Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1997

Criminal Justice Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal

History Information 

Systems, 1997

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report

April 1999, NCJ 175041
ii Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

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

Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper,

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

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

Assistant, Corporate Communications. The Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief,

Criminal History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 95-RU-RX-K001, awarded to

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

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

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

Copyright © SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics 1998.

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

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

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

National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 iii

Contents

List of data tables iv

Foreword v

Glossary of terms vii

Introduction 1

Major findings 1

Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal

history files 1

Level of disposition reporting 1

Level of felony flagging 2

Timeliness of trial court disposition data 2

Detailed findings 2

Status of State criminal history files 2

Completeness of data in State criminal history

repository 3

Disposition data 3

Correctional data 4

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 4

—Arrests 4

—Disposition data 4

—Admission to correctional facilities 5

Procedures to improve data quality 5

Linking of arrests and dispositions 5

Other data quality procedures 6

Audits 6

Data tables 9

Methodology 56
iv Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

List of data tables

1. Overview of State criminal history record

systems, December 31, 1997 11

2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State

criminal history file, 1993, 1995, and 1997 13

3. Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995,

and 1997 15

4. Automation of master name index and criminal

history file, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 17

5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1997 19

6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993,

1995, and 1997 21

7. Notice to State criminal history repository of

release of arrested persons without charging,

1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 23

8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition

reporting to State criminal history repository,

1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 25

9. Policies/practices of State criminal history

repository regarding modification of felony

convictions, 1997 27

10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and

linkage to records maintained by State criminal

history repository, 1997 29

11. Probation and parole data in State criminal

history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995,

and 1997 31

12. Average number of days to process arrest data

submitted to State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog, 1997 33

13. Average number of days to process disposition data

submitted to State criminal history repository and

current status of backlog, 1997 35

14. Average number of days to process correctional

admission data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current status of backlog,

1997 37

15. Procedures employed by State criminal history

repository to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1997 39

16. Methods used to link disposition information to

arrest/charge information on criminal history

record, 1997 41

17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made

between court or correctional information in the

criminal history database, 1997 43

18. Strategies employed by State criminal history

repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal

history database, 1997 45

19. Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997 47

20. Data quality audits of State criminal history

repository, 1997 49

21. Criminal history records of Interstate

Identification Index (III) participants maintained

by the State criminal history repository and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997 51

22. Fingerprint cards processed and dispositions received

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997 53

23. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes, 1997 55
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 v

Foreword

SEARCH conducted four

previous surveys in this series for

the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

covering 1989, 1992, 1993, and

1995. This year’s report largely

updates the information collected

in previous years.

The National Instant Criminal

Background Check System

(NICS) mandated by the Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act

became operational November 30,

1998. This survey provides a

summary of quantitative

information at the end of 1997.

The levels of coverage,

completeness, accuracy, and

accessibility of the State criminal

history information systems

directly affect the effectiveness

and efficiency of the NICS.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

hopes that the information

contained in this report will assist

States as they continue to

improve their systems and to

remain vigilant in maintaining

the goals they have already

achieved.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Glossary vii

Glossary of terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification

System (AFIS): An automated system for

searching fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint

images. AFIS computer equipment can scan

fingerprint impressions (or utilize electronically

transmitted fingerprint images) and automatically

extract and digitize ridge details and other identifying

characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the

computer’s searching and matching components to

distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or even

millions of fingerprints previously scanned and stored

in digital form in the computer’s memory. The

process eliminates the manual searching of fingerprint

files and increases the speed and accuracy of ten-print

processing (arrest fingerprint cards and noncriminal

justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS equipment

also can be used to identify individuals from “latent”

(crime scene) fingerprints, even fragmentary prints of

single fingers in some cases. Digital fingerprint

images generated by AFIS equipment can be

transmitted electronically to remote sites, eliminating

the necessity of mailing fingerprint cards and

providing remote access to AFIS fingerprint files.

Central Repository: The database (or the agency

housing the database) which maintains criminal

history records on all State offenders. Records include

fingerprint files and files containing identification

segments and notations of arrests and dispositions.

The central repository is generally responsible for

State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly

serves as the central control terminal for contact with

FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for a

national record check (for criminal justice or firearm

check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the central

repository. Although usually housed in the

Department of Public Safety, the central repository

may in some States be maintained by the State Police

or some other State agency.

Criminal History Record Information

(CHRI) or Criminal History Record

Information System: A record (or the system

maintaining such records) which includes individual

identifiers and describes an individual’s arrests and

subsequent dispositions. Criminal history records do

not include intelligence or investigative data or

sociological data such as drug use history. CHRI

systems usually include information on juveniles if

they are tried as adults in criminal courts, but in most

cases do not include data describing involvement of an

individual in the juvenile justice system. All data in

CHRI systems are usually backed by fingerprints of

the record subjects to provide positive identification.

State legislation varies concerning disclosure of

criminal history records for noncriminal justice

purposes.

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal

history records are complete, accurate and timely. The

key concern in data quality is the completeness of

records and the extent to which records include

dispositions as well as arrest and charge information.

Other concerns include the timeliness of data reporting

to State and Federal repositories, the timeliness of data

entry by the repositories and the readability of criminal

history records.

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The

category of offenses for which fingerprints and

criminal history information are accepted by the FBI

and entered in the Bureau’s files, including the III

system. Serious misdemeanor is defined to exclude

certain minor offenses such as drunkenness or minor

traffic offenses.

Interstate Identification Index (III): A n

“index-pointer” system for the interstate exchange of

criminal history records. Under III, the FBI maintains

an identification index to persons arrested for felonies

or serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law.

The index includes identification information, (such as

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

State Identification Numbers (SID) from each State

holding information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide are

transmitted automatically via State

telecommunications networks and the FBI’s National

Crime Information Center (NCIC)

telecommunications lines. Searches are made on the

basis of name and other identifiers. The process is

entirely automated and takes approximately five

seconds to complete. If a hit is made against the Index,

record requests are made using the SID or FBI

Number, and data are automatically retrieved from each

repository holding records on the individual and

forwarded to the requesting agency. As of December

1998, 39 States participate in III and the system

operates for criminal justice inquiries only. Responses

are provided from FBI files when the State originating
Glossary viii Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

the record is not a participant in III. Participation

requires that the State maintain an automated criminal

history record system capable of interfacing with the

III system and capable of responding automatically to

all interstate and Federal/State record requests. If

extended to cover noncriminal justice inquiries, as

planned, the III system would eliminate the need for

duplicate recordkeeping at the Federal and State level

since it would no longer be necessary for the FBI to

maintain records on State offenders. At present, III

ensures higher quality criminal justice responses

because, in most cases, reply data are supplied directly

by the State from which the record originates.

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of

juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal

history record systems do not accept such records,

which are frequently not supported by fingerprints and

which usually are confidential under State law.

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

accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records on the

same basis as adult records. States are not required to

submit such records to the FBI, however.

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject

identification index maintained by criminal record

repositories that includes names and other identifiers

for all persons about whom a record is held in the

systems. As of 1992, almost all State MNIs were

automated and included almost 100 percent of record

subjects in the repositories. The automated name index

is the key to rapidly identifying persons who have

criminal records for such purposes as presale firearm

checks, criminal investigations or bailsetting. MNIs

may include “felony flags,” which indicate whether

record subjects have arrests or convictions for felony

offenses.

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC): An automated database of criminal justice

and justice-related records maintained by the FBI. The

database includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing

persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen

property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is

through central control terminal operators in each

State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated

telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI.

Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the

State control terminal via the State law enforcement

network. Inquiries are based on name and other

nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history

inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC

telecommunications system. NCIC data may be

provided only for criminal justice and other

specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history

searches, this includes criminal justice employment,

employment by Federally chartered or insured banking

institutions or securities firms, and use by State and

local governments for purposes of employment and

licensing pursuant to a State statute approved by the

U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries regarding presale

firearm checks are included as criminal justice uses.

National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact

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 representatives of

the Federal and State governments, as well as system

users. The key concept underlying the compact is

agreement among all States that all criminal history

information (except sealed records) will be provided in

response to noncriminal justice requests from another

State — regardless of whether the information being

requested would be permitted to be disseminated for a

similar noncriminal justice purpose within the State

holding the data. (That is, the law of the State which

is inquiring about the data — rather than the law of

the State which originated the data — governs its use.)

In some States, ratification of the compact will have

the effect of amending existing State legislation

governing interstate record dissemination, since most

States do not currently authorize dissemination to all

of the Federal agencies and out-of-State users

authorized under the compact. At present, noncriminal

justice inquiries are handled by the FBI from its files

of voluntarily contributed State arrest and disposition

records. This requires that the FBI maintain duplicates

of State records and generally results in less complete

records being provided, since FBI files of State records

are not always complete due to reporting deficiencies.

The FBI cannot abandon the duplicate records without

a formal compact, however, since subsequent failure of

a State to continue participation after cessation of

entry of data into the FBI’s State offender files would

jeopardize future noncriminal justice services to the

Federal and State agencies that now rely on those files.

The compact was passed by Congress and signed into

law by the President in October 1998. The compact

will now be submitted for ratification by State

legislatures.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Glossary ix

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system

and procedures designed as a component of the III

system, which, when fully implemented, would

establish a totally decentralized system for the

interstate exchange of criminal history records. The

NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders and

a single set of fingerprints on State offenders from

each State in which an offender has been arrested for a

felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under the NFF

concept, States will forward only the first-arrest

fingerprints of an individual to the FBI accompanied

by other identification data such as name and date of

birth. Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be

forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would

also be retained at the State repository and would not

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

fingerprint cards (or electronic images), the FBI will

enter the individual’s fingerprint impressions in the

NFF and will enter the person’s name and identifiers

in the III, together with an FBI Number and a State

Identification (SID) Number for each State

maintaining a record on the individual. Charge and

disposition information on State offenders will be

maintained only at the State level, and State

repositories will be required to respond to all

authorized record requests concerning these individuals

for both criminal justice and noncriminal justice

purposes. States would have to release all data on

record subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries

regardless of whether the data could be released for

similar purposes within the State. The NFF concept is

presently being tested in Florida, New Jersey, North

Carolina, and Oregon. These States are in a position

to conduct the test since they have nonrestrictive laws

governing release of data for noncriminal justice

purposes.

Positive Identification: Identification of an

individual using biometric characteristics that are

unique and not subject to alteration. In present usage,

the term refers to identification by fingerprints but

may also include identification by retinal images,

voiceprints, or other techniques. Positive identification

is to be distinguished from identification using name,

sex, date of birth, or other personal identifiers as

shown on a document subject to alteration or

counterfeit such as a birth certificate, Social Security

card, or driver’s license. Because individuals can have

identical or similar names, ages, etc., identifications

based on such characteristics are not reliable.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Introduction • Page 1

Note to Readers: This is a report

of the results of the Survey of

State Criminal History

Information Systems. In some

of the tables that follow, data

from earlier data quality surveys

are included. Caution should be

used in drawing comparisons

between the results of earlier

surveys and the survey reported

here. Since the last national data

quality survey, the U.S. Justice

Department has continued to

implement assistance programs

dedicated to improving criminal

history records. As a result,

some States are focusing new or

additional resources on the

condition of their records and in

many cases, know more about

their records today than in the

past. For these and other

reasons, trend comparisons may

not as accurately reflect the

status of the Nation’s criminal

history records as the current

data considered alone.

Introduction

This report is based on the results from

a two-part survey of the administrators

of the State criminal history record

repositories in January -November

1998. The report is largely based upon

data as of December 31, 1997. Fiftythree jurisdictions were surveyed,

including the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. Responses were received to at

least one part of the survey from 52

jurisdictions. Only Puerto Rico did not

complete either part of the survey.

Throughout this report, the 50 States

will be referred to as “States”; the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands will be referred to as

“territories,” consistent with prior

surveys; “Nation” refers collectively to

both the States and territories.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation provided information

relating to the number of fingerprint

cards and dispositions received by the

FBI during Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and

the number of criminal history records

of the States participating in the

Interstate Identification Index system

that are maintained by the State

criminal history repositories and the

number of records maintained by the

FBI for the States.

Major Findings

Level of automation of master name

indexes and criminal history files

Overview of State criminal history

record systems, December 31, 1997

(Table 1):

• Forty-nine States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico have

automated at least some records in the

criminal history record file.

• Twenty States (Alabama, Arizona,

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon,

Rhode Island, Texas, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming) have fully

automated criminal history files and

master name indexes.

Automation of master name index and

criminal history file, 1997 (Table 4):

• Forty-five States have fully

automated master name indexes. The

Virgin Islands does not maintain a

master name index.

• Maine and the Virgin Islands have no

automated criminal history files.

• Of those States maintaining partially

automated criminal history files, when

an offender with a prior manual record

is arrested, the prior manual record is

subsequently automated in 23 States.

In two States (California and

Minnesota) and the District of

Columbia, only the new information is

automated.

Level of disposition reporting

Overview of State criminal history

record systems, December 31, 1997

(Table 1):

• Twenty-one States (Alaska,

California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, North Dakota,

South Carolina, South Dakota,

Vermont, Virginia, Washington,

Wisconsin and Wyoming) and the

District of Columbia representing

approximately 40% of the Nation’s

population (based on 53 jurisdictions)

and 40% of the Nation’s criminal

history records, report that 80% or

more arrests within the past 5 years in

the criminal history database have final

dispositions recorded.

• A total of 25 States representing

approximately 47% of the Nation’s

population and 45% of the Nation’s

criminal history records, report that

70% or more arrests within the past 5

years in the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.
Page 2 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

• A total of 29 States representing

approximately 60% of the Nation’s

population and 62% of the Nation’s

criminal history records, report that

60% or more arrests within the past 5

years in the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

• Overall, the figures are lower when

arrests older than 5 years are

considered. Eleven States report that

80% or more arrests in the entire

criminal history database have final

dispositions recorded. Twenty-two

States report that 70% or more arrests

in the entire criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

Twenty-six States report that 60% or

more arrests in the entire criminal

history database have final dispositions

recorded.

Number of final dispositions reported

to State criminal history repository,

1997 (Table 3):

Twenty-nine States and the District of

Columbia provided data on the number

of final dispositions reported to their

criminal history repositories indicating

that over 4.6 million final dispositions

were reported in 1997. The responding

jurisdictions represent approximately

58% of the Nation’s population.

Level of felony flagging

Overview of State criminal history

record systems, December 31, 1997

(Table 1):

• Forty-two States and Puerto Rico

currently flag some or all felony

convictions in their criminal history

databases.

• Twenty States collect sufficient data

to permit them to flag at least some

previously unflagged felony

convictions.

