U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Conference on

Criminal History Records:

Brady and Beyond

proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

papers presented by

Lawrence A. Greenfeld Thomas F. Rich James F. Shea

Kent Markus Gary D. McAlvey Laurie O. Robinson

Rebecca L. Hedlund Capt. R. Lewis Vass Janet Reno

Robert J. Creighton Lt. Clifford W. Daimler James X. Dempsey

Robert R. Belair Edward J. (Jack) Scheidegger Noy S. Davis

Stephen R. Rubenstein Sally T. Hillsman Kimberly Dennis

Virgil L. Young Jr. David Eberdt
i

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Acknowledgments

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

and Statistics, Francis J. Carney Jr., Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director.

The project director was Sheila J. Barton, Director, Law and Policy Program. Twyla R.

Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications, edited the proceedings. Jane L.

Bassett, Publishing Assistant, provided layout and design assistance. The federal project

monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Assistant Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Grant No. 92-BJ-CX-K012, awarded to SEARCH

Group, Inc., 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831.

Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau

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

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

1994.

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.
i

Contents

Foreword, v

Introduction, vii

I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Welcome

Lawrence A. Greenfeld Welcome, 3

Setting the stage

Kent Markus Brady Act: The Federal perspective, 7

Rebecca L. Hedlund Brady Act: The Department of Treasury perspective, 10

Robert J. Creighton Brady Act: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms perspective, 11

Requirements, regulations and procedures

of the Brady Act: Panel

Robert R. Belair • Moderator’s remarks, 17

Stephen R. Rubenstein • Brady Act regulations and requirements, 19

Virgil L. Young Jr. • FBI operational status report and Felon Identification in Firearms

Sales Program, 22

Thomas F. Rich • Report of study on identifying persons, other than felons, ineligible

to purchase firearms, 29

Existing systems

Gary D. McAlvey The Illinois experience: 25 years of firearms control

through comprehensive background checks, 35

Current presale firearms checks: Panel

Capt. R. Lewis Vass • The Virginia point-of-sale Firearms Transaction Program, 39

Lt. Clifford W. Daimler • The Oregon system: Fingerprint checks and the waiting period, 42

Edward J. (Jack) Scheidegger • The California system: Access to other databases, name searches

and the waiting period, 50

Role of the courts: Panel

Sally T. Hillsman, Ph.D. • Disposition reporting: The perspective from the courts, 55

James F. Shea • Collecting and accessing court disposition information for the

criminal history record, 58

II. Current decisionmaking and future policies

Day two opening address

Laurie O. Robinson Day two opening address, 71

Keynote address

Janet Reno Keynote address, 73
i

National Child Protection Act of 1993

Requirements and systems of the

National Child Protection Act: Panel

James X. Dempsey • Requirements of the National Child Protection Act, 79

Noy S. Davis • Authorized record checks for screening child care and youth service

workers, 83

Kimberly Dennis • Report on national study of existing screening practices by child

care organizations, 86

David Eberdt • Current child abuse crime reporting: A State experience, 99

Grant agency perspective

Lawrence A. Greenfeld Grant agency perspective on implementation of the

Brady and National Child Protection Acts, 103

Contributors’ biographies, 109

Appendixes, 115

Appendix 1 Public Law 103-159: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Appendix 2 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Preliminary list of States

subject to the Federal five-day waiting period or States having

alternative systems as defined in the law

Appendix 3 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Open letter to all Federal

firearms licensees subject to the waiting period provisions of the

Brady Law

Appendix 4 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Open letter to all Federal

firearms licensees not subject to the waiting period provisions of the

Brady Law

Appendix 5 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Form 5300.35: Statement

of intent to obtain a handgun(s)

Appendix 6 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Open letter to State and

local law enforcement officials

Appendix 7 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act Questions and Answers

Appendix 8 Queues Enforth Development, Inc.: Executive summary to Identifying

Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase Firearms: A

Feasibility Study

Appendix 9 State of Oregon Dealer’s Record of Sale of Handgun

Appendix 10 Public Law 103-209: National Child Protection Act of 1993

Appendix 11 American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law

memorandum on the National Child Protection Act of 1993

Appendix 12 Arkansas Code Annotated §§20-78-601 to 604: Background checks of

child care facility licensees and employees
v

Foreword

A groundswell of activity in late 1993 resulted in the passage of two important pieces of Federal legislation

which affect the management of criminal history record information at the Federal, State and local levels.

