC system. The NCIC operates under a 

shared-management concept between the FBI 

and local, state, tribal, and Federal criminal 

justice agencies. The FBI maintains the host 

computer and provides a telecommunications 

network to the Criminal Justice Information 

Services Systems Agency (CSA) in each of the 

50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and Canada, as 

well as Federal criminal justice agencies. A 

CSA is a criminal justice agency that has overall 

responsibility for the administration and usage 

of NCIC within a district, state, territory, or 

Federal agency. NCIC data may be provided 

only for criminal justice and other specifically 

authorized purposes. 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy 

Compact: An interstate and Federal/state 

compact that establishes formal procedures and 

governance structures for the use of the 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 state and Federal 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 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Glossary vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 the Federal agencies and 

out-of-state users authorized under the 

Compact. Noncriminal justice inquiries sent 

to the FBI are handled by a combination of 

information retrieval by the FBI from its 

files of voluntarily contributed state arrest 

and disposition records and by accessing 

state-held information. This requires that the 

FBI maintain duplicates of state records (see 

National Fingerprint File discussion for 

exception) and generally results in less 

complete records being provided, since FBI 

files of state records are not always as 

complete due to reporting deficiencies. 

The Compact was passed by Congress and 

signed into law by President Clinton in 

October 1998. The Compact became 

effective in April 1999, following 

ratification by two state legislatures: 

Montana on April 8, 1999, and Georgia on 

April 28, 1999. As of July 2017, 29 

additional states have entered into the 

Compact: Nevada (May 1999); Florida 

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

(April 2000); Connecticut (June 2000); 

South Carolina (June 2000); Arkansas 

(February 2001); Kansas (April 2001); 

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

Maine (June 2001); New Jersey (January 

2002); Minnesota (March 2002); Arizona 

(April 2002); Tennessee (May 2003); North 

Carolina (June 2003); New Hampshire (June 

2003); Missouri (July 2003); Ohio (January 

2004); Wyoming (February 2005); Idaho 

(March 2005); Maryland (May 2005); Oregon 

(July 2005); West Virginia (March 2006); 

Hawaii (May 2006); Michigan (January 2009); 

Vermont (July 2010); New York (March 2016); 

and Virginia (July 2017). Eleven other states 

and territories have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding indicating compliance with the 

Privacy Compact: American Samoa, Guam, 

Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South 

Dakota, and Utah. 

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A database 

of fingerprints, or other uniquely personal 

identifying information, relating to an arrested 

or charged individual maintained by the FBI to 

provide positive identification of record subjects 

indexed in the III system. The NFF contains 

fingerprints of Federal offenders and at least one 

set of fingerprints on state offenders from each 

state in which an offender has been arrested for 

a felony or reportable misdemeanor offense. 

Disposition data on the individual is also 

retained at the state repository and not 

forwarded to the FBI. Upon receipt of the firstarrest fingerprint card (or electronic images), the 

FBI enters the individual’s fingerprint 

information, name and identifiers in the III, 

together with a UCN and an SID Number for 

each state maintaining a record on the 

individual. Disposition information on state 

offenders are maintained only at the state level, 

and state repositories are required to 

electronically respond to all authorized record 

requests concerning these individuals for both 

criminal justice and noncriminal justice 

purposes. States are required to release all data 

on record subjects for noncriminal justice 

inquiries, regardless of whether the data could 

legally be released for similar purposes within 

the state. As of March 2016, the NFF has been 

implemented in 20 states: Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New 

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Glossary vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, West Rap back: A “rap back” or “hit notice”

Virginia, and Wyoming. program will inform an employer or other 

designated entity when an individual who has 

Next Generation Identification (NGI): undergone a fingerprint-based background 

The NGI system, developed over multiple check—and whose fingerprints are retained by a 

years, replaced the FBI’s Integrated criminal history repository after the check—is 

Automated Fingerprint Identification subsequently arrested. His or her fingerprints, 

System (IAFIS) and provides new obtained after the arrest, are matched against a 

functionality and enhanced capabilities. This database that contains the fingerprints that were 

technological upgrade accommodates initially submitted. The employer or designated 

increased information processing and entity is then notified of the individual’s arrest. 

sharing demands from local, state, tribal, There is a fee for the service in some states; 

Federal, and international agencies. The other states provide the service free. Some states 

NGI system offers state-of-the-art biometric also provide “rap back” services for 

identification services and compiles core notifications within the criminal justice system. 

capabilities that serve as the platform for For example, this might involve a notification to 

multimodal functionality. a parole or probation officer of the arrest of a 

person under supervision. 

Positive Identification: Identifying an 

individual using biometric characteristics Rapid Identification (ID): Rapid ID devices 

that are unique and not subject to alteration. are mobile fingerprint scanners that allow police 

In present usage, the term refers to officers, court and other criminal justice 

identification by fingerprints, but may also officials to positively identify subjects by 

include identification by iris images, scanning the subject’s fingerprint and searching 

voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive it against a state and/or Federal database for a 

identification is distinguished from positive match. 

identification using name, sex, date of birth, 

or other personal identifiers as shown on a State central repository: The database (or 

document that could be subject to alteration the agency housing the database) that maintains 

or counterfeit, such as a birth certificate, criminal history records on all state offenders. 

Social Security card, or driver’s license. Records include fingerprint files and files 

Because individuals can have identical or containing identification segments and notations 

similar names, ages, etc., identifications of arrests and dispositions. The central 

based on such characteristics are not repository is generally responsible for statereliable. level identification of arrestees. The repository 

agency often is the Criminal Justice Information 

Services Systems Agency (CSA) for contact 

with FBI record systems. Non-fingerprint-based 

inquiries from local agencies for a national 

records check 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, Attorney General, or other state 

agency. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Glossary viii 
 

Maps 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Maps ix 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 20 16 Maps x 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note to readers 

This is the fourteenth survey of 

criminal history information systems 

conducted by SEARCH, The National 

Consortium for Justice Information 

and Statistics, since 1989. Some of the 

tables include data from previous 

surveys. Use caution in drawing 

comparisons between the results of 

earlier surveys and the data reported 

here. Over the course of the survey 

years, the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has 

continued to administer assistance 

programs dedicated to improving 

criminal history records. As a result, 

some states focused new or additional 

resources on the condition of their 

records and, in many cases, know 

more about their records today than in 

the past. Similarly, expansion, 

advancement, and adoption of 

technology have also made a 

beneficial impact. Some state 

repositories, however, have suffered 

fiscal cutbacks and consequently 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 each 

state’s criminal history records as the

current data considered alone. 

Survey revisions 

Given dramatic advances in information technology, 

legislative and social trends that increase demand for 

criminal history record access, and the need for 

criminal record managers to respond to these 

developments, BJS and SEARCH conducted an indepth review of the previous survey questions and 

developed a revised survey instrument for 2016. 

SEARCH updated formats for easier response and 

collection of data and also added new questions to 

collect information on new and emerging information 

sharing practices. Many of these changes were 

suggested by users and respondents during the review 

process. Comments and suggestions focused on: 

 business process time measurements on arrest and 

supporting fingerprint records, protection orders, 

wanted persons, and disposition information that 

is received and processed by state repositories 

 flagging misdemeanor domestic violence 

convictions, active protection orders, and warrants 

within established criminal history records 

 livescan and cardscan usage and repository 

operations 

 replacing criminal history systems and automated 

fingerprint identification systems that are nearing 

the end of their respective life cycles. 

SEARCH continues to use an online database system 

to collect more complete and comprehensive survey 

data. Features include online, password-protected 

reporting forms that allow respondents to complete 

and submit individual sections of the survey, as well 

as to examine/update previously submitted portions. 

The Survey of State Criminal History Information 

Systems, 2016 consists of 40 data tables of 

information and reflects the evolving criminal record 

management environment. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

This report is based upon the 

results from a survey 

conducted of the 

administrators of the state 

criminal history record 

repositories in March–June 

2017. SEARCH surveyed 56 

jurisdictions, including the 

50 states, the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

the Territory of Guam, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands.1 All 50 states, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

submitted survey responses. 

This report presents a 

snapshot as of December 31, 

2016. 

Throughout this report, the 

50 states are referred to as 

“states”; the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the Virgin Islands are 

referred to as “territories,” 

and “Nation” refers 

collectively to both states 

and territories. 

In addition, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) was the source for 

some of the information 

relating to criminal history 

1 Hereafter, these territories are 

referred to as the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Virgin 

Islands. 

records, including state Level of disposition 

participation in the Interstate reporting 

Identification Index (III) 

system (the national Overview of state criminal 

criminal records exchange history record systems, 

system) and the number of December 31, 2016 (table 1): 

III records maintained by the 

FBI on behalf of the states;  In the 50 states and 

the number of records in the Guam, an average of 

wanted person file; and the 68% of all arrests in 

protection order file of the state databases have 

FBI’s National Crime final case dispositions 

Information Center (NCIC) reported. 

database. 

 In 49 states and Guam, 

Major findings an average of 65% of 

arrests in state databases 

Criminal history files within the past 5 years 

have final case 

Overview of state criminal dispositions reported. 

history record systems, 

December 31, 2016 (table 1):  In 43 states and Guam, 

an average of 71% of 

 Fifty states, Guam, and felony arrests in state 

Puerto Rico report the databases have final case 

total number of persons dispositions reported. 

in their criminal history 

files as 110,235,200, of  Twenty-one states report 

which 105,927,700 are that 80% or more of all 

automated records and arrests within the 

4,307,500 are manual criminal history database 

records. (An individual have final dispositions 

offender may have recorded. 

records in more than one 

state.)  Nineteen states report 

that 80% or more arrests 

 Twenty-eight states, within the past 5 years in 

Guam, and Puerto Rico the criminal history 

have fully automated database have final 

criminal history files. dispositions recorded. 

 Twenty-one states report 

that 80% or more of all 

felony arrests within the 

criminal history database 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have final dispositions 

recorded. 

Overview of state criminal 

history record system 

functions, 2016 (table 1a): 

 Fifty states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico processed 

25,937,500 fingerprint 

records in 2016; of 

these, 11,314,200 were 

used for criminal justice 

purposes and 14,623,300 

were used and submitted 

for noncriminal justice 

licensing, employment, 

and regulatory purposes. 

 In nine states and Guam, 

fingerprints processed 

for criminal justice 

purposes account for 

60% or more of the 

state’s total number of 

fingerprints processed. 

 Forty states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico retain all 

fingerprints processed 

for criminal justice 

purposes. 

 Ten states do not retain 

any fingerprints 

processed as part of 

conducting noncriminal 

justice background 

checks. 

Detailed findings 

Status of state criminal 

history files 

Number of subjects 

(individual offenders) in 

state criminal history file, 

2012, 2014, and 2016 (table 

2): 

 Ninety-six percent of the 

approximately 110 

million criminal history 

records maintained by 

the state criminal history 

repositories are 

automated. 

 Five states (California, 

Louisiana, 

Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, and Rhode 

Island) and Guam report 

an overall decrease in 

the total number of 

subjects in manual and 

automated files between 

2014 and 2016. 

 Three states (Arizona, 

Mississippi, and 

Tennessee) report an 

overall increase of at 

least 10% in the total 

number of subjects in 

manual and automated 

files between 2014 and 

2016. 

 Forty-four states and 

Puerto Rico report an 

overall increase in the 

total number of subjects 

in manual and automated 

files between 2014 and 

2016. 

Criminal history records of 

Interstate Identification 

Index (III) participants 

maintained by state criminal 

history repositories and the 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2016 

(table 20): 

 Nationwide, over 91.4 

million criminal history 

records are accessible 

through the III. The 

states maintain 71% of 

all III records and the 

FBI maintains 29%. 

Biometric and image data 

Biometric and image data 

collection by state criminal 

history repository, 2016 

(table 3): 

 Twenty-seven states and 

Guam reported accepting 

latent fingerprint images. 

 Ten states accept flat 

fingerprint images. 

 Sixteen states accept 2-

finger print images for 

identification purposes. 

 Two states (Delaware 

and Kansas) accept 2-

finger print images for 

incarceration/release 

purposes. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Seventeen states accept 

10-finger print images 

for making 

incarceration/release 

decisions. 

 Twenty-three states and 

Guam accept palm print 

images. 

 Fifteen states accept 

facial images or 

digitized mug shots. 

 Three states (Maryland, 

Minnesota, and Texas) 

report accepting 

biometric information 

regarding scars, marks, 

and tattoos. 

 One state (California) 

captures biometric iris 

information. 

Protection order 

information 

State protection order 

information and record 

counts, 2016 (table 4), 

Entry of state protection 

order information onto FBINCIC and record counts, 

2016 (table 4a): 

 Forty-two states and 

Guam maintain 

protection order files, 

which total over 1.8 

million records. 

 Agencies responsible for 

entering protection 

orders onto the state file: 

— law enforcement 

only (18 states) 

— courts only (12 states 

and Guam) 

— law enforcement and 

courts (12 states) 

 Elapsed time between 

the issuance of a 

protection order and 

entry of its information 

onto the state file: 

— 1 day or less (21 

states and Guam) 

— 2–7 days (11 states) 

— 8–30 days 

(Nebraska) 

— Not reported (9 

states) 

 All states, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and 

the Virgin Islands enter 

protection order records 

onto NCIC, totaling 

nearly 1.7 million 

records 

 Agencies responsible for 

entering protection 

orders onto NCIC: 

— law enforcement 

only (27 states) 

— courts only (12 states 

and Guam) 

— law enforcement and 

courts (8 states) 

— Other (3 states: 

Hawaii, 

Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island) 

— Not reported (the 

District of Columbia 

and the Virgin 

Islands) 

 Elapsed time between 

the issuance of a 

protection order and 

entry of its information 

onto the NCIC 

Protection Order File: 

— 1 day or less (19 

states) 

— 2–7 days (13 states 

and Guam) 

— 8–30 days (2 states: 

Alabama and 

Nebraska) 

— 30 or more days 

(North Dakota) 

— Not reported (17 

states) 

 In 8 states without 

protection order files, all 

indicate that law 

enforcement agencies 

enter protection orders 

directly to NCIC. 

Warrants and wanted 

persons 

Warrant information and 

entering agencies, 2016 

(table 5), 

Warrant record counts and 

severity breakdowns, 2016 

(table 5a), 

Timeliness of warrant entry, 

2016 (table 5b): 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Forty-one states, Guam, 

and Puerto Rico 

maintain warrant files, 

which total over 6.9 

million records. Of 

these, over 842,000 

represent felony-level 

warrants and over 3.9 

million represent 

misdemeanor-level 

warrants. 

 Agencies responsible for 

entering warrants onto 

the state file: 

— law enforcement 

only (19 states) 

— courts only (6 states, 

Guam, and Puerto 

Rico) 

— law enforcement and 

courts (16 states) 

 Elapsed time between 

the issuance of a warrant 

and entry of its 

information onto the 

state file: 

— 1 day or less (17 

states) 

— 2–7 days (13 states 

and Guam) 

— 8–30 days (2 states: 

Alabama and 

Nebraska) 

— 30 days or more 

(Nevada) 

— Not reported or does 

not maintain a state 

warrant file (17 

states and Puerto 

Rico) 

 All states, American 

Samoa, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands enter warrant 

records onto NCIC, 

totaling over 2.2 million 

records as of December 

2016. 

 Agencies responsible for 

entering warrants onto 

NCIC: 

— law enforcement 

only (35 states) 

— courts only (Guam 

and Puerto Rico) 

— law enforcement and 

courts (15 states) 

— Not reported (4 

jurisdictions: 

American Samoa, 

the District of 

Columbia, the 

Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the 

Virgin Islands) 

 Elapsed time between 

the issuance of a warrant 

and entry of its 

information onto NCIC: 

— 1 day or less (10 

states) 

— 2–7 days (17 states 

and Guam) 

— 8–30 days (3 states: 

Alabama, Hawaii, 

and Kentucky) 

— 30 days or more (3 

states: Maine, 

Massachusetts, and 

North Dakota) 

— Not reported (17 

states and Puerto 

Rico) 

 In states without warrant 

files, 9 states report that 

law enforcement and/or 

courts enter warrants 

directly to NCIC. 

Flagging of records 

Flagging of records, 2016 

(table 6): 

 Thirty-one states and 

Puerto Rico have felony 

flagging capabilities for 

all criminal history 

subjects. 

 Ten states have felony 

flagging capabilities for 

some criminal history 

record subjects. 

 Nine states and Guam do 

not have felony flagging 

capabilities for criminal 

history record subjects. 

 States employ flagging 

to indicate: 

— a sex offender 

registrant (40 states 

and Guam) 

— a violent offender 

(14 states and Guam) 

— a misdemeanor crime 

of domestic violence 

conviction (16 states) 

that would exclude 

someone from 

purchasing a firearm 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— an active state/NCIC 

protection order on 

file (5 states and 

Guam) 

— an active state/NCIC 

warrant on file (10 

states and Guam) 

— a mental health 

adjudication (7 

states) 

— DNA availability (29 

states) 

— a person ineligible 

for firearms 

purchases under 

Federal law (18 

states) 

— a person ineligible 

for firearms 

purchases under state 

law (13 states) 

Accessibility of records 

and services through state 

repositories 

Access to records, 2016 

(table 6a): 

 State repositories offer 

access to: 

— a sex offender 

registry (42 states, 

Guam, and Puerto 

Rico) 

— orders of protection 

(31 states and Guam) 

— Wanted persons and 

warrant information 

(32 states and Guam) 

— retained applicant 

prints (24 states) 

— firearm registration 

information (7 states) 

— domestic violence 

incident reports (5 

states) 

Dispositions 

Number of final dispositions 

reported to state criminal 

history repository, 2010, 

2012, 2014, and 2016 (table 

7): 

 Fifty states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico provided 

data on the number of 

final dispositions 

reported to their criminal 

history repositories. 

Respondents indicated 

that over 12.6 million 

final dispositions were 

reported in 2016—a 3% 

increase from that 

reported in 2014. 

Disposition reporting to the 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), 2016 

(table 7a): 

 In accordance with 

acceptable National 

Fingerprint File (NFF) 

practices, 17 out of 20 

NFF-participating states 

have elected not to send 

disposition information 

to the FBI on second and 

subsequent arrests. 

 Twenty-seven states and 

Guam sent over 4.8 

million final case 

dispositions to the FBI. 

 Fifteen states sent 95% 

or more final case 

dispositions to the FBI 

via machine-readable 

data (MRD). 

 Guam and New Mexico 

sent 100% of their final 

case dispositions to the 

FBI via hard copy or 

paper. 

 Eleven states sent 83% 

or more of their final 

case dispositions to the 

FBI via III message key. 

 Three states (Arizona, 

Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island) forwarded 

a percentage of their 

dispositions to the FBI 

via a secure web portal 

that was first made 

available to states in 

2016. 

Interim disposition 

reporting, posting of 

indictment information, and 

cite and release without 

fingerprinting, 2016 (table 

7b): 

 Twenty-seven states and 

Puerto Rico collect 

charge tracking 

information (interim 

dispositions) to show 

case status through the 

criminal justice process. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Fifteen states and Guam 

post indictment 

information to the 

criminal history record. 

 Eight states and Guam 

cite and release 

individuals without 

fingerprinting only for 

violations. 

 Twenty-five states cite 

and release individuals 

without fingerprinting 

for both violations and 

misdemeanors. 

 Thirteen states cite and 

release individuals 

without fingerprinting 

for all criminal offenses, 

including felonies. 

 Four states (Alabama, 

Illinois, South Dakota, 

and Texas) do not cite 

and release individuals 

without fingerprinting. 

Disposition reporting by 

local prosecutors, 2016 

(table 7c): 

 Thirty-three states and 

Puerto Rico receive final 

court dispositions from 

local prosecutors. 

 Eight states and Puerto 

Rico receive dispositions 

from local prosecutors 

via automated means 

through a centralized 

(statewide) prosecutors’

case management system 

(CMS). 

 Six states receive 

dispositions from local 

prosecutors via a local 

prosecutors’ CMS. 

 Fifteen states receive 

dispositions from 

prosecutors in paper 

form. 

 Fourteen states receive 

dispositions from local 

prosecutors via a mix of 

automated and paperbased processes. 

Matching of dispositions 

between prosecutors and the 

repository, 2016 (table 7d): 

 Repositories in 3 states 

(Alaska, Ohio, and 

Wyoming) and Guam do 

not receive automated 

dispositions from 

prosecutors. 

 Eighteen states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors 

through a Process 

Control Number (PCN) 

or a Transaction Control 

Number (TCN) that was 

assigned when 

fingerprints were taken 

at the time of 

arrest/booking. 

 Five states (Arizona, 

Georgia, Kansas, 

Michigan, and Oregon) 

match dispositions 

received from 

prosecutors through a 

PCN or a TCN that was 

assigned subsequent to 

arrest/booking. 

 Fourteen states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors 

through a comparison of 

the State Identification 

Number (SID) and 19 

states match dispositions 

by the Arrest Number. 

 Twenty-two states match 

dispositions received 

from prosecutors by the 

subject’s name and date 

of birth, and 14 states 

match dispositions by 

charge. 

Receipt of court disposition 

information by automated 

means and record matching, 

2016 (table 8): 

 Repositories in 11 states, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

do not receive automated 

dispositions from the 

courts. 

 Thirty-nine state 

repositories receive court 

disposition data by 

automated means. 

 Twenty-one states report 

that 90% or more of all 

court dispositions are 

reported to repositories 

by automated means. 

 Twenty-six states match 

dispositions received 

from courts through the 

assignment of a PCN or 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a TCN that was assigned investigation, and 7  Elapsed time between 

when fingerprints were states place the the occurrence of a final 

taken at the time of dispositions into a felony court disposition 

arrest/booking. suspense file with no and its receipt by the 

further action. repository: 

 Five match dispositions — 1 day or less (13 received from courts  Repository staff in 32 states and Guam) through the assignment states and Puerto Rico 

of a PCN or a TCN that conducts follow-up — 2–7 days (6 states) 

was assigned subsequent actions when — 8–30 days (13 states) to arrest/booking. dispositions cannot be 

matched to a specific — 31–90 days (5 states) 

 Nineteen states match arrest. In 31 states and — 91–180 days (North 

dispositions received Puerto Rico, repository Dakota) 

from courts through a staff follows-up and — More than 1 year (3 comparison of the SID, contacts the court to 

states: Indiana, and 23 states match obtain additional 

Kansas, and dispositions by the information. 