Timeliness of trial court disposition

data

Average number of days to process

disposition data submitted to State

criminal history repository, 1997

(Table 13):

• An average 42 days separates the

final court dispositions and receipt of

that information by the State criminal

history repositories, ranging from less

than 1 day in Colorado, Delaware, the

District of Columbia, and New Jersey

to 360 days in Pennsylvania. The

majority of responding repositories

receive the data in 30 days or less.

• An average 33 days separates the

receipt of final trial court dispositions

and entry of disposition data into the

criminal history databases, ranging

from less than 1 day in States where

dispositions are entered either directly

by the courts or by tape to 180 days in

Indiana and Minnesota. Half of the

responding jurisdictions enter the data

in 10 days or less.

• Twenty-six States indicate having

backlogs in entering disposition data

into the criminal history database.

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal history files

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file, 1997 (Table 2):

• Over 54.2 million criminal history

records were in the criminal history

files of the State criminal history

repositories on December 31, 1997.

(An individual offender may have

records in several States.)

• Eighty-seven percent of the criminal

history records maintained by the State

criminal history repositories are

automated. Approximately 6.8 million

records, or 13%, are not automated.

Automation of master name index and

criminal history file, 1997 (Table 4):

• All of the reporting States and the

District of Columbia have automated at

least some records in either the criminal

history record file or the master name

index. In Maine, a portion of the

master name index has been automated

but is not in use.

• Of the responding jurisdictions, 45

States have fully automated master

name indexes. Six jurisdictions do not

have fully automated master name

indexes. Of those six jurisdictions, four

States and the District of Columbia

have partially automated master name

indexes. The Virgin Islands does not

maintain a master name index.

• Of those jurisdictions maintaining

partially automated criminal history

files, when an offender with a prior

manual record is arrested, the record is

automated in 23 States. In California,

Minnesota, and the District of

Columbia, only the new information is

automated.

Data required by State law to be

submitted to State criminal history

repository, 1997 (Table 5):

• Thirty-three States require

prosecutors to report to State criminal

history repositories their decisions to

decline prosecution in criminal cases.

In Michigan, arrest fingerprints are

submitted after the prosecutor’s

decision to charge a crime punishable

by over 92 days.

• Forty-four States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands

require felony trial courts to report the

dispositions of felony cases to the State

criminal history repository.

• State prison admission of felons must

be reported to the State criminal history

repository in 35 States and the District

of Columbia. State prison release

information on felony cases must be

reported to the State criminal history

repository in 30 States and the District

of Columbia.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Introduction • Page 3

• Admission data on felons housed in

local correctional facilities must be

reported to the State criminal history

repository in 22 States and the District

of Columbia. Release data on felons

housed in local correctional facilities

must be reported to the State criminal

history repository in 15 States and the

District of Columbia.

• The reporting of probation

information is mandated in 26 States

and the District of Columbia, while 27

States and the District of Columbia

require the reporting of parole

information.

Arrest records with fingerprints, 1997

(Table 6):

• During 1997, over 7.6 million arrest

fingerprint cards (or electronic

substitutes) were submitted to the State

criminal history repositories.

• Thirty-six States, representing 69%

of the Nation’s population, have

records that are 100% fingerprintsupported. In 10 States and the District

of Columbia, some of the arrests in the

criminal history files are fingerprintsupported. In New York, Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands, the inquiry

regarding fingerprint-supported

criminal history files was either not

applicable or the percentage was

unknown. In Massachusetts and

Mississippi, there are no fingerprintsupported criminal history records.

Completeness of data in State

criminal history repository

Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 1997

(Table 7):

• More than half of the States (32)

require law enforcement agencies to

notify the State criminal history

repository when an arrested person is

released without formal charging but

after the fingerprints have been

submitted to the repository.

Disposition data

Completeness of prosecutor and court

disposition reporting to State criminal

history repository, 1997 (Table 8):

• Twenty-three States (Alaska,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, and Wisconsin) and the

District of Columbia report that

criminal history repositories receive

final felony trial court dispositions for

80% or more of the cases.

Seven States (Alaska, Colorado,

Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Oregon, and South Carolina) estimate

that they receive notice in 100% of the

cases.

A. A total of 25 jurisdictions, or 1

additional State (Arkansas) report that

final felony trial court dispositions in

70% or more of the cases in their

jurisdictions are received by the State

criminal history repositories.

B. A total of 30 jurisdictions, or 5

additional States (Illinois, Missouri,

Oregon, Texas, and Utah), report that

final felony trial court dispositions in

60% or more of the cases in their

jurisdictions are received by the State

criminal history repositories.

C. A total of 31 jurisdictions, or 1

additional State (Washington), report

that final felony trial court dispositions

in 50% or more of the cases in their

jurisdictions are received by the State

criminal history repositories.

• Of the respondents indicating that

there is either a legal requirement for

prosecutors to notify the State criminal

history record repository of

declinations to prosecute or where the

information is reported voluntarily, 10

States and one territory (Delaware,

District of Columbia, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming)

estimate that they receive notice in 80%

or more of such cases. Six States

(Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New Jersey, New York and Wyoming)

estimate that notice is received in 100%

of the cases. All but Massachusetts

report a legal requirement to notify the

repository. (See Table 5.)

• Twelve States were able to estimate

the number of prosecutor declinations

received. The numbers ranged from

100 in Wyoming to 200,000 in

California.

Policies/practices of State criminal

history repository regarding

modification of felony convictions,

1997 (Table 9):

• Expungements: Twenty-five States

and the District of Columbia have

statutes that provide for the

expungement of felony convictions. In

10 States and the Virgin Islands, the

record is destroyed by the State

criminal history repository. In

Washington, the record is returned to

the court. In eight States, the record is

retained with the action noted on the

record. Six States seal the record. In

Alaska, the sealed record is removed

from the automated system and

becomes a manual record.

• Setting aside of convictions: Thirtynine States have statutes that provide

for setting aside felony convictions. In

two States, the record is destroyed. In

34 States, the record is retained with

the action noted only. In Nevada, the

record is sealed.

• Pardons: Almost all of the

jurisdictions (48 States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands) have

statutes that provide for the granting of

a pardon. In 45 States, the criminal

history record is retained with the

action noted. In three jurisdictions

(South Dakota, Vermont, and the

Virgin Islands), the record is destroyed.
Page 4 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

• Restoration of civil rights: Forty

States and the District of Columbia

have legal provisions for the restoration

of a convicted felon’s civil rights. In

the majority of those jurisdictions (35

States), the record is retained with the

action noted. In two States (South

Dakota and Vermont), the record is

destroyed. Restoration of civil rights is

not tracked in Alaska, and in Missouri,

no action is taken.

Correctional data

Fingerprinting of incarcerated

offenders and linkage to records

maintained by State criminal history

repository, 1997 (Table 10):

• In 36 States and the District of

Columbia, there is a legal requirement

(State statute or State administrative

regulation having the force of law) that

the State prison system must fingerprint

admitted prisoners and send the

fingerprints to the State criminal

history repository.

• A total of 25 States and the District

of Columbia, have the same legal

requirement for reporting by local jails.

In Minnesota, the requirement applies

only to juveniles.

• In the 45 jurisdictions where State

correctional facilities are legally

required to report information or the

information is reported voluntarily, the

majority of jurisdictions (35 States)

estimate that in at least 95% of the

cases, admission information is

reported to the State repository.

Twenty-seven of those jurisdictions

estimate that 100% of the admissions

are reported to the repository. Seven

jurisdictions estimate a reporting rate of

less than 95%, ranging from 85% in

Virginia to 0% in the District of

Columbia, Florida, and Kansas.

• For reporting from local jails where

required by law or completed

voluntarily, nine States report that 95%

or more of the admissions are reported

to the State repositories. Seven States

report rates of less than 95% ranging

from 75% in Indiana to 0% in the

District of Columbia and New

Hampshire.

• In 41 States, fingerprints received

from State and local correctional

facilities are processed by the State

criminal history record repository to

establish positive identification of

incarcerated offenders and to ensure

that correctional information is linked

to the proper records.

Probation and parole data in State

criminal history repository, 1997

(Table 11):

• Of the 38 jurisdictions where

reporting of probation data is legally

required or voluntarily reported, 12

estimate that at least 90% of the cases

in which probation is ordered are

reported to the State criminal history

repository. An additional three States

report that in at least 75% of the cases

the State criminal history repository

receives probation information. Five

States report that information is

received in 50% or less of the cases.

• Nineteen jurisdictions where

reporting of parole data is legally

required or voluntarily reported

estimate that parole information is

reported in 90% of the cases. Five

States report receiving parole

information in less than 90% of the

cases, ranging from 80% in Texas to

0% in Florida and Idaho. In Colorado,

100% of admission to parole

information is received; release from

parole is not reported.

Timeliness of data in State criminal

history repository

—Arrests

Average number of days to process

arrest information submitted to State

criminal history repository, 1997

(Table 12):

• The average number of days between

arrest and receipt of arrest data and

fingerprints by the State criminal

history repositories is 13, ranging from

less than 1 day for automated reports in

California to up to 60 days in Nebraska.

The majority (27) receive the data in 14

days or less.

• The average number of days between

receipt of fingerprints by the State

criminal history repository and entry

into the master name index by the State

criminal history repositories is 23,

ranging from 0 in Delaware to up to

120 days in Michigan. The majority of

jurisdictions (29) enter the data in 10

days or less.

• The average number of days between

receipt of fingerprints and entry of

arrest data into the criminal history

databases is 26, ranging from less than

1 day in Delaware the District of

Columbia and Georgia to up to 120

days in Connecticut and Nebraska. The

majority of jurisdictions (29) enter the

data in 14 days or less.

• Twenty-nine States indicate that they

had at the time of the survey backlogs

in entering arrest data into the criminal

history database. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs range

from 4 days in Minnesota to 1,600

person-days to clear an estimated

250,000 unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards in

Massachusetts. Initial fingerprint

classification is a more time-consuming

task than entry of disposition data into

the database.

—Disposition data

Average number of days to process

disposition data submitted to State

criminal history repository and current

status of backlog, 1997 (Table 13):

• The average number of days between

the final court dispositions and receipt

of that information by the State

criminal history repositories is 42,

ranging from less than 1 day in

Colorado, Delaware, the District of

Columbia and New Jersey to 360 days

in Pennsylvania. The majority of

responding jurisdictions receive the

data in 30 days or less.

• The average number of days between

receipt of final trial court dispositions

and entry of disposition data into the

criminal history databases is 33,

ranging from less than 1 day in
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Introduction • Page 5

States where dispositions are entered

either directly by the courts or by tape

to 180 in Indiana and Minnesota. Half

of the responding jurisdictions enter the

data in 10 days or less.

• Twenty-six States indicate that they

had at the end of 1997 backlogs in

entering disposition data into the

criminal history database.

—Admission to correctional facilities

Average number of days to process

correctional admission data submitted

to State criminal history repository,

1997 (Table 14):

• The average number of days between

the admission of offenders to State

correctional facilities and receipt of the

information by the State criminal

history repository is 16, ranging from 1

day in Colorado, Delaware, Florida,

Illinois, New York and Rhode Island to

56 days in Virginia.

• The average number of days between

the admission of offenders to local jails

and receipt of the information by the

State criminal history repository is 20,

ranging from 5 days in Colorado to 30

days in California, Idaho, North

Dakota, and Wyoming.

• The average number of days between

receipt of correctional admissions

information by the State criminal

history repository and entry into the

criminal history databases is 37,

ranging from less than 1 day in New

York and Virginia to approximately

365 days in Michigan. The majority

(19) enter the information in 15 days or

less.

• Sixteen States indicate that they had

backlogs in entering the correctional

information into the criminal history

databases.

Procedures to improve data quality

Procedures employed by State criminal

history repository to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting, 1997 (Table 15):

• The method most used to encourage

complete arrest and disposition

reporting is telephone calls conducted

by 36 States and the District of

Columbia.

• Twenty-two States and the District of

Columbia generate lists of arrests with

missing dispositions as a means of

monitoring disposition reporting.

• Thirty-two States and the District of

Columbia report using field visits to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

• Twenty-eight States generate form

letters as a method of encouraging

complete arrest and disposition

reporting.

• Other jurisdictions report using such

methods as training, audits, and

electronic contact as methods to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

Linking of arrests and dispositions

Methods used to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history record,

1997 (Table 16):

• Twenty-nine States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands

utilize methods for linking disposition

information to particular charges and/or

specific counts.

• All responding jurisdictions report

using at least one method for linking

disposition information and

arrest/charge information on criminal

history records, and nearly every

jurisdiction indicates multiple

mechanisms to ensure linkage:

– Thirty-two States and the District of

Columbia employ a unique tracking

number for the individual subject. 

– Thirty-seven States and the District of

Columbia use a unique arrest event

identifier.

– Twenty-three States and the District

of Columbia utilize a unique charge

identifier.

– Thirty-seven States, the District of

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands use

the arrest date; thirty-seven States, the

District of Columbia, and the Virgin

Islands use the subject’s name.

– Thirty States and the District of

Columbia report using the reporting

agency’s case number.

– Individual jurisdictions also report

using other methods, such as the court

case number, the originating agency

(ORI) number, the booking number,

and unique combinations of numbers.

Procedures followed when linkage

cannot be made between court or

correctional information and arrest

information in the criminal history

database, 1997 (Table 17):

• Forty-one jurisdictions report that

they sometimes receive final court

dispositions that cannot be linked to

arrest information in the criminal

history record database.

The jurisdictions vary in the percentage

of court dispositions that cannot be

linked to arrest cycles in the criminal

history database from less than 1% to

70%. Eight jurisdictions (District of

Columbia, Kentucky, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas,

Vermont, and Wyoming) report that all

final court dispositions can be linked to

the arrest cycle in the criminal history

database.
Page 6 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

 • Although most jurisdictions cannot

quantify the number of cases in which

correctional information cannot be

linked to arrest information, 34

jurisdictions report that this does occur.

Of the 10 reporting jurisdictions, the

percentage of correctional dispositions

that cannot be linked to arrest cycles in

the criminal history database range

from less than 1% in Nevada to 15% in

New Mexico.

• The jurisdictions use a variety of

procedures when a linkage cannot be

established. Nine States create

“dummy” arrest segments from court

disposition records; five States create

“dummy” court segments from custody

records. Ten States and the Virgin

Islands enter court information into the

database without any linkage to a prior

arrest; and 13 States enter custody

information into the database without

any linkage to a prior court disposition.