In November 1993, the United States Congress passed both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

and the National Child Protection Act of 1993. These Acts, which were quickly signed into law by

President Clinton, require that national criminal history record checks be done of firearms purchasers and

applicants for child care employment. The Brady Act establishes a national instant criminal background

check system (NICS) to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of a firearm. This national

system, which must be able to supply information immediately regarding whether receipt of a firearm by a

prospective firearm purchaser would violate State or Federal law, must be operational by November 30,

1998. In the interim, the law imposes a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases, during which time a

criminal records check must be conducted. To assist States in establishing automated record systems to help

them implement the NICS, the legislation authorized $200 million in Federal grants, to be administered by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The National Child Protection Act, meanwhile, encourages States to require

a fingerprint-based national background check of individuals seeking employment in the child care field.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 subsequently amended this Act to also

include those seeking employment with the elderly and disabled. The law authorized $20 million in grants

to the States for fiscal 1994-1997, to assist them in improving their record systems to comply with the law.

These two major new laws impose a great deal of responsibility on the States, and in many cases will

require States to upgrade their criminal history record systems in order to comply with them. To discuss the

implementation of these two major Acts from the Federal and State perspectives, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, along with SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,

cosponsored the “National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond” in Washington,

D.C. on February 8-9, 1994. This publication presents the proceedings of that conference. I believe these

proceedings will provide readers with a distinct understanding of the components of these two important

laws, as well as the requirements they impose on States; the status of existing background check systems in

the States; and a clear picture of Federal efforts to implement these two laws. To be effective, the Brady

Act and the National Child Protection Act of 1993 require the cooperation and involvement of the States in

their implementation and continued operation. This conference was an important first step toward sharing

information, providing guidance and obtaining input that is vital to those processes.

Jan Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics
vii

Introduction

In November 1993, the U.S. Congress

passed two significant pieces of crime

legislation: the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act and the National Child

Protection Act of 1993. Both laws

require nationwide background checks:

the Brady Act to check the criminal

records of individuals seeking to

purchase firearms and the National Child

Protection Act to check the background

of individuals seeking employment in the

child care field. The laws authorized

$200 million and $20 million,

respectively, to assist the States in

establishing and improving their

automated record systems to enable them

to comply with the new laws, and to

prepare for a national instant criminal

background check system, which the

Brady Law requires to be operational by

November 30, 1998.

The implementation of these two

major laws at the national level rests with

the U.S. Departments of Justice and

Treasury, primarily in the Federal

Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. More

importantly, the successful

implementation of the laws also requires

the cooperation, involvement and input

of the States.

As part of its effort to provide

information and guidance to the States

on these two major Acts, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of

Justice and SEARCH cosponsored the

“National Conference on Criminal

History Records: Brady and Beyond” on

February 8-9, 1994, in Washington, D.C.

The conference brought together officials

from the Federal agencies which have

responsibility for the implementation of

these Acts, as well as officials from

States and national organizations which

are equally as interested and involved in

the implementation of these background

check laws. This document presents the

proceedings of that conference.

The first day of the conference,

“Criminal history records: Where we

are,” provided information on specific

aspects of the Acts, such as requirements

the Acts impose on States, and successful

implementation and operation of similar

statewide programs. The second day of

the conference, “Current decisionmaking

and future policies,” highlighted Federal

policy- and decisionmaking relating to

the implementation of the Acts.

Mr. Lawrence A. Greenfeld, who at

the time of the conference was serving as

Acting Director of the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of

Justice, provides the “Welcome” address.

He stresses that an important side benefit

of both Acts is that they focus attention

on the adequacy of criminal records

systems, mainly their accuracy,

completeness and shareability. He says

improving criminal records systems is

the single most important national

criminal justice reform, particularly at

the present time, when new expectations

are emerging for criminal record

information. He predicts that Federal

resources will be targeted to improving

the criminal justice information

infrastructure with a higher priority then

ever before.

The next three speakers help to set the

stage for a discussion of the Brady Law

from the Federal agency perspective. Mr.