Mississippi) Arrest Number. 

 Three states (Arizona,  Elapsed time between  Twenty-seven states West Virginia, and the receipt of a final match dispositions Wisconsin) report that 

court case disposition received from courts by when a disposition and its entry into the the subject’s name and cannot be matched to an state’s criminal history date of birth, and 21 arrest, the court- record database: states match dispositions provided charges from 

by charge. the disposition are — 1 day or less (20 

posted to the states) 

Matching of dispositions beginning/end of the — 2–7 days (7 states received to specific arrest subject’s criminal and Guam) events, 2016 (table 8a): history record. 

— 8–30 days (6 states) 

 Ten states report that  Twenty-one states reject — 31–90 days (6 states) 25% or more of all dispositions that cannot — 181–365 days (2 dispositions received be matched to an arrest 

states: New Mexico could not be linked to a and 4 states (Georgia, and West Virginia) specific repository arrest Idaho, Iowa, and 

record. Maryland) use a vendor — More than 1 year 

to identify and locate (Kansas) 

 Some states have missing dispositions. 

dispositions that cannot 

be matched to a specific Timeliness of receipt and 

arrest; when this occurs, entry of final felony court 

25 states place the case disposition 

dispositions into a information, 2016 (table 8b) 

suspense file for further 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State criminal history 

repository practices, 

technology refreshment, 

and equipment purchasing 

Arrest fingerprint cards 

processed, 2010, 2012, 2014 

and 2016 (table 9): 

 During 2016, over 11.3 

million arrest fingerprint 

cards were submitted to 

state criminal history 

repositories, a 1% 

decrease from that which 

was reported in 2014. 

 Fourteen states and 

Guam report an overall 

increase in the total 

number of arrest 

fingerprint cards 

submitted to the state 

repository. 

 Five states report an 

overall increase of at 

least 10% in the total 

number of arrest 

fingerprint cards 

submitted to the state 

repository. 

 Thirty-five states report 

an overall decrease in 

the number of arrest 

fingerprint cards 

submitted to the state 

repository. 

State plans to replace its 

Computerized Criminal 

History (CCH) system due to 

it nearing the end of its 

lifecycle, 2016 (table 10): 

 Twenty-one states have 

plans to replace their 

CCH systems. Eleven 

states have plans to do 

so by year’s end 2018 at 

an estimated cost 

between $150,000 and 

$19.2 million. 

 Four states (Florida, 

Minnesota, Nevada, and 

Washington) anticipate 

requesting at least 80% 

of CCH replacement 

costs from state sources. 

 Five states anticipate 

requesting 100% of 

CCH replacement costs 

from Federal sources. 

 Twenty-four states and 

Guam have established 

purchasing contracts for 

livescan equipment. 

 Twenty-four states do 

not have purchasing 

contracts, but local 

agencies negotiate 

directly with livescan 

vendors when 

purchasing equipment. 

 Five states have plans to 

negotiate a statewide or 

multi-state purchasing 

contract for local 

agencies to purchase 

livescan equipment 

from. 

State plans to replace its 

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (AFIS) 

due to it nearing the end of 

its lifecycle, 2016 (table 

10a): 

 Nineteen states have 

plans to replace their 

AFIS. Nine states have 

plans to do so by year’s 

end 2018 at an estimated 

cost between $850,000 

and $27.4 million. 

 Nine states anticipate 

requesting 100% of 

AFIS replacement costs 

from state sources. 

 Three states (Maryland, 

Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin) anticipate 

requesting 50% or more 

of AFIS replacement 

costs from Federal 

sources. 

Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 

2016 (table 11): 

 Fifty states and Guam 

report having a total of 

27,383 law enforcement 

agencies. Of these, 

nearly 14,000 law 

enforcement agencies 

submit arrest fingerprint 

images to state 

repositories using 

livescan technology. 

 Thirty-nine law 

enforcement agencies 

submit arrest fingerprint 

images to state 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

repositories using 

cardscan technology. 

 More than 4,300 law 

enforcement agencies 

submit hard copy arrest 

fingerprint cards to state 

repositories. 

Electronic fingerprint 

capture devices and the 

submission and rejection of 

arrest fingerprints, 2016 

(table 11a): 

 Fifty states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report 

receiving over 9.7 

million arrest fingerprint 

records by livescan. 

 Over 79,000 fingerprint 

records were scanned 

and submitted to 

repositories using 

cardscan, and over 

346,000 hard copy arrest 

fingerprint cards were 

submitted and received 

from law enforcement. 

 Seventeen states and 

Guam report rejecting 

1% to 10% of arrest 

fingerprint records 

received for poor 

quality. 

 Thirteen states did not 

reject any fingerprints 

they received for poor 

quality. 

Arrest fingerprint card and 

palm print backlog, 2016 

(table 11b): 

 Eight states report 

having a backlog of 

arrest fingerprints 

totaling nearly 14,600. 

 Age of backlogged arrest 

fingerprint card 

information: 

— 1 month or less (5 

states) 

— 2–6 months (2 states: 

Connecticut and 

New Mexico) 

— More than 1 year 

(Alabama) 

 Seven additional states 

report having an 

unspecified backlog of 

arrest fingerprints. 

 Two states report having 

a backlog of palm prints 

totaling 252,200: 

— Michigan reported a 

backlog of 250,000 

palm prints that were 

received prior to 

their having 

electronic palm print 

processing 

capabilities. 

— Ohio reported a 

backlog of 2,200 

palm prints. 

 Three states 

(Connecticut, New 

Hampshire, and 

Wisconsin) report 

having an unspecified 

backlog of palm prints. 

Electronic fingerprint capture 

devices and the use of 

livescan/cardscan for criminal 

and noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2016 (table 11c): 

 Thirty-eight states, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report having 8,759 

livescan devices in use 

exclusively for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, while 31 

states, Guam, and Puerto 

Rico report having 6,616 

livescan devices in use 

for both criminal justice 

and noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

 Twenty-three states, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico 

report having 100 

cardscan devices in use 

exclusively for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, while 17 

states, Guam, and Puerto 

Rico report having 147 

cardscan devices in use 

for both criminal justice 

and noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

Electronic fingerprint 

capture devices and the 

submission of fingerprints 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2016 (table 11d) 

 Forty-six states report 

receiving over 12.6 

million noncriminal 

justice fingerprints by 

livescan and 27 states 

receive over 1.1 million 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints by cardscan. 

 Ninety-two percent of 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints are 

submitted to state 

repositories using 

livescan, while 8% of 

noncriminal fingerprints 

are submitted 

electronically using 

cardscan. 

Mobile technology for 

capturing and transmitting 

fingerprints, 2016 (table 11e): 

 Thirty states and Puerto 

Rico use mobile 

technology to transmit 

fingerprints for 

identification purposes. 

 Three states (Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Rhode 

Island) use mobile 

technology to transmit 

fingerprints for booking 

purposes. 

 Six states plan to 

implement mobile 

technology to capture 

nonfingerprint biometric 

information. 

 Twenty-five states 

employ Rapid ID and 

have conducted nearly 2 

million searches that 

produced over 1.1 

million “hits” or positive 

responses. 

Privatization of noncriminal 

justice fingerprint capture 

services, 2016 (table 12): 

 Thirty-one states have 

privatized the capture of 

noncriminal justice 

fingerprints. In 17 of 

these states, a single 

vendor provides this 

service and in 9 

instances, additional 

vendor services are 

provided such as; billing 

and collection services, 

verification of 

identification 

documents, photo 

capture, etc. 

 In 28 states and Guam, 

the vendor assesses a fee 

above what the state 

charges for the 

background check. 

These fees range from 

$6–$15. 

Felony arrests reported to 

repositories, livescan 

devices in courtrooms, and 

disposition backlogs, 2016 

(table 13) 

 Nearly 3.6 million 

felony arrests were 

reported to repositories 

in 43 states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico. 

 Nine states use livescan 

in the courtroom to link 

positive identifications 

with dispositions. In 

those states, 120 livescan 

devices are in use within 

courtrooms. 

 Twenty-two states report 

having a backlog of 

nearly 2.3 million court 

dispositions that need to 

be entered into state 

criminal history 

databases. 

Noncriminal justice 

background checks 

Noncriminal justice namebased background checks, 

2016 (table 14): 

 Forty-two states 

performed nearly 23.3 

million name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check 

inquiries. 

 Twenty-seven states 

performed over 21.6 

million name-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks that 

were received via the 

Internet. 

 Thirty-five states 

performed over 1 million 

name-based noncriminal 

justice background 

checks that were 

received via the mail. 

 Three states (Idaho, 

Nevada, and Oregon) 

received 151,800 namebased noncriminal 

justice background 

checks via telephone. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Twelve states performed 

456,100 additional 

name-based noncriminal 

justice background 

checks that were 

received via other 

means, such as modem 

or public walk-in access. 

Noncriminal justice 

fingerprint-based 

background checks, 2016 

(table 15): 

 Information contained in 

the results of a 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

background check: 

— Full record (43 states 

and Guam) 

— Convictions only (17 

states) 

— Juvenile records (16 

states) 

— Arrests without 

dispositions—over 1 

year old (19 states) 

— Other (11 states) 

 Twenty-eight states 

report that 10% or more 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

transactions are 

identified against arrest 

fingerprints. 

 Twenty-four states 

attempt to locate missing 

disposition information 

before responding to 

fingerprint-based 

noncriminal justice 

inquiries. 

Legal authority for 

conducting noncriminal 

justice background checks, 

2016 (table 16) 

 All states and Guam 

report having legal 

authority to conduct 

noncriminal justice 

background checks 

against a wide range of 

occupational groups, and 

licensing and regulatory 

functions. This authority 

is granted most often 

through specific state 

statute and where 

applicable, Federal 

statute pursuant to U.S. 

Public Law 92-544, the 

National Child 

Protection Act (NCPA), 

and the Volunteers for 

Children Act (VCA). In 

instances where legal 

authority is not 

available, noncriminal 

justice background 

checks are not 

conducted. See table 16 

for the specific 

circumstances under 

which these background 

checks are conducted. 

Lights-out fingerprint 

processing, 2016 (table 17): 

 Thirty-nine states and 

Guam conduct “lightsout” fingerprint 

processing (an 

identification decision is 

made without fingerprint 

technician intervention). 

 Twenty-seven states and 

Guam report 60% or 

more of criminal and 

noncriminal fingerprints 

received are handled 

using “lights-out” 

processing techniques. 

Assessment and allocation 

of fees, 2016 (table 18): 

 All states, Guam, and 

Puerto Rico report 

charging a fee to conduct 

a search of the state’s 

criminal history database 

for noncriminal justice 

purposes. 

 Fifteen states allocate all 

fees collected for such 

purposes to their state 

general fund, with 

repositories funded by 

general fund allotments. 

 Three states (Georgia, 

New York, and Texas) 

allocate a percentage of 

collected fees to support 

repository operations. 

 Twenty-three states and 

Guam allocate all fees 

collected for noncriminal 

justice background 

checks to fund their state 

repository. 

 Nine states allocate all 

fees to fund other 

activities/programs. 

These include funding of 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Automated Fingerprint 

Identification Systems 

(AFIS), criminal justice 

information system 

support, information 

sharing activities, etc. 

Web-based services for 

noncriminal justice 

purposes, 2016 (table 19): 

 Twenty-six states 

provide web-based 

noncriminal justice 

background checks to 

the public. 

 Twenty-three states 

collect a public access fee 

to conduct a background 

check of Internet requests. 

Fees charged per inquiry 

range from $4 in Texas to 

$30 in Vermont. 

Rap back 

Criminal justice rap back 

services, 2016 (table 21) 

 Sixteen states provide 

in-state criminal justice 

rap back services. 

 At year’s-end 2016, 

Texas is the only state 

participant in the FBI’s 

Next Generation 

Identification (NGI) 

criminal justice rap back 

service. 

 Over 82,000 in-state 

criminal justice rap back 

notifications were made 

by 8 states. 

 Purposes for which 

criminal justice agencies 

can be notified of a 

subsequent inquiry 

and/or record posting via 

the in-state criminal 

justice rap back service: 

— Error 

correction/record 

management updates 

(6 states) 

— Investigative leads (2 

states: Hawaii and 

Kansas) 

— Sex offender (3 

states: Florida, 

Maryland, and New 

York) 

— Parolee (5 states) 

— Probationer (7 states) 

— Permit/privileged 

license revocation (4 

states: Connecticut, 

Delaware, Kansas, 

and Louisiana) 

— Noncriminal justice 

purpose fingerprint 

search (5 states) 

— Other – criminal 

justice employment, 

arrests, CCW permit 

revocation, warrants, 

record updates, etc. 

(8 states) 

Noncriminal justice rap 

back services, 2016 (tables 

22 and 22a) 

 Twenty-nine states 

provide in-state 

noncriminal justice rap 

back services. In 25 of 

those states, rap back is 

authorized by state law 

or administrative 

regulation. In 20 states, 

state law or 

administrative regulation 

specifies the purposes in 

which agencies can be 

notified. 

 Over 906,000 in-state 

noncriminal justice rap 

back notifications were 

made by 17 states. 

 At year’s-end 2016, 

Utah is the only state 

participating in the FBI’s

NGI noncriminal justice 

rap back service. 

 Occupational groups in 

which agencies can be 

notified for subsequent 

record postings: 

— Persons working 

with children (24 

states) 

— Persons working 

with the elderly (20 

states) 

— Healthcare providers 

(22 states) 

— Security guards (18 

states) 

— Police, fire, and 

public safety 

personnel (19 states) 

— Other (15 states) 

 Three states (Florida, 

New Jersey, and Utah) 

charge a fee for enrolling 

in the state’s 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 13 
 

 

 

 

noncriminal justice rap 

back service, while 

another 3 states 

(Colorado, Ohio, and 

Texas) charge a small 

fee upon making a rap 

back notification. 

 Fourteen states report 

having in-state 

noncriminal justice rap 

back validation 

requirements similar to 

that required by NGI for 

all or some of its rap 

back subscriptions. 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 14 
 

Data tables 

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2016 Introduction • 15 
This page left intentionally blank 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Overview of state criminal history record systems, December 31, 2016 

 Number of subjects (individual offenders) in 

state criminal history file Percent of arrests in database that have final case dispositions recorded 

State Total Automated Manual All arrests Arrests within past 

5 years Felony charges with final disposition 

Total 110,235,200 105,927,700 4,307,500 68 65 71 

Alabama 2,304,600 2,304,600 0 36 16 49 

Alaska 278,900 268,800 10,100 91 91 92 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 1,899,300 1,754,400 144,900 46 66 37 

Arkansas 760,200 760,200 0 70 81 92 

California 10,815,500 9,823,600 991,900 63 54 64 

Colorado 1,756,600 1,756,600 0 21 41 47 

Connecticut 1,188,400 633,000 555,400 97 89 nr 

Delaware 2,468,600 2,468,600 0 96 92 97 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 6,524,000 6,524,000 0 58 55 73 

Georgia 4,164,900 4,164,900 0 72 85 100 

Guam 1,700 1,700 0 28 66 74 

Hawaii 560,800 560,800 0 96 87 96 

Idaho 413,800 413,800 0 51 39 57 

Illinois 7,092,400 6,522,100 570,300 70 52 82 

Indiana 1,786,300 1,786,300 0 50 49 58 

Iowa 750,500 743,900 6,600 91 86 93 

Kansas 1,529,500 1,099,000 430,500 57 38 63 

Kentucky 1,435,800 1,435,800 0 42 17 50 

Louisiana 1,698,200 1,598,000 100,200 20 24 20 

Maine 570,800 535,400 35,400 82 68 70 

Maryland 1,629,000 1,629,000 0 97 92 98 

Massachusetts 1,572,600 1,472,600 100,000 11 11 nr a 

Michigan 3,138,400 3,138,400 0 79 76 84 

Minnesota 1,135,900 1,135,900 0 65 51 68 

Mississippi 1,031,500 1,031,500 0 14 11 10 b 

Missouri 1,667,500 1,520,200 147,300 77 82 63 

Montana 244,200 244,200 0 54 60 47 

Nebraska 435,100 435,100 0 71 80 78 

Nevada 879,200 879,200 0 57 60 23 

New Hampshire 471,600 447,800 23,800 88 94 93 

New Jersey 2,333,600 2,185,700 147,900 91 79 98 

New Mexico 632,900 538,100 94,800 25 20 25 

New York 9,941,000 9,941,000 0 91 85 92 

North Carolina 1,733,200 1,733,200 0 83 68 90 

North Dakota 195,600 185,600 10,000 90 84 nr 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 2,464,700 2,193,200 271,500 53 43 50 

Oklahoma 1,037,000 968,000 69,000 60 56 67 

Oregon 1,268,900 1,268,900 0 61 44 79 c 

Pennsylvania 2,829,800 2,562,600 267,200 76 69 95 

Puerto Rico 363,400 363,400 0 nr nr nr 

Rhode Island 998,400 998,400 0 85 nr nr 

South Carolina 1,731,700 1,690,700 41,000 65 na na 

South Dakota 304,700 304,700 0 95 99 na 

Tennessee 2,325,200 2,325,200 0 50 75 nr 

Texas 14,287,000 14,287,000 0 84 95 83 

Utah 777,500 774,300 3,200 78 74 83 

Vermont 250,000 250,000 0 94 83 94 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 2,339,700 2,279,600 60,100 88 88 89 

Washington 1,797,000 1,797,000 0 85 84 84 

West Virginia 703,900 477,500 226,400 80 55 60 

Wisconsin 1,509,400 1,509,400 0 82 80 86 

Wyoming 204,800 204,800 0 87 79 86
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ 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 number of subjects (individual offenders) in state criminal history files does not include

 American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 

Data footnotes: 

a. Massachusetts Courts recently began submitting fingerprint-supported final dispositions to the 

repository. A major project is currently under way to link court disposition data to the repository, where

 significant increases in future disposition reporting totals are anticipated. 

b. Low percentages are due to a number of factors: Lack of training of court clerks, turnover, illegible 

handwriting on manual documents, court information system not linked to criminal history repository system, 

updated records at local level are not being forwarded to repository system, etc. 

c. The previous 2012 and 2014 percentage of arrests that have final case dispositions recorded is revised in this report 

to reflect the following: In 2012, 64% of arrests in the entire database, 56% of arrests entered within the past 5 

years, and 86% of felony charges in Oregon's database contain final case dispositions (see Survey of State 

Criminal History Information Systems, 2012, Table 1 at p. 14, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/244563.pdf ). 

In 2014, 62% of arrests in the entire database, 52% of arrests entered within the past 5 years, and 83% of 

felony charges in Oregon's database contain final case dispositions (see Survey of State Criminal History

 Information Systems, 2014 , Table 1 at p. 14, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1a. Overview of state criminal history record system functions, 2016 

Fingerprints processed for 

criminal justice purposes Total 

Fingerprints processed for 

noncriminal justice purposes 

Total number Percent Percent noncriminal Percent Percent 

State 

of fingerprints 

processed 

Total criminal 

justice purposes Retained 

of 2016 

volume Not retained 

of 2016 

volume 

justice 

purposes Retained 

of 2016 

volume Not retained 

of 2016 

volume 

Total 25,937,500 a 11,314,200 10,966,900 42 347,300 1 14,623,300 9,975,000 38 4,648,300 18 

Alabama 285,700 223,000 223,000 78 0 0 62,700 62,700 22 0 0 

Alaska 56,600 18,200 18,200 32 0 0 38,400 38,400 68 0 0 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 675,200 303,400 303,400 45 0 0 371,800 364,800 54 7,000 1 

Arkansas 254,700 136,900 136,900 54 0 0 117,800 117,800 46 0 0 

California 3,589,300 1,330,500 1,270,000 35 60,500 2 2,258,800 2,078,100 58 180,700 5 

Colorado 421,300 224,300 224,300 53 0 0 197,000 197,000 47 0 0 

Connecticut 192,200 85,800 85,800 45 0 0 106,400 106,400 55 0 0 

Delaware 83,700 27,400 27,400 33 0 0 56,300 56,300 67 0 0 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 2,569,500 876,400 876,400 34 0 0 1,693,100 683,900 27 1,009,200 39 

Georgia 946,500 464,300 464,300 49 0 0 482,200 0 0 482,200 51 

Guam 4,000 2,700 2,700 68 0 0 1,300 1,300 33 0 0 

Hawaii 85,800 43,000 43,000 50 0 0 42,800 3,500 4 b 39,300 46 

Idaho 144,500 58,700 58,700 41 0 0 85,800 4,600 3 81,200 56 

Illinois 914,500 450,200 417,700 46 32,500 4 464,300 430,200 47 34,100 4 

Indiana 447,900 214,600 214,600 48 0 0 233,300 233,300 52 0 0 

Iowa 127,100 79,300 79,300 62 0 0 47,800 0 0 47,800 38 

Kansas 180,500 120,400 120,400 67 0 0 60,100 60,100 33 0 0 

Kentucky 296,400 215,500 215,500 73 0 0 80,900 19,600 7 61,300 21 

Louisiana 428,900 271,300 271,300 63 0 0 157,600 157,600 37 0 0 

Maine 46,100 31,500 31,500 68 0 0 14,600 11,900 26 2,700 6 

Maryland 495,400 208,000 208,000 42 0 0 287,400 287,400 58 0 0 

Massachusetts 396,300 148,200 147,100 37 1,100 0 248,100 248,100 63 0 0 

Michigan 689,500 366,400 269,400 39 97,000 14 323,100 320,000 46 3,100 0 

Minnesota 295,800 154,400 152,400 52 2,000 1 c 141,400 0 0 141,400 48 

Mississippi 240,700 79,800 79,800 33 0 0 160,900 0 0 160,900 67 

Missouri 425,700 218,800 218,800 51 0 0 206,900 206,900 49 0 0 

Montana 63,100 25,700 25,700 41 0 0 37,400 0 0 37,400 59 

Nebraska 80,200 43,600 43,600 54 0 0 36,600 0 0 36,600 46 

Nevada 313,300 81,200 80,600 26 600 0 232,100 60,800 19 171,300 55 

New Hampshire 95,500 38,400 38,400 40 0 0 57,100 0 0 57,100 60 

New Jersey 625,600 212,000 212,000 34 0 0 413,600 258,400 41 155,200 25 

New Mexico 195,700 74,000 74,000 38 0 0 121,700 121,700 62 0 0 

New York 1,303,600 626,800 504,600 39 122,200 9 676,800 663,300 51 13,500 1 

North Carolina 569,000 303,300 274,400 48 28,900 5 265,700 113,500 20 152,200 27 

North Dakota 59,500 22,700 22,700 38 0 0 36,800 13,800 23 23,000 39 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 1,301,000 264,300 262,200 20 2,100 0 1,036,700 1,036,700 80 0 0 