Eighteen States do not enter the

unlinked court information. Seven

jurisdictions do not enter unlinked

custody information. Fifteen States

utilize other procedures, such as

contacting or returning the information

to the originating or contributing

agency or using temporary or pending

files until a match can be established.

Other data quality procedures

Strategies employed by State criminal

history repository to ensure accuracy

of data in criminal history database,

1997 (Table 18):

• To prevent the entry and storage of

inaccurate data and to detect and

correct inaccurate entries in the

criminal history database, a large

majority of the jurisdictions, a total of

45 States, the District of Columbia, and

the Virgin Islands, complete a manual

review of incoming source documents

or reports.

• Other methods used most frequently

include computer edit and verification

programs employed by 43 States and

the District of Columbia.

• Manual double-checking before data

entry is completed in 29 jurisdictions.

Manual review of transcripts before

dissemination is performed in 28

jurisdictions.

• Nineteen States and the District of

Columbia perform random sample

comparisons of the State criminal

history repository files with stored

documents.

• Fifteen States and the District of

Columbia generate error lists that are

returned to the reporting agencies.

• Fifteen States use various methods,

such as audits and contacting

contributing agencies for additional

information.

Audits

Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1997 (Table 19):

• Forty-seven States and the District of

Columbia maintain transaction logs to

provide an audit trail of all inquiries,

responses, and record updates or

modifications.

• More than half of the repositories, a

total of 31 jurisdictions report that the

State criminal history repository or

some other agency performed random

sample audits of user agencies to

ensure accuracy and completeness of

repository records and to ensure that

the agencies comply with applicable

laws and regulations.

Data quality audits of State criminal

history repository, 1997 (Table 20):

• During the 5 years before the survey,

an audit of the State criminal history

repository’s database (other than

ongoing systematic sampling) was

conducted in 27 States and the District

of Columbia to determine the level of

accuracy and completeness of the

criminal history file.

• Of the jurisdictions where audits

were performed, in 23 States and the

District of Columbia, another agency

conducted the audit; in 3 States the

repository conducted its own audit; and

1 State did not indicate the auditing

entity.

• Thirteen jurisdictions in 1997

reported not having conducted an audit

during the previous 5 years and not

planning to audit in the coming 3 years.

• In 25 of the jurisdictions where

audits were conducted, changes were

made as a result of the audit to improve

data quality of the records. In three

jurisdictions, changes were underway

prior to the audit or were in the

planning stage at the time of the survey.

• Twenty-four States and the District

of Columbia had data quality audits

planned or scheduled for the next 3

years.

• Forty-six States and four territories

had initiatives underway at the

repository or contributing agencies to

improve data quality. Initiatives

included audit activities (29);

automation changes (39); disposition or

arrest reporting enhancements (35);

felony flagging (19); fingerprint

enhancements (30); agency interfaces

(31); legislation (20); plan development

(26); establishment of task forces/

advisory groups (19); implementation

or improvement of tracking numbers

(21); and training (26).

Criminal history records of Interstate

Identification Index (III) participants

maintained by the State criminal

history repository and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1997 (Table

21):

• As of 1997, over 18.3 million III

records are indexed with the State’s

identification (SID) pointers.

Approximately 12 million records are

maintained by the FBI for the States.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Introduction • Page 7

Fingerprint cards and dispositions

received by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, FY 1997 (Table 22):

• Over 8.5 million fingerprints were

received by the FBI in FY 1997. Of

that number, over 5.5 million were for

criminal justice purposes, and over 2.9

million were for noncriminal justice

purposes. California submitted the

highest number of criminal justice

fingerprints (1,075,000). Florida

submitted the highest number of

noncriminal justice fingerprints

(416,900). Florida, New Jersey, North

Carolina, and Oregon were participants

in the National Fingerprint File in

1997, and therefore submitted only the

first fingerprint card of an individual to

the FBI.

• Final dispositions received by the FBI

in 1997 totaled 527,300, with

California submitting the highest

number (123,100).

Fees charged by State criminal history

repository for noncriminal justice

purposes , 1997 (Table 23):

• Almost all of the responding States

(47), the District of Columbia, and the

Virgin Islands currently charge fees for

conducting criminal history record

searches for noncriminal justice

requesters. Mississippi and Vermont do

not charge fees.

• Fees for fingerprint-supported

searches range from $7 in Maine to up

to $52 in California. In some cases,

California does not charge a fee for the

search.

• Fees for name searches range from $2

in Wisconsin in some cases to $25 in

Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts,

and South Carolina. Six States

(California, Delaware, Georgia,

Maryland, New York, and Wyoming)

do not conduct name searches for

noncriminal justice purposes.

• Nine States (California, Indiana,

Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio,

South Carolina, Virginia, Washington

and Wyoming) and the Virgin Islands

charge different fees for volunteer

searches.
December 1998

PARTICIPANTS

Interstate Identification Index Program

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Interstate Identification Index States

National Fingerprint File States

Washington

Minnesota

Interstate Identification Index (III) States

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida*

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey*

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

*Also a National Fingerprint File (NFF) State.

Page 8 • Introduction Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 9

Data Tables
Page 10 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

The notes below expand on the data in table 1. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers

have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. The "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.

... Not available.

*The flag is set:

** At both arrest and conviction.

✝ When conviction information is entered.

✝✝ When arrest information is entered.

a All new felony arrests/convictions are not being flagged, although

there is sufficient information in the criminal history database to enable

identification and flagging of all new felony arrests/convictions.

bThe rate for the five-year period of 1992-96 is 72 percent.

cAll new felony arrests/convictions are not being flagged. There is not

sufficient information in the criminal history database to enable

identification and flagging of all new felony arrests/convictions.

d All new felony arrests/convictions are being flagged; the criminal

history database contains sufficient information to enable identification

and flagging of all new felony arrests/convictions.

eThe figure reflects the percent of all arrests in the criminal history

database that have final dispositions within the past 10 years, rather

than the last 5 years.

f

 Figure represents the rate over the past 15 years.

g There is an ongoing project to update the master name index to

include felony flags. New felony arrests/convictions are being flagged;

there is sufficient information in the criminal history record database to

enable identification of all felony arrests/convictions.

h Upon request for the record, the State evaluates each individual to

determine felony status. Current felony arrests/convictions are not

being flagged; the criminal history record database does not contain

sufficient information to enable identification and flagging of all new

felony arrests/convictions.

i

 The figure represents the percent of all arrests in the criminal history

database that have final dispositions within the past 4 years, rather

than 5 years.

j

Most are flagged.

k Percentage represents the case cycles entered at the Offense Cycle

Number (OCN) level. At the charge level, the percentage increases to

61 percent.

l

 Percentage represents the case cycles entered at the Offense Cycle

Number (OCN) level. At the charge level, the percentage increases to

55 percent.

mCharges, not arrests.

nAn indicator is reported by a scan of the current status on a charge

and reported. All new felony arrests/convictions are being flagged;

there is sufficient information in the criminal history record database to

enable identification of all new felony arrests/convictions.

o Process to do so would be manual.

pSince 1993.

q Since 1978.

r

All new felony arrests/convictions are being flagged, although there is

not sufficient information contained the criminal history database to

enable identification of all felony arrests/convictions.

s The flag is an optional field.

t

 Includes cases that have not been adjudicated.

u Since 1990.

vWhen South Dakota does flag (1998), the flag will be set at the time

of conviction. The State does have the capability now in the

computerized criminal history system with searchable fields, but to

date the system has not been programmed to set flags.

wThe flag can be manually set when needed.

xFifty-two percent of all of the automated arrests have dispositions.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 11

Table 1: Overview of criminal history record systems, December 31, 1997

State

Criminal history

records

automated in

whole or in part

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file– 

Total Automated

Percent of arrests in database that

have final dispositions recorded–

 Arrests within

All arrests past 5 years

System flags

subjects with

felony

convictions*

System has

information to

identify

unflagged

felony

convictions

Total 54,210,800 46,806,200

Alabama Y 1,091,000 1,091,000 70% 70% All**

Alaska Y 201,900 171,900 85 85 All✝

Arizona Y 798,700 798,700 48 ... All**

Arkansas Y 484,700 265,700 38 70 All✝

California Y 5,349,700 4,470,700 75 85 Some✝ All

Colorado Y 900,000 900,000 5% 17% All✝

Connecticut Y 811,200 494,800 40 60 All✝

Delaware Y 566,500 518,800 78 91 Somea

District of Columbia 507,000 152,000

Florida Y 3,369,500 3,369,500 55 47 All**

Georgia Y 1,922,200 1,922,200 66% 63%b All✝

Hawaii Y 359,700 359,700 88 81 All✝

Idaho Y 159,700 125,800 70 75 All✝

Illinois Y 3,042,600 2,842,000 56 55 All✝

Indiana Y 850,000 800,000 20 ... Some**c

Iowa Y 363,400 331,900 92% 92% Some✝d

Kansas Y 748,400 307,600 49 57 Some**d Some

Kentucky Y 644,200 644,200 65 63e Somea

Louisiana Y 1,730,000 874,300 33 15 Some✝d Some

Maine N 350,000 0 80 95+f Someg All

Maryland Y 723,500 723,500 75% 89% Someh

Massachusetts Y 2,344,800 1,628,500 98 98 Somea

Michigan Y 1,155,200 1,155,200 77 72i Some✝c

Minnesota Y 333,600 274,600 ... 57 Some✝j Somec

Mississippi Y 368,000 26,000 ... ... ...

Missouri Y 824,300 656,800 56%k 49%l All✝

Montana Y 152,700 152,700 74m 80m Some✝n Someo

Nebraska Y 324,700 309,700 58 28 Somed

Nevada Y 245,500 245,500 38 40 Alla

New Hampshire Y 392,900 392,900 80 90 Some**d Some

New Jersey Y 1,300,000 1,300,000 85% 95% All✝p

New Mexico Y 310,000 310,000 28 35 All✝

New York Y 4,563,800 4,518,700 87q 80 All✝

North Carolina Y 697,400 690,000 90 95 Some✝d

North Dakota Y 223,900 76,500 60 80 Some✝r

Ohio Y 1,483,000 1,200,000 31% 31% All✝s

Oklahoma Y 710,000 496,700 52 ... Some✝d Some

Oregon Y 879,200 879,200 78 54 Some✝d Some

Pennsylvania Y 1,550,700 1,097,600 ... ... All✝

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Y 225,000 225,000 57%t 57%t Some✝du

South Carolina Y 902,400 902,400 72 88 Some✝d All

South Dakota Y 138,600 113,400 65 85 Some✝dv Some

Tennessee Y 727,700 444,100 15 ... All**

Texas Y 5,556,200 5,556,200 45 60 Somea

Utah Y 346,400 346,400 59% 60% All✝w

Vermont Y 150,900 54,300 ... 96 All**

Virgin Islands N ... 0 ... ... c

Virginia Y 1,124,200 941,600 84 83 All✝

Washington Y 885,000 885,000 70 80 All✝✝

West Virginia Y 478,900 62,200 38%x ... Some**d All

Wisconsin Y 752,400 611,200 77 94% All✝

Wyoming Y 89,500 89,500 86 80 Some✝d Some
Page 12 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

The notes below expand on the data in table 2. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

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

data in the columns for 1993 were taken from BJS, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1993 (January 1995), table 2. Except for Utah for which a correction

was submitted, the data in the columns for 1995 were taken from BJS,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Systems, 1995 (May 1997), table 2.

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

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

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

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

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

not include the master name index.

... Not available.

a Figure does not include records for American Samoa and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition, corrected data were

submitted for Utah for 1995 (previous response of 359,700 was

revised downward to 311,400).

bFigure represents subjects as of March 25, 1994.

c Figure represents total automated records as of July 1, 1996.

d The response for 1995 is an accurate number based on an intensive

study of the file completed since 1993. The 1993 figure was an

estimate.

e Figure represents subjects as of March 28, 1994.

f

 There is no change between 1995 and 1997 due to deleting files of

deceased individuals.

g Decrease is due to a re-evaluation of the criminal history system.

The response for 1997 is based only on subjects for whom sufficient

criminal history data is available to produce a rap sheet. This includes

subjects for whom charge, disposition or supervision information is

available. As a result of reviewing records on this basis, the number of

subjects in the criminal history file has decreased from the responses

of the previous years for which data were submitted.

h Figure is as of February 4, 1994.

i

 Response includes noncriminal applicants, but does not include

approximately 1,100,000 criminal records that are sealed and would

not be accessible as a part of an interstate records check.

j

Decrease is due to a major purge of manual records completed by the

Office of Operations.

k The decrease is due to the implementation of the Ohio automated

fingerprint identification system (AFIS). All manual records that were

out-of-state arrests, non-serious offenses and presumed dead (80

years old) prior to converting the manual files to AFIS.

l

 By the end of the fourth quarter of this year, all manual records

should be converted to automated records.

m Decrease in records was due to purging of old records. Figure

represents total as of July 1996.

n Figure represents total as of July 1996.

o Figure represents total as of August 7, 1996.

pRecords were cleaned and aliases deleted.

q All manual records in the database are misdemeanors.

r

 Total figure includes applicants and corrections-based records.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 13

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1993, 1995, and 1997

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

manual and automated files automated files, 1997 Percent of automated files total files 

1997 Manual Automated

State 1993 1995 total file file 1993 1995 1997 1993-95 1995-97

Total 47,737,800a 49,697,000a 54,210,800 7,404,600 46,806,200

Alabama 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,091,000 0 1,091,000 100% 100% 100% 0% -39%

Alaska 184,300 195,100 201,900 30,000 171,900 73 77 85 6 3

Arizona 612,900b 711,600c 798,700 0 798,700 60 ... 100 16 12

Arkansas 448,000 395,000 484,700 219,000 265,700 41 46 55 -12 23

California 5,316,900 4,630,800d 5,349,700 879,000 4,470,700 72 88 84 -13 17

Colorado 612,700 ... 900,000 0 900,000 100% 100% 100% ... ...