Kent Markus, Counsel to the Deputy

Attorney General, U.S. Department of

Justice, discusses the activity being

undertaken by the Departments of Justice

and Treasury to implement the Brady

Act, including providing guidance,

information, resources and funds to assist

the States in implementing the Act. He

also reviews the steps the Federal

government is taking toward improving

criminal history records, as required by

the Act. Ms. Rebecca L. Hedlund,

Legislative Policy Advisor to the

Assistant Secretary, Enforcement, U.S.

Department of the Treasury, briefly

discusses that department’s activities in

preparing for Brady Act implementation.

She introduces the next speaker, Mr.

Robert J. Creighton, serving at that time

as the Brady Law Coordinator for the

department’s Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Mr.

Creighton provides an in-depth overview

of the information-sharing process

undertaken by the Bureau to educate the

280,000 licensed Federal firearms

dealers in the United States, as well as

the thousands of law enforcement

officials, who are affected by the Brady

Law and who are primarily responsible

for its implementation. This information

effort includes Treasury regulations,

letters and flyers, site visits from ATF

field counsels, and a coordinated

dissemination plan. He also reviews the

process the ATF undertook to gather

input and advice from State and local law

enforcement officials, attorneys general

and others regarding the Brady Law

implementation.

Mr. Robert R. Belair, SEARCH

General Counsel, serves as moderator of

a panel on “Requirements, regulations

and procedures of the Brady Act.” In his

moderator’s remarks, he touches on the

legislative effort that culminated in the

Brady Law, discusses the national instant

criminal background check system

(NICS), and provides an overview of the

panel presentations.

“Brady Act regulations and

requirements” is the subject of the

presentation by the first panelist, Mr.

Stephen R. Rubenstein, Senior Counsel,

Firearms and Explosives Unit, Office of

the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Department

of the Treasury. He provides an overview

of how the Brady Law fits into existing

Federal firearms laws; discusses the

regulations being issued by ATF to

implement the law; discusses the ATF’s

development of Brady forms and

procedures; reviews requirements that

the law imposes on States and Federal

firearms licensees, in particular the 5-day

waiting period that is in effect until the

NICS is operational in late 1998;

discusses exceptions to the waiting

period; and describes a typical Brady

firearm transaction.
viii

The next panelist is Mr. Virgil L.

Young Jr., former Section Chief,

Programs Development Section,

Criminal Justice Information Services

Division, Federal Bureau of

Investigation. In his presentation, “FBI

operational status report and Felon

Identification in Firearms Sales

Program,” Mr. Young focuses on a

discussion of the system requirements for

NICS, which must be operational within

5 years of the passage of the Brady law

(November 30, 1998). He also reviews

the activities the FBI is undertaking to

develop a system design by the June 1,

1994, deadline imposed by the law, and

discusses the current status of the

Interstate Identification Index (III), a

national index maintained by the FBI

that allows for the interstate and FederalState exchange of criminal history record

information, and which will be the

foundation for the NICS. Finally, he

reviews the Felon Identification in

Firearms Sales Program, an ongoing

effort to flag convicted felons in the III.

The final panelist, Mr. Thomas F.

Rich, Senior Analyst, Queues Enforth

Development, Inc., reviews the results of

a report done for the Department of

Justice to determine what databases can

be accessed to immediately and

accurately identify persons, other than

felons, who attempt to purchase firearms

but who are ineligible to do so (such as

illegal aliens, dishonorable dischargees,

citizenship renunciates, etc.). He notes

that while information on some of these

persons is easily obtained, existing

databases may not be complete enough

to provide information on every person

who comes under one of the disabling

categories. In addition, State privacy

laws protect information on other major

categories, such as certain commitments

to mental health facilities.

The next section of the conference

was a discussion of existing State

systems which conduct presale records

checks of firearms purchasers. The first

speaker, Mr. Gary D. McAlvey,

Inspector, Division of Administration,

Illinois State Police, describes his State’s

25-year experience in controlling the

purchase and possession of firearms and

firearm ammunition. Illinois requires

persons who wish to acquire or possess

firearms or ammunition to obtain a

Firearm Owners Identification Card,

which requires that the card applicant

undergo a complete screening of State

and Federal criminal history records, as

well as of State mental health records. In

addition, before card holders can

purchase a firearm in Illinois, they must

undergo a criminal history records check

at the place of purchase; these checks are

conducted through the Illinois State

Police with the use of “900” phone lines.