Oklahoma 303,200 143,700 143,700 47 0 0 159,500 159,500 53 0 0 

Oregon 291,600 133,900 133,900 46 0 0 157,700 45,100 15 112,600 39 

Pennsylvania 1,168,400 296,800 296,800 25 0 0 871,600 42,200 4 829,400 71 

Puerto Rico 607,900 339,600 339,600 56 0 0 268,300 268,300 44 0 0 

Rhode Island 76,100 25,000 25,000 33 0 0 51,100 0 0 51,100 67 

South Carolina 365,900 257,900 257,900 70 0 0 108,000 65,200 18 42,800 12 

South Dakota 61,500 31,900 31,900 52 0 0 29,600 1,100 2 28,500 46 

Tennessee 694,800 415,300 415,300 60 0 0 279,500 279,500 40 0 0 

Texas 1,713,500 769,900 769,900 45 0 0 943,600 943,500 55 100 0 

Utah 335,900 82,500 82,100 24 400 0 253,400 110,600 33 142,800 43 

Vermont 31,000 12,600 12,600 41 0 0 18,400 0 0 18,400 59 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 464,300 273,000 273,000 59 0 0 191,300 0 0 191,300 41 

Washington 500,300 215,400 215,400 43 0 0 284,900 9,700 2 275,200 55 

West Virginia 174,000 92,400 92,400 53 0 0 81,600 81,600 47 0 0 

Wisconsin 197,800 161,700 161,700 82 0 0 36,100 9,400 5 26,700 13 

Wyoming 51,000 17,600 17,600 35 0 0 33,400 1,200 2 32,200 63 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1a explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ The total number of fingerprint-based background checks in state criminal history files does not include

American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 

Data footnotes: 

a. The total number of fingerprints processed does not equal the sum of fingerprints processed for criminal and 

noncriminal justice purposes due to rounding. 

b. Hawaii began retaining noncriminal fingerprints on December 4, 2016. 

c. These prints are fingerprints submitted for inquiry purposes only. They generally are received from parole and probation

 and/or corrections as part of a presentencing investigation or inmate classification process to receive a copy of record 

matching a subject's fingerprints. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in state criminal history file, 2012, 2014, and 2016 

Number of subjects in Number of subjects in Percent change in 

manual and automated files manual and automated files, 2016 Percent of automated files total file 

2012– 2014–

State 2012 2014 2016 total Manual file Automated file 2012 2014 2016 2014 2016 

Total 100,596,300 105,569,200 110,235,200 4,307,500 105,927,700 94% 95% 96% 5% 4% 

Alabama 2,021,200 2,164,900 2,304,600 0 2,304,600 100 100 100 7 6 

Alaska 258,600 270,400 278,900 10,100 268,800 96 96 96 5 3 

American Samoa 900 nr nr nr nr na nr nr na nr 

Arizona 1,706,500 1,653,400 1,899,300 144,900 1,754,400 100 100 92 -3 15 

Arkansas 676,800 712,000 760,200 0 760,200 100 100 100 5 7 

California 11,438,800 11,365,000 10,815,500 991,900 9,823,600 83 84 91 -1 -5 

Colorado 1,547,200 1,641,800 1,756,600 0 1,756,600 100 100 100 6 7 

Connecticut 1,301,200 1,155,400 1,188,400 555,400 633,000 53 48 53 -11 3 

Delaware 2,263,300 2,380,800 2,468,600 0 2,468,600 100 100 100 5 4 

District of Columbia nr 470,300 nr nr nr na 100 nr na na 

Florida 6,300,800 6,346,900 6,524,000 0 6,524,000 100 100 100 1 3 

Georgia 3,759,600 3,965,200 4,164,900 0 4,164,900 100 100 100 5 5 

Guam 2,000 2,100 1,700 0 1,700 100 100 100 5 -19 

Hawaii 540,600 543,800 560,800 0 560,800 100 100 100 1 3 

Idaho 349,700 394,100 413,800 0 413,800 100 100 100 13 5 

Illinois 6,164,800 6,646,200 7,092,400 570,300 6,522,100 91 91 92 8 7 

Indiana 1,595,700 1,700,000 1,786,300 0 1,786,300 100 100 100 7 5 

Iowa 677,000 721,100 750,500 6,600 743,900 98 98 99 7 4 

Kansas 1,381,200 1,455,200 1,529,500 430,500 1,099,000 70 69 72 5 5 

Kentucky 1,280,900 1,355,900 1,435,800 0 1,435,800 100 100 100 6 6 

Louisiana 2,231,100 a 2,809,700 a 1,698,200 a 100,200 1,598,000 71 75 94 26 a -40 a 

Maine 522,000 544,600 570,800 35,400 535,400 92 93 94 4 5 

Maryland 1,522,600 1,578,800 1,629,000 0 1,629,000 100 100 100 4 3 

Massachusetts 1,179,600 1,715,300 1,572,600 100,000 1,472,600 75 100 94 45 -8 

Michigan 4,053,000 b 2,967,900 b 3,138,400 0 3,138,400 100 100 100 -27 b 6 b 

Minnesota 1,022,600 1,080,700 1,135,900 0 1,135,900 100 100 100 6 5 

Mississippi 689,800 866,600 1,031,500 0 1,031,500 100 100 100 26 19 

Missouri 1,617,200 1,640,300 1,667,500 147,300 1,520,200 91 91 91 1 2 

Montana 213,500 232,200 244,200 0 244,200 100 100 100 9 5 

Nebraska 388,400 411,900 435,100 0 435,100 100 100 100 6 6 

Nevada 772,500 823,500 879,200 0 879,200 100 100 100 7 7 

New Hampshire 422,900 495,200 471,600 23,800 447,800 94 95 95 17 -5 

New Jersey 2,155,200 2,255,400 2,333,600 147,900 2,185,700 93 98 94 5 3 

New Mexico 595,700 629,000 632,900 94,800 538,100 81 85 85 6 1 

New York 7,379,600 9,289,000 9,941,000 0 9,941,000 100 100 100 26 7 

North Carolina 1,490,500 1,608,900 1,733,200 0 1,733,200 100 100 100 8 8 

North Dakota 170,800 179,800 195,600 10,000 185,600 89 94 95 5 9 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr na nr 

Ohio 2,239,400 2,360,800 2,464,700 271,500 2,193,200 100 86 89 5 4 

Oklahoma 920,900 975,600 1,037,000 69,000 968,000 92 93 93 6 6 

Oregon 1,526,600 1,225,900 1,268,900 0 1,268,900 100 100 100 -20 4 

Pennsylvania 2,528,100 2,713,000 2,829,800 267,200 2,562,600 91 90 91 7 4 

Puerto Rico 312,500 342,200 363,400 0 363,400 na 100 100 10 6 

Rhode Island 1,117,200 1,189,600 998,400 0 998,400 100 100 100 6 -16 

South Carolina 1,609,500 1,672,200 1,731,700 41,000 1,690,700 97 97 98 4 4 

South Dakota 268,700 285,100 304,700 0 304,700 100 100 100 6 7 

Tennessee 1,651,000 c 1,909,800 2,325,200 0 2,325,200 95 99 100 16 22 c 

Texas 11,824,200 13,050,800 14,287,000 0 14,287,000 100 100 100 10 9 

Utah 704,700 741,300 777,500 3,200 774,300 100 100 100 5 5 

Vermont 238,000 244,700 250,000 0 250,000 100 100 100 3 2 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 2,109,900 2,230,500 2,339,700 60,100 2,279,600 97 97 97 6 5 

Washington 1,666,000 1,706,900 1,797,000 0 1,797,000 100 100 100 2 5 

West Virginia 629,200 654,100 703,900 226,400 477,500 58 64 68 4 8 

Wisconsin 1,374,600 nr e 1,509,400 0 1,509,400 100 na 100 na na d 

Wyoming 182,000 193,400 204,800 0 204,800 100 100 100 6 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ The totals for the percent of automated files and the percent change in total files represent percentages of 

 column totals, not averages. 

▪ The total number of subjects in manual and automated state criminal history files for 2016 does not include

 American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 

▪ 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. 

Data footnotes: 

a. Totals for 2012 and 2014 included both criminal and noncriminal record counts. 2016 counts do not. 

b. 2012 totals were overstated by including applicant retained fingerprint cards. This total was adjusted from 

4,053,000 to 2,967,900 in the 2014 report. 

c. The 2016 increase of individuals in Tennessee's criminal history file is thought to be attributable to better 

training/awareness education at contributing agencies. 

d. Wisconsin's DOJ IT personnel were unable to provide this data within the timeframe requested. 
Table 3. Biometric and image data collection by state criminal history repository, 2016 

Types and volume of biometric information utilized in identification search processes 

2-finger prints for 10-finger prints 

2-finger prints for incarceration/ for incarceration/ Facial Scars, marks, 

State Latent prints Flat prints ID purposes release release Palm prints images/mug shots tattoos Iris capture 

Total 929,911 4,064,248 1,470,280 68,014 2,323,011 10,514,185 28,003,554 117,639 120,576 

Alabama 900 786 

Alaska 591 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona 98,339 863,321 98,787 965,354 13,447,054 

Arkansas 1,155 na na na 

California 192,000 97,000 272,600 39,000 1,116,100 na na 120,576 

Colorado 26,544 96,719 47,203 

Connecticut nr 

Delaware 3,375 867 25,014 3,704 56,284 107,790 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida 180,045 714,855 678,213 732,262 6,071,410 2,301,227 

Georgia 129 

Guam 214 151 

Hawaii 4,411 3,180 7,658 

Idaho 5,069 1,728 247,930 32,722 

Illinois nr 

Indiana 686 214,564 250,710 

Iowa 123,727 61,614 71,427 

Kansas 317 180,486 5,520 43,000 9,792 106,274 

Kentucky 3,129 3,894 107,177 212,362 

Louisiana nr 

Maine nr 

Maryland 444 427,201 207,973 235,494 29,751 38,448 

Massachusetts 215,412 231,456 24 

Michigan 4,712 693,000 4,221 871 1,311 

Minnesota 449 2,029 8,149 150,204 66,584 5,992 

Mississippi 703 5,172 

Missouri 2,960 14,647 8,396 91,497 

Montana 1,572 42,746 2,568 

Nebraska nr 

Nevada 1,985 4,731 33,866 

New Hampshire nr 

New Jersey 16,586 640,969 5,000 11,556 80,680 153,796 

New Mexico nr 

New York nr 

North Carolina nr 

North Dakota nr 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio nr 

Oklahoma 1,465 19 539 

Oregon nr 

Pennsylvania nr 

Puerto Rico nr 

Rhode Island nr 

South Carolina 634,400 170,888 

South Dakota nr 

Tennessee nr 

Texas 36,855 529 15,595 71,257 11,345,156 73,199 

Utah 774,306 

Vermont 12,593 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia nr 

Washington 2,430 215,431 215,431 106,883 8,625 

West Virginia nr 

Wisconsin 4,862 155,738 173,614 91,502 

Wyoming nr 
 

 

 

 

Table 3 explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available). In this table, this means the state has the capability (i.e., Arkansas and California);

however, the volume was unable to be determined. 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 4. State protection order information and record counts, 2016 

Agencies responsible for entering Elapsed time between issuance of a PO and # of active records 

State maintains protection orders onto the state file entry of its info. onto the state file in state PO 

a protection Law database as of 

State order (PO) file enforcement Courts Other 1 day or less 2–7 days 8–30 days 12/31/2016 

Total 1,854,688 

Alabama Yes X X 13,542 

Alaska Yes X X 1,709 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona Yes X nr 17,925 

Arkansas No 

California Yes X X X 264,526 

Colorado Yes X X X 230,678 

Connecticut Yes X nr 30,394 

Delaware Yes X X 2,118 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida Yes X X 319,218 

Georgia Yes X X 10,623 

Guam Yes X X 122 

Hawaii Yes X X 13,747 

Idaho No 

Illinois Yes X X nr 89,726 

Indiana Yes X X 100,486 

Iowa Yes X X 50,180 

Kansas No 

Kentucky Yes X X 14,750 

Louisiana Yes X nr na 

Maine Yes X X na 

Maryland Yes X X 9,331 

Massachusetts Yes X X 35,605 

Michigan Yes X X X 30,421 

Minnesota Yes X X X 15,096 

Mississippi Yes X X X 17,441 

Missouri Yes X X 16,170 

Montana Yes X X 5,111 

Nebraska Yes X X 5,027 

Nevada Yes X X X 2,380 

New Hampshire Yes X X nr 21 

New Jersey Yes X X X 180,000 

New Mexico No 

New York Yes X X X na 

North Carolina No 

North Dakota Yes X X 2,683 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio Yes X X 27,381 

Oklahoma No 

Oregon Yes X X nr 16,904 

Pennsylvania Yes X X X 30,689 

Puerto Rico nr 

Rhode Island Yes X Attorney General X 50,980 

South Carolina No 

South Dakota Yes X nr 4,371 

Tennessee No 

Texas Yes X nr 44,610 

Utah Yes X X 38,450 

Vermont Yes X nr 3,873 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia Yes X X 31,857 

Washington Yes X X 106,187 

West Virginia Yes X X 2,265 

Wisconsin Yes X X 17,338 

Wyoming Yes X X 753 
Table 4 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 4a. Entry of state protection order information onto FBI-NCIC and record counts, 2016 

Protection Agencies responsible for Elapsed time between the issuance of a PO and Number of active 

orders (PO) entering protection orders onto NCIC entry of its information onto the NCIC PO File records in NCIC 

entered onto Law 1 day or 30 days or Protection Order File 

State NCIC enforcement Courts Other less 2–7 days 8–30 days more as of 12/31/2016 

Total 1,690,675 

Alabama Yes X X 4,721 

Alaska Yes X X 1,165 

American Samoa No 0 

Arizona Yes X X 17,866 

Arkansas Yes X X 15,116 

California Yes X X X 250,373 

Colorado Yes X X X 112,156 

Connecticut Yes X X nr 30,739 

Delaware Yes X X 1,922 

District of Columbia Yes nr nr 1,930 

Florida Yes X X 194,803 

Georgia Yes X X 9,855 

Guam Yes X X 450 

Hawaii Yes X X 5,272 a 

Idaho Yes X X 1,436 

Illinois Yes X X nr 30,698 

Indiana Yes X X 98,676 

Iowa Yes X X 25,462 

Kansas Yes X nr 5,394 

Kentucky Yes X X 16,914 

Louisiana Yes X nr 15,578 

Maine Yes X nr 4,574 

Maryland Yes X X 8,955 

Massachusetts Yes X X 19,785 b 

Michigan Yes X X X 16,076 

Minnesota Yes X X 17,025 

Mississippi Yes X X nr 826 

Missouri Yes X X 15,981 

Montana Yes X X 5,014 

Nebraska Yes X X 2,094 

Nevada Yes X nr 110 c 

New Hampshire Yes X X nr 3,712 

New Jersey Yes X X 173,875 

New Mexico Yes X nr 6,611 

New York Yes X X 250,409 

North Carolina Yes X nr 12,573 

North Dakota Yes X X X 1,297 

No. Mariana Islands No 0 

Ohio Yes X X 31,971 

Oklahoma Yes X nr 8,658 

Oregon Yes X nr 17,118 

Pennsylvania Yes X X 29,505 

Puerto Rico No 0 

Rhode Island Yes X X 15,567 d 

South Carolina Yes X X 2,641 

South Dakota Yes X nr 3,010 

Tennessee Yes X X 17,435 

Texas Yes X nr 17,743 

Utah Yes X X 10,446 

Vermont Yes X nr 2,119 

Virgin Islands Yes nr nr 153 

Virginia Yes X X 31,317 

Washington Yes X X 102,822 

West Virginia Yes X X 2,694 

Wisconsin Yes X X 17,338 

Wyoming Yes X X 695 
 

 

 

 

Table 4a explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Other = Repository. 

b. Other = Massachusetts Community Service Agency. 

c. At year's end 2016, 110 protection orders were entered to NCIC. Nevada courts are not open

 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This causes courts not to be able to comply with the NCIC's 24x7 

"hit" confirmation policy. Also, courts and law enforcement are not available to validate the accuracy 

of protection orders under the existing NCIC validation requirement. Protection orders that meet 

NICS entry criteria are entered into the NICS Indices by repository staff for use in making 

firearm suitability determinations. 

d. Other = Attorney General. 
Table 5. Warrant information and entering agencies, 2016 

Agencies responsible for entering warrants Agencies responsible for entering warrants 

onto the state file onto NCIC 

State maintains Law Law 

State a warrant file enforcement Courts Other enforcement Courts Other 

Alabama Yes X X 

Alaska Yes X X 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona Yes X X X X 

Arkansas No X 

California Yes X X X X 

Colorado Yes X X X X 

Connecticut Yes X X X X 

Delaware Yes X X X X 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida Yes X X 

Georgia No X 

Guam Yes X X 

Hawaii Yes X X 

Idaho Yes X X 

Illinois Yes X X X X 

Indiana Yes X X 

Iowa Yes X X 

Kansas Yes X X 

Kentucky Yes X X 

Louisiana No X 

Maine Yes X X 

Maryland Yes X Parole Commission X X Parole Commission 

Massachusetts Yes X X 

Michigan Yes X X X X 

Minnesota Yes X X X 

Mississippi No X 

Missouri Yes X X 

Montana Yes X X 

Nebraska Yes X X 

Nevada Yes X X X X 

New Hampshire Yes X X X 

New Jersey No X X 

New Mexico No X 

New York Yes X X X X 

North Carolina Yes X X X 

North Dakota Yes X X 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio Yes X X 

Oklahoma No X 

Oregon Yes X X X X 

Pennsylvania Yes X X X X 

Puerto Rico Yes X X 

Rhode Island Yes X X Attorney General X X Attorney General 

South Carolina No X 

South Dakota Yes X X X 

Tennessee No X 

Texas Yes X X X 

Utah Yes X X 

Vermont Yes X X 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia Yes X X 

Washington Yes X Dispatch, Records X Dispatch, Records 

West Virginia Yes X X 

Wisconsin Yes X X 

Wyoming Yes X X 
Table 5 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 5a. Warrant record counts and state severity breakdowns, 2016 

Breakdown of warrants in state warrant database 

State 

Number of active records in 

state warrant database 

as of 12/31/2016 

Number of active records in 

NCIC warrant file 

as of 12/31/2016 Felony warrants 

Misdemeanor 

warrants Other 

Total 6,914,352 a 2,288,105 842,076 3,942,173 1,071,369 a 

Alabama 234,486 13,005 28,040 206,255 191 c 

Alaska 13,199 592 2,732 3,134 7,333 c 

American Samoa nr 1 nr nr nr 

Arizona 395,764 67,776 47,538 313,577 34,649 c 

Arkansas b 147,846 b 

California 1,060,344 231,999 270,012 790,332 0 

Colorado 271,512 40,428 35,375 169,365 66,772 c 

Connecticut na 3,589 na na na 

Delaware 99,545 3,160 7,856 91,008 681 c 

District of Columbia nr 637 

Florida 262,605 264,514 88,260 154,984 19,361 c 

Georgia b 218,792 b 

Guam 1,575 537 290 356 929 c 

Hawaii 111,322 516 0 45018 66,304 c 

Idaho 88 26,547 0 0 88 c 

Illinois na 39,891 na na na 

Indiana 78,092 79,226 28,779 47,279 2,034 c 

Iowa 53,472 14,506 5,994 46,243 1,235 c 

Kansas 32,828 11,753 0 32,828 0 

Kentucky 137,689 10,428 25,921 76,713 35,055 c 

Louisiana b 18,182 b 

Maine na 1,298 na na na 

Maryland 66,139 20,600 14,609 47,920 3,610 c 

Massachusetts 839,751 15,503 90,972 748,779 0 

Michigan 809,401 85,373 11,232 265,122 533,047 c 

Minnesota 69,324 18,310 16,385 39,741 13,198 c 

Mississippi b 15,781 b 

Missouri 269,902 31,537 31,718 118,507 119,677 c 

Montana 19,624 3,710 641 18,983 0 

Nebraska 17,003 11,313 17003 0 

Nevada 282,310 14,740 na na na 

New Hampshire 32,256 3,027 na na na 

New Jersey b 55,261 b 

New Mexico b 105,960 b 

New York na 33,560 na na na 

North Carolina 135,040 27,090 28,651 103,112 3,277 c 

North Dakota 36,307 1,682 na na na 

No. Mariana Islands nr 0 nr nr nr 

Ohio na 15,997 na na na 

Oklahoma b 22,978 b 

Oregon 62,923 18,154 na na na 

Pennsylvania 111,425 115,205 23,046 52,816 35,563 c 

Puerto Rico na 1,678 na na na 

Rhode Island na 2,038 na na na 

South Carolina b 70,062 b 

South Dakota na 1,522 na na na 

Tennessee b 36,020 b 

Texas 639,330 238,254 na na na 

Utah 193,976 1,582 19,171 164,784 10,021 c 

Vermont 5,608 258 na na na 

Virgin Islands nr 71 nr nr nr 

Virginia 59,016 58,040 22,343 36,673 0 

Washington 205,605 47,401 4,020 157,344 44,241 c 

West Virginia 115,505 1,956 23,134 83,942 8,429 c 

Wisconsin 172,712 17,649 15,357 91,681 65,674 c 

Wyoming 18,674 570 0 18,674 0 
 

 

 

 

Table 5a explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Felony, misdemeanor, and other warrant breakdowns do not match the total number of active 

warrants in state databases due to individual counts not being available in Nevada, 

New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont. 

b. State does not maintain a warrant file. 

c. States reporting "Other" indicate that warrants in this category pertain to attempt to locate civil, 

child support, juvenile, ordinance infractions, small claims, and/or traffic-related matters that 

are not eligible for NCIC entry. 
Table 5b. Timeliness of warrant entry, 2016 

State 

Elapsed time between the issuance of a warrant and 

entry of its information onto the state file 

No state 

1 day or 2–7 8–30 30 days or warrant 

less days days more file / NR 

Elapsed time between the issuance of a warrant 

and entry of its information onto the 

NCIC Wanted Person File 

1 day or 2–7 8–30 30 days or 

less days days more NR 

Total 

Alabama X X 

Alaska X X 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona X X 

Arkansas X X 

California X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut X X 

Delaware X X 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X 

Guam X X 

Hawaii X X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois X X 

Indiana X X 

Iowa X X 

Kansas X X 

Kentucky X X 

Louisiana X X 

Maine X X 

Maryland X X 

Massachusetts X X 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi X X 

Missouri X X 

Montana X X 

Nebraska X X 

Nevada X X 

New Hampshire X X 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X 

North Carolina X X 

North Dakota X X 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X 

Oregon X X 

Pennsylvania X X 

Puerto Rico X X 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina X X 

South Dakota X X 

Tennessee X X 

Texas X X 

Utah X X 

Vermont X X 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia X X 

Washington X X 

West Virginia X X 

Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming X X 
 

 

 

 

Table 5b explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 6. Flagging of records, 2016 

Flagging also employed to indicate 

Felony 

conviction 

flagging 

capability for 

criminal history 

State record subjects Other Sex offender registrant Violent offender MCDV conviction - firearms prohibitor Active state/NCIC protection order on file Active state/NCIC warrant on file Mental health adjudication DNA available Ineligible for firearms purchases under Federal law Ineligible for firearms purchases under state law 

Alabama yes, all X 1 

Alaska yes, all X X X X 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona yes, all X X X X X 

Arkansas yes, all X X X X 

California no X X X 

Colorado yes, all X X X X X X 1 

Connecticut yes, all X X 

Delaware yes, all X X X 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida yes, some X X 2 

Georgia yes, all X X X 

Guam no X X X X 

Hawaii yes, all X X X X 3 

Idaho yes, all X 4 

Illinois yes, all X X X X X X X 

Indiana no nr 

Iowa yes, all X X 

Kansas yes, all X X X X 

Kentucky yes, some X X 

Louisiana yes, some X X X 

Maine yes, all X X X 

Maryland yes, some X X X 

Massachusetts no X 5 

Michigan yes, some X X X X X 6 

Minnesota yes, some X X 

Mississippi no X X 

Missouri yes, all X X X X 

Montana yes, all X X X 

Nebraska yes, all X 

Nevada no X X 

New Hampshire no nr 

New Jersey yes, all X X X X X X X 7 

New Mexico yes, all X 

& New York a yes, all X X X X 8 

North Carolina yes, all X X X X 

North Dakota no X 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio yes, some X X X 9 

Oklahoma yes, some X X 

Oregon yes, all X X X X 

Pennsylvania no X X X X X X 

Puerto Rico yes, all nr 

Rhode Island no X X X 

South Carolina yes, all X X X X 

South Dakota yes, all nr 

Tennessee yes, some X X 

Texas yes, some X X X X X 

Utah yes, all X X X 10 

Vermont yes, all X X X 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia yes, all X X X 

Washington yes, all X X X X X 

West Virginia yes, all X X X X 11 

Wisconsin yes, all X X X X 

Wyoming yes, all X X 
 

 

 

Table 6 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Legend: Other. 