Connecticut 681,000 744,000 811,200 316,400 494,800 ... 56 61 ... 9%

Delaware 245,900 476,600 566,500 47,700 518,800 73 90 92 94% 9

District of

 Columbia

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

Florida 2,729,000 3,172,700 3,369,500 0 3,369,500 100 100 100 16 6

Georgia 1,532,100 1,700,600 1,922,200 0 1,922,200 100% 100% 100% 11% 13%

Hawaii 318,300 338,300 359,700 0 359,700 100 100 100 6 6

Idaho 138,700 152,000 159,700 33,900 125,800 66 73 79 10 5

Illinois 2,558,000e 2,613,600 3,042,600 200,600 2,842,000 92 92 93 2 16

Indiana 1,241,800 1,200,000 850,000 50,000 800,000 100 100 94 -3 -29

Iowa 367,100 349,500 363,400 31,500 331,900 66% 83% 91% -5% 4%

Kansas 627,400 697,100 748,400 440,800 307,600 27 33 41 11 7

Kentucky ... 574,700 644,200 0 644,200 ... 85 100 ... 12

Louisiana 1,338,800 1,651,000 1,730,000 855,700 874,300 50 45 51 5 86

Maine 300,000 350,000 350,000f 350,000 0 0 0 0 11 0

Maryland 834,100 908,300 723,500 0 723,500 100% 100% 100% 5% -20%g

Massachusetts 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,344,800 716,300 1,628,500 100 75 69 40 12

Michigan 970,400 1,074,100 1,155,200 0 1,155,200 100 100 100 11 8

Minnesota 258,300h 294,100 333,600 59,000 274,600 75 78 82 14 13

Mississippi 368,000 ... 368,000 342,000 26,000 7 ... ... 7 ...

Missouri 673,900 738,600 824,300 167,500 656,800 75% 77% 80% 10% 12%

Montana 108,900 133,900 152,700 0 152,700 100 100 100 23 14

Nebraska 138,000 149,800 324,700 15,000 309,700 100 100 95 9 117

Nevada 130,300 204,500 245,500 0 245,500 100 100 100 23 14

New Hampshire 180,600 163,300 392,900 0 392,900 100 67 100 -10 141

New Jersey 1,508,800 1,800,000 1,300,000 0 1,300,000 80% 100% 100% 19% -38%

New Mexico 230,000 260,000 310,000 0 310,000 0 100 100 13 19

New York 4,314,200 4,851,100i 4,563,800 45,100 4,518,700 87 89 99 12 -6j

North Carolina 560,400 623,000 697,400 7,400 690,000 92 95 99 11 12

North Dakota 216,000 227,200 223,900 147,400 76,500 27 30 34 5 -1

Ohio 1,700,000 909,700k 1,483,000 283,000l 1,200,000 48% 88% 81% -46% 63%

Oklahoma 582,200 656,700 710,000 213,300 496,700 54 63 70 13 8

Oregon 699,900 788,600 879,200 0 879,200 100 100 100 13 11

Pennsylvania 1,462,700 1,431,400 1,550,700 453,100 1,097,600 55 66 71 -2m 8

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 199,000 213,400 225,000 0 225,000 100% 100% 100% 7% 5%

South Carolina 737,200 843,700 902,400 0 902,400 91 93 100 14 7

South Dakota 128,600 130,800n 138,600 25,200 113,400 55 74 82 2 6

Tennessee 600,000 655,400o 727,700 283,600 444,100 32 100 61 9 11

Texas 4,504,100 4,912,100 5,556,200 0 5,556,200 100 100 100 9 13

Utah 276,300 311,400 346,400 0 346,400 84% 86% 100% 13% 11%

Vermont 135,000 133,500p 150,900 96,600 54,300 0 0 36 -1 13

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

Virginia 921,100 1,015,400 1,124,200 182,600q 941,600 75 81 84 10 11

Washington 677,000r 782,000 885,000 0 885,000 100 60 100 16 13

West Virginia 375,000 362,800 478,900 416,700 62,200 0% <1% 13% 17% 32%

Wisconsin 611,100 666,200 752,400 141,200 611,200 71 76 81 9 13

Wyoming 72,200 82,700 89,500 0 89,500 100 100 100 15 8
Page 14 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 3

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Final dispositions include release by police without charging,

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

Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers

have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Oklahoma, Puerto

Rico, South Carolina, and Utah, for which corrected data were

submitted, the data for 1989 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), table 3. Except for Arkansas and Indiana for which new

data were submitted, the data for 1993 were taken BJS, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems, 1993 (January 1995), table 3. Except for Arizona for which

new data were submitted, the data for 1995 were taken BJS, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems, 1995 (May 1997), table 3.

... Not available.

aResponse is based on information from the judicial branch and is for

FY 1995-96.

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

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

to the repository.

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

d The number of dispositions reported to the repository is measured by

the number of dispositions processed. In 1993, the repository was in

the process of eliminating a backlog of submitted disposition reports.

This backlog elimination project accounts for the significant increase

between 1989 and 1993, as well as the decrease from 1993 to 1996.

eDuring 1993, the State repository concentrated on State's Attorneys'

filing charges. In 1994, the focus was changed to court dispositions.

f

Police release and prosecutor declinations are reported on the arrest

card.

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

backlogged dispositions.

h Final charge dispositions entered in 1997.

i

Final disposition information is electronically linked to the arrest by the

courts on a daily basis. At this time, the number of dispositions

captured is not available.

j

 Arrest and prosecution dispositions currently are not indexed by

disposition type.

kA significant backlog developed in 1993 due to delays in providing

and receiving reporting forms from contributors.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 15

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

 Number of dispositions Percent change 

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989-93 1993-95 1995-97

Alabama 35,000 ... 107,000 121,700 ... ... 14%

Alaska 40,800 31,300 38,200 41,200 -23% 22% 8

Arizona 112,500 117,500 140,800 170,100 4 20 21

Arkansas 7,000 21,000 32,000 40,100 200 52 25

California 850,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,134,500 29 0 3

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

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

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

District of Columbia ... 15,200b 1,600 1,900 ... -89 18%

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

Georgia 260,000 545,000d 265,000d 303,600 100% -51% 15%

Hawaii 54,800 51,700 57,800 87,300 -6 12 51

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

Illinois 135,000 95,600e 115,000 98,700 -29 20 -14

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

Iowa 23,000 54,200 48,200 45,300 136% 16% -6%

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

Kentucky 6,000 ... ... 18,000 ... ... ...

Louisiana 30,000 21,400 ... 16,300 -29 ... ...

Maine 30,000 29,000 20,400 34,500 -3 -30 69

Maryland 436,600 ... ... 210,400 ... ... ...

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

Michigan 78,800 178,100f 207,200f 240,600g 126 16 16

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

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

Missouri ... 65,100 62,800 72,000h ... -4% 15%

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

Nebraska 12,400 23,000 22,300 24,400 85 -3 9

Nevada 20,000 ... 32,500 79,000 ... ... 143

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

New Jersey 200,000 260,000 280,000 285,000 30% 8% 2%

New Mexico 2,600 11,100 12,000 12,500 327 8 4

New York 443,000 383,500 399,900 523,900 13 4 31

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

North Dakota 4,000 6,500 3,200 4,600 63 -51 44

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

Oklahoma 15,000 15,000 37,200 57,700 0% 81% 53%

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

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

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

Rhode Island ... 10,000 ... ... ... ......

South Carolina 103,700 212,600 194,100 282,400 105% -9% 45%

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

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

Texas ... ...j ... ... ... ......

Utah 17,100 17,800 22,900 26,300 4% 29% 15%

Vermont ... ... ... 22,300 ... ... ...

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

Virginia 141,600 211,500 231,500 211,100 49 9 -9

Washington ... 157,800 178,000 277,800 ... 13 56

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

Wisconsin 58,800 99,000 103,600 123,000 41% 5% 19%

Wyoming 6,000 6,000k 5,700 7,800 10 -14 37
Page 16 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

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

provided by the respondent.

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

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

taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems (March 1991), table 4. The data for 1993

are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), table 4.

Except for Wisconsin for which corrected data were submitted, the

data for 1995 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (May 1997),

table 4.

Y Yes

N No

P Partial

* State is fully manual.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

aOnly the new information is automated.

bThe new information is added to the manual file.

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

index (MNI).

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

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

time due to lack of personnel.

f

The manual file is not in the automated MNI.

g Fingerprint-supported subjects are in an automated MNI; nonfingerprinted-supported records are completely manual.

hAlthough the criminal history database that is utilized in Nebraska is

fully automated, there are approximately 6,000 partially automated

records that are in the process of being deleted.

i

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

the automated MNI.

j

 The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

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

project is underway to have the MNI fully automated by 1999.

l

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

m If a subject's prior fingerprint record was of poor quality, it would not

have been automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint

Identification System) quality fingerprints, the record will be automated.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 17

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

Prior manual record is automated

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

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997

Alabama Y YYYPPYYYY

Alaska Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Arizona Y YYYPPPYYYY

Arkansas P P Y Y N P P P N Y Y Y

California Y Y Y Y P P P P N NNa Na

Colorado Y Y Y YYYY

Connecticut Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y...Y

Delaware P Y Y Y P P P PNa Nb Na ...

District of Columbia P Pc P Pc N P P P ...Na Na Na

Florida Y YYYPYYYY

Georgia Y YYYYYYY

Hawaii Y YYYYYYY

Idaho Y YYYYPPP YYY

Illinois P Yd YYPPPPYYYY

Indiana Y YYYPYYPY ...

Iowa Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Kansas Y Y Y Y P P P P NNe Y Y

Kentucky P Pf YYPPPYYYYY

Louisiana Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Maine N Pg Pg Pg NNNN

Maryland Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y...

Massachusetts Y YYYPYYPY Y

Michigan Y YYYYYYY

Minnesota Y Y Y Y P P P P N YNa Na

Mississippi N P P P N P P P N N N

Missouri Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Montana Y YYYYYYY

Nebraska P Y Y Y PYh YPYY

Nevada Y YYYYYYY

New Hampshire Y YPYPYPYY Na Y

New Jersey Y YYYPPYYYY

New Mexico Y Y Y Y N N Y Y

New York Y YYYPPPPYYYY

North Carolina Y YYYPPPPYYYY

North Dakota P Pi Pi Pi PPPPYYYY

Ohio P Pj P Pk P P P P N NNa Y

Oklahoma Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Oregon Y YYYYYYY

Pennsylvania Y Y Y Y P P P P YNl Nl Y

Puerto Rico Y Y Y Y Y Y

Rhode Island Y Y Y Y Y Y

South Carolina Y YYYPPPYYYYY

South Dakota Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Tennessee P Y Y N P Y P N

Texas Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y YYm

Utah Y YYYPYYYY

Vermont Y Y Y Y N N N P Y

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

Virginia Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Washington Y YYYYYYY

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

Wisconsin Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Wyoming Y YYYPYYYY
Page 18 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 5

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

information was provided by the respondent.

* Admission information only.

** Release information only.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a A reporting requirement exists in statute, but has been waived by

regulation until Department of Corrections' management information

system is replaced.

b Prosecutor reporting occurs through court disposition reporting.

cReporting will be addressed in the developing Offender Based

Tracking System (OBTS).

d Data are reported by the law enforcement agency having primary

responsibility for the investigation.

eBy statute, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor's

decision to charge with an offense punishable by over 92 days in jail.

Prosecutor dispositions are reported on the arrest fingerprint card.

f

 State prison admissions are reported voluntarily, but there is no

statutory requirement to do so. The prison system maintains a system

linked to the computerized computer history system.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 19

Table 5: Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1997

 Data required to be submitted to repositories 

Felony dispositions

Prosecutor by courts with Admission/release of felons Probation Parole

State declinations felony jurisdiction State prisons Local jails information information

Alabama X X X

Alaska X X aaaa

Arizona X X

Arkansas X XXXXX

California X X X X

Colorado X X X X

Connecticut b X X*c X*cc c

Delaware X X X X X

District of Columbia ... XXXXX

Florida X X X X

Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii X XXXXX

Idaho X X* X* X X

Illinois X XXXXX

Indiana X X X

Iowa XXXXX

Kansas X XXXXX

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X X* X*

Maine Xd X NA

Maryland X XXXXX

Massachusetts

Michigan Xe X X*

Minnesota X X X X* X X

Mississippi

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X XXXXX

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X*

New Jersey X X X X* X X

New Mexico

New York X X X X* X X

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota X XXXXX

Ohio X XXXXX

Oklahoma X*

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X X X** X** X X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X X X X

South Carolina X X* X* X

South Dakota X XXXXX

Tennessee

Texas X X f

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X X**

West Virginia ... X X X X

Wisconsin XXXXX

Wyoming X X X X* X X
Page 20 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 6

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

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

fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal history repositories in

1989 and in 1993 was calculated using the mid-point of the range

where a range is indicated in the underlying data. Except as noted in

the "Explanatory Notes for Table 6," arrest information is reported to all

State criminal history repositories by arrest fingerprint cards only.

Except for Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin, for

which corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1989

are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

State Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), table 6.

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

in the columns for 1993 are taken BJS, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1993

(January 1995), table 6. Except for Alabama, for which corrected data

were submitted, the data in the columns for 1995 are taken from BJS

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997), table 6.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

aFigure is for fiscal year 1994-95.

b Arrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, judgments, and

computers.

c Arrests are reported by terminal; arrest information is entered from

final dispositions and from criminal summonses that are not supported

fingerprints; and there is a lack of personnel resources to audit

discrepancies between arrest and the fingerprint cards submitted.

d Figure is for fiscal year 1995-96.

e Figure is for fiscal year 1997-98.

f

 Some arrest information is entered from final dispositions that are not

fingerprint-supported.

g Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and on uniform

arrest reports that may not have included fingerprints.

h The change from 1995 is a result of a database review that identified

old records that are not fingerprint-supported. The computerized

criminal history system now indicates a fingerprint-supported arrest

status. All felony records, subsequent to 1993 are fingerprintsupported; all arrests require fingerprints, which are part of the arrest

document known as the Uniform Arrest Report (UAR).

i

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

require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints; and arrest

information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal

summonses that are not supported by fingerprints.

j

 Figure is for fiscal year 1989.

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

l

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

supported by fingerprints.

mThis figure includes 3,500 livescan images, the submission of which

the Florida Department of Law Enforcement began in October 1997.

n Arrest information is reported by computers.

o The small percentage of arrests that are not supported by

fingerprints are assigned State identification numbers with a "U"

(unknown) prefix. This allows for easy identification of these

exceptions. Unsupported arrests sometimes occur when an offender

is hospitalized, or refuses, or for some other reason is unable to be

fingerprinted.

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

dispositions, FBI abstracts, and other documents.

q Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

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

other ways, such as diversion agreements, are unsupported by

fingerprints.

r

 Arrest information for older records was entered from final

dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported. Regarding newer

records, reporting agencies fail to submit fingerprint cards, or submit

unusable cards.

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

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

fingerprint law was changed to provide that persons being summoned

in addition to those arrested are to be fingerprinted. Prior to the

change, the law mandated that a person had to be in custody charged

with the "commission of a crime" in order to be fingerprinted. Training

is ongoing to bring the submission rate into compliance.

t

Arrest information was entered from criminal summonses, which were

not fingerprint-supported.

uPre-1968 arrests are supported by FBI fingerprints.

vArrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and court

abstracts.

wArrest information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal

summonses, which are not supported by fingerprints.