Purchase approvals are to be given

instantly, while purchase denials can be

given within the waiting periods of 24 to

72 hours. Mr. McAlvey reports that

Illinois’ system is very successful, and

has many benefits, such as the

identification and apprehension of

persons wanted on warrants.

The next three speakers served as

panelists, discussing “Current presale

firearms checks” in their States. Capt. R.

Lewis Vass, Records Management

Officer, Records Management Division,

Virginia State Police, describes the

operation of the Virginia Firearms

Transaction Program, which provides an

instant point-of-sale criminal history

records check of prospective firearms

purchasers. Like the NICS being planned

at the Federal level, the Virginia system

eliminates waiting periods by

electronically accessing State and

Federal criminal history and wanted

persons databases. Capt. Vass reports

that one of the most significant problems

experienced in operating the instant

point-of-sale program is interpreting the

varied methods of recording and

reporting arrest and court disposition

information by other States or foreign

countries. However, Virginia works with

Interpol to help query and interpret

foreign criminal history records and has

determined dispositions of felony

charges reported in many foreign

countries. Capt. Vass also discusses

Virginia’s Firearms Investigative Unit,

which seeks to curtail illegal firearms

activity, and reviews the successes of

Virginia’s 5-year-old program, including

the apprehension of wanted fugitives and

the solving of previously unsolved

crimes.

Oregon’s presale firearms check

system involves processing a purchase

application accompanied by the

applicant’s thumbprints, and a 15-day

waiting period. As described by Lt.

Clifford W. Daimler, Director,

Identification Services Division, Oregon

Department of State Police, local law

enforcement agencies in Oregon have 15

days to check a purchaser’s background,

which includes 10 days for the State

Police to run a fingerprint check through

its automated fingerprint identification

system. He also reviews the few

exceptions to the waiting period, as well

as penalties for violating the law, and

purchase disqualifications under the

Oregon statute. Finally, he reviews the

impact that enactment of the Oregon

firearms sales check law has had on

workload levels at his agency.

Mr. Jack Scheidegger reviews

California’s system for completing

presale firearms checks of gun

purchasers. Mr. Scheidegger, Chief,

Bureau of Criminal Identification and

Information, California Department of

Justice, reports that his agency conducts

name-based record checks of State and

national criminal history and wanted

persons, restraining order and mental

health files; requires a 15-day waiting

period; and enters purchaser data into an

automated firearms system. The firearms

check statute also covers private

transactions, as well as sales by gun

dealers and at gun shows. He reports that

the 15-day waiting period is a firm

“cooling off” period — no handgun may

be transferred before the period has

elapsed.

The next two speakers were panelists

who address the “Role of the courts”;

their presentations wrapped up Day One

of the conference. Dr. Sally T. Hillsman,

Vice President of Research for the

National Center for State Courts

(NCSC), gave a presentation on

“Disposition reporting: The perspective

from the courts.” She stresses that while

improving the quality of criminal history

record information is crucial, so also is

the timeliness of the information and of
ix

understanding that courts are important

users of this information, particularly

with respect to case dispositions. She

reports that the judicial branch is a key

partner in successful change, but their

participation and input has been too often

overlooked. An exception to this, she

notes, was the convening in 1990 of the

National Task Force on Criminal History

Record Disposition Reporting by

SEARCH, BJS and NCSC.

“Collecting and accessing court

disposition information for the criminal

history record” was the presentation

given by Mr. James F. Shea, Assistant

Director, Integrated Systems

Development, New York State Division

of Criminal Justice Services. He

discusses New York’s efforts to improve

and expand the level of automated

disposition reporting by the courts to the

State’s central repository of criminal

history record information. He reviews

the procedures used to transmit this

information, discusses the impact of the

reporting, and also reports on how New

York is working to improve its technical

infrastructure of automation and

communications capabilities.

Ms. Laurie O. Robinson, Acting

Assistant Attorney General, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, provides the “Day two opening

address,” in which she introduces the

keynote speaker, the Honorable Janet

Reno, United States Attorney General. In

her “Keynote address,” Ms. Reno

reiterates the importance of timely,

accurate and complete criminal history

records to all branches of the criminal

justice system, as well as to other

legitimate, noncriminal justice users.