1. Convicted felon 

2. All state background checks that require registration 

3. Career criminal, firearms risk 

4. Subject may be ineligible to purchase firearm 

5. Mutilated fingerprints 

6. Palm prints, mug shots 

7. Gang-related, arrest notifications 

8. DNA required 

9. Arson offender 

10. Multi-state offender, deceased 

11. Child abuser, bail bond enforcement, concealed weapon permit holder 

Data footnotes: 

a. New York inadvertently omitted flagging misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV)

 records in their 2014 survey response. See Survey of State Criminal History Information

 Systems, 2014 , Table 6 at p. 28, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf. 
Table 6a. Access to records, 2016 

Beyond accessing criminal history record information, other records and services 

that are accessible through state repositories 

State 

Sex 

offender 

registry 

Orders of 

protection 

Wanted 

persons/ 

warrants 

Retained 

applicant 

prints 

Firearm 

registration 

Domestic 

violence 

incident 

reports Other 

Alabama X X X X 

Alaska X X X X X 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona X X X 

Arkansas X X X 

California X X Criminal justice rap back 

Colorado X X X X 

Connecticut X X 

Delaware X X X X X X 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida X X X Missing persons, child support writs 

Georgia X X Criminal justice rap back 

Guam X X X 

Hawaii X X X X X 

Idaho X X X Criminal justice rap back 

Illinois X Criminal justice rap back 

Indiana X X X 

Iowa X X 

Kansas X X X Criminal justice rap back 

Kentucky X X X 

Louisiana X X 

Maine X X 

Maryland X X X X X 

Massachusetts X 

Michigan X X X X X 

Minnesota X X X Concealed carry permits 

Mississippi X X X 

Missouri X X X X 

Montana X Violent offender 

Nebraska X X X X 

Nevada X X X Concealed carry permits 

New Hampshire X 

New Jersey X X X X X 

New Mexico 

New York X X X X X 

North Carolina 

North Dakota X X X 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X X 

Pennsylvania X X X X X 

Puerto Rico X 

Rhode Island X X X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X X X 

Tennessee X 

Texas X X Criminal justice rap back 

Utah X X 

Vermont X X X Criminal justice rap back, medical marijuana 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia X X X 

Concealed carry permits, mental health, 

machine gun license 

Washington X X X 

West Virginia X X X X 

Concealed carry permits, child abuse, bail 

bond enforcement 

Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming X X X 
Table 6a explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 7. Number of final dispositions reported to state criminal history repository, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 

Number of final case dispositions Percent change 

State 2010 2012 2014 2016 2010–2012 2012–2014 2014–2016 

Total 12,964,000 13,798,300 12,223,000 12,648,200 6% 11% 3% 

Alabama 66,600 a 27,800 31,700 55,600 a -58 a 14 75 a 

Alaska 34,100 72,100 b 46,700 56,500 111 b -35 b 21 

American Samoa nr 1,300 nr nr nr nr na 

Arizona 172,100 278,700 370,500 334,100 62 33 -10 

Arkansas 44,500 42,900 54,800 51,500 -4 28 -6 

California 1,616,800 1,565,000 1,471,100 1,530,600 -3 -6 4 

Colorado 66,700 34,300 115,500 c 341,200 c -49 237 c 195 c 

Connecticut 53,200 88,600 70,200 67,600 67 -21 -4 

Delaware 341,100 476,700 451,600 420,200 40 -5 -7 

District of Columbia nr nr 30,200 nr nr nr nr 

Florida 2,224,700 2,057,400 1,419,800 d 1,005,900 d -8 -31 -29 d 

Georgia 728,000 658,900 729,100 612,600 -9 11 -16 

Guam 1,100 5,000 e 4,300 e 1,600 355 e -14 -63 e 

Hawaii 67,400 70,400 72,700 83,200 4 3 14 

Idaho 156,500 141,200 171,600 210,000 -10 22 22 

Illinois 380,400 275,000 289,200 313,100 -28 5 8 

Indiana 295,400 244,400 169,000 246,100 f -17 -31 46 f 

Iowa 306,800 305,000 350,800 324,500 -1 15 7 

Kansas 168,600 229,000 115,600 170,300 36 -50 g 47 

Kentucky 62,000 141,000 106,500 138,700 127 h -24 30 h 

Louisiana 32,800 42,400 21,300 i 100,500 i 29 -50 i 372 i 

Maine 92,300 32,900 33,500 31,000 -64 j 2 -7 

Maryland 248,500 282,000 239,500 204,100 13 -15 -15 

Massachusetts na na na 1,000 na na na k 

Michigan 440,300 824,200 428,100 300,100 87 l -48 l -30 l 

Minnesota 152,400 93,400 114,700 138,400 -39 23 21 

Mississippi 15,400 15,200 28,600 25,100 -1 88 m -12 

Missouri 134,600 157,800 172,400 203,600 17 9 18 

Montana 23,100 26,200 22,600 23,100 13 -14 2 

Nebraska 65,600 56,200 72,200 n 52,400 n -14 28 n -27 n 

Nevada 46,400 50,000 119,800 119,000 8 140 o -1 

New Hampshire nr nr 73,800 93,200 nr na 26 

New Jersey 370,500 693,200 p 170,900 p 171,400 87 p -75 p 0 

New Mexico 21,700 10,000 4,900 3,900 -54 q -51 q -20 

New York 532,300 576,200 548,700 470,100 8 -5 -14 

North Carolina 307,300 256,000 243,300 251,900 -17 -5 4 

North Dakota 18,000 nr 19,800 34,200 r na na 73 r 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr na 

Ohio 575,100 s 351,800 400,400 940,400 -39 14 135 s 

Oklahoma 69,000 75,500 85,200 208,300 t 9 13 144 t 

Oregon 164,000 149,400 u 87,500 114,000 -9 -41 u 30 

Pennsylvania 153,900 141,200 172,900 140,300 -8 22 -19 

Puerto Rico nr 18,100 41,500 20,700 nr 129 -50 

Rhode Island 23,300 15,900 17,800 20,900 -32 12 17 

South Carolina 151,900 183,800 112,100 226,700 v 21 -39 102 v 

South Dakota 59,800 na 350,900 304,700 na na -13 

Tennessee 266,000 255,700 258,600 224,900 -4 1 -13 

Texas 959,700 1,398,300 1,040,100 969,400 46 -26 -7 

Utah 202,900 118,300 79,900 148,100 w -42 -32 85 w 

Vermont 19,700 19,500 19,400 16,100 -1 -1 -17 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr na na na 

Virginia 432,500 464,400 460,800 420,300 7 -1 -9 

Washington 287,700 396,800 396,900 407,100 38 0 3 

West Virginia 66,000 66,500 na 56,700 1 na na 

Wisconsin 231,500 302,400 302,500 233,500 31 x 0 -23 

Wyoming 13,800 10,300 11,500 9,800 -25 12 -15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Final dispositions include release by police without charging, declination to proceed by prosecutor, 

 or final trial court disposition. 

Data footnotes: 

a. Final dispositions reported in 2010 and 2016 include dispositions in backlog. Totals for 2012 and 2014 do not. 

b. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions are due to efforts to enter case dismissals that are reported 

 to the repository by statewide courts. This also influences the 2014 percent change notation. 

c. In 2014, a change in counting methodologies from previous cycles was deployed. The current method is to count 

each charge within each arrest event, as opposed to only counting individual arrest events and not each charge. 

The 2016 increase over 2014 is the result of additional agencies reporting dispositions received from statewide

 Municipal Courts. 

d. Decreases in disposition receipts for 2014 and 2016 account for a change in counting methodologies 

from previous cycles. 

e. The 2012 and 2014 increases in reported dispositions are due to efforts to complete a backlog reduction 

project. This also caused percent change swings in subsequent years as indicated. 

f. The 2016 increase in disposition receipts is due to efforts to capture missing dispositions on previously 

submitted arrests that are without dispositions. 

g. The 2014 decrease in reported dispositions is due to a legislative change that required courts to electronically 

report dispositions to the repository by July 1, 2013. Prior to that date, statewide prosecutors reported 

dispositions; however, on the effective date of the new law, courts were not ready to report dispositions and 

prosecutors discontinued reporting. Prosecutors have since begun to report again and work is being done to 

build electronic court exchanges to report dispositions to the repository. 

h. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is due to NCHIP and NARIP-funded efforts to research and

 enter dispositions for charges for which final dispositions were not reported. The 2016 increase is due to a 

reported statewide effort to emphasize the importance of fully documenting arrests with conviction data. 

i. The 2014 decrease in disposition receipts is due to the clearing of a 2012 backlog of disposition reports. The

 2016 increase in reported dispositions is a result of efforts made to receive electronic dispositions from the state 

supreme court. 

j. The 2012 decrease in reported dispositions is due to completing a 2010 project with statewide courts to 

recover past "legacy" disposition data. 

k. Massachusetts Courts recently began submitting fingerprint-supported final case dispositions to the 

repository. A major project is currently under way to link court disposition data to the repository, where 

significant increases in future disposition reporting totals are anticipated. 

l. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is due to efforts to research and enter dispositions for 

charges for which final dispositions were not reported. The 2014 decrease follows a 2013 legislative change 

making deferrals nonpublic and not subject to reporting of same to the repository. These also contributed

 to the decrease in 2016. 

m. The increase in reported dispositions is due to a reported educational outreach project with statewide courts. 

n. In 2014, Nebraska undertook an initiative to identify and automate the reconciliation of historical records that were 

 previously reconciled manually. By 2016, this effort was completed and the 2016 total number reflects that effort. 

o. The 2014 increase in reported dispositions is due to a major outreach project and backlog reduction effort

 following a fall 2013 audit of criminal history records between the repository and statewide courts. 

p. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions is due to implementing an automated linking and flagging process

 between the New Jersey State Police and statewide courts. This process went into production in 2011 and

 stabilized following a backlog reduction effort in 2013 and 2014. The total for 2014 was increased in this cycle 

 by 31,700 to adjust for an error in the total number of dispositions New Jersey reported it had received in 2014. 

q. The 2012 and 2014 decreases in reported dispositions are due to completing a backlog reduction project in 2010. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r. The 2016 increase in disposition receipts is due to efforts to capture missing dispositions on previously 

submitted arrests that are without dispositions. 

s. Ohio's 2010 total number of final case dispositions received decreased from 770,900 to 575,100 in this

 year's report. Also, the 2008–2010 percent change figure was adjusted to reflect this change. The higher number

 included dispositions that were processed from an accumulated backlog. The 2016 increase in dispositions

 over previous years is due to including dispositions that were received electronically from statewide courts. 

 These were not counted in previous years. 

t. The 2016 increase in reported dispositions is due to NCHIP-funded efforts to research and enter dispositions 

for charges for which final dispositions were not reported to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. 

u. Oregon's 2012 total number of final case dispositions received was decreased from 202,500 to 149,400 in this

 year's report. Also, the 2010–2012 percent change figure was adjusted to reflect this change. The 2014 decrease

 in reported dispositions is due to a change in counting methodologies from previous cycles. 

v. The increase in reported dispositions is due to a reported educational outreach project with statewide courts. 

w. In 2016, additional programming was put in place to obtain added dispositions from statewide courts. 

x. The 2012 increase in reported dispositions are a result of receiving electronic dispositions from statewide county

 prosecutors. 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Table 7a. Disposition reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2016 

Of dispositions sent to the FBI, percent sent by: 

Of total dispositions Interstate Identification 

received, number sent Machine readable Index (III) 

State to the FBI data (MRD) Hard copy or paper Message Key Secure web portal 

Total 4,809,900 

Alabama 55,600 100% 

Alaska 21,600 99 1% 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona 282,100 83% 17% 

Arkansas 51,500 95 5 

California 943,100 100 

Colorado 0 a 

Connecticut nr 

Delaware 420,200 100% 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida 0 a 

Georgia 0 a 

Guam 800 100 

Hawaii 3,600 a 100 

Idaho 0 a 

Illinois na 100 

Indiana 216,900 100 

Iowa 0 a 

Kansas 0 a 

Kentucky 121,000 100 

Louisiana na 

Maine 17,300 100 

Maryland 9,200 a 100 

Massachusetts 1,000 100 

Michigan 300,100 100 

Minnesota 0 a,b 

Mississippi na 100 

Missouri 0 a 

Montana 0 a 

Nebraska 71,200 100 

Nevada 129,700 2 98 

New Hampshire nr 

New Jersey 0 a 

New Mexico 5,900 100 

New York 191,000 a 100 

North Carolina 0 a 

North Dakota 34,200 100 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio 0 a 

Oklahoma 0 a 

Oregon 0 a 

Pennsylvania 100,600 100 

Puerto Rico nr 

Rhode Island 20,900 20 80 

South Carolina 226,700 100 

South Dakota 31,900 100 

Tennessee 0 a 

Texas 969,400 100 

Utah 92,500 c 100 

Vermont 13,800 95 5 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia 0 d 

Washington 407,100 100 

West Virginia 0 a 

Wisconsin 71,000 100 

Wyoming 0 a 
 

Table 7a explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

NOTE: National Fingerprint File (NFF) states are signatories to the 

National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, under which these 

states have agreed to provide all criminal history information when 

responding to requests received from the FBI in connection with 

national civil purpose background checks. Consequently, disposition 

information is made available for all inquiries received from the FBI for 

arrests that occurred subsequent to the state becoming an NFF 

participant. In some instances, an NFF state may provide information 

that predates NFF participation. States that do not participate in the 

NFF program continue to voluntarily forward disposition information to 

the FBI. 

Data footnotes: 

a. NFF-participating state. 

b. The repository sends dispositions to the FBI when requested for specific cases. 

c. Additional programming was put in place to obtain more records from the courts. 

d. The Virginia State Police is redesigning its criminal history system to include sending disposition 

information to the FBI via MRD or electronic posting. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7b. Interim disposition reporting, posting of indictment information, and cite and release without fingerprinting, 2016 

State collects charge tracking information (interim Does local law enforcement agencies 

dispositions) on the criminal history record to show State posts indictment information routinely cite and release individuals 

State case status through the criminal justice process to the criminal history record without fingerprinting? 

Alabama Yes No 4 

Alaska No No 2 

American Samoa nr nr nr 

Arizona No No 3 

Arkansas Yes No a 3 

California No No 2 

Colorado Yes Yes 2 

Connecticut No nr 2 

Delaware Yes Yes 2 

District of Columbia nr nr nr 

Florida Yes No 2 

Georgia Yes Yes b 1 

Guam No Yes 1 

Hawaii Yes Yes c 1 

Idaho No Yes 2 

Illinois Yes No 4 

Indiana No No 2 

Iowa No No 2 

Kansas Yes Yes 2 

Kentucky No No 3 

Louisiana No No 2 

Maine Yes No 3 

Maryland Yes Yes 2 

Massachusetts No No 3 

Michigan Yes Yes 1 

Minnesota No No 2 

Mississippi Yes Yes 1 

Missouri Yes Yes 2 

Montana Yes No 3 

Nebraska No No 3 

Nevada Yes Yes 2 

New Hampshire Yes Yes 2 

New Jersey Yes No 1 

New Mexico nr No 2 

New York Yes No 1 

North Carolina No No 2 

North Dakota Yes No 3 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr 

Ohio No Yes 3 

Oklahoma Yes No 2 

Oregon nr No 2 

Pennsylvania No No 2 

Puerto Rico Yes nr nr 

Rhode Island No Yes 1 

South Carolina No Yes 2 

South Dakota Yes No 4 

Tennessee No No 1 

Texas Yes No 4 

Utah Yes No 3 

Vermont Yes No 2 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr 

Virginia No No 2 

Washington No No 3 

West Virginia No No 3 

Wisconsin Yes No 3 

Wyoming Yes No 2 
 

 

 

 

Table 7b explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Arkansas rarely uses indictments. Instead, a criminal information is filed, which starts the 

criminal proceeding. Information obtained about the person and arrest and status of the 

criminal proceeding are posted to the record as received. 

b. Indicted disposition entered at the discretion of the prosecutor. 

c. Indictment information is posted to the criminal history record once the offender is served the warrant and 

booked. 

Legend: 

1. Yes, only for violations (minor or petty offenses that do not typically involve jail time) 

2. Yes, for both violations and misdemeanors 

3. Yes, for all criminal offenses, including felonies 

4. No 
Table 7c. Disposition reporting by local prosecutors, 2016 

How dispositions are received 

State 

Does the repository 

receive any final case 

dispositions from local 

prosecutors? 