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

supported by fingerprints, and arrest information is entered from final

dispositions, which are not supported by fingerprints.

y New York law requires that fingerprints associated with sealed

records must be purged.

zWith few exceptions, most unsealed arrest events are supported by

fingerprints.

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

index fingerprint.

bb Figure is lower than figure for 1989 because the figure for 1993

does not include applicant cards, as did the figure for 1989.

ccThe percentage is the result of delay in the fingerprint classification

by the police department.

ddArrest information was reported on an arrest/custody form that need

not be accompanied by fingerprints.

eeArrest information is entered from final dispositions and citations that

are not supported by fingerprints. The State regulations requiring

fingerprints also are not enforced.

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

supported by fingerprints; arrest information is entered from final

dispositions which are not supported by fingerprints; and arrest

information is entered from criminal summonses which are not

supported by fingerprints.

ggArrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the

Records Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and

retained in the Forensic Bureau.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 21

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1995 and 1997

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

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

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989-93 1993-95 1995-97 1989 1993 1995 1997

Total 6,012,400 6,255,800 6,945,200 7,625,900 4% 11% 10%

Alabama 292,900 192,300 205,900a 253,500 -34% 7% ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Alaska 15,900 14,000 15,800 18,700 -12 13 18% 75b 39 41c 48c

Arizona 101,900 114,800 167,200 192,500 13 46 15 100 100 100 100

Arkansas 23,000 36,000 71,000 82,000 57 97 15 100 100 100 100

California 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,150,000d 1,170,600e 10 5 2 100 100 99f 99f

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

Connecticut 97,100 115,000 140,000 139,500 18 22 -<1% 75g 100 100 70h

Delaware 40,000 44,700 41,900 49,200 12 -6 17 95i 90i 90i 90i

District of

Columbia 10,000j 41,800 29,500 38,900 318 -29 32 95k 100 80l 80l

Florida 585,400 500,600 588,200 637,500m -14 17 8 100 100 100 100

Georgia 330,000 350,000 335,000 397,500 6% -4% 19% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Hawaii 52,700 53,200 60,300 66,900 1 13 11 98n <100o 100 100

Idaho 27,300 34,300 48,600 59,200 26 42 22 100 100 100 100

Illinois 200,300 336,700 356,200 448,700 75 6 26 100 100 100 100

Indiana 46,400 50,400 53,700 75,000 9 7 40 100 100 100 100

Iowa 30,000 53,100 61,400 61,800 77% 16% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Kansas 46,800 64,500 80,200 79,900 38 24 -<1 70-75p 80q 85r 85r

Kentucky 22,500 ... 14,300 ... ... ... ... 98 ... 100 48

Louisiana 135,900 154,700 155,400 206,400 14 <1 33 100 100 100 100

Maine 6,500 5,500 5,200 4,800 15 -5 -8 30s 30g 30g 30g

Maryland 103,000 162,400 169,800 228,700 58% 5% 35% 100% 75%t 100% 100%

Massachusetts 50,000-

55,000

65,000 80,000 85,000 38 23 6 0 0 0 0

Michigan 116,800 114,800 131,800 131,200 -2 15 -<1 100 100 100 100

Minnesota 26,500 40,000 48,000 48,500 51 20 1 100 100 100 100

Mississippi 9,000 9,000 ... 12,000 0 ... ... 100 100 ... 0

Missouri 92,000 89,500 107,200 135,000 -3% 20% 26% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana 13,000 ... 25,900 28,700 ... ... 11 100 100 100 100

Nebraska 13,700 16,500 16,100 44,400 20 -2 176 100 98u 100 100

Nevada 36,300 49,600 54,800 50,300 37 10 -1 100 100 100 100

New

Hampshire

9,300 20,100 17,800 17,500 116 -11 -2 25-35v 100 50w 65x

New Jersey 145,700 110,900 120,100 129,400 -24% 8% 8% 100% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico 26,200 34,800 38,000 38,000 33 9 0 98 100 100 100

New York 520,100 492,900 578,000 611,200 -5 17 6 90 70y 80 ...z

North Carolina 63,200 76,300 82,200 141,900 21 8 73 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 5,000 7,200 7,100 9,300 44 -1 31 100 94aa 82bb 90bb

Ohio 114,500 149,200 162,700 165,000 30% 9% 1% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Oklahoma 60,000 46,000bb 77,000 71,900 -23 67 -7 100 100 100 100

Oregon 92,100 91,400 127,500 141,000 -1 39 11 100 100 100 100

Pennsylvania 166,700 143,700 177,100 191,500 -14 23 16 100 100 100 100

Puerto Rico ... 15,800 ... ... ... ... 17 32cc

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

South Carolina 154,400 167,300 185,600 180,400 8 11% -3% 100 100 100% 100

South Dakota 17,600 19,000-

20,000

21,700 27,800 11 11 28 100 100 100 100

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

Texas 398,400 581,400 437,200 575,800 46 -25 32 100 100 100 100

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

Vermont 9,000 5,000 8,500 7,800 -44 70 -8% 35-40dd 25ee 17ee 30ff

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

Virginia 110,000 136,400 155,800 196,200 24 14 26 100 100 100 100

Washington 131,600 168,300 200,700 199,400 28 19 -<1 100 100 100 100

West Virginia 37,200 ... 42,500 41,700 ... ... ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Wisconsin 78,600 100,000 119,300 125,400 27% 19% 5% 100 100 100 100

Wyoming 11,100 9,800 10,100 8,300 -12 3 -18 100 100 100 100
Page 22 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 7

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers are results of estimates. Except for Delaware, Florida,

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

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

column for 1989 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information

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

table 7. Except for Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data in the column for 1993 are

taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), table 7. Except for

Alaska and Texas, for which corrected data were submitted, the data

in the column for 1995 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems,

1995 (May 1997), table 7.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

aBoth the fingerprinting and filing of charges are performed at the

same unit.

b The law requires the total expungement of arrests that result in

acquittals or dismissals. "No charges files" are considered dismissals;

therefore, no statistics are maintained.

c Police must release or charge an individual before sending

fingerprints to the repository.

dNotification is accomplished by disposition forms.

e Police departments report dispositions.

f

The prosecutor, not the arresting agency, reports the disposition.

gArrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the

Records Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and

retained in the Forensic Bureau.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 23

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

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

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

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1997

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Alaska No No Yes Yes 2,500

Arizona No Yes Yes Yes ...

Arkansas No Yes Yes Yes ...

California Yes Yes Yes Yes 60,000

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut No No No No NA

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes 5-10

District of Columbia ... Yesa Yes ... ...

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes 0

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes 12,500

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes <100

Indiana Yes Yes Yes No NA

Iowa Yes Yesb Yesb Yes ...

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Kentucky No ... ... No NA

Louisiana Yes No No No NA

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Massachusetts No No No No NA

Michigan ... Yes Yes Yes ...

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes No NA

Mississippi No No Yes Yes ...

Missouri No Yes Yes Yes ...

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Nebraska Yes Yes No No NA

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

New Hampshire No No No Yes ...

New Jersey No No No No NA

New Mexico No No No No NA

New York No No Yes Yes ...

North Carolina No Yesc Yesc Yesc ...

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Ohio No Yesd Yes Yes ...

Oklahoma No No No No NA

Oregon No Yes No No NA

Pennsylvania No No No Yes ...

Puerto Rico No No No

Rhode Island No Noe No NA

South Carolina No No No No NA

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Tennessee No No No

Texas No Yesf Yesf Yesf NA

Utah Yes Yes No No NA

Vermont No No No No NA

Virgin Islands ... NAg NAg No NA

Virginia No No No No NA

Washington No Yes Yes Yes ...

West Virginia Yes No Yes No NA

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes ...
Page 24 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 8

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

provided by the respondent.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Colorado,

Delaware, Georgia, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and Utah, for which

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

from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems (March 1991), table 8. Except for South

Carolina, for which corrected data was submitted, the data in the

columns for 1993 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information

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

1995), table 8. Except for Texas, for which corrected data was

submitted, the data in the columns for 1995 are taken BJS, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems, 1995 (May 1997), table 8.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a Based on audit sample of one jurisdiction.

b The prosecutors' position is that a declination is not a disposition;

therefore, prosecutor declinations are not reported.

c Estimate as of April 1994.

dApproximately 47% of all felony arrests without dispositions are over

1 year old.

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

f

 Approximately 32% of felony arrests do not have dispositions.

Approximately 85% of these are over 1 year old.

gThrough current monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent

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

however, is unknown how many of these are actual decisions not to

prosecute. This situation is compounded by the fact that the largest

prosecutor in the State does not actively submit information on a timely

basis to the repository.

hThrough current monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent

prosecutions is estimated to be 6,254. It, however, is unknown how

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

compounded by the fact that the largest prosecutor in the State does

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

i

 The percentage is based on the number of 1997 felony arrest

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

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

percentage reflects the worst case scenario.

j

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

previous response was an estimate.

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

l

The total number of prosecutor declinations that occurred is unknown,

but 4,426 were reported to the State repository.

mCharges not filed totaled 19,035; nolle prosse cases totaled 298.

Charges not filed may be reported by law enforcement.

n The decrease in dispositions resulted when a major contributor, the

St. Louis Police Department, stopped reporting dispositions for the

courts. The courts subsequently did not begin reporting.

o Felony case dispositions entered in 1997.

pPercentage represents final dispositions for 1993 felony arrests

received as of February 15, 1994.

q Percentage represents final dispositions for 1995 felony arrests

received as of July 15, 1996.

r

 All actions, including prosecution actions, are reported as final

dispositions by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

sFigure reflects the percent of dispositions reported in 1987; more

current figures were unavailable.

t

 Requirement for reporting prosecutor dispositions was relatively new.

uPercentages are estimated based upon the number of arrests

received at the State criminal history repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 25

Table 8: Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

Number of

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

declinations Prosecutor declinations Felony trial court dispositions 

State 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997

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

Alaska 2,500 NA ... ... 57%a 85 90 ... 100%a

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

Arkansas ... 15 <1% <5% ... 35 58 66 70

California 200,000 ... ... 68 68 85 47 73 80

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

Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100

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

District of Columbia ... 0 50 90 90 5 ... 45 84

Florida ... 60 ... ... ... 50 30-50c ... ...

Georgia ... ... ... ... ... 85% ...d ...e ...f

Hawaii 7,700 ... ... ...g ...h ... 74% 84% 84%i

Idaho NA 100% NA NA NA 80 70 70 95

Illinois 18,800 50 ... 97 95 50 ... 38 68

Indiana ... 50 NA NA ... 75 12j ... 25

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

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

Kentucky NA NA NA NA NA 75-80 60 70 20

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

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

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

Massachusetts NA NA 100% 100% 100 100 100% 100 100

Michigan ... NA ... ... ... 64 ...k ... ...

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

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

Missouri 19,300m 80% 10% 9% 20% 60% 35%n 66% 60%o

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

Nebraska 7,800 100 NA 43 75 50 75 40 95

Nevada ... 90 ... ... ... 65 ... ... 27

New Hampshire NA NA NA NA NA 80 80 100 ...

New Jersey 2,000 90% 95% 100% 100% 95% 90% 95% 98%

New Mexico NA NA 2 10 NA 5 10 10 ...

New York 10,000 ... ... 100 100 ... 59p 72q ...

North Carolina ... NA ...r 95 95 93 90 95 95

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

Ohio ... NA NA ... ... 55% 35% 32% 31%

Oklahoma NA NA NA NA NA 80 60 65 65

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA 60s 100 ... 100

Pennsylvania ... 80 ... ... ... ... 65 ... 50

Puerto Rico NA NA NA NA 14 17 78

Rhode Island NA 1% NA ... NA ... 100% ... ...

South Carolina NA NA NA NA NA 95% 98 98% 100%

South Dakota ... 1 5% ... ... 75 81 83 84

Tennessee NA NA NA 5 NA NA

Texas ... 0 ...t 60%u 60%u 40 50 60u 60u

Utah 2,300 0% 64% 3% 70% 55% 91% 100% 64%

Vermont NA 100 95 NA NA 100 95 95 95

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

Virginia NA NA NA NA 96 95 96 96 96

Washington ... 40 ... ... ... 7 78 65 57

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

Wisconsin NA ... NA NA NA ... 58% ... 98%

Wyoming 100 60 ... 100% 100% 60 ... 53% 28
Page 26 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 9

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

provided by the respondent.

... Not available.

✝ 1 Record is destroyed by State criminal history repository.

2 Record is retained with action noted.

3 Record is returned to the court.

4 Record is sealed.

5 No action is taken.

6 Other.

a Only if proved to be mistaken identity or false accusation; this is

referred to as "sealing" in Alaska.

b The "sealed" record is removed from the computerized criminal

history system, but paper documentation is retained in a manual file.

c Restoration of civil rights is not tracked by the repository.

dRecords are flagged as "sealed" and are visible only to criminal

justice agencies.

e Offender does not lose civil rights.

f

Although State law does not provide for destroying conviction data,

the State repository does get orders issued pursuant to the inherent

authority of the courts.

g In some cases, set-asides are suppressed from dissemination.

h Prior to 1989, records were destroyed.

i

 Action may depend on language of order.

j

The guilty disposition on the record is deleted and replaced with

"pardoned."
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 27

Table 9: Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1997

 Expungements Set-asides Pardons Restoration of civil rights 

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

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

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

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

State convictions repository✝ convictions repository✝ felons repository✝ civil rights repository✝

Alabama Yes 1 Yes ... Yes 2 Yes 2

Alaska Yesa 6b Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 6c

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

California Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Colorado 4d Yes 2

Connecticut Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 ... ...

Delaware Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

District of

Columbia

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

Florida Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Georgia Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Hawaii Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Idaho Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Illinois Yes 2 Yes 2

Indiana Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Iowa Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kentucky Yes 2 Yes 2

Louisiana Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Maine Yes 2 Yes 2 e

Maryland Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Massachusetts Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Michigan Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Minnesota 1f Yes 2g Yes 2 Yes 2

Mississippi Yes 4

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5

Montana Yes 2h Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Nebraska Yes 2 Yes 2

Nevada Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Hampshire Yes 1 Yes 2

New Jersey Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 2i Yes 2 Yes 2

New York Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Carolina Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Ohio Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes ...