While she acknowledges there have been

improvements in recent years, she says

our current ability to conduct reliable

background checks is abysmal. She notes

that conducting instant background

checks, as required under the Brady Law

by late 1998, will be a substantial

challenge. However, she adds, the Justice

Department will work jointly with the

States to set priorities for Federal monies

to improve the quality and accessibility

of criminal history records in State

systems. She also says that the success of

the Brady Law implementation, as well

as reaching the goal of complete,

accurate and timely criminal history

record information, will depend on a

close partnership between the Federal

government and the States.

The next four speakers comprised a

panel which discussed requirements and

systems of the National Child Protection

Act. The first panelist, Mr. James X.

Dempsey, Assistant Counsel of the

Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and

Constitutional Rights, U.S. House of

Representatives, discusses the growing

Federal mandates which require criminal

history record checks at the State level.

He says that the pressure for use of

criminal history records as a screening

device for noncriminal justice purposes

is unlikely to abate any time soon. He

then reviews in-depth the main elements

of the National Child Protection Act, the

way it conforms to current practices and

the ways in which it imposes new

mandates on the States.

Ms. Noy S. Davis, Project

Manager/Attorney, and Ms. Kimberly

Dennis, Research Associate, American

Bar Association (ABA) Center on

Children and the Law, spoke next. Ms.

Davis reviews the extent to which state

statutes currently authorize record checks

for the screening of child care and youth

service workers. Ms. Dennis discusses

some of the major issues raised in

literature regarding criminal record

checks and reviews preliminary findings

from a national ABA survey which

sought to determine the extent to which

record checks are currently used by

organizations and agencies that provide

care and other services to children.

The final panelist was Mr. David

Eberdt, Director, Arkansas Crime

Information Center, who provides an

overview of an Arkansas law that

requires fingerprint-based background

checks for licensed child care facilities,

their owners, operators and employees.

In addition to the legislative history and

requirements of the law, he reviews other

issues and problems that arose with its

interpretation and implementation.

The closing speaker of the conference

was Mr. Lawrence A. Greenfeld, thenActing Director of BJS. He gave the

“Grant agency perspective on

implementation of the Brady and

National Child Protection Acts.” He said

both Acts focus attention on the most

important challenge facing the

infrastructure of the criminal justice

system: keeping accurate and timely

records and making them readily

available for criminal justice and

noncriminal justice purposes. He reviews

recent BJS efforts to improve criminal

history records and also discusses a

survey being done to estimate the time

required by each State to fully implement

the NICS and to meet the record quality

expectations of the National Child

Protection Act. He also discusses the

grant programs accompanying each Act,

including a description of eligible

funding activities.

Finally, mention and thanks are given

here to Maj. James V. Martin, who ably

served as the conference moderator. Maj.

Martin is Director of the Criminal Justice

Information and Communications

System, South Carolina Law

Enforcement Division, and is a member

of the SEARCH Board of Directors.
I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Welcome

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 3

Welcome

LAWRENCE A. GREENFELD

Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Welcome to the sixth national

conference on criminal history records

which the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) has sponsored over the years. We

are very excited about this get-together

where we will hear from, among others,

the Attorney General of the United

States. One of the truly important side

benefits of both the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act and the

National Child Protection Act is that

they focus our attention on the adequacy

of our criminal records systems — their

accuracy, completeness and shareability

across jurisdictions.1

Up-to-date, accurate and accessible

records are important for decisionmakers

in the justice system who often must

make very difficult decisions which

affect the lives of alleged offenders,

convicted offenders, and past and future

victims. There are many important

decisions which are shaped by the

offender’s current offense and which

necessitate knowledge of the offender’s

criminal history: judgments regarding

release pending trial, the setting of bail

amounts, sentencing and release

decisions, and determinations regarding

the appropriate level of community

supervision and offender monitoring.

From my perspective, there may be no

single criminal justice reform in our

Nation which is as important as

improving our criminal records systems

— virtually all of the decisions rendered

by justice system officials are based

upon the gravity of the offense and the

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993);

National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub.