Automated means through a 

centralized (statewide) 

prosecutors' case management 

system (CMS) 

Local prosecutors' 

CMS Is paper-based 

Mix of automated 

and paper-based 

Alabama No 

Alaska Yes X 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona Yes X 

Arkansas Yes X 

California Yes X 

Colorado Yes X 

Connecticut No 

Delaware Yes X X 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida No 

Georgia Yes X X X 

Guam No 

Hawaii Yes X X 

Idaho Yes a X 

Illinois Yes X 

Indiana Yes X 

Iowa No X X 

Kansas Yes 

Kentucky No 

Louisiana Yes X 

Maine Yes X 

Maryland No 

Massachusetts No b 

Michigan Yes X X 

Minnesota Yes X 

Mississippi nr X 

Missouri Yes X 

Montana Yes X 

Nebraska No 

Nevada Yes X 

New Hampshire Yes X 

New Jersey No 

New Mexico Yes X 

New York Yes X X X 

North Carolina No 

North Dakota Yes X 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio No 

Oklahoma Yes X X 

Oregon Yes X X 

Pennsylvania No 

Puerto Rico Yes X 

Rhode Island Yes X 

South Carolina Yes X 

South Dakota No 

Tennessee No 

Texas Yes X 

Utah Yes 

Vermont No 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia No 

Washington Yes X 

West Virginia Yes X 

Wisconsin Yes X 

Wyoming Yes X 
 

Table 7c explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Some prosecutors send final case disposition information via email.

b. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a separate disposition database. Currently, these 

 dispositions are not submitted to the repository. In 2014, Massachusetts reports 99% of records 

in this database have dispositions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7d. Matching of dispositions between prosecutors and the repository, 2016 

How records are matched between prosecutors and the repository 

N/A, state does not PCN or TCN PCN or TCN 

receive automated assigned at assigned 

dispositions from time of arrest/ subsequent to State Date of 

State prosecutors booking† arrest/ booking† ID # Arrest # Name birth Charges Other 

Alabama nr 

Alaska X 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona X X X X X X 

Arkansas X X X X Race and sex 

California X X X X X 

Colorado Docket number and name 

Connecticut 

Delaware X X X Case number 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida 

Georgia X X X 

Guam X 

Hawaii X X X X X X Social Security number 

Idaho X X X X X 

Illinois X 

Indiana X X X Case number, arrest date 

Iowa nr 

Kansas X X X X 

Kentucky 

Louisiana X X X 

Maine X X X 

Maryland 

Massachusetts a 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X Case number 

Mississippi X X X X 

Missouri X X X 

Montana X X X X 

Nebraska X X X X 

Nevada X X X X Arrest date 

New Hampshire X 

New Jersey nr 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X 

North Carolina nr 

North Dakota X 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio X 

Oklahoma X 

Oregon X X X X X X 

Pennsylvania nr 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island X X X X 

South Carolina X X X X X 

Warrant number, Social 

Security number 

South Dakota nr 

Tennessee nr 

Texas X X X 

Utah X X X X 

Vermont nr 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia nr 

Washington X X X X X X 

West Virginia X X X X X X 

Wisconsin X X X X Arrest date, offense number 

Wyoming X 
 

Table 7d explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

† Process Control Number (PCN), Transaction Control Number (TCN)

Data footnotes: 

a. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a separate disposition database. Currently these dispositions

 are not submitted to the repository. In 2014, Massachusetts reports 99% of records in this database

 have dispositions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Receipt of court disposition information by automated means and record matching, 2016 

Total automated records sent Records matched between the court system and repository 

Was any court 

disposition Percentage of Via a 

data reported court centralized Via an 

directly to the dispositions (statewide) individual local 

repository by reported by court case court case 

automated automated management management 

State means? means system system Other PCN or TCN assigned at arrest/booking† PCN or TCN assigned subsequent to arrest/booking† State ID number Arrest number Name Date of birth Charges State does not receive automated court dispositions 

Total 6,099,188 11,232,008 

Alabama No X X X 

Alaska No X 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona Yes 17 X X X X X Race and sex 

Arkansas Yes 73 X X X X X 

California Yes 75 1,049,347 X X X X X 

Colorado Yes 100 1,687,244 

Docket number 

and last name 

Connecticut Yes 100 X 

Delaware Yes 100 X X X X X 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida Yes 100 1,005,905 X X X X X X 

Georgia Yes 92 136,781 249,778 X X X X X X 

Guam No 

Hawaii Yes 100 69,873 X X X X X X SSN 

Idaho Yes 100 209,995 X X X 

Illinois Yes 81 48,838 X X 

Indiana Yes 82 199,066 X X 

Iowa Yes nr 98 X X 

Kansas Yes 80 212,141 X X X 

Kentucky Yes 18 7,835 X 

Louisiana Yes 73 73,022 X X 

Maine Yes 100 X X X 

Maryland Yes 100 1,629,011 X X X X X X X CTN 

Massachusetts No a 

Michigan Yes 91 300,100 X X 

Minnesota Yes 96 132,781 X X Case number 

Mississippi No 

Missouri Yes 80 163,712 X X X 

Montana Yes nr 2,666 X X X X 

Nebraska Yes nr 

Nevada Yes 22 26,117 Arrest date 

New Hampshire No X X X X X X X 

New Jersey Yes 100 100 X X X X 

New Mexico No X X X X 

New York Yes nr X X 

North Carolina Yes 100 251,946 X X 

North Dakota No 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio Yes 95 400,298 407,057 X X X 

FBI Number, 

arrest date 

Oklahoma No X 

Oregon Yes 82 90,122 3,032 X X X X X X 

Pennsylvania Yes 100 100 X X X X X SSN 

Puerto Rico No 

Rhode Island No b X X X X 

South Carolina Yes 68 X X X X Warrant #, SSN 

South Dakota Yes 100 304,700 X X X 

Tennessee Yes 70 X 

Texas Yes 95 7,754,078 X X 

Utah Yes 100 100 X X X X X X 

Vermont Yes 95 16,100 X X X 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia Yes 95 258,653 X X X X X OTN 

Washington Yes 56 407,100 X X X X X 

West Virginia No 

Wisconsin Yes 100 233,500 X X X X X X X Arrest date 

Wyoming No X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ SSN: Social Security Number.

▪ CTN: Court Tracking Number.

▪ OTN: Offense Tracking Number.

† Process Control Number (PCN), Transaction Control Number (TCN).

Data footnotes: 

a. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a separate disposition database. Currently these dispositions 

are not submitted to the repository. Massachusetts reports 99% of records in its database have dispositions. 

b. Rhode Island is in the planning and development phase of bringing automated dispositions online. 
Table 8a. Matching of dispositions received to specific arrest events, 2016 

Actions taken when disposition cannot be matched to an arrest 

Percentage of all Court provided 

dispositions Follow-up charge(s) and State uses a 

received that Placed in Placed in a actions are disposition are vendor to 

could not be suspense file suspense file Disposition taken by posted to the identify and 

linked to a specific (no further for further information is repository Court is beginning/end of locate missing 

State arrest record action) investigation rejected staff contacted record Other dispositions 

Alabama X X No 

Alaska nr X a No 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona <1 X X X X X b No 

Arkansas 1 X X No 

California 9 X X X c No 

Colorado 43 d No 

Connecticut nr X No 

Delaware 0 No 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida 30 X X No 

Georgia 0 X X X Yes 

Guam 0 No 

Hawaii 23 X X X No 

Idaho 62 X X X X Yes 

Illinois 4 X X X No 

Indiana 37 X X X No 

Iowa <1 X X X Yes 

Kansas 41 X No 

Kentucky 21 X No 

Louisiana 50 X X X No 

Maine 0 X X No 

Maryland 29 X X X X Yes 

Massachusetts 48 e No 

Michigan 10 X X X No 

Minnesota na X X X b No 

Mississippi nr X X nr 

Missouri 16 X X No 

Montana 5 X X X X No 

Nebraska 0 No 

Nevada 4 No 

New Hampshire nr X X X X X No 

New Jersey 0 X X No 

New Mexico nr X No 

New York 6 No 

North Carolina nr X X No 

North Dakota nr X X X X No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio 33 X X X X No 

Oklahoma 2 X X No 

Oregon 16 X X X X X No 

Pennsylvania 28 f No 

Puerto Rico 0 X X nr 

Rhode Island nr X X X g No 

South Carolina nr X X X No 

South Dakota na X No 

Tennessee 5 X No 

Texas 3 X h No 

Utah 22 X X X X X No 

Vermont 5 X X No 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia nr X X X No 

Washington 3 X X X X b No 

West Virginia 15 X X X X X b No 

Wisconsin 7 X X X X X No 

Wyoming 2 X nr 
Table 8a explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Charge is researched and added. 

b. Law enforcement is contacted. 

c. Added to repository as an "orphan disposition" 

d. Placed in a suspense file for processing next day forward. 

e. No action taken. 

f. Held in a holding file until the arrest is received, then it is automatically posted. 

g. Filed for follow-up to identify case, then updated when available. 

h. Placed in a suspense file and checked daily for arrest information. 
Table 8b. Timeliness of receipt and entry of final felony court case disposition information, 2016 

Elapsed time between the receipt of a final felony court case 

Elapsed time between the occurrence of a final felony court case disposition and its entry into the state's 

disposition and its receipt by the repository criminal history record database 

1 day or 2–7 8–30 31–90 91–180 181–365 1 day or 2–7 8–30 31–90 91–180 181–365 > 1 

State less days days days days days > 1 year less days days days days days year 

Alabama nr nr 

Alaska X 

American Samoa nr X nr 

Arizona X X 

Arkansas X X 

California X X 

Colorado X X 

Connecticut nr nr 

Delaware X X 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida X X 

Georgia X X 

Guam X X 

Hawaii X X 

Idaho X X 

Illinois nr nr 

Indiana X X 

Iowa X X 

Kansas X X 

Kentucky X X 

Louisiana nr nr 

Maine X X 

Maryland X X 

Massachusetts nr nr 

Michigan X X 

Minnesota X X 

Mississippi X X 

Missouri X X 

Montana X X 

Nebraska X X 

Nevada X X 

New Hampshire nr nr 

New Jersey X X 

New Mexico X X 

New York X X 

North Carolina X X 

North Dakota X X 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio X X 

Oklahoma X X 

Oregon X X 

Pennsylvania nr X 

Puerto Rico nr nr 

Rhode Island X X 

South Carolina nr X 

South Dakota X X 

Tennessee X nr 

Texas X X 

Utah X X 

Vermont X X 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia X X 

Washington X X 

West Virginia X X 

Wisconsin X X 

Wyoming nr nr 
Table 8b explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ nr (not reported).
 

 

 

 

Table 9. Arrest fingerprint cards processed, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 

Fingerprints processed for criminal justice purposes Percent change 

State 

Total 

Alabama 

Alaska 

American Samoa 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Guam 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

No. Mariana Islands 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

2010 

11,921,800 

273,100 

24,900 

nr 

207,000 

116,700 

1,654,100 

236,100 

132,200 

34,600 

46,400 

904,300 

531,800 

2,300 

38,600 

81,100 

624,000 

216,200 

83,700 

161,500 

188,900 

297,400 

30,700 

244,200 

148,700 

383,500 

143,200 

87,500 

240,000 

19,900 

54,000 

104,200 

35,800 

225,800 

94,200 

762,500 

171,500 

14,000 

nr 

288,500 

123,600 

123,900 

309,100 

nr 

37,500 

240,700 

26,400 

368,300 

882,100 

107,400 

23,400 

nr 

296,600 

243,800 

66,000 

154,000 

15,900 

2012 

12,691,630 

265,800 

23,300 

30 

189,600 

118,000 

1,463,700 

228,500 

98,000 

40,400 

nr 

914,000 

491,200 

nr 

42,200 

71,000 

575,800 

244,500 

92,100 

136,700 

199,100 

326,900 

28,900 

256,300 

135,100 

370,100 

157,100 

91,400 

223,300 

21,200 

49,000 

103,200 

45,000 

205,000 

107,600 

737,300 

283,900 

22,800 

nr 

426,900 

143,900 

120,800 

334,100 

586,400 

34,100 

229,400 

28,300 

428,000 

1,101,300 

76,500 

18,000 

nr 

296,100 

235,900 

97,300 

162,200 

14,400 

a 

f 

2014 

11,474,600 

225,000 

22,200 

nr 

346,500 

127,500 

1,465,700 

235,400 

97,200 

34,300 

600 

773,400 

503,000 

2,500 

48,200 

63,200 

503,900 

237,800 

87,100 

131,200 

172,300 

327,200 

30,700 

266,800 

150,000 

384,200 

154,300 

88,200 

220,400 

21,000 

43,600 

82,100 

42,000 

185,100 

79,800 

713,100 

270,300 

25,600 

nr 

277,300 

152,200 

137,500 

335,200 

15,400 

32,000 

281,300 

29,500 

385,700 

818,500 

76,800 

15,300 

nr 

256,500 

220,600 

105,300 

157,900 

16,200 

e 

g 

h 

2016 

11,313,500 

223,000 

18,200 

nr 

303,400 

136,900 

1,330,500 

224,300 

85,800 

27,400 

nr 

876,400 

464,300 

2,700 

43,000 

58,700 

450,200 

214,600 

79,300 

120,400 

215,500 b 

271,300 

31,500 

208,000 c 

148,200 

366,400 

154,400 

79,800 

218,800 

25,700 d 

43,600 

80,500 

38,400 

212,000 

74,000 

626,800 

303,300 

22,700 

nr 

264,300 

143,700 

133,900 

296,800 

339,600 

25,000 

257,900 

31,900 

415,300 

769,900 

82,500 

12,600 

nr 

273,000 

215,400 

92,400 

161,700 

17,600 

2010-2012 

6% 

-3 

-6 

nr 

-8 

1 

-12 

-3 

-26 

17 

nr 

1 

-8 

nr 

9 

-12 

-8 

13 

10 

-15 

5 

10 

-6 

5 

-9 

-3 

10 

4 

-7 

7 

-9 

-1 

26 

-9 

14 

-3 

66 

63 

nr 

48 

16 

-3 

8 

na 

-9 

-5 

7 

16 

25 

-29 

-23 

nr 

<1 

-3 

47 

5 

-9 

a 

f 

2012-2014 

10% 

-15 

-5 

nr 

83 

8 

<1 

3 

-1 

-15 

nr 

-15 

2 

nr 

14 

-11 

-12 

-3 

-5 

-4 

-13 

<1 

6 

4 

11 

4 

-2 

-4 

-1 

-1 

-11 

-21 

-7 

-10 

-26 

-3 

-5 

12 

nr 

-35 

6 

14 

<1 

na 

-6 

23 

4 

-10 

-26 

<1 

-15 

nr 

-13 

-6 

8 

-3 

13 

a 

e 

f 

g 

2014-2016 

-1% 

-1 

-18 

nr 

-12 

7 

-9 

-5 

-12 

-20 

nr 

13 

-8 

8 

-11 

-7 

-11 

-10 

-9 

-8 

25 

-17 

3 

-22 

-1 

-5 

<1 

-10 

-1 

22 

0 

-2 

-9 

15 

-7 

-12 

12 

-11 

nr 

-5 

-6 

-3 

-11 

na 

-22 

-8 

8 

8 

-6 

7 

-18 

nr 

6 

-2 

-12 

2 

9 

b 

c 

g 
Table 9 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers reported are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. 2012 totals were understated, causing the 2012–2014 percent change increase.

b. Kentucky reports that the number of fingerprints processed for criminal justice purposes has increased

 because of statewide efforts to increase the percentage of arrested individuals getting fingerprinted during 

 the booking process or upon disposition of the case. 

c. The 2016 decrease in the number of fingerprints processed for criminal justice purposes is attributable to

 Maryland's diversion approach for advancing criminal justice reform. Maryland's Governor signed into law 

 the Justice Reinvestment Act with the goal to reduce prison populations. This caused many police agencies

 to broaden cite and release policies where arrest fingerprints are not recorded when a subject is arrested. 

d. Montana reports that the number of fingerprints processed for criminal justice purposes has increased

 because of efforts made to capture the fingerprints of older arrest and disposition transactions, increased 

 use of livescan, and more effective statewide training. 

e. The total number of fingerprints processed by New York for criminal justice purposes was overstated

 by 173,800 in the 2014 report and was adjusted in this report. 

f. The 2012 increase of fingerprint card submissions to the repository is caused by an increase of

 misdemeanor offenses submitted by large municipal police agencies throughout the state. 

g. 2014 totals were significantly understated, making the percent change between 2012 through 2016 unavailable. 

h. The total number of fingerprints processed by Utah for criminal justice purposes was overstated

 by 40,200 in the 2014 report and was adjusted in this report. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. State plans to replace end-of-lifecycle Computerized Criminal History (CCH) systems and livescan purchasing contracts, 2016 

If no, does state 

Percentage of have plans to 

replacement Percentage of Does state have a negotiate a 

costs that will replacement costs purchasing statewide or 

State has plans to Estimated be requested that will be contract for multistate 

replace its CCH replacement from state requested from livescan purchasing 

State system If yes, when? cost sources Federal sources equipment? contract? 

Alabama X 2017 $500,000 0% 100% 5 8 

Alaska X 2019-2021 Being 

determined 

Being 

determined Being determined 1 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona 1 

Arkansas 2 

California 5 8 

Colorado 1 

Connecticut X 2020 nr 5 7 

Delaware X 

Being 

determined 

Being 

determined 

Being 

determined Being determined 2 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida X 2018 $19.2 Million 89% 11% 1 

Georgia 5 8 

Guam 2 

Hawaii 5 8 

Idaho 5 8 

Illinois 9 a 8 

Indiana 2 

Iowa 5 7 

Kansas X 2022 Unknown Unknown Unknown 5 8 

Kentucky 2 

Louisiana 2 

Maine 9 b 8 

Maryland X 2020 $2.3 Million 0% 100% 5 6 

Massachusetts X 2018/2019 nr 1 

Michigan 1 

Minnesota X 2018 $18 Million 80% 20% 1 

Mississippi 5 8 

Missouri 1 

Montana X 2017 $1.7 Million 10% 90% 2 

Nebraska X 2017 nr 0% 100% 5 8 

Nevada X 2017 $4.2 Million 100% 0% 2 

New Hampshire X 2017 $650,000 0% 100% 2 

New Jersey X 2017 $979,000 0% 100% 1 

New Mexico 5 8 

New York 1 

North Carolina 5 6 

North Dakota X Being 

determined 

Being 

determined 75% 25% 2 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio X 2017 $8.3 Million 5 8 

Oklahoma 5 6 

Oregon X 2020 $10.3 Million 74% 26% 5 8 

Pennsylvania 5 8 

Puerto Rico nr nr 

Rhode Island 5 8 

South Carolina 5 8 

South Dakota X 2017 $150,000 10% 90% 2 

Tennessee 1 

Texas 5 8 

Utah 1 

Vermont 4 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia 5 8 

Washington X 2019 $9.4 Million 100% 0% 5 8 

West Virginia X 2017 $1.8 Million 10% 90% 1 

Wisconsin X Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 5 8 

Wyoming 5 8 
 

Table 10 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Illinois State Police purchasing only. 

b. Livescan equipment is purchased through grant funding. 

Legend: 

1. Yes, state has a statewide contract that local agencies can purchase from. 

2. Yes, state purchases all livescan equipment on behalf of local agencies. 

3. Yes, state is part of a multistate contract for livescan equipment. 

4. Yes, certain agencies within the state have negotiated a multijurisdiction contract. 

5. No, each local agency negotiates directly with livescan vendors to purchase equipment. 

6. Yes, state anticipates negotiating a statewide contract for livescan equipment. 

7. Yes, state anticipates negotiating a multistate contract for livescan equipment. 

8. No 

9. Other 
Table 10a. State plans to replace its Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) due to it nearing the end of its lifecycle, 2016 

Percentage of 

Percentage of replacement costs 

replacement costs that will be 

Does state have plans to Estimated that will be requested requested from 

State replace its AFIS? If yes, when? replacement cost from state funds Federal sources 

Alabama X 2017-2018 nr nr nr 

Alaska 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California X 2016-2017 nr 100% 0% 

Colorado 

Connecticut X 2020 nr nr nr 

Delaware 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida X 2019 Being determined 100% 0% 

Georgia 

Guam nr 

Hawaii X In progress $3 Million 65% 35% 

Idaho 

Illinois X 2018 $27.4 Million 100% 0% 

Indiana 

Iowa X 2017 $850,000 100% 0% 

Kansas X 2017 unknown unknown unknown 

Kentucky X 2017 $2.6 Million 100% 0% 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland X 2019 $7 Million 10% 90% 

Massachusetts 

Michigan X In progress $8.2 Million 84% 16% 

Minnesota 

Mississippi X 2017 $3.5 Million 100% 0% 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico X In progress $4.6 Million 100% 0% 

New York 

North Carolina X 2019 $6 Million 100% 0% 

North Dakota 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio X In progress $11.8 Million 

Oklahoma X In progress $4.1 Million 49% 51% 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania X 2018-2019 $5-6 Million nr nr 

Puerto Rico nr 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont X 2017 $3.5 Million 100% 0% 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin X 2017-2018 $3-$3.5 Million 50% 50% 

Wyoming 
Table 10a explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11. Arrest/fingerprint reporting, 2016 

Total number of law Number of law 

enforcement agencies enforcement agencies Percentage of arrest Number of agencies that Number of agencies that 

reporting that submit arrest prints prints submitted submit arrest fingerprints submit hard copy arrest 

State arrests/fingerprints via livescan via livescan via cardscan fingerprint cards 

Total 27,383 a 13,922 b 93 39 4,342 

Alabama 1,392 165 78 0 114 

Alaska 49 41 94 0 15 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 163 97 97 14 66 

Arkansas 590 531 92 nr nr 

California 1,764 nr 100 0 0 

Colorado 257 nr 98 nr nr 

Connecticut 107 107 90 0 nr 

Delaware 76 76 100 0 0 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 401 401 97 0 0 

Georgia 729 590 99 0 0 

Guam 1 1 100 0 0 

Hawaii 21 14 100 0 0 

Idaho 144 138 96 0 6 

Illinois 1,730 625 96 0 1,045 

Indiana 1,541 1,541 99 3 3 

Iowa 392 61 80 nr nr 

Kansas 426 181 88 0 238 

Kentucky 1,835 1,835 100 0 0 

Louisiana 821 201 na 2 5 

Maine 146 23 nr nr 25 

Maryland 280 284 98 0 5 

Massachusetts 400 292 97 0 51 

Michigan 640 640 99 0 0 

Minnesota 459 459 99 0 1 

Mississippi 322 164 94 nr nr 

Missouri 663 306 87 0 357 

Montana 126 122 93 0 4 

Nebraska 228 75 90 0 153 

Nevada 90 90 100 0 0 

New Hampshire 212 37 61 0 175 

New Jersey 630 629 98 0 5 

New Mexico 624 182 72 0 150 

New York 602 555 99 17 30 

North Carolina 550 471 99 1 108 

North Dakota 127 86 86 0 41 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 962 275 95 0 338 

Oklahoma 551 544 93 0 31 

Oregon 167 150 94 0 17 

Pennsylvania 1,879 nr nr nr nr 

Puerto Rico nr nr nr nr nr 

Rhode Island 41 41 95 0 2 

South Carolina 272 114 92 nr nr 

South Dakota 209 36 97 0 12 

Tennessee 400 400 98 0 0 

Texas 2,260 354 92 1 781 

Utah 257 77 nr 0 nr 

Vermont 92 59 86 0 nr 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 343 nr 98 nr nr 

Washington 307 98 98 0 209 

West Virginia 473 120 62 0 353 

Wisconsin 569 577 98 1 0 

Wyoming 63 57 97 nr 2 
Table 11 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. In 2014, there was a total of 25,439 law enforcement agencies reporting arrest/fingerprints. 

b. In 2014 there was a total of 10,062 law enforcement agencies reporting via livescan. 
Table 11a. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the submission and rejection of arrest fingerprints, 2016 

Number of arrest fingerprints submitted to the repository by livescan, cardscan, and hard copy 

Percentage of 

arrest fingerprint 

records rejected 

State Via livescan Via cardscan Hard copy Total for poor quality 

Total 9,727,200 79,500 346,600 10,153,300 

Alabama 200,100 22,600 21,300 244,000 10 

Alaska 12,400 0 800 13,200 0 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 178,700 0 3,600 182,300 1 

Arkansas 128,100 0 8,700 136,800 1 

California 1,150,300 0 900 1,151,200 0 

Colorado 232,800 0 7,700 240,500 nr 

Connecticut 77,800 0 8,000 85,800 nr 

Delaware 21,400 0 0 21,400 0 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 674,200 0 21,300 695,500 0 

Georgia 480,100 0 4,600 484,700 4 

Guam 2,700 0 0 2,700 6 

Hawaii 43,000 0 0 43,000 2 

Idaho 56,500 0 2,200 58,700 0 

Illinois 346,200 0 15,500 361,700 <1 

Indiana 202,200 1,100 500 203,800 2 

Iowa 61,400 0 15,800 77,200 0 

Kansas 106,300 0 14,100 120,400 0 

Kentucky 215,100 0 400 215,500 0 

Louisiana 271,300 0 1,700 273,000 na 

Maine 13,800 0 4,100 17,900 nr 

Maryland 208,000 0 3,300 211,300 0 

Massachusetts 128,500 0 3,000 131,500 1 

Michigan 369,300 0 7,200 376,500 3 

Minnesota 153,200 0 100 153,300 <1 

Mississippi 74,800 5,000 0 79,800 8 

Missouri 191,100 0 27,600 218,700 0 

Montana 21,400 0 1,700 23,100 1 

Nebraska 39,200 0 4,400 43,600 <1 

Nevada 77,800 0 2,600 80,400 0 

New Hampshire 27,700 0 10,700 38,400 nr 

New Jersey 171,500 0 4,500 176,000 <1 

New Mexico 54,500 19,500 0 74,000 3 

New York 485,300 2,400 1,100 488,800 1 

North Carolina 252,900 0 2,200 255,100 1 

North Dakota 20,700 0 2,900 23,600 0 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 277,800 0 15,200 293,000 <1 

Oklahoma 131,700 0 12,000 143,700 <1 

Oregon 129,700 0 6,800 136,500 <1 

Pennsylvania 285,600 0 11,100 296,700 2 

Puerto Rico 13,300 0 0 13,300 nr 

Rhode Island 27,900 300 0 28,200 nr 

South Carolina 237,700 20,200 0 257,900 2 

South Dakota 30,900 0 1,000 31,900 nr 

Tennessee 406,300 0 9,000 415,300 0 

Texas 642,300 300 56,200 698,800 <1 

Utah 81,000 3,200 0 84,200 1 

Vermont 10,900 1,700 0 12,600 nr 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 266,500 0 6,500 273,000 nr 

Washington 212,200 0 4,700 216,900 3 

West Virginia 35,400 0 21,200 56,600 <1 

Wisconsin 170,400 3,200 0 173,600 <1 

Wyoming 17,300 0 400 17,700 nr 
Table 11a explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 11b. Arrest fingerprint card and palm print backlog, 2016 

Age of backlogged arrest fingerprint card 

information 

Arrest 

fingerprint Palm print 

card 1 month 2–6 7–12 backlog? 