Oklahoma Yes 2 Yes 2

Oregon Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Pennsylvania Yes 2

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Yes 1 Yes 2

South Carolina Yes 2

South Dakota Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Tennessee

Texas Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Utah Yes 4 Yes 2 Yes 2

Vermont Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Virgin Islands Yes 1 Yes 1

Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Washington Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2j Yes 2

West Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2

Wisconsin Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2
Page 28 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 10

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

fingerprint cards received from State prisons and local jails both in

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

fingerprint incarcerated individuals and send the fingerprints to the

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

The absence of a response indicated that the information is neither

mandated by a State legal requirement nor voluntarily submitted.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

a If fingerprints are not already on file with the State repository for that

charge.

bInformation is transmitted automatically.

cThe system under construction will receive prison admission

fingerprint cards at the State criminal history repository with

corresponding identification returned to the prison.

d Juveniles only.

e Only when on-line data could not be matched were fingerprints

requested by the State repository.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 29

Table 10: Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1997

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

admitted prisoners and sending whom State repository receives fingerprints to make

fingerprints to State repository fingerprints positive identification

and to link correctional

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

Alabama Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Alaska Yesa Yesa ... ... Yes

Arizona

Arkansas Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

California Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Colorado Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes ... ...

Delaware Yes 100 Yes

District of Columbia Yes Yes 0 0

Florida Yes 0b

Georgia Yes ... Yes

Hawaii

Idaho Yes 100% Yes

Illinois Yes Yes 98 ... Yes

Indiana Yes Yes 50 75% Yes

Iowa Yes Yes 99% ... Yes

Kansas Yes 0c c

Kentucky Yes 95 Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Maine 95 5 Yes

Maryland Yes 100% Yes

Massachusetts 100 50% Yes

Michigan Yes 100 Yes

Minnesota Yes Yesd 100 ... Yes

Mississippi Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Missouri Yes 100% Yes

Montana 100 Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Nevada 100 Yes

New Hampshire Yes Yes 100 0 Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes 99% 95% Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes ... ... Yes

New York Yes 5e ... Yese

North Carolina Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

North Dakota Yes Yes 100 40 Yes

Ohio Yes Yes 100% ... Yes

Oklahoma Yes 100 Yes

Oregon 100 Yes

Pennsylvania 70 40% Yes

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Tennessee

Texas 100 Yes

Utah

Vermont Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Virgin Islands

Virginia Yes 85 Yes

Washington Yes

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

Wisconsin Yes Yes 100% ... Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes 100 ... Yes
Page 30 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 11

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

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

information must be reported to the State criminal history repository or

from States where the information is voluntarily reported. The absence

of a response indicates neither that the State statutorily mandates that

the information is reported nor that the information is voluntarily

reported. See table 5 for States that have a legal requirement that

probation/parole information must be reported to the repository.

Percentages reported are the results of estimates. Percentages are

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Arkansas, Georgia,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina, for which

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

taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems (March 1991), table 11. Except for

Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, for which

additional information was submitted, the data in the columns for 1993

are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), table 11.

Except for Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Texas, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1995 were

taken from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997), table 11.

... Not available.

a The first percentage is for admissions reported; the second

percentage is for releases reported.

bResponse is based on the results of a baseline audit.

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

releases from, probation.

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

probation orders assigned in 1993.

eThe State criminal history repository receives this data only as part of

the court sentence. The physical admission to and release from the

correctional facility are maintained by the Department of Criminal

Justice.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 31

Table 11: Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

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

 Probation Parole 

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona 0% ...

Arkansas 10% 30 50% 55% ... 90% 90% 95%

California 85 30 100% ... 100 100

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

Connecticut

Delaware 100 100 100 100% 100 100 100 100

District of Columbia 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100

Florida 85 ... 85 0

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

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

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

Illinois 50 0 75 ... 50 ... 75 ...

Indiana 75 87 100 1 16b 100

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

Kansas 98% 100% 90% 90% 90% 100% 90% 90%

Kentucky 100 80 ... 90 100 80 ... 90

Louisiana 98 100 ... 98 95 100 ... 95

Maine

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

Massachusetts 100% 100/0a 100 ... ...

Michigan

Minnesota 99 75 75 75 99 75

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

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

Montana

Nebraska 50 20 100 ... 99

Nevada ...

New Hampshire

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

New Mexico

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

North Carolina ... ... ... ... 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

Oklahoma 10% 25% 25% 10% 25% 25%

Oregon 25 25 100

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

Puerto Rico 16 1 2 2

Rhode Island ... ... ... ...

South Carolina 98% 98% 98% 100%

South Dakota 80 80 81 81 98% 95% 95% 95%

Tennessee ... ...

Texas 50 50de e 100 100 100 80

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

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

Virgin Islands ... ...

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

Washington 100% ... 100% ...

West Virginia 85% ... ... 75% 90% ... ... 98%

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

Wyoming 10 10 10% 10 100 100 100% 100
Page 32 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 12

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

fingerprint cards have been rounded to the nearest 100.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

a The average time for automated reporting is 4 hours. The average

time for manual reporting is 7 to 30 days.

bThe average time for entry of automated data is 1 day. The average

time for manual data is 30 days.

cThe time has since grown to 30 days due to volume increase.

dLivescan information is entered in 2 hours.

eAs of August 1998, these 16 agencies will carry out booking for 98+%

agencies.

f

The average time for fingerprints from Honolulu Police Department,

from which 75% of the arrests originate, is 3 to 5 days; arrest data are

received from Honolulu Police Department in 2 to 4 days. For the

remaining 25% of arrests throughout the State, the average time for

receipt of fingerprint cards is 25 days; for arrest data, the average time

is 7 to 14 days.

gThe information is put into a manual file until an inquiry is received.

h The State repository is receiving over 30% of arrest fingerprints by

livescan and will soon have an Automated Fingerprint Identification

System (AFIS)/computerized criminal history (CCH) system interface.

i

 For livescan.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 33

Table 12: Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1997

Percentage

Average Average number of days of daily

number Average number of days Number of arrests

of days between receipt of arresting in State

between fingerprints and entry of agencies represented Backlog of Number of

arrest data into: reporting by arresting entering unprocessed Number of

and receipt arrest agencies data into or partially person-days

of arrest Criminal data by reporting by criminal processed needed to

data and Master name history automated automated database fingerprint eliminate

State fingerprints index database means means exists cards backlog

Alabama 7 7 7 2 15% Yes 60,000 180

Alaska ... 2 2 ... ... No

Arizona 3 2 14 9 68 No

Arkansas 10-14 14 14 20 40 Yes 15,000 50

California <1-30a 1-30b 1-30b 30 20 No

Colorado 3c 3c 13 Yes 15,000 ...

Connecticut 5 30 120 ... 100% Yes 50,000 250

Delaware 5 0 0 65 100 No

District of Columbia 1 1 <1 23 100 ...

Florida 38 84 84 27 20 Yes 60,800 121

Georgia 4 <1-5d <1-5d 16e 27% No

Hawaii 2-25f 2 ... 1 66 Yes 900 116

Idaho 14 5 5 1 29 No

Illinois 3 90 90 22 60 Yes 127,100 42

Indiana 30 90 90 Yes 1,500 30

Iowa 12 2 2 No

Kansas 10-20 10 10 Yes 15,000 475

Kentucky 30 10 10 4 1% Yes ... ...

Louisiana 3 3 3 100 80 Yes 25,000 500

Maine 14 2 g 1 <1 No

Maryland 8 29 30 2 47% Yes ... ...

Massachusetts 21-28 7 NA 1 11 Yes 250,000 1,600

Michigan ... 90-120 90-120 13 8 No

Minnesota 4-25 5 5 2 9 Yes 500 4

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

Missouri ... 18 18 Yes 16,500 41

Montana 25 3 1 Yes 1,000 8

Nebraska 30-60 30-60 30-60 Yes 3,100 100

Nevada 10 2 2 No

New Hampshire 30 2 2 No

New Jersey 10 2 2 9 25% No

New Mexico 15 60+ 60+ Yes 5,000 156

New York ... 7 7 22 70 Yes 2,500 6

North Carolina ... 58 58 h Yes 5,900 30

North Dakota 7-10 90 90 Yes 2,000 90

Ohio 12 45-60 45-60 20 40% Yes 40,000 40

Oklahoma 5 5 5 Yes 1,600 42

Oregon ... 28 28 No

Pennsylvania 1i 1i 1i 38 65 Yes 1,300 22

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 2 2 2 No

South Carolina 5-14 14 14 No

South Dakota 5-10 1 1 No

Tennessee

Texas 14 30 30 8 55% Yes 6,400 85

Utah 3-5 30 30 48 37% Yes 500-600 10

Vermont 10 90 90 Yes 4,000 100

Virgin Islands NA NA NA No

Virginia 12 2-3 4-5 17 40 No

Washington 25 20 20 No

West Virginia ... 10 15 No

Wisconsin 29 3 3 No

Wyoming 10 7-10 7-10 Yes 300 10
Page 34 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

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

information was provided by the repositories.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable—no legal requirement mandates the reporting of

the information to the State criminal history repository.

a The average time is not available, but 81% were received within one

month of disposition based on an audit sample of one jurisdiction.

bThe average time is not available, but 77% of court dispositions were

entered within 30 days of the actual disposition date based on an audit

sample of one jurisdiction.

c In 1998, the average time decreased to 30 days.

d Disposition data is being entered by automated means by the County

Attorney for Maricopa County.

eThe State Court Administrator reports for all felony courts.

f

Felonies.

g The figure represents the time for the court to complete disposition

reporting (including machine edit checks) in the judicial information

system (JIS). When disposition reporting is completed, the disposition

is reported immediately to the State repository.

hThe time for the court to complete disposition reporting (including

machine edit checks) in the judicial information system (JIS) from

disposition date is 3 to 5 days. When disposition reporting is

completed, the disposition is reported immediately to the State

repository. The disposition is then immediately entered into the

criminal history database.

i

The reported backlog relates to approximately 50,000 arrest

fingerprint cards. While the court reported dispositions may be in the

criminal history database within 3 to 5 days, the criminal history record

may not be fingerprint-supported. By definition, therefore, the criminal

history record is incomplete and is reflected as a backlog.

j

Sixty-two of the 67 Florida Clerks of Court submit data by automated

means. Florida is rapidly moving toward daily on-line disposition

reporting.

kThe court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court

cases that are identified through ongoing delinquent monitoring

programs; the repository does not receive court forms per se, for the

purpose of ongoing data entry.

l Information is filed and added to the manual record when an inquiry is

received.

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

area, send disposition information to the Office of State Courts

Administrator, which in turn provides the information to the State

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

system will replace this method.

nFigure represents backlog as of July 1998.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 35

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

1997

Average number

of days between Percent of

Average number receipt of cases disposed Number of

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama ... 10 ... ... Yes 30,000 180

Alaska ...a ...b No

Arizona ... 90c d No

Arkansas 30 14 30 ... No

California 75 85 53 39% No

Colorado 1 1 1e 100%f No

Connecticut 3-5g 3-5h ... 100 Yes ...i 250

Delaware 1 1 29 100 No

District of Columbia 1 1 1 75 No

Florida 45 ... 62 93j Yes 194,700 243

Georgia 45 30 120 18% No

Hawaii 14 1-14 13 79 Yes 117,500k 2,234

Idaho 30 2 44 100 No

Illinois 140 30 11 60 No

Indiana 20 180 Yes 5,000 180

Iowa 40 2 Yes 1,000 20

Kansas 90-120 30 1 5% Yes 100,000 800

Kentucky 90 30 Yes 3,000+ 30

Louisiana ... ... Yes 180,000 4,500

Maine 14 l No

Maryland 22 0 51 98% No

Massachusetts 2 <1 72 100 No

Michigan ... 180 63 40 Yes 53,600 200+

Minnesota 12 2 86 99 No

Mississippi NA NA NA NA NA

Missouri ... ... m Yes 25,000 80

Montana 30 90 Yes 3,500 13

Nebraska 30 >140 Yes 13,000 390

Nevada 60 15 No

New Hampshire 5 5 No

New Jersey 1 1 480 100% No

New Mexico ... 45 Yes 3,000 60

New York ... 1 ... ... Yes 13,000 97

North Carolina 5 1 100 100 No

North Dakota 30 60 Yes 500 5-10

Ohio ... ... 30 15% Yes 20,000 20

Oklahoma 30 5 2 16 No

Oregon ... 60 26 65 Yes 14,500 90

Pennsylvania 360 60 67 100 Yes 133,000 1,330

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island ... 2 No

South Carolina 7 7 46 100% No

South Dakota 30 14 ... 100 No

Tennessee

Texas 21 45 37 49 Yes 27,200 181

Utah 30 30 43 99% Yes 500 3

Vermont 10 60 Yes 12,700 84

Virgin Islands 30 ... Yes ... 120

Virginia 90-120 10 22 8 No

Washington 15 25 8 ... Yes 103,400n 803

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

Wisconsin 56 3 No

Wyoming 30-60 3-5 Yes 1,800 30-60
Page 36 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 14

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

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

* Admission information.

✝ Release information.

... Not available.

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

information to the State criminal history repository.

a State prison system admissions are reported monthly.

b Reported monthly.

c Livescan is received in 1 day; others are received within 5 days.

d Backlog is pre-1992 only. Since 1992, there is no backlog.

eThe information is received immediately when entered on-line. If

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

time increases to approximately 21 days.

f

 Figure represents one state-level agency; local jails do not report online.

gRelease information applies only to sex offenders and is provided 10

days prior to release.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 37

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

backlog, 1997

Average Percent of

Average number number of admission/

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

admission or release receipt corrections release activity entering unprocessed

of offender and of corrections agencies occurring in corrections or partially Number of

receipt of data from: data entry into currently State represented data into processed person-days

and entry into reporting by by agencies criminal custody- needed

State Local criminal history automated reporting by history supervision to eliminate

State prisons jails database means automated means database reports backlog

Alabama ...*✝ ...*✝ 10 Yes 5,000 10

Alaska NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arizona NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arkansas

California 30*✝ 30*✝ 30 No

Colorado 1 5 30 1 ... Yes ... ...

Connecticut ...*/NA✝ ...*/NA✝ ... Yes ... ...

Delaware 1*✝ NA 1 39 100% No

District of Columbia ...*✝ ...*✝ ... 1 100 No

Florida 1-30*a/11✝ NA b 1 100 No

Georgia 10-15*/...✝ NA 5 1 100% No

Hawaii ...*✝ ...*✝ ... Yes 9,300 177

Idaho 14*/NA✝ 30*/NA✝ 5 No

Illinois 1-5*c/...✝ 28*/...✝ 5 1 70 Yes 1,100 8

Indiana 10*✝ NA 180 ...

Iowa ...*✝ ...*✝ 2 No

Kansas ...*✝ ...*✝ ... No

Kentucky 30*✝ NA 30 Yes 10,000 100

Louisiana 30*/5✝ ...*/NA✝ 180 1 30% Yes 3,000 600

Maine NA NA NA NA

Maryland ...*✝ ...*✝ ... ... 100% No

Massachusetts NA NA NA NA NA NA

Michigan 10*/NA✝ NA 365 Yes 10,500 30

Minnesota 10*/3✝ ...*/NA✝ 2 10 30 Yesd

Mississippi NA NA NA NA NA NA

Missouri ...*✝ NA 20 Yes 1,000 14

Montana NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nebraska 7*/30✝ ...*✝ 20 Yes 1,200 45

Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 7*/NA✝ NA 7 Yes 700 30

New Jersey 5*/1✝ 10*/NA✝ 4 10 60% No

New Mexico NA NA NA NA NA NA

New York 1*/1✝ ...*/NA✝ 0-14e ... 100f No

North Carolina 15*/5✝ NA 58 ... 100 Yes 1,200 30

North Dakota 30*✝ 30*✝ 90 Yes 500 60

Ohio 21*/...✝ 19*/...✝ 30 Yes ... ...

Oklahoma 3*/NA✝ NA 3 No

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pennsylvania NA*/-10✝g NA*/-10✝g 10 1 ... Yes 3,000 600

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 1*✝ NA 2 No

South Carolina 7-14*/NA✝ 7-14*/NA✝ 14 No

South Dakota 30*✝ 5-10*/...✝ 2-5 No

Tennessee

Texas NA NA NA NA NA NA

Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA

Vermont NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia 42-56*/14✝ NA 0 1 100% No

Washington NA*/...✝ NA 14 1 ... No

West Virginia ...*/...✝ ...*/...✝ 10 No

Wisconsin 29*/...✝ ...*/...✝ 14 No

Wyoming 30*/30✝ 30*/NA 3-5 No
Page 38 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 15

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

information was provided by the respondent.

* Lists generated are used to provide notice to criminal justice

agencies in order to obtain the missing dispositions.

a Audits are conducted with the results reported to the statewide

criminal records advisory board.

b Training.

cReport listing arrests with no dispositions; Help Desk.

dAudits.

eAn audit section reviews agency reporting.

f

Newsletter; guest speaker at conferences.

g Electronic mail, training, auditing, search of court's automated

system to find missing dispositions.

h Quarterly reviews.

i

Criminal Justice Task Force.

j

Automated dispositions with errors

.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 39

Table 15: Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1997

List of arrests with

no dispositions

generated to

monitor disposition

State reporting Field visits Form letters Telephone calls Other

Alabama

Alaska Xa

Arizona X

Arkansas X X X X

California X X X X Xb

Colorado X X X

Connecticut

Delaware X* X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X* X X X Xb

Georgia X* X X X

Hawaii X* X Xc

Idaho

Illinois X* X X X

Indiana

Iowa X* Xd X X

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X Xe

Louisiana

Maine X X X Xb

Maryland X

Massachusetts

Michigan X* X Xf

Minnesota X X X Xb

Mississippi X

Missouri X X Xb

Montana X* X X X Xb,d

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X Xb,d

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X* X X X Xg

New Mexico X X X Xb

New York X* X X

North Carolina X* X X X

North Dakota X* X X

Ohio X X X Xh

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X* X X X

Pennsylvania X X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X X Xi

South Dakota X* X X X Xb

Tennessee

Texas X X X

Utah X* X X Xj

Vermont X* X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X* X X X

Washington X* X X X Xb

West Virginia

Wisconsin X X X Xb

Wyoming X X
Page 40 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

utilized to link disposition information. Matching of several items of

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

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

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

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

information and arrest/charge information also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts.

a Offense citation and literal description.

bArrest agency and booking number.

cA combination of originating agency number (ORI), date of arrest and

arrest number.

d Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number.

e ORI number, Florida Department of Law Enforcement or FBI

number, sex, race, date of birth.

f

 State identification number (SID).

g Date crime occurred and through research of court and police

records.

h Probation central file (PCF) number.

i Linking is by case, and each represented contributor of case

information reports related charge information.

j Date of birth (with subject's name).

k ORI number.

l

A combination of arrest date, reporting agency ORI, and charges.

mDate of birth and fingerprints.

n Thumbprints.

o Arrest offenses and process control number.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 41

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1997

Unique tracking Name and

number for reporting

individual Unique arrest Unique charge agency case

State subjects event identifier identifier Arrest date Subject name number Other

Alabama* X X X X X X

Alaska X X X X X Xa

Arizona X X X X X X

Arkansas X X X X X X

California* X X X X X X Xb

Colorado X X Xc

Connecticut* X

Delaware* X X X X X X Xd

District of Columbia* X X X X X X Xd

Florida* X X X X X X Xe

Georgia X X Xf

Hawaii* X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X X

Indiana* X X X

Iowa* X X X X

Kansas* X X X X

Kentucky* X X X

Louisiana* XXX

Maine* X X XXg

Maryland* X X X X X X

Massachusetts* X X X X Xh

Michigani X

Minnesota X XXj

Mississippi X X X

Missouri* X X X X X

Montana* X X X X X

Nebraska* X

Nevada* X X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey* X X X X X X Xk

New Mexico X X X X X

New York X X X

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota* X X X X X

Ohio* X Xl

Oklahoma X X X X X X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania* X X X X X X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island* X Xm

South Carolina* X X X X X X

South Dakota X X X X X X

Tennessee

Texas* X X X X X X Xg

Utah X

Vermont* X X X X

Virgin Islands* X X

Virginia* X Xn

Washington* X X X X X X Xo

West Virginia* X X X X

Wisconsin X X X X Xk

Wyoming* X X X X X X
Page 42 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 17

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

* All data received can be linked.

aEnter "dummy" arrest if subject has existing record and the conviction

is felony/firearm-related.

bNo attempt is made; the custody segment stands alone and is

fingerprint-based.

cCourt arrest and disposition data are linked by a Uniform Arrest

Report (UAR) and a court case number. Where linkages are not

established, telephone contacts are initiated to identify the linkage

problem.

dCourt information is held in an automated format and periodically

rerun for linkage to arrest.

eDispositions are held in an automated suspense file and applied to

the computerized criminal history system upon receipt of arrest.

f

The court disposition is placed in a pending and does not show on the

record.

g If fingerprints are submitted, an entry is created that includes arrest

information and disposition.

hOn a manual record.

i

 Secure court or arrest information before entering custody

information.

j

 If supported by fingerprints.

kA project is underway to make court disposition date available

through a computerized criminal history system query via a separate

response stating that the disposition is not fingerprint-supported.

l

 Information is returned to the contributor.

mNo court or custody information is entered without positive

identification by fingerprints.

nReturn the disposition to the agency and request additional

information.

o Manually research for an arrest. If it is not found, the court

disposition is not posted.

pIf fingerprints are submitted, an entry is created that includes dummy

arrest information and court disposition or custody information.

q Stored in a temporary database, manually researched, then posted

to the system.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 43

Table 17: Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 1997

Create a "dummy" segment 

Court Enter information

dispositions without linkage to Enter no information Estimated dispositions received which

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

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

from court correctional From correctional From correctional final court final court correctional correctional

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

Alabama ...... ......

Alaska X ... ...

Arizona X X ... 30%

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

California X X Xa 420,000 35

Colorado Xb

Connecticut Xc ...... ......

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

District of

Columbia*

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

Georgia X X Xe 19,000 6% 1,800 5%

Hawaii X ... ...

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

Illinois X Xf ... ...

Indiana X X ... ... ... ...

Iowa X ... 2% ... ...

Kansas X X ... ...

Kentucky*

Louisiana Xg ...... ......

Maine Xh Xi 3,400 70% 200 5%

Maryland X

Massachusetts

*

... <4% ... ...

Michigan X X

Minnesota Xj X Xk 71,600 38% ... ...

Mississippi X ... 32% ... ...

Missouri Xj X ...... ......

Montana Xj ...... ......

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

Nevada X X Xl ... <1 ... <1

New

Hampshire*

New Jersey Xm 5,000 5% 200 1%

New Mexico X Xn ... 15 ... 15

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

North Carolina X X ... ... ... ...

North Dakota X ... 10 ... 10

Ohio*

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

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

Pennsylvania X X ... ... ... ...

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X ...... ......

South Carolina X X Xo 10,200 13%

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

Tennessee

Texas* Xp Xp Xp Xp Xp

Utah Xq ...... ......

Vermont*

Virgin Islands X ... ... ... ...

Virginia X 20,000 10% 300 5%

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

West Virginia ...... ......

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

Wyoming*
Page 44 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 18

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

information was provided by the respondent.

a Specified data elements are 100 percent verified.

b Checking of internal error list for dispositions that could not be

automatically linked together for various reasons.

cKey verification and yearly audits.

dNon-repeating tracking numbers.

e Only for non-automated records.

f

Many calls are made to the courts and arresting agencies to clear up

inconsistencies and/or secure missing information.

gOn-going independent audit or review of procedures.

h Error lists are returned to the State criminal history repository.

i

 Not all records.

j

 Synchronize with FBI tape.

k All data are entered twice to ensure correct entry.

l

 Fingerprint cards are returned to the originator for correction.

mEach entry is verified manually.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 45

Table 18: Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1997

Random sample

Manual review comparisons

of incoming Manual Manual review of of State criminal Error lists

source double-checking Computer edit criminal record history repository returned

documents before or and verification transcripts before files with to reporting

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

Alabama X X X X X

Alaska X X X X X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X X Xa

California X X Xa

Colorado X X X Xb Xc

Connecticut X X X X Xd

Delaware X X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X X X X

Florida X X X X X

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X X

Illinois X X X Xe

Indiana X X X

Iowa X X X X X Xf

Kansas X X Xg X

Kentucky X

Louisiana X X

Maine X X X Xh

Maryland X X X X X X Xi

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X X

Minnesota X X X

Mississippi X X X X

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X

New Jersey X X X X X X Xj

New Mexico X X

New York X X Xk

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X X X Xl

Oklahoma X X X Xm

Oregon X X X X

Pennsylvania X X X Xn

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X X Xo

South Dakota X X X X X

Tennessee

Texas X X

Utah X X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X

Virginia X X X X

Washington X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X
Page 46 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 19

The notes below expand on the data in table 19. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Except for Wisconsin for which corrected data were submitted,

the data in the columns for 1989 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), table 18. Except for Wisconsin, for which corrected

information was submitted, the data in the columns for 1993 are taken

from BJS, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), table 19. Except

for Louisiana and Texas, for which corrected data were submitted, the

data in the columns for 1995 are taken from BJS, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems.

1995 (May 1997), table 19.

... Not available.

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

bAudit program is under development.

cRandom sample audits were scheduled to begin in February 1994,

resources permitting.

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

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

procedure.

e Resources to conduct audits were limited.

f

The expungement process was audited for 1990-92.

gScheduled to begin fall 1996.

h A baseline audit of the Florida computerized criminal history system

was conducted in 1988. A more extensive audit is planned for late

1998.

i

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

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

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) audit frequency

requirements.

j

Record transaction log only.

k All court records are compared with arrest information, and any

inconsistencies are resolved before entry on the rap sheet. If

problems occur frequently with a particular department, a visit to

provide training is recommended.

l

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

on improving it s procedures.

m In-house audits only.

nVery limited.

o Law enforcement agencies that have terminals are audited every 18

months.

pUniform Crime Reports audits.

q Logs are maintained for inquiries and responses only.

r

 Field staff work with agencies on data quality.

sAn ad hoc audit of the computerized criminal history records was

performed by the Criminal Justice Policy Council in 1996.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 47

Table 19: Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1995, and 1997

Period of

Transaction logs maintained to provide audit trail Random sample audits of user agencies conducted time

of inquiries, responses, record updates, modifications to ensure data quality and compliance with laws Date of covered

State 1989 1993 1995 1997 1989 1993 1995 1997 last audit by audit

Alabama Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Alaska Yes Yesa Yesa Yesa No No Nob Yes 12/97 7/96

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Arkansas No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes continual continual

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesc Yes Yesd 8/98 all

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Noe Yes 1/98 1986-97

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes No Nof Nog Yes 4/98h 10 yrs.

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noi No Yes ongoing 3 mos.

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 11/94-

12/96

1/93-12/94

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 3/97 1996

Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 7/98 last 5 yrs.

Kansas No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Kentucky No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Maine Yesj Yesj Yesj Yesj Nok Nok No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 2/98 1993-96

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 1993 1991

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yesl Yes No

Mississippi No No ... Yes No No ... No

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesm No No No

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing 1992-96

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes continual 2 yrs.

New

Hampshire

Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

New Jersey No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1/93 1989

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing ongoing

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ongoing 2 yrs.

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8/98 up to 7/96

Oklahoma No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Oregon Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7/95 all

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

Rhode Island No No Yes No No Yes ... ...

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yesn Yeso Yesp continualo

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7/98 ongoing

Tennessee Yes No Yes No Yes No

Texas Yesq Yesq Yesq Yesq No Nor Nor Yes 1996s ...

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yearly 1 yr.

Vermont Yes Yesq Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1-12/93 1-12/92

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

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1989 1984-89

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1997 1994-96

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 12/96 4 yrs.

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 7/97 1-12/95

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7/96 1-12/95
Page 48 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in table 20. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

... Not available.

* 1 Audit/audit functions/procedures

2 Automation conversion/redesign enhancements

3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements

4 Felony flagging

5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements

6 Inter-agency/local agency interface

7 Legislation

8 Plan/strategy development

9 Task force/advisory group establishment

10 Tracking number implementation/improvements

11 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals

12 Other

aNew staff was hired to clean up data files.

b New prisoner processing system is being implemented.

c The last complete audit of the State repository's criminal history

record information system was conducted in August 1992 by another

agency. Although no subsequent audit has been done, the repository

continues to incorporated many of the audit recommendations.

d There no immediate plans for data quality audits of the State

repository's records within the next three years. The State has

experienced severe budgetary cutbacks which resulted in reductions in

the data processing resources available in the Hawaii Criminal Justice

Data Center. The data quality audit program undertaken in 1994-95

will no longer be retained.

e Missing disposition research.

f

 Livescan fingerprint submission will be implemented at each adult

and juvenile detention center throughout State within approximately

the next 18 months.

gCriminal history rewrite is addressing changes 1 through 6.

Improvements listed in 8 through 11 are in place.

hCriminal history system redesign is scheduled for completion in 1998.

i

 Standard practices.

j

 Livescan development.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 49

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1997

State criminal

history Data

repository quality

database audits

audited for Changes to planned or Initiatives

completeness Period of improve data scheduled underway

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

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

Alabama No No 2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11

Alaska Yes 1993 ... Other agency 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,10,11

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

Arkansas No Yes

California No No 2,3,

Colorado ...