State backlog? Total or less months months > 1 year Total 

Total 14,597 252,200 

Alabama Yes 4,621 X No 0 

Alaska Yes na X No 0 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona No 0 No 0 

Arkansas No 0 No 0 

California No 0 No 0 

Colorado No 0 No 0 

Connecticut Yes 2,320 X Yes na 

Delaware No 0 No 0 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida No 0 No 0 

Georgia No 0 No 0 

Guam No 0 No 0 

Hawaii Yes 100 X No 0 

Idaho No 0 No 0 

Illinois Yes na X No 0 

Indiana No 0 No 0 

Iowa Yes 44 X No 0 

Kansas Yes 150 X No 0 

Kentucky No 0 No 0 

Louisiana Yes 170 X No 0 

Maine Yes na X No 0 

Maryland No 0 No 0 

Massachusetts No 0 No 0 

Michigan No 0 Yes 250,000 a 

Minnesota No 0 No 0 

Mississippi No 0 No 0 

Missouri No 0 No 0 

Montana No 0 No 0 

Nebraska No 0 No 0 

Nevada No 0 No 0 

New Hampshire Yes na X Yes na 

New Jersey No 0 No 0 

New Mexico Yes 6,792 X No 0 

New York No 0 No 0 

North Carolina No 0 No 0 

North Dakota No 0 No 0 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio Yes na X Yes 2,200 

Oklahoma No 0 No 0 

Oregon No 0 No 0 

Pennsylvania No 0 No 0 

Puerto Rico No 0 No 0 

Rhode Island No 0 No 0 

South Carolina No 0 No 0 

South Dakota No 0 No 0 

Tennessee No 0 No 0 

Texas No 0 No 0 

Utah No 0 No 0 

Vermont No 0 No 0 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia Yes na X No 0 

Washington No 0 No 0 

West Virginia Yes 400 X No 0 

Wisconsin Yes na X Yes na 

Wyoming No 0 No 0 
 

 

Table 11b explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. Backlog is an accumulation of palm prints received prior to Michigan having AFIS/ 

palm print capabilities. Reduction efforts are made when time permits and overtime funds are 

available. 
Table 11c. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the use of livescan/cardscan for criminal and noncriminal justice purposes, 2016 

Livescan Cardscan 

Used for noncriminal justice Used for both criminal and Used for noncriminal justice Used for both criminal and 

State purposes only noncriminal justice purposes purposes only noncriminal justice purposes 

Total 8,759 6,616 100 147 

Alabama 165 2 2 

Alaska 40 20 2 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 36 162 

Arkansas 82 184 

California 2,436 1,662 1 54 

Colorado 

Connecticut 47 248 1 1 

Delaware 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr 

Florida 1235 

Georgia 

Guam 2 3 1 2 

Hawaii 32 8 

Idaho 29 14 4 

Illinois 673 267 4 

Indiana 67 1 

Iowa 3 68 

Kansas 18 162 

Kentucky 75 7 7 

Louisiana 124 2 5 

Maine 7 1 

Maryland 286 126 4 4 

Massachusetts 30 292 

Michigan 132 459 2 

Minnesota 14 3 

Mississippi 197 361 7 16 

Missouri 59 8 

Montana 

Nebraska 12 24 

Nevada 84 34 4 4 

New Hampshire 3 43 

New Jersey 50 2 

New Mexico 45 12 

New York 90 na 2 na 

North Carolina 51 323 1 

North Dakota 18 45 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 2,218 194 

Oklahoma 13 110 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 357 3 

Puerto Rico 1 14 6 6 

Rhode Island 82 11 11 

South Carolina 4 4 

South Dakota 2 36 

Tennessee 55 185 

Texas 142 

Utah 137 228 4 

Vermont 60 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 

Washington 135 293 16 3 

West Virginia 44 130 2 

Wisconsin 35 235 1 2 

Wyoming 30 
Table 11c explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 11d. Electronic fingerprint capture devices and the submission of fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes, 2016 

Number of noncriminal justice fingerprints submitted to the repository 

by livescan and cardscan 

Percentage of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints submitted 

Percentage of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints submitted 

State Via livescan Via cardscan via livescan via cardscan 

Total 12,647,200 1,115,100 92% 8% 

Alabama 43,000 19,800 69 31 

Alaska 2,800 18,100 7 44 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 34,800 0 23 0 

Arkansas 26,700 0 22 0 

California 2,260,000 7,000 99 <1 

Colorado 95,400 107,400 47 53 

Connecticut 43,500 62,900 41 59 

Delaware 51,800 4,500 92 8 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr 

Florida 1,693,100 0 99 0 

Georgia 494,500 0 100 0 

Guam 0 0 0 0 

Hawaii 33,200 8,100 80 20 

Idaho 49,300 12,000 80 20 

Illinois 455,400 2,800 98 <1 

Indiana 241,500 900 99 <1 

Iowa 2,700 0 8 0 

Kansas 9,500 0 16 0 

Kentucky 10,500 47,200 18 82 

Louisiana 110,000 47,600 70 30 

Maine 10,900 3,900 nr nr 

Maryland 281,500 0 96 4 

Massachusetts 248,100 0 76 0 

Michigan 314,500 8,600 97 3 

Minnesota 115,600 0 79 0 

Mississippi 144,400 16,500 90 10 

Missouri 198,900 19,300 90 10 

Montana nr nr nr nr 

Nebraska 36,600 0 76 0 

Nevada 173,200 58,900 75 25 

New Hampshire 39,500 0 56 0 

New Jersey 414,000 0 100 0 

New Mexico 121,700 118,200 98 2 

New York 662,600 14,200 98 2 

North Carolina 166,200 160,100 51 49 

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 1,034,600 0 99 0 

Oklahoma 85,900 0 54 0 

Oregon 123,400 0 78 0 

Pennsylvania 871,500 16,200 98 2 

Puerto Rico na na na na 

Rhode Island nr nr nr nr 

South Carolina 27,900 80,100 26 74 

South Dakota 700 0 3 0 

Tennessee 279,500 0 100 0 

Texas 943,500 0 100 0 

Utah 125,900 235,200 35 65 

Vermont 15,600 2,800 85 15 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 144,200 28,500 85 15 

Washington 275,200 0 90 0 

West Virginia 88,800 1,200 99 1 

Wisconsin 45,100 13,100 78 22 

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 
 

Table 11d explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages and numbers are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

▪ na (not available). 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 11e. Mobile technology for capturing and transmitting fingerprints, 2016 

Using mobile technology to transmit 

fingerprints Plans to implement mobile 

technology to capture Rapid ID 

For identification For booking nonfingerprint biometric Currently employing Number of 

State purposes purposes a information Rapid ID searches Number of hits 

Total 1,988,415 1,168,154 

Alabama No No No No 

Alaska No No No No 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr 

Arizona Yes Yes No Yes 98,787 81,731 

Arkansas Yes No No No 

California No No No Yes 484,600 185,300 

Colorado Yes No No Yes 18,060 nr 

Connecticut nr nr nr nr 

Delaware Yes No No nr 

District of Columbia nr nr No nr 

Florida Yes No No Yes 678,213 465,106 

Georgia Yes No No Yes 178,032 82,863 

Guam No No No No 

Hawaii Yes No No Yes 3,180 nr 

Idaho Yes No No No 

Illinois Yes No No Yes na na 

Indiana No No No No 

Iowa No No No No 

Kansas Yes No No No 

Kentucky No No No No 

Louisiana Yes No No Yes na na 

Maine No No No No 

Maryland Yes No No Yes 207,973 117,567 

Massachusetts Yes No Yes Yes 24 

Michigan Yes No Yes Yes 4,221 1,985 

Minnesota Yes No No Yes 106,555 78,916 

Mississippi No No Yes No 

Missouri Yes No Yes Yes 14,647 12,449 

Montana No No No No 

Nebraska Yes No No No 

Nevada No No No No 

New Hampshire No No No No 

New Jersey No No No Yes na na 

New Mexico Yes Yes No Yes 729 52 

New York Yes No No Yes na na 

North Carolina Yes No No Yes 11,052 3,772 

North Dakota No No No No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr 

Ohio Yes No Yes Yes 3,916 710 

Oklahoma No No No No 

Oregon No No No No 

Pennsylvania Yes No No No 

Puerto Rico Yes No nr nr 

Rhode Island Yes Yes No No 

South Carolina Yes No No Yes 1,137 804 

South Dakota No No No No 

Tennessee Yes No No Yes nr 

Texas Yes No No Yes 15,595 6,173 

Utah No No Yes No 

Vermont No No No No 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr No 

Virginia Yes No No Yes 47 21 

Washington Yes No No Yes 5,008 2,520 

West Virginia Yes No No Yes 901 329 

Wisconsin Yes No No Yes 155,738 127,856 

Wyoming No No No No 
Table 11e explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ na (not available).

Data footnotes: 

a. Nonfingerprint biometric information includes the capture of scars, marks and tattoo images, facial

 recognition and iris data. 
Table 12. Privatization of noncriminal justice fingerprint capture services, 2016 

State 

Has the state 

privatized the taking 

of noncriminal justice 

fingerprints? 

Fingerprinting service 

provided by single (S) 

vendor or multiple (M) 

vendors 

Does the vendor assess 

a fee above what the 

state charges for the 

background check? Fee 

Additional vendorprovided services 

Alabama Yes M Yes nr 

Alaska Yes M Yes nr 

American Samoa nr 

Arizona Yes M Yes varies a 

Arkansas Yes M Yes nr 

California Yes M Yes nr b 

Colorado No 

Connecticut No 

Delaware No 

District of Columbia nr 

Florida Yes M Yes $9 

Georgia Yes S c 

Guam No Yes nr 

Hawaii Yes S Yes $9 

Idaho Yes M Yes nr 

Illinois Yes M Yes nr 

Indiana Yes S Yes $12 d 

Iowa No 

Kansas No 

Kentucky No 

Louisiana No 

Maine Yes S Yes nr e 

Maryland Yes M Yes varies 

Massachusetts Yes S Yes $10 f 

Michigan Yes M Yes $8–$15 g 

Minnesota No 

Mississippi Yes M Yes nr 

Missouri Yes S Yes $8 

Montana No 

Nebraska No 

Nevada Yes M Yes varies 

New Hampshire No 

New Jersey Yes S Yes $10 h 

New Mexico Yes S No 

New York Yes S Yes $12 i 

North Carolina No 

North Dakota No 

No. Mariana Islands nr 

Ohio Yes M Yes nr 

Oklahoma Yes S Yes nr 

Oregon Yes S Yes $13 

Pennsylvania Yes S Yes $6 

Puerto Rico nr 

Rhode Island No 

South Carolina Yes S Yes $14 

South Dakota No 

Tennessee Yes S Yes $9 

Texas Yes S Yes $10 

Utah Yes M No 

Vermont No 

Virgin Islands nr 

Virginia No 

Washington No 

West Virginia Yes S Yes $13 

Wisconsin Yes S Yes $8 

Wyoming No 
 

Table 12 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

Additional vendor-provided services: 

a. Electronic application form and fee collection. 

b. Vendors collect and remit license/certification/permit fees to the California Department of Justice. 

c. 3M Cogent provides customized website registration, and electronically captures and 

submits applicant fingerprints to Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC). 

d. The vendor sends responses back to the requestor. 

e. The vendor sets-up and maintains registration website and results portal for staff and 

 applicant entities to view and print results. 

f. The vendor manages the results portal hosted within the state public safety data center. 

g. Fee collection. 

h. Billing services. 

i. Verification of identification documents, photo capture, and transmission 
Table 13. Felony arrests reported to repositories, livescan devices in courtrooms, and disposition backlogs, 2016 

Backlog of entering 

Livescan devices court disposition data Number of 

used in the into criminal history unprocessed or 

courtroom to link Number of database (i.e., not partially 

Number of felony positive livescan entered within 48 processed court 

arrests reported to identifications with devices in hours of receipt at case 

State the repository dispositions courtrooms repository) dispositions 

Total 3,592,850 120 2,294,309 

Alabama nr No Yes 100,000 

Alaska 5,400 No Yes 1,000 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 642,900 Yes 1 Yes 520,009 

Arkansas 64,150 No No 

California 489,600 No No 

Colorado 63,700 Yes nr No 

Connecticut nr No Yes 331,200 

Delaware 28,100 No No 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr 

Florida 274,100 No No 

Georgia 178,700 No No 

Guam 1,100 No No 

Hawaii 9,200 No Yes 148,000 

Idaho 19,000 No Yes 129,800 

Illinois 94,900 No No 

Indiana 24,200 No Yes 10,000 

Iowa 10,100 No No 

Kansas 26,100 No Yes 140,800 

Kentucky 47,800 No No 

Louisiana 68,500 No No 

Maine 9,200 No No 

Maryland 31,700 Yes 5 No 

Massachusetts nr No No 

Michigan 79,700 No No 

Minnesota 34,800 No No 

Mississippi 20,200 nr nr 

Missouri 90,200 Yes 1 Yes 65,600 

Montana 6,800 No Yes 4,000 

Nebraska 14,700 No No 

Nevada 31,000 No Yes 119,000 

New Hampshire 9,700 No No 

New Jersey 61,600 Yes 9 Yes 133,700 

New Mexico 74,000 No Yes 6,800 

New York 136,900 No No 

North Carolina 98,900 No No 

North Dakota nr No Yes 2,400 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr 

Ohio 103,000 Yes 42 Yes 4,000 

Oklahoma 74,400 No No 

Oregon 43,900 Yes 13 Yes 55,000 

Pennsylvania 37,100 No Yes 225,500 

Puerto Rico 13,300 nr nr 

Rhode Island 4,900 No No 

South Carolina nr No No 

South Dakota nr No No 

Tennessee nr No No 

Texas 239,600 Yes 41 No 

Utah 23,400 No Yes 73,500 

Vermont 2,600 No No 

Virgin Islands nr No nr 

Virginia 167,000 No Yes 172,700 

Washington 55,900 No No 

West Virginia 27,400 Yes 8 Yes 50,200 

Wisconsin 49,800 No Yes 800 

Wyoming 3,600 No Yes 300 
 

Table 13 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 14. Noncriminal justice name-based background checks, 2016 

Number of name-based noncriminal justice background checks performed 

State Total Via Internet Via mail Via telephone Other 

Total 23,297,400 a 21,605,900 1,083,600 151,800 456,100 

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 

Alaska 14,500 0 2,100 0 12,400 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 2,200 0 2,200 0 0 

Arkansas 243,700 242,700 1,000 0 0 

California 10,400 0 0 0 10,400 

Colorado 360,400 341,900 18,500 0 0 

Connecticut 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 

Delaware 4,600 0 1,200 0 3,400 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 1,046,800 1,024,300 22,500 0 0 

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 

Hawaii 345,800 305,800 2,000 0 38,000 

Idaho 17,200 0 o 17,200 0 

Illinois 568,100 544,600 23,500 0 0 

Indiana 864,300 839,300 20,500 0 4,500 

Iowa 267,700 250,000 16,600 0 1,100 

Kansas 337,500 336,000 1,500 0 0 

Kentucky 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 

Louisiana 121,200 17,000 2,200 0 102,000 

Maine 372,200 367,400 4,800 na 0 

Maryland 0 0 0 0 0 

Massachusetts 1,413,400 1,400,100 13,400 0 0 

Michigan 2,102,400 2,101,000 1,400 0 0 

Minnesota 344,800 0 92,700 0 252,100 

Mississippi 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 

Missouri 448,400 435,600 12,800 0 0 

Montana 195,100 193,900 1,200 0 0 

Nebraska 40,600 25,900 14,700 0 0 

Nevada 183,700 49,600 0 116,800 17,300 

New Hampshire 143,200 0 143,200 0 0 

New Jersey 125,300 47,400 69,300 0 8,600 

New Mexico 12,100 0 8,400 0 3,700 

New York 0 0 0 0 0 

North Carolina 21,400 0 21,400 0 0 

North Dakota 29,200 0 26,600 0 2,600 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 1,400 0 1,400 0 0 

Oklahoma 197,200 95,000 102,200 0 0 

Oregon 336,200 318,400 0 17,800 0 

Pennsylvania 1,861,700 1,818,500 43,200 0 0 

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 

South Carolina 556,700 507,100 49,600 0 0 

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 

Texas 7,948,900 7,948,800 100 0 0 

Utah 11,000 11,000 0 0 0 

Vermont 152,300 152,300 0 0 0 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 304,200 45,000 259,200 0 0 

Washington 1,316,200 1,307,500 8,700 0 0 

West Virginia 500 0 500 0 0 

Wisconsin 879,800 879,800 0 0 0 

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 
 

Table 14 explanatory notes: 

▪ Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

a. The total number of name-based checks received does not equal the sum of individual state 

background checks received via the Internet, mail, telephone, and other sources, due to rounding. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15. Noncriminal justice fingerprint-based background checks, 2016 

State 

Information contained in 

the results for fingerprintbased noncriminal justice 

background checks Other 

Percentage of fingerprintbased noncriminal justice 

transactions identified 

against arrest fingerprints 

Repository attempts to locate 

missing disposition information 

before responding to fingerprintbased noncriminal justice inquiries 

Alabama 1,4 na No 

Alaska 1,2,4,5 Depends upon authorizing statute 16 No 

American Samoa nr nr nr 

Arizona 1,4 17 Yes 

Arkansas 5 All pending felonies/All convictions that 

have not been sealed 3 

Yes 

California 1,2,4 10 Yes 

Colorado 1 15 No 

Connecticut 1,2,4, 25 Yes 

Delaware 1,2,3,4 34 No 

District of Columbia nr nr nr 

Florida 1,3,4,5 Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) 

and NCIC hot file results 14 

No 

Georgia 1 21 No 

Guam 1 1 No 

Hawaii 1 18 No 

Idaho 1 17 Yes 

Illinois 1,2,5 Park districts can see adjudicated 

delinquent 29 

Yes 

Indiana 1,3,4 14 Yes 

Iowa 1,3 8 No 

Kansas 1,2,3,4,5 Depends upon the statute na Yes 

Kentucky 1 na Yes 

Louisiana 1,2,4,5 Expunged information when authorized by 

statute na No 

Maine 2 7 Yes 

Maryland 1,4 17 Yes 

Massachusetts 1,3,4 7 No 

Michigan 2,3,4 15 No 

Minnesota 1,2,3,4,5 Depends upon statute 13 Yes 

Mississippi 1 10 No 

Missouri 1,2,3 nr Yes 

Montana 1 17 Yes 

Nebraska 1,5 Depends upon statute 17 Yes 

Nevada 1,3,5 Cleared/not cleared record determinations 6 

No 

New Hampshire 3 nr Yes 

New Jersey 1,2,3,4 9 No 

New Mexico 1,2,3,4 14 No 

New York 1 12 No 

North Carolina 1 11 No 

North Dakota 1 15 Yes 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr 

Ohio 2 10 Yes 

Oklahoma 1 9 No 

Oregon 1 20 No 

Pennsylvania 1 na nr 

Puerto Rico nr nr nr 

Rhode Island 1,4 na Yes 

South Carolina 1 na No 

South Dakota 1 na Yes 

Tennessee 1 15 No 

Texas 1,3,5 Depends upon statute 17 No 

Utah 1,2,3,4 6 Yes 

Vermont 1,2 8 Yes 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr 

Virginia 1 13 Yes 

Washington 2,3,5 Sex/Kidnapping Offender Registry 

info/pending arrests under 1 year old nr Yes 

West Virginia 1 na No 

Wisconsin 4 12 No 

Wyoming 1 9 No 
 

 

 

 

Table 15 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages reported are estimates.