Connecticut No Yes 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Delaware Yes 1997 1986-97 Other agency 1,6,8,9,12a No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

District of Columbia Yes 1997 1995-97 Other agency 1,3,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,12b

Florida Yes 1998 1988-97 Other agency 2,3,7,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Georgia Yes 1997 12/97 Other agency No 1,3

Hawaii Noc Nod 2,5,6,12e

Idaho Yes 1993 1988-92 Other agency 2,4,8,9,10,11 Yes 1,5,6,7,8,11

Illinois Yes 1997 1996 Other agency 2,5,7,8,9,11 Yes 1,2,3,5,8,9,10,11

Indiana Yes 1996 ... Repository 5 No 2,3,5,6,10

Iowa Yes 1997-98 2 years Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11

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

Kentucky Yes 1997 1-2/97 Other agency 8 Yes 12f

Louisiana No ... 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11

Maine No Yes 1,2,10

Maryland Yes 1998 1993-96 Other agency 1,2,3,6,8,9 Yes 1,2,3,6,8,9

Massachusetts No No 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Michigan No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,10,11

Minnesota No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11

Mississippi No ...

Missouri Yes 1997-98 1991-96 Other agency 1,2,5 No 2,5,6,7,11

Montana Yes ... ... Repository 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11 No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11

Nebraska No No 1,3,4,7,11

Nevada Yes 1993 1987-93 Other agency 8,12g No 1,2,3,4,6,7,10,11,12h

New Hampshire Yes 1995 1 year+ Other agency No 5

New Jersey No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

New Mexico Yes 1994 random Other agency 4,8,9,10,11 Yes 1,3,6

New York No No 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,12i

North Carolina No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9

North Dakota No No 1,2,3,5,6

Ohio Yes 1997 prior to 1997 ... 5,7,8,9,10,11 Yes 1,2,3,6,8,11

Oklahoma Yes 1994 ... Other agency 3,4,5,7,9,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11

Oregon Yes 1994 all Other agency 2,3,4 ,,, ,,,

Pennsylvania Yes 1995 all Other agency 7 Yes 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island No No 2,5,11

South Carolina Yes 1998 1 year Other agency 2,3, Yes 9

South Dakota Yes 1998 ongoing Repository 1,2,3,4,5,6 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6

Tennessee

Texas No No 3,4,5,6,8,9

Utah Yes ... ... Other agency 11 Yes

Vermont No No 1,2,3,6,7,10

Virgin Islands No No 2

Virginia No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,12j

Washington Yes 1997 1994-96 Other agency No 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

West Virginia Yes 1996 4 years Other agency 2,8,9,10 No 2,8,9,10

Wisconsin Yes 1993 1992 Other agency 4,8,9 Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Wyoming No No 3,4,11
Page 50 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 21

The notes below expand on the data in table 21. The explanatory

information was provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal

Justice Information Services Division, FBI. The numbers have been

rounded to the nearest 100. The information is not applicable to

States that are not currently participating in III, and therefore, the cells

for non-participant States are blank.

* State was not a participant by the end of FY1997, but has since

become one.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 51

Table 21: Criminal history records of Intestate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997

III records indexed with the Percent of total records

State's identification (SID) III records maintained by available through III

State pointers Percent of State records the FBI for the State maintained by the State

Total 18,390,100 11,936,100

Alabama 45,600 11% 387,100 89%

Alaska 33,300 32 69,700 68

Arizona* 0 0 631,700 100

Arkansas 84,700 37 142,200 63

California 3,024,900 76 971,500 24

Colorado 402,400 72% 155,400 28%

Connecticut 142,100 51 134,200 49

Delaware 76,200 55 62,600 45

District of Columbia 0 0 128,000 100

Florida 2,191,600 82 496,900 18

Georgia 1,478,800 91% 151,800 9%

Hawaii 0 0 111,100 100

Idaho 97,800 73 35,700 27

Illinois 309,400 21 1,143,800 79

Indiana* 800 0 350,600 100

Iowa 18,100 7% 259,600 93%

Kansas 0 0 312,900 100

Kentucky 0 0 262,400 100

Louisiana 0 0 565,700 100

Maine 0 0 52,500 100

Maryland* 0 0 700,600 100%

Massachusetts 0 0 218,800 100

Michigan 724,800 90 82,700 10

Minnesota 224,100 86 36,700 14

Mississippi* 0 0 168,400 100

Missouri 306,400 60% 200,500 40%

Montana 52,400 51 49,400 49

Nebraska* 0 0 120,400 100

Nevada 105,600 34 203,200 66

New Hampshire 0 0 81,700 100

New Jersey 997,800 95% 48,500 5%

New Mexico* 100 0 234,000 100

New York 2,167,700 90 240,800 10

North Carolina 593,600 93 42,300 7

North Dakota 9,000 23 30,200 77

Ohio 628,100 78% 182,200 22%

Oklahoma 85,200 26 238,700 74

Oregon 365,200 83 75,800 17

Pennsylvania 680,600 67 342,500 33

Puerto Rico 0 0 68,300 100

Rhode Island 0 0% 81,700 100%

South Carolina 673,500 93 47,100 7

South Dakota 30,500 27 83,600 73

Tennessee 0 0 492,800 100

Texas 1,917,200 91 178,300 9

Utah 174,600 80% 44,900 20%

Vermont 0 0 36,800 100

Virgin Islands 0 0 10,300 100

Virginia 520,700 68 245,300 32

Washington 177,900 30 420,100 70

West Virginia* 0 0% 116,700 100%

Wisconsin 0 0 366,400 100

Wyoming 49,400 70 21,000 30
Page 52 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 22

The notes below expand on the data in table 22. The explanatory

information was provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal

Justice Information Services Division, FBI. Numbers have been

rounded to the nearest 100.

** State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF) and

submits only the first fingerprint card of an individual to the FBI. The

number of fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI, therefore, is

substantially less than the number received by the State criminal

history repository for processing.

✝ Disposition statistics are not available as a separate category for

the territory.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 53

Table 22: Fingerprint cards processed and dispositions received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FY 1997

 Number of fingerprint cards processed by the FBI, FY 1997 Number of final dispositions

State Criminal justice purposes Noncriminal justice purposes received by the FBI, FY 1997

Total 5,565,400 2,960,000 527,300

Alabama 65,000 8,900 4,800

Alaska 14,100 9,400 700

Arizona 200,500 143,800 2,300

Arkansas 62,200 18,100 12,600

California 1,075,500 255,800 123,100

Colorado 144,600 37,700 1,700

Connecticut 73,100 34,400 4,000

Delaware 28,000 38,900 <50

District of Columbia 30,500 322,100 12,800

Florida** 301,900 416,900 800

Georgia 421,600 79,900 700

Hawaii 21,600 12,600 4,500

Idaho 23,400 40,100 1,800

Illinois 347,500 100,700 46,700

Indiana 36,600 20,600 15,200

Iowa 49,500 9,500 38,100

Kansas 48,100 5,400 1,300

Kentucky 32,700 5,300 5,400

Louisiana 72,500 20,400 9,200

Maine 3,500 700 1,400

Maryland 144,000 137,800 9,300

Massachusetts 27,500 31,200 900

Michigan 104,900 58,400 700

Minnesota 47,000 32,900 1,700

Mississippi 28,800 21,400 13,200

Missouri 104,100 30,300 700

Montana 20,500 1,400 300

Nebraska 17,600 4,100 200

Nevada 41,300 46,600 600

New Hampshire 12,200 800 1,700

New Jersey** 62,900 115,600 200

New Mexico 37,000 15,200 6,600

New York 443,100 194,700 2,600

North Carolina** 57,400 39,100 100

North Dakota 4,600 100 <50

Ohio 97,300 58,700 25,500

Oklahoma 68,700 21,500 2,000

Oregon** 37,500 41,200 300

Pennsylvania 157,500 34,400 6,700

Puerto Rico 12,700 900 ✝

Rhode Island 8,700 4,900 2,400

South Carolina 148,100 41,700 2,100

South Dakota 21,600 1,100 8,500

Tennessee 74,700 52,000 9,300

Texas 314,200 163,100 74,800

Utah 42,200 11,900 200

Vermont 6,500 3,000 100

Virgin Islands 1,300 200 ✝

Virginia 147,700 58,300 46,700

Washington 123,000 130,900 900

West Virginia 15,300 2,300 1,100

Wisconsin 74,200 17,800 20,700

Wyoming 8,900 5,300 100
Page 54 • Data Tables Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Explanatory Notes for Table 23

The notes below expand on the data in table 23. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

NA Not applicable.

a If a criminal history report/printout is provided.

bAll but local, State and Federal government, noncriminal justice

agencies.

c The amount varies from $0 to $52; the average fee is $32.

d The majority of submissions of volunteers for charitable or other nonprofit purposes are fee exempt. A few public and for-profit agencies

are charged $32.

e No fees are charged if the request is from a governmental,

noncriminal justice agency.

f

The fee for a livescan search is $12; the fee for a cardscan fingerprint

search is $14.

gThe fee for an automated name search is $7; a standard name

search is $12.

h If the results are returned by mail, the fee is $13; if the results are

returned by facsimile, the fee is $15.

i

For non-governmental agencies and individuals.

j

 Fee, however, is sometimes waived for non-profit groups.

k For non-profit agencies.

l

 For "Brady" firearms checks only.

m If an approved national check is conducted, the charge is $41.

n A fee of $10 is charged if record is on letterhead; $1 is charged if

search is electronic.

oSchool system.

pThe fee for a non-profit agency is $2; for government agencies, $5;

and for all others, $13.
Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 Data Tables • Page 55

Table 23: Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 1997

State currently charges

fee for conducting Amount of fee charged is: Amount of fee charged for volunteers is:

criminal history record State charges

search for noncriminal Fingerprint- different fee FingerprintState justice requester supported search Name search for volunteers supported search Name search

Alabama Yes $25 $25 No

Alaska Yesa 35 20 No

Arizona Yes 6b No

Arkansas Yes 15 15 No

California Yes 0-52c NA Yes Variesd NA

Colorado Yes $14 $7 No

Connecticut Yese 25 25 No

Delaware Yes 25 NA No

District of Columbia Yes NA 5 No

Florida Yes 15 15 No

Georgia Yes $15 NA No

Hawaii Yes 25 15 No

Idaho Yes 10 5 No

Illinois Yes 12-14f 7-14g No

Indiana Yes 10 7 Yes NA $0

Iowa Yes $13-15h No

Kansas Yes $17 10 No

Kentucky Yes 4 No

Louisiana Yes 10 10 No

Maine Yesi 7 7 Noj

Maryland Yes $18 NA No

Massachusetts Yes $25 No

Michigan Yes 15 5 Yesk $15 $0

Minnesota Yes NA 8 No

Mississippi No NA NA NA

Missouri Yes $14 $5 No

Montana Yes 8 5 No

Nebraska Yes 10 10 No

Nevada Yes 15 15 No

New Hampshire Yes NA 10 Yes $28 $10

New Jersey Yes $25 $15 No

New Mexico Yes 20 7 No

New York Yes 50 NA NA

North Carolina Yes 14 10 No

North Dakota Yes 20 20 No

Ohio Yes $15 $13l Yes $15 NA

Oklahoma Yes 35m 15 No

Oregon Yes 12 15 No

Pennsylvania Yes NA 10 No

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Yes NA $5 No

South Carolina Yes $24 25 Yes $18 $18

South Dakota Yes 15 No

Tennessee

Texas Yes 15 1-10n No

Utah Yes $10 $5 No

Vermont No No

Virgin Islands Yes 9 Yes $0

Virginia Yes 13 15 Yes $31o

Washington Yes 25 10 Yes 0 0

West Virginia Yes $20 $20 No

Wisconsin Yes 10 2-13p No

Wyoming Yes 15 NA Yes $10
Page 56 • Methodology Survey of Criminal History Information Systems, 1997

Methodology

This report is based upon the results

from a two-part survey conducted of the

administrators of the State criminal

history record repositories in January -

November 1997. Fifty-three

jurisdictions were surveyed, including

the 50 States, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Responses for

at least one part of the survey were

received from 53 jurisdictions. Puerto

Rico did not submit a survey response

to either part.

The survey instruments consisted of 43

questions, having several parts. The

survey was designed to collect

comprehensive data relating to State

criminal history information systems.

Fifteen topical areas are covered in this

report, as follows:

• current quality and quantity of records

in the criminal history databases;

• level of automation of master name

indexes and criminal history records

maintained by the State repositories;

• capacity of criminal history system

to flag convicted felons in the database;

• level of fingerprint-supported arrest

reporting to the State repositories and

the processing and timeliness of the

information that is entered into criminal

history record databases;

• notice to the State repository of

persons released without charging

following submission of fingerprints to

the State repository;

• level of prosecutor-reported

information in criminal history

databases;

• level and timeliness of disposition

reporting by the courts to the State

criminal history repositories;

• types and timeliness of information

reported to the State criminal history

repositories by State and local

correctional facilities;

• level of probation/parole-related

information in State criminal history

databases;

• extent to which the records in State

criminal history databases contain final

disposition information;

• policies and practices of the State

repository regarding modification of

felony convictions;

• ability of the State repositories to

link reported disposition data to arrest

data in State criminal history record

databases;

• level of audit activity in the States

and the strategies employed the State

repositories to ensure accuracy of the

data in the criminal history record

databases; and

• participation of the States in III and

NFF; and

•fees charged by State criminal history

repositories for conducting record

searches for noncriminal justice

requesters.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

also provided information in two areas.

The information reported by the FBI

relates to the number of fingerprint

cards and dispositions received by the

FBI during FY 1997 and the number of

criminal history records of the States

participating in the Interstate

Identification Index system that are

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories and the number of

records maintained by the FBI for the

States.

Following the receipt of the responses,

all data were tabulated. Survey

respondents were requested to respond to

particular questions relating to the

current data compared to data from

earlier surveys. Respondents also were

permitted a final review of the data after

it was placed in the tables that appear in

this report.

Numbers and percentages shown in the

tables were rounded. In most cases,

numbers were rounded to the nearest

100. Percentages were rounded to the

nearest whole number.

In the analyses of the tables, averages

and totals were calculated using the

mid-point of the range where ranges

appear in the underlying data. In

instances where the result is .5, when it

followed an even number, the number

was rounded down to the even number

(e.g., 4.5 became 4); in instances where

the .5 followed an odd number, the

number was rounded up to the next

even number (e.g., 1.5 became 2).

Data reported for 1989 were taken from

BJS, Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems (March 1991).

Data reported for 1993 were taken from

BJS, Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January

1995). Data reported for 1995 were

taken from BJS, Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1995

(May 1997).