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Legend: Information contained in the results for fingerprint-based noncriminal justice 

background checks 

1. Full record 

2. Convictions only 

3. Juvenile records 

4. Arrests without disposition — over 1 year old 

5. Other 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 16. Legal authority for conducting noncriminal justice background checks, 2016 

Legal authority used for background checks 

Non- Medical 

State 

Alabama 

Daycare 

providers 

4 

Caregivers 

at residential 

facilities 

3 

School 

teachers 

4 

teaching 

school 

personnel 

4 

Volunteers 

working with 

children 

4 

Prospective 

foster care 

parents 

4 

Prospective 

adoptive 

parents 

4 

Relative 

caregivers 

1 

Nurses/ 

elder 

caregivers 

3 

Legal 

guardians 

3 

Hazardous 

materials 

licensees 

1 

marijuana 

(dispensers, 

caregivers) 

1 

Alaska 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 

American Samoa nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Arizona 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Arkansas 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 

California 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3 2,3 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3 1 1 1 

Colorado 3 4 3 3,4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 

Connecticut 4 nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Delaware 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 

District of Columbia nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Florida 3 3,4 3 3,4 4 3 4 3,4 3,4 3 3 3 

Georgia 3 3 3 3,4 4 3 2,3 1 3 3 1 1 

Guam 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Hawaii 3 3 3 3 3,4 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 

Idaho 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 

Illinois 3 2 3 2,4 4 3 3 3 3,4 1 1 3 

Indiana 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 

Iowa 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 

Kansas 3 3 3 3,4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 

Kentucky 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 

Louisiana 3 2 3 2,3 2 3 2,3 2 2,3 nr 3 3 

Maine nr 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 

Maryland 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Massachusetts 3 3 4 4 3,4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 

Michigan 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 

Minnesota 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 1 2,3 

Mississippi 2,3 2,3 3 2 2,3 2 2 2 2,3 2 1 1 

Missouri 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3 3,4 3 3,4 3 1 3 

Montana 4 2,4 4 2,4 4 3 4 2,4 4 2,4 1 3 

Nebraska 1 1 3 nr 3,4 3 3 nr 3 2 1 1 

Nevada 3,4 3,4 3 3,4 4 3 3,4 3 3,4 3 1 2,3 

New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 

New Jersey 3 3 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 3 3 3,4 3 3 

New Mexico 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 

New York 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 

North Carolina 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 

North Dakota 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Ohio 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Oklahoma 4 3,4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 

Oregon 3 3 3 3 3,4 3,4 1 nr 3 1 1 3 

Pennsylvania 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Puerto Rico nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Rhode Island 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 

South Carolina 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 

South Dakota 2,3 2 3 3,4 2,4 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 

Tennessee 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 

Texas 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 

Utah 3,4 3 3 3 4 3,4 3,4 4 3 4 1 1 

Vermont 2,4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 1 3 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr nr 

Virginia 2 2 2 2 2,4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 

Washington 3 3 3 2,3 2 3 2,3 3 3 4 1 3 

West Virginia nr nr nr nr 4 nr nr nr 4 nr nr nr 

Wisconsin 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3,4 4 3 1 

Wyoming 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 
 

Table 16 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Data footnotes: 

Legend: Legal authority states use to conduct background checks for the following 

occupational/regulatory inquiries. 

1. N/A (State does not conduct these checks) 

2. State statute 

3. Public Law 92-544, which allows sharing of criminal history records in certain licensing and employment decisions, 

subject to the approval of the Attorney General. 

4. National Child Protection Act (NCPA) / Volunteers for Children Act (VCA) 
Table 17. Lights-out fingerprint processing, 2016 

Percentage of fingerprints handled with lights-out processing 

Repository conducts lights-out 

State processing Total Criminal Noncriminal 

Alabama No 

Alaska 

American Samoa 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

Yes 

nr 

Yes 

No 

10 

64 

10 

70 

10 

45 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

nr 

No 

80 

17 

89 

82 

nr 

93 

70 

nr 

86 

Georgia 

Guam 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

95 

100 

84 

96 

95 

100 

88 

na 

95 

100 

80 

na 

Illinois Yes 73 86 59 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

62 

80 

63 

69 

80 

100 

56 

70 

20 

Louisiana Yes 87 95 85 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

98 

40 

65 

52 

40 

5 

46 

40 

13 

Minnesota Yes 100 100 100 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

95 

86 

nr 

nr 

95 

na 

nr 

nr 

95 

na 

nr 

nr 

Nevada Yes 32 na na 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

100 

91 

98 

76 

100 

96 

52 

77 

100 

90 

46 

74 

North Carolina Yes 90 81 99 

North Dakota 

No. Mariana Islands 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Yes 

nr 

Yes 

Yes 

30 

97 

100 

7 

82 

100 

23 

26 

100 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Puerto Rico 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virgin Islands 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

nr 

95 

94 

nr 

85 

95 

94 

nr 

86 

95 

0 

nr 

88 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

nr 

36 

84 

nr 

41 

77 

nr 

31 

91 

Wyoming No 12 10 2 
Table 17 explanatory notes: 

▪ Percentages are estimates. 

▪ Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
Table 18. Assessment and allocation of fees, 2016 

Fee charged to conduct a search of the 

criminal history database for 

State noncriminal justice purposes How fees are allocated 

Alabama Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Alaska Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona Yes Other a 

Arkansas Yes Other b 

California Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Colorado Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Connecticut Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Delaware Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida Yes Other c 

Georgia Yes A percentage of fees go to support repository operations d 

Guam Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Hawaii Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Idaho Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Illinois Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Indiana Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Iowa Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Kansas Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Kentucky Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Louisiana Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Maine Yes Other e 

Maryland Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Massachusetts Yes Other f 

Michigan Yes Other g 

Minnesota Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Mississippi Yes Other h 

Missouri Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Montana Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Nebraska Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Nevada Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

New Hampshire Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

New Jersey Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

New Mexico Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

New York Yes A percentage of fees go to support repository operations 

North Carolina Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

i 

North Dakota Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Oklahoma Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Oregon Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Pennsylvania Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Puerto Rico Yes nr 

Rhode Island Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

South Carolina Yes Other j 

South Dakota Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Tennessee Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Texas Yes A percentage of fees go to support repository operations 

Utah Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

Vermont Yes Other k 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Washington Yes All fees go to support repository operations 

West Virginia Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Wisconsin Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 

Wyoming Yes All fees go to the state general fund, with the repository funded by general fund allotment 
Table 18 explanatory notes: 

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.

▪ nr (not reported).

Data Footnotes: 

a. Fees are split between State Police and State Crime Information Center. 

b. Fees go to DPS fingerprint fund. 

c. Fees go to a trust fund supporting criminal justice systems. 

d. 57 percent of fees are allocated to support the repository. 

e. Fees go to general fund with $1 of each fee charged to fund repository technology improvement. 

f. Fees are split between trust and retained revenue accounts. 

g. All fees are designated for specific purposes. 

h. Fees go to fund to support DPS. 

i. 25 percent of fees are allocated to support the repository. 

j. Fees go to general fund after $4.2 million to fund repository operations. 

k. Remaining fee balance goes to general fund after repository program costs are funded. 
Table 19. Web-based services for noncriminal justice purposes, 2016 

Repository provides web-based 

noncriminal justice background Are public access fees 

State checks to the public collected? Fee 

Alabama 

Alaska 

American Samoa 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Yes 

No 

nr 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

nr 

Yes 

nr 

$20 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Yes 

No 

No 

nr 

Yes 

nr 

$7 

Florida Yes Yes $24 

Georgia 

Guam 

Hawaii 

Idaho 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

$15 

nr 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

$10 

$16 

$15 

$20 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

$25 

$10 

Minnesota Yes No 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

$13 

$15 

$16 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes $10 

North Dakota No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio No 

Oklahoma Yes No 

Oregon Yes Yes $10 

Pennsylvania Yes Yes $8 

Puerto Rico No 

Rhode Island No 

South Carolina Yes Yes $26 

South Dakota No 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

$4 

$30 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

$12 

$7 
Table 19 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

▪ Fees charged have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 20. Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by state criminal history repositories and

 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 2016 

 (The information in this table was provided by the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, FBI - Statistics as of December 31, 2016) 

Total III records in state Percent supported by Percent supported by 

State and FBI files State-supported records FBI-supported records state repositories the FBI 

Total 91,491,803 64,738,621 26,753,182 71% 29% 

Alabama 1,356,412 795,461 560,951 59 41 

Alaska † 239,339 158,049 81,290 66 34 

American Samoa 697 0 697 0 100 

Arizona † 1,856,489 1,138,048 718,441 61 39 

Arkansas † 767,455 593,217 174,238 77 23 

California 9,990,058 8,745,983 1,244,075 88 12 

Colorado * † 1,541,400 1,316,451 224,949 85 15 

Connecticut † 571,784 393,271 178,513 69 31 

District of Columbia 320,763 62,737 258,026 20 80 

Delaware 315,137 277,225 37,912 88 12 

Florida * † 6,037,492 5,633,447 404,045 93 7 

Georgia * † 3,789,427 3,599,440 189,987 95 5 

Guam 36,048 0 36,048 0 100 

Hawaii * † 334,425 271,957 62,468 81 19 

Idaho * † 420,062 374,578 45,484 89 11 

Illinois 3,624,897 1,980,906 1,643,991 55 45 

Indiana 1,526,723 1,037,100 489,623 68 32 

Iowa * † 734,440 469,037 265,403 64 36 

Kansas * † 904,865 557,158 347,707 62 38 

Kentucky 1,050,357 680,486 369,871 65 35 

Louisiana 1,559,853 1,125,166 434,687 72 28 

Maine † 196,223 59,032 137,191 30 70 

Maryland * † 1,392,416 1,006,964 385,452 72 28 

Massachusetts 1,023,829 661,430 362,399 65 35 

Michigan † 2,298,087 2,041,786 256,301 89 11 

Minnesota * † 982,222 935,366 46,856 95 5 

Mississippi 561,898 356,294 205,604 63 37 

Missouri * † 1,550,743 1,241,369 309,374 80 20 

Montana * † 221,707 208,952 12,755 94 6 

Nebraska 418,253 306,410 111,843 73 27 

Nevada † 971,551 727,820 243,731 75 25 

New Hampshire † 291,810 185,654 106,156 64 36 

New Jersey * † 2,128,185 1,978,706 149,479 93 7 

New Mexico 639,698 350,723 288,975 55 45 

New York * † 4,202,059 3,874,482 327,577 92 8 

North Carolina * † 1,822,852 1,683,082 139,770 92 8 

North Dakota 158,942 123,821 35,121 78 32 

No. Mariana Islands 4,562 0 4,562 0 100 

Ohio * † 2,181,453 1,842,485 338,968 84 16 

Oklahoma * † 950,773 649,862 300,911 68 32 

Oregon * † 1,082,531 967,472 115,059 89 11 

Pennsylvania 2,470,575 1,964,728 505,847 80 20 

Puerto Rico 194,747 0 194,747 0 100 

Rhode Island 227,733 204,506 23,227 90 10 

South Carolina † 1,582,359 1,509,632 72,727 95 5 

South Dakota 289,775 202,785 86,990 70 30 

Tennessee * † 1,856,848 1,050,421 806,427 57 43 

Texas 7,092,821 6,556,529 536,292 92 8 

Utah 635,362 561,950 73,412 88 12 

Vermont † 117,081 73,873 43,208 63 37 

Virgin Islands 20,715 0 20,715 0 100 

Virginia † 2,138,164 1,792,651 345,513 84 16 

Washington 1,588,219 1,300,059 288,160 82 18 

West Virginia * † 403,239 250,001 153,238 62 38 

Wisconsin 1,197,679 680,566 517,113 57 43 

Wyoming * † 205,596 179,493 26,103 87 13 

Federal 11,286,794 0 11,286,794 0 100 

Foreign 126,179 0 126,179 0 100
 

 

 

Table 20 explanatory notes: 

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF). 

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

FBI-supported: The FBI provides the criminal history records for persons arrested by a Federal

 agency and arrest data that III-participating states are unable to provide. 

State-supported: A designated agency within a state referred to as a "III participant" provides records 

from its file upon receipt of an electronic notification from III. 

(Source: FBI/CJIS, Interstate Identification Index/National Fingerprint File Operations and 

Technical Manual, December 2005). 
Table 21. Criminal justice rap back services, 2016 

Purposes in which criminal justice agencies can be notified of a 

subsequent inquiry and/or record posting via the in-state criminal justice 

rap back service 

State provides Number of in-state Currently 

in-state criminal justice rap participates in 

criminal justice back notifications NGI criminal 

rap back made for criminal justice rap 

State services justice purposes Other back service Error correction/ record management updates Investigative lead Sex offender Parolee Probationer Permit/privileged license revocation Noncriminal justice purpose fingerprint search 

Total 82,131 

Alabama No No 

Alaska No No 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona No No 

Arkansas No No 

California Yes 10,765 X No 

Colorado Yes na X No 

Connecticut Yes nr X X No 

Delaware Yes 9,837 X X 1 No 

District of Columbia nr nr 

Florida Yes 18,980 X X X X X 2 No 

Georgia No No 

Guam No No 

Hawaii Yes 11,783 X X X No 

Idaho No No a 

Illinois Yes 5,675 X No 

Indiana No No 

Iowa No No 

Kansas Yes 2,312 X X 4 No 

Kentucky No No 

Louisiana Yes na X X X No 

Maine No No 

Maryland Yes 22,609 X X X 6 No 

Massachusetts No No 

Michigan Yes 170 X 6 nr 

Minnesota Yes nr X 3 No 

Mississippi No No 

Missouri No No 

Montana No No 

Nebraska No No 

Nevada No No 

New Hampshire No 5 No 

New Jersey Yes na X No 

New Mexico No No 

New York Yes na X X X X No 

North Carolina No No 

North Dakota No No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio No No 

Oklahoma No No 

Oregon No No 

Pennsylvania No No 

Puerto Rico nr nr 

Rhode Island No No 

South Carolina No No 

South Dakota No No 

Tennessee Yes nr nr 

Texas Yes na X X 6 Yes 

Utah No No b 

Vermont No No 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia No No 

Washington No No 

West Virginia No No 

Wisconsin No No 

Wyoming No No 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21 explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).

Legend — Other purposes in which criminal justice agencies can be notified of a 

subsequent inquiry and/or record posting via the in-state criminal justice rap back service: 

1. Criminal justice employment 

2. Arrests 

3. Crime scene elimination prints 

4. Warrants 

5. CCW revocation advisement 

6. On record searches, updates, and arrests 

Data footnotes: 

a. Idaho used NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) funds to build the necessary infrastructure 

and pathways for Sheriffs to receive CCW rap back services. Idaho is currently awaiting legislative 

authority to implement their rap back program. 

b. While Utah does not participate in NGI rap back, all criminal justice employment, CJIS user, and 

Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) applicants are counted/enrolled in the noncriminal justice 

rap back. 
Table 22. Noncriminal justice rap back services, 2016 

Occupational groups in which agencies can be notified for 

State subsequent record postings 

State provides in- In-state service law/regulation 

state is authorized by specifies the Persons Persons 

noncriminal state law or purposes in working working Police, fire, 

justice rap back administrative which agencies with with the Healthcare Security public safety 

State service regulation can be notified children elderly providers guards personnel Other 

Alabama Yes Yes Yes X X X X X 

Alaska Yes Yes No X X X X X a 

American Samoa nr nr 

Arizona No 

Arkansas No 

California Yes Yes Yes X X X X X b 

Colorado Yes Yes No X X X X c 

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes X 

Delaware Yes Yes Yes X X X X X 

District of Columbia nr nr nr 

Florida Yes Yes No X X X X X d 

Georgia No 

Guam No 

Hawaii No 

Idaho No 

Illinois Yes Yes Yes X X X X X e 

Indiana No 

Iowa No 

Kansas Yes No X X X f 

Kentucky No 

Louisiana Yes No X X X X X 

Maine Yes Yes Yes X 

Maryland Yes Yes Yes X X X X X 

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes g 

Michigan Yes Yes Yes X X X X h 

Minnesota No 

Mississippi No 

Missouri Yes Yes Yes i 

Montana No 

Nebraska Yes No X X X X X 

Nevada Yes Yes Yes X j 

New Hampshire No 

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes X X X X X 

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes X X X X X 

New York Yes Yes Yes X X X X X k 

North Carolina No 

North Dakota No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr 

Ohio Yes Yes Yes X X X X 

Oklahoma Yes Yes No X X X X X l 

Oregon No 

Pennsylvania No 

Puerto Rico nr nr 

Rhode Island Yes Yes Yes X 

South Carolina Yes Yes No X X X X X 

South Dakota No 

Tennessee Yes No X 

Texas Yes Yes Yes X X X X X m 

Utah Yes Yes Yes X X X X X n 

Vermont Yes Yes Yes X 

Virgin Islands nr nr 

Virginia No 

Washington No 

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes X X o 

Wisconsin No 

Wyoming No 
Table 22 explanatory notes: 

▪ nr (not reported).

Legend: Other 

a. Alcohol beverage and marijuana handlers. 

b. Licensing, certification, and permits. 

c. CCW permits; vulnerable persons; any statute approved by FBI, typically governed by state agency. 

d. Loan originators, professional solicitors, pari-mutuel wagering, school contract vendors. 

e. Licensing, government employment, gaming licensing and employment. 

f. Real estate professionals, legislative auditors. 

g. Firearms license holders. 

h. Pistol license, mortgage loan officer, gaming control. 

i. School employees. 

j. Concealed weapons permits, department of education, school district employees and volunteers. 

k. Taxi, hazmat licensees. 

l. Any approved noncriminal justice group. 

m. All entities authorized to receive fingerprint-based criminal history record checks. 

n. Criminal justice users, CJIS access. 

o. Volunteers. 
Table 22a. Noncriminal justice rap back services, continued, 2016 

Total number of in- In-state noncriminal In-state Participant in NGI 

state noncriminal justice rap back noncriminal justice In-state noncriminal justice rap back services 

justice rap back fingerprint rap back subscriptions require for noncriminal 

State notifications enrolllment fee notification fee validation similar to NGI justice purposes 

Total 906,963 

Alabama 5,704 No No 

Alaska Yes, for some No 

American Samoa nr nr nr 

Arizona No 

Arkansas No 

California 502,126 Yes, for some No 

Colorado nr $1 No No 

Connecticut nr No No 

Delaware 9,351 No No 

District of Columbia nr nr nr 

Florida 34,140 $24 Yes, for some No 

Georgia No 

Guam No 

Hawaii No 

Idaho No 

Illinois 75,808 No No 

Indiana No 

Iowa No 

Kansas 924 Yes, for all No 

Kentucky No 

Louisiana na No No 

Maine 6,689 No No 

Maryland 35,978 Yes, for all No 

Massachusetts nr Yes, for some No 

Michigan 82,019 Yes, for some No 

Minnesota No 

Mississippi No 

Missouri 177 Yes, for all No 

Montana No 

Nebraska No No 

Nevada 310 No No 

New Hampshire No 

New Jersey na $10 Yes, for all No 

New Mexico 12,445 Yes, for all No 

New York na Yes, for some No 

North Carolina No 

North Dakota No 

No. Mariana Islands nr nr nr 

Ohio 7,936 $5 No No 

Oklahoma 14,752 No No 

Oregon No 

Pennsylvania No 

Puerto Rico nr nr nr 

Rhode Island Yes, for all No 

South Carolina na No No 

South Dakota No 

Tennessee No No 

Texas 111,044 $1 Yes, for all No 

Utah 7,115 $5 Yes, for all Yes 

Vermont nr No No 

Virgin Islands nr nr nr 

Virginia No 

Washington No 

West Virginia 445 No No 

Wisconsin No 

Wyoming No 
Table 22a explanatory notes: 

▪ na (not available).

▪ nr (not reported).
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OMB No.: 1121-0312 Approval Expires: 02/29/2020 

Survey of State Criminal History 

Information Systems, 2016 

Since 1989, the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems has been used to collect the nation’s most complete,

comprehensive and relevant data on the number and status of state-maintained criminal history records and on the increasing 

number of operations and services involving noncriminal justice background checks provided by the state repositories. This 

data collection is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 2015-RU-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Please note: Completion of the survey is voluntary; however, doing 

so is a special condition placed on all National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) and NICS Act Record 

Improvement Program (NARIP) awards. 

Respondents using the online survey tool, accessible at http://www.search.org/surveys/repository/, to enter 2016 data can 

view previously submitted 2014 data for comparison purposes. Where applicable, your state’s 2014 responses are displayed 

in color within each section of the online survey. It is hoped that this information will help respondents complete the survey 

more accurately and efficiently. The cover letter provides the password to gain access to your state’s online survey. 

Direct your questions or comments to SEARCH staff Dennis DeBacco at 775-412-1950 or dennis@search.org. 

If more convenient, you may print the survey sections, complete them manually, and fax (916-392-8440) or mail them to the 

attention of Dennis DeBacco at SEARCH, 1900 Point West Way, Suite 275, Sacramento, CA 95815. The deadline for 

survey submission is March 17, 2017. 

The survey is divided into six sections. You may submit each independently and not necessarily in the order presented. This 

is done so that different people on your repository’s staff may submit the data for which they are responsible. Repository 

directors are responsible to see that the survey is submitted in its entirety. Please note the following: 

1. All reported data should be for calendar year 2016, or as of December 31, 2016. 

2. The term “felony” includes any crime classified as a felony under your state’s laws. These offenses are generally 

punishable by a term of incarceration in excess of one year. If your state’s laws do not use the term “felony,” please 

substitute functional equivalents, such as class 1, 2, 3 and 4 offenses in New Jersey and class A, B and C offenses in 

Maine. 

3. Questions that seek responses based on a “legal requirement” refer only to a state statute or a state administrative 

regulation having the force of law. 

4. If additional space is needed, please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section.

5. Please use the “Additional Comments” area at the end of each section to provide explanatory notes for responses 

that require explanation or when “no data is available,” and to describe significant changes between the current 

response and data reported in the 2014 survey. 

6. If a question is not applicable to your repository, please indicate “NA” in the “Additional Comments” area at the end

of each section. 

Burden Statement 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we cannot ask you to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. The survey will be sent to criminal history repositories in 56 jurisdictions, including 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. The average time required for each agency to complete the survey is estimated at 6.2 hours. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this survey, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Director, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Washington DC 20531. Do not send your completed form to this 

address. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION I: REPOSITORY 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

The following questions relate to descriptions of your state’s criminal history record information 

and master name index databases: 

1. How many subjects (individual criminal offenders) were in your criminal history file as 

of December 31, 2016? Tables 1 and 2 

(a) Automated records __________________ (Include subjects whose records 

are partially automated) 

(b) Manual records __________________ 

(c) Total records __________________ (a+b) 

2. Fingerprints processed in 2016: Tables 1a and 9 

Percentage of 

Purpose Number 2016 volume Totals 

(a) Criminal (retained) ___________ _________% 

(b) Criminal (not retained) ___________ _________% (a+b)_____________ 

(c) Noncriminal (retained) ___________ _________% 

(d) Noncriminal (not retained) ___________ _________% (c+d)_____________ 

(e) What was the total number of fingerprint-based 

background checks conducted during 2016? (a+b+c+d)___________ 

3. (a) Do you have felony conviction flagging, i.e., does your criminal history record 

database include a data field or flag enabling you to quickly determine whether a 

given record subject has a felony conviction? Table 6 

 Yes, all subjects with felony convictions 

 Yes, some subjects with felony convictions 

 No 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Does your state’s criminal history record employ flagging to indicate the following? 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Sex offender registrant 

 Violent offender 

 Misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that would exclude someone from 

purchasing a firearm 

 Active protection order on file with state justice information system and/or 

NCIC 

 Active warrant on file with state justice information system and/or NCIC 

 Mental health adjudication 

 DNA available 

 IFFS, indicating ineligible for firearms purchase under federal law 

 IFFS, indicating ineligible for firearms purchase under state law 

 Other (describe) __________________________________________ 

The following questions refer to repository administration, procedures and practices. 

4. (a) As of December 31, 2016, did your repository conduct “lights out” processing of 

fingerprints (an identification decision is made without fingerprint technician 

intervention)? Table 17 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, what percentage of fingerprints was 

handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

(c) If yes, what percentage of criminal fingerprints 

was handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

(d) If yes, what percentage of noncriminal applicant 

fingerprints was handled with “lights out” processing? __________ % 

5. (a) Does your state maintain a protection order file? Table 4 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, which agency(s) enter protection orders onto the state file? 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) __________________________________________ 

(c) If yes, how many active records were in the state protection order record database as 

of December 31, 2016? 

_________________ records 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d) In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between the issuance of a protection 

order and entry of the information into the state protection order file? 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 More than 30 days 

 N/A – State does not maintain a protection order file 

(e) Are protection orders entered onto the FBI-NCIC Protection Order File? Table 4a 

 Yes  No 

(f) If yes, which agency(s) enter protection order information to the FBI-NCIC 

Protection Order File? (Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) __________________________________________ 

(g) In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between the issuance of a protection 

order and entry of the information into the FBI-NCIC Protection Order File? 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 More than 30 days 

 N/A – State does not maintain a protection order file 

6. (a) Does your state maintain a warrant file? Table 5 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, which agency(s) enter warrants onto the state file? (Check all that apply.) 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) __________________________________________ 

(c) In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between the issuance of a warrant and 

entry of the information into the state warrant file? Table 5b 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 More than 30 days 

 N/A – State does not maintain a warrant file 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d) If yes, how many records were in the state warrant database as of December 31, 

2016? Table 5a 

_________________ records 

(e) Of this total, indicate the number of: 

Felony warrants ______________________ 

Misdemeanor warrants ________________ 

Other (explain) ______________________________________________ 

(f) Which agency(s) enter warrant information to the FBI-NCIC Wanted Person File? 

(Check all that apply.) Table 5 

 Law enforcement 

 Courts 

 Other (describe) __________________________________________ 

(g) In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between the issuance of a warrant and 

entry of the information into the FBI-NCIC Wanted Person File? Table 5b 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 More than 30 days 

 N/A – State does not maintain a warrant file 

7. In addition to criminal history information, to what other records does your state’s 

repository provide access? (Check all that apply.) Table 6a 

 Sex offender registry 

 Orders of protection 

 Wanted persons/warrants 

 Retained applicant prints 

 Firearm registration 

 Domestic violence incident reports 

 Other (specify) 

8. Does your state have plans to replace any of the following due to systems that are at or 

nearing the end of their lifecycle? (Check all that apply.) Table 10 

 Computerized Criminal History (CCH) 

 If yes, when ___________ 

 If yes, what is the estimated replacement cost? ________________ 

 If yes, what percentage of the cost will be requested from your state? 

_____% 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 If yes, what percentage of the cost will be requested from federal 

sources? _____% 

 Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Table 10a 

 If yes, when __________ 

 If yes, what is the estimated replacement cost? ________________ 

 If yes, what percentage of the cost will be requested from your state? 

_____% 

 If yes, what percentage of the cost will be requested from federal 

sources? _____% 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION II: ARREST/FINGERPRINT 

REPORTING AND ENTRY 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

1. How many felony arrests were reported to your repository during calendar year 2016? 

____________ arrests Table 13 

2. How many arrest fingerprints were submitted to your repository during 2016? (a+b+c = d) 

(a) _________________ via livescan 

(b) _________________ via cardscan 

(c) _________________ hard copy fingerprints 

(d) _________________ = total arrest fingerprints Table 9 

3. (a) As of December 31, 2016, was there a backlog of arrest fingerprint cards to be 

entered into the AFIS database (i.e., not entered within 48 hours of receipt at 

repository)? Table 11b 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, how many? 

 Size of arrest fingerprint card backlog as of December 31, 2016, is not 

available 

(c) If yes, what is the age of the backlogged arrest information? 

 1 month or less 

 2–6 months 

 7–12 months 

 More than 1 year 

4. (a) As of December 31, 2016, was there a backlog of palm prints to be entered into the 

AFIS database (i.e., not entered within 48 hours of receipt at repository)? 

 Yes  No 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) If yes, how many? 

 Size of palm print backlog as of December 31, 2016, is not available 

5. For the year ending on December 31, 2016, what percentage of arrest fingerprint records 

received by the repository were rejected for poor quality? ________% Table 11a 

6. What types of biometric information are currently utilized in identification search 

processes conducted by your agency? (Check all that apply, and indicate volume.) 

 Latent fingerprints Table 3 ____________ 2016 volume 

 Flat prints ____________ 2016 volume 

 2-finger prints for identification purposes ____________ 2016 volume 

 2-finger prints for updating incarceration 

or release information to criminal history ____________ 2016 volume 

 10-finger prints for updating incarceration 

or release information to criminal history ____________ 2016 volume 

 Palm prints ____________ 2016 volume 

 Facial images/mug shots ____________ 2016 volume 

 Scars, marks, and tattoo images ____________ 2016 volume 

 1- or 2-finger prints for updating 

disposition information ____________ 2016 volume 

 Iris capture ____________ 2016 volume 

 Other (specify) ___________________ ____________ 2016 volume 

7. (a) Are you using mobile technology to transmit fingerprints for identification purposes? 

 Yes  No Table 11e 

(b) Are you using mobile technology to transmit fingerprints for booking purposes? 

 Yes  No 

(c) Do you have plans to implement mobile technology that captures non-fingerprint 

biometric information? 

 Yes  No 

(d) Is your state employing Rapid ID? 

 Yes  No 

 If yes, number of searches conducted in 2016 _______________ 

 If yes, number of hits in 2016 _______________ 

8. (a) Total number of law enforcement agencies in your state ___________ Table 11 

(b) Number of law enforcement agencies that submit arrest prints 

via livescan (including agencies without livescan devices that 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________ 

receive livescan services from agencies that do have that 

equipment, such as a sheriff that provides booking services 

for multiple local police departments) _____________ 

(c) Number of agencies that submit arrest fingerprints via cardscan _____________ 

(d) Number of agencies that submit hard copy arrest fingerprint cards _____________ 

(e) Percentage of arrest prints submitted via livescan during 2016 ___________ % 

9. Does your state have a purchasing contract for livescan equipment? Table 10 

 Yes, we have a statewide contract that local agencies can purchase from 

 Yes, my agency purchases all livescan equipment on behalf of local agencies 

 Yes, my state is part of a multi-state contract for livescan equipment 

 Yes, certain agencies within my state have negotiated a multi-jurisdiction 

contract 

 No, each local agency negotiates directly with livescan vendors to purchase 

equipment 

 Other, please explain: 

10. If no, does your state plan to negotiate a statewide or multi-state purchasing contract for 

livescan equipment in the future? 

 Yes, my state anticipates negotiating a statewide contract for livescan 

equipment 

 Yes, my state anticipates negotiating a multi-state contract for livescan 

equipment 

 No 

11. Do local law enforcement agencies in your state routinely cite and release individuals 

without fingerprinting? This includes issuance of a notice to appear when a person is 

charged with a crime, but is not fingerprinted prior to a court appearance. Table 7b 

 Yes, only for violations 

 Yes, for both violations and misdemeanors 

 Yes, for all criminal offenses, including felonies 

 No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION III: DISPOSITIONS 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

The following questions seek to determine to what extent the records in your criminal history record 

database contain final case disposition information. (“Final case disposition” is defined as the formal or 

informal conclusion of an arrest or charge at whatever stage it occurs in the criminal justice process. (E.g., 

release by police after arrest without charging; decline to proceed by prosecutor; or final trial court 

disposition.)) 

1. Does your state collect charge tracking information (sometimes referred to as “interim 

disposition information”) on the criminal history record showing the status of a case as it 

moves through the justice system? (E.g., reporting of an indictment, charges filed that 

are different than arrest charges, etc.) Table 7b 

 Yes  No 

2. (a) How many final case dispositions 

did your repository receive during 2016? Table 7 ____________ dispositions 

(b) Of those, how many were sent to the FBI? Table 7a ___________ dispositions 

Of the dispositions forwarded to the FBI: 

(c) What percentage was sent by Machine Readable 

Data (MRD), such as tape/CD/DVD? ____________ % 

(d) What percentage was sent via hard copy/paper? ____________ % 

(e) What percentage was sent by Interstate 

Identification Index (III) message key? ____________ % 

(f) What percentage was sent via a secure web portal? ____________ % 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. What percentage of all arrests in the criminal history database have final case dispositions 

recorded? Table 1 

(a) Arrests entered within past 5 years ____________ % 

(b) Arrests in the entire database ____________ % 

(c) Felony charges ____________ % 

4. (a) Of the dispositions received at the repository during 2016, what percentage could not 

be linked to a specific arrest record, either because of failed matching criteria or the 

arrest had not been reported to the repository? Table 8a 

_______________% 

(b) When a disposition cannot be matched to an arrest, the following action(s) is taken: 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Placed in a suspense file (no further action) 

 Placed in a suspense file for further investigation 

 Disposition information is rejected 

 Follow-up actions are taken by repository staff 

 Court is contacted 

 Court-provided charge(s) and corresponding disposition is posted to the 

beginning or end of record 

 Other ______________________________________________ 

(c) Is a vendor used to assist your state’s repository in identifying or locating missing

dispositions? 

 Yes  No 

5. (a) As of December 31, 2016, was any court disposition data reported directly to the 

repository by automated means? (Note: “automated” refers to a method by which data 

is transmitted by the court to the repository where it is matched against criminal 

history records and entered on the criminal history record, usually without manual 

intervention. This does not include dispositions received via fax or email, which 

require manual activity for criminal history record matching and data entry.) 

 Yes  No Table 8 

(b) If yes, how many automated records were: 

 Received via automated means through a centralized (statewide) court case 

management system _______________ 

 Received via the local courts’ case management systems _______________ 

(c) If yes, what percentage of dispositions was reported in 2016 by automated means? 

____________% 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d) How are records matched between the court system and the repository? (Check all 

that apply.) 

 Process Control Number (PCN) or Transaction Control Number (TCN) 

assigned when fingerprints were taken at time of arrest/booking 

 PCN or TCN assigned subsequent to arrest/booking 

 State Identification Number 

 Arrest Number 

 Name 

 Date of birth 

 Charges 

 N/A – My state does not receive automated disposition information from 

courts 

 Other (please explain)_____________________________________________ 

6. In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between the occurrence of final felony court 

case dispositions and receipt of information concerning such dispositions by the 

repository? Table 8b 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 31–90 days 

 91–180 days 

 181–365 days 

 More than 1 year 

7. In 2016, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of final felony court 

disposition information by the repository and entry of that information into the criminal 

history record database? 

 1 day or less 

 2–7 days 

 8–30 days 

 31–90 days 

 91–180 days 

 181–365 days 

 More than 1 year 

8. (a) As of December 31, 2016, was your state using any livescan devices in 

courtrooms/courthouses to link positive identifications with dispositions? 

 Yes  No Table 13 

(b) If yes, how many livescan devices are in courtrooms/courthouses? 

____________ devices 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________ 

9. (a) As of December 31, 2016, was there a backlog of court disposition data to be entered 

into the criminal history record database (i.e., not entered within 48 hours of receipt at 

repository, including dispositions that could not be matched to a criminal history 

record within 48 hours of receipt at the repository)? 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, how many unprocessed or partially processed court case dispositions did you 

have? 

10. (a) Does the repository receive any final case disposition information (e.g., decline to 

proceed) from local prosecutors? Table 7c 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, this information is: (Check all that apply.) 

 Received via automated means through a centralized (statewide) prosecutors’

case management system 

 Received via the local prosecutors’ case management system 

 Paper-based 

 A mix of automated and paper-based 

(c) If yes, how are records matched between prosecutors and the repository? (Check all 

that apply.) Table 7d 

 N/A – My state does not receive automated disposition information from 

prosecutors 

 Process Control Number (PCN) or Transaction Control Number (TCN) 

assigned when fingerprints were taken at time of arrest/booking 

 PCN or TCN assigned subsequent to arrest/booking 

 State Identification Number 

 Arrest Number 

 Name 

 Date of birth 

 Charges 

 Other (please explain)_____________________________________________ 

11. Does your state post indictment information to the criminal history record? Table 7b 

 Yes  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION IV: NONCRIMINAL 

JUSTICE BACKGROUND CHECKS 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

BACKGROUND CHECKS 

1. (a) Does your state charge a fee to conduct a search of the criminal history record 

database for noncriminal justice purposes? Table 18 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, how are fees allocated? 

 All fees go to the state general fund, with repository 

funded by general fund allotment 

 A percentage of fees go to support repository operations __________ % 

 All fees go to support repository operations 

 Other _______________________________________________________ 

2. Please indicate the legal authority your state uses for each of the following background 

checks. (Check all that apply.) Table 16 

N/A (state does not 

do these checks) 

State check only PL 92-544 statute NCPA/VCA 

Daycare providers 

Caregivers–residential facilities 

School teachers 

Non-teaching school personnel (including volunteers) 

Volunteers working with children 

Prospective foster care parents 

Prospective adoptive parents 

Relative caregivers 

Nurses/Elder caregivers 

Legal guardians 

Hazardous materials licensees N/A 

Medical marijuana (dispensers, caregivers) N/A 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

FINGERPRINT-BASED SEARCHES 

3. (a) Has your state privatized the taking of fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes? 

 Yes  No Table 12 

If you answered “No,” skip to question 4.

(b) Is this service provided by? 

 A single vendor  Multiple vendors 

(c) Does the vendor(s) assess a fee above what the state charges to perform the 

background check? 

 Yes, Fee $  No 

(d) Does the vendor provide any additional services besides the fingerprint capture? 

(E.g., evaluating responses for the requestor, sending responses back to the requestor, 

etc.) 

4. (a) Total number of noncriminal justice fingerprints Table 11d 

submitted to the repository via livescan during 2016 ____________ 

(b) Total number of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted to the repository via cardscan during 2016 ____________ 

(c) Percentage of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted via livescan during 2016 ____________% 

(d) Percentage of noncriminal justice fingerprints 

submitted via cardscan during 2016 ____________% 

(e) Total number of livescan devices available for 

noncriminal justice purposes only Table 11c ____________ 

(f) Total number of cardscan devices available for 

noncriminal justice purposes only ____________ 

(g) Total number of livescan devices used for both 

criminal and noncriminal justice purposes ____________ 

(h) Total number of cardscan devices used for both 

criminal and noncriminal justice purposes ____________ 

5. What information is contained in the results for fingerprint-based noncriminal justice 

background checks? (Check all that apply.) Table 15 

 Full record 

 Convictions only 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Juvenile records 

 Arrests without disposition–over 1 year old 

 Other _______________________________________________________ 

6. What percentage of fingerprint-based noncriminal justice transactions are identified 

against arrest fingerprints? 

_________ % 

7. Does the repository attempt to locate missing disposition information before responding 

to a fingerprint-based noncriminal justice inquiry? 

 Yes  No 

NAME-BASED SEARCHES 

8. How many name-based noncriminal justice background checks were performed in 2016? 

(a+b+c+d = e) Table 14 

(a) Received via Internet ____________ 

(b) Received via mail ____________ 

(c) Received via telephone ____________ 

(d) Other ____________ 

(e) Total ____________ 

INTERNET ACCESS 

9. Does your repository provide web-based noncriminal justice background checks to the 

public? Table 19 

 Yes  No 

10. Are fees involved for Internet access for the general public (not including any registration 

or account fees)? 

 Yes, Fee $ ____________  No 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION V: CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

RAP BACK SERVICES 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

1. Does your state currently provide an in-state criminal justice rap back service? 

 Yes  No Table 21 

If you answered “No,” skip to question 4.

2. What are the purposes for which criminal justice agencies can be notified of a subsequent 

inquiry and/or record posting via your in-state criminal justice rap back service? (Check 

all that apply.) 

 Error correction/record management update 

 Investigative lead 

 Sex offender 

 Parolee 

 Probationer 

 Permit/privileged license revocation (i.e., CCW permit, gaming work card, 

etc.) 

 Noncriminal justice purpose fingerprint search 

 Other (describe) 

3. In 2016, how many in-state criminal justice rap back notifications were made to agencies 

for criminal justice purposes? 

4. Do you currently participate in the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) rap back 

service for criminal justice purposes? 

 Yes  No 

If you answered “No,” skip questions 5 through 7. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

5. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you allow criminal justice agencies in your 

state to subscribe to the following supervision populations in NGI, as described in the 

NGI Rap Back Criminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? (Check all that 

apply.) 

 Sex offenders 

 Parolees 

 Probationers 

 Other supervised persons (describe) 

 Uncertain 

6. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you allow law enforcement agencies in 

your state to create law enforcement investigative subscriptions in NGI, as described in 

the NGI Rap Back Criminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? 

 Yes  No  Uncertain 

7. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service, do you plan to: (Select one.) 

 Keep your in-state criminal justice rap back service 

 Keep your in-state criminal justice rap back service and allow enrollment in 

NGI 

 Retire your in-state criminal justice rap back service and use NGI for both instate and national rap back services 

 Uncertain 

 My state does not provide an in-state criminal justice rap back service 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION VI: NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE 

RAP BACK SERVICES 

This section completed by 

Name ________________________________ Title ________________________________ 

Agency _____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone ________________________________ Email _______________________________ 

Date completed ________________________ 

Note: Questions 1–7 apply to in-state rap back programs for noncriminal justice purposes. 

1. Does your state currently provide an in-state noncriminal justice rap back service? 

 Yes  No Table 22 

If you answered “No,” skip to question 8.

2. (a) Is your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service authorized by state law or 

administrative regulation? 

 Yes  No 

(b) If yes, does the state law or administrative regulation specify the purposes in which 

noncriminal justice agencies can be notified of a subsequent inquiry and/or record 

posting? 

 Yes  No 

3. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service have a subscription validation 

process similar to that required for NGI rap back participation, as described in the NGI 

Rap Back Noncriminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? Table 22a 

 Yes, for all subscription populations 

 Yes, for some subscription populations 

 No 

4. What are the occupational groups in which noncriminal justice agencies can be notified 

of a subsequent record posting? (Check all that apply.) Table 22 

 Individuals working with children 

 Individuals working with the elderly 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Individuals providing healthcare 

 Security guards 

 Police, fire, public safety 

 Other (describe) 

5. In 2016, how many in-state noncriminal justice rap back notifications were made to 

agencies for noncriminal justice purposes? Table 22a 

6. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service impose a fee to enroll a subject’s 

fingerprints for a prescribed period of time? 

 Yes $ ________ 

 No 

7. Does your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service impose a fee for noncriminal 

justice rap back notifications? 

 Yes $ ________ 

 No 

8. Do you currently participate in NGI’s rap back service for noncriminal justice purposes? 

 Yes  No 

If you answered “No,” skip questions 9(a) through 9(d). 

9. As a participant in NGI’s rap back service—

(a) Do you plan to: (Select one.) 

 Keep your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service 

 Keep your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service and allow enrollment 

in NGI 

 Retire your in-state noncriminal justice rap back service and use NGI for both 

in-state and national rap back services 

 Uncertain 

 My state does not provide an in-state noncriminal justice rap back service 

(b) Do you restrict the Privacy Risk Mitigation Strategies that your subscribers can 

choose? 

 Yes, we limit the Privacy Risk Mitigation Strategy choices to the following: 

(Check all that apply.) 

 Pre-notification with mandatory validation/expiration within 3 years 

 Authority for duration of a license 

 Statutory authority for a set period of time 

20 
 

 

 

 

 One-year validation/expiration 

 Subscription synchronization through automated or formalized procedures 

 No, we will allow the subscribers to choose any of the Privacy Risk 

Mitigation Strategies 

 Uncertain 

(c) Do you restrict the “Triggering Events” that your subscribers may choose for future 

NGI Rap Back Activity Notifications? 

 Yes, we currently restrict, or plan to restrict, the Triggering Event choices to 

the following: (Check all that apply.) 

 Criminal Retain Submission 

 Dispositions 

 Expunge/Partial Expungement 

 Warrant Entry with FBI Number included 

 Warrant Deletion 

 Warrant Modification 

 Sex Offender Registry Entry 

 Sex Offender Registry Deletion 

 Sex Offender Registry Modification 

 Death Notices 

 No, we will allow our subscribers to choose any of the Triggering Events to 

receive as future Rap Back Activity Notifications 

 Uncertain 

(d) Do you use Event-Based Subscription Management (i.e., multiple enrollment of the 

same subject into NGI) or Category-Based Subscription Management (i.e., single 

enrollment into NGI with additional enrollments held at the state level), as described 

in the NGI Rap Back Noncriminal Justice Policy and Implementation Guide? 

 Event-Based Subscription Management 

 Category-Based Subscription Management 

 Both Event- and Category-Based Subscription Management 

 Uncertain 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

21