L. No. 103-209 (December 20, 1993). The

text of these acts are included in this report

as Appendixes 1 and 10, respectively.

extensiveness and seriousness of the

criminal history.

The reason the criminal record is so

important to us is because study after

study have shown that the single best

predictor of future criminal conduct is

past criminal conduct. A 3-year BJS

follow-up study of a sample representing

109,000 released prisoners in 11 States

revealed that among those who had one

prior arrest, 5 percent were rearrested

within 3 months of prison release. Those

who left prison with a record of 11 or

more prior arrests were five times as

likely to be rearrested within the first 3

months after release.

I am certain everyone has seen

variations of the criminal justice

flowchart which first appeared in the

report of the 1967 President’s

Commission on the Administration of

Justice.2 There are literally dozens of

decision points in the criminal justice

system where the probability of

proceeding in one direction or another at

a particular branching point is largely

determined by the information that is

available. Similarly, decisions about

whether someone may purchase a

handgun or may obtain employment in

certain occupations will also be a

2 The flowchart was published in The

challenge of crime in a free society,

President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and Administration of Justice,

1967. An adaptation of this flowchart can be

seen in Use and Management of Criminal

History Record Information: A

Comprehensive Report, U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, by Robert R. Belair and

Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, November 1993) pp. 8-9.
Page 4 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

function of the quality and accessibility

of our records.

The criminal record has now become

more than a simple list of fingerprintbased transactions and occasional

dispositions — we are asking that record

to describe a criminal career and the

communal harm associated with that

career. It is an exciting and challenging

time to be in our business as new

expectations are emerging for criminal

history record information management.

After the full amount of appropriations

are decided for both the Brady and

National Child Protection Acts, Federal

financial resources will be targeted to

improving the information infrastructure

with a higher priority then ever before.

As this conference gets underway, I

want to thank Gary Cooper and Sheila

Barton of SEARCH for their outstanding

work in putting this conference together,

as well as the many other SEARCH staff

who have done so much to prepare for

this meeting and whose long-term work

has helped to cement the Federal-Statelocal partnership to improve criminal

history records nationwide. I want to

also thank BJS staffers Paul White, Don

Manson, Linda Ruder and Helen

Graziadei who have managed the 81

grants given to the States under BJS’

$27 million Criminal History Records

Improvement Program which is now in

its concluding stages and which is the

precursor to the grant assistance

programs that will be made available

under the Brady and National Child

Protection Acts. I want to especially

thank Carol Kaplan, BJS Assistant

Deputy Director, who has done a lot of

groundwork on the Brady and National

Child Protection Acts to help us prepare

for this meeting, as well as to prepare us

for what likely will be the largest

Federal initiative ever undertaken to

improve criminal history records

nationwide.
I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Setting the stage

Brady Act: The Federal perspective

Kent Markus

Brady Act: The Department of

Treasury perspective

Rebecca L. Hedlund

Brady Act: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms perspective

Robert J. Creighton
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 7

Brady Act: The Federal perspective

KENT MARKUS

Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

The agenda suggests that I am

supposed to talk about “the Federal

perspective” of the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act. That title

sounds curiously like the old adage, “I’m

from Washington and I’m here to help

you.” Yet we hope that that suspicious

sentence can be one which works in a

positive way with efforts to implement

the Brady Act.1

My assignment from Attorney

General Reno is to coordinate all activity

of the U.S. Department of Justice with

respect to implementing the Brady Act.

Part of that task is to prod the Federal

government to provide guidance,

information, resources and funds —

whatever it is we have to assist the States

in implementing the Brady Act.

Brady mission

To express a sense of what my

mission is like, I would like to describe

the Justice Department “alphabet soup”

that I have been dealing with. In an effort

to figure out how to implement the Brady

legislation and to give guidance,

assistance and advice, I have dealt with

the following:

• OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, to

obtain formal legal opinions about the

interpretation of the Act.

• BJS, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

to obtain the statistical information

which will help us plan and prepare

for an upcoming survey of the States

intended to assess the status of

criminal history records nationwide.

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993).

The text of the Brady Act is included in this

report as Appendix 1.

• FBI, the Federal Bureau of

Information, which I deal with almost

daily to develop systems for the

practical implementation of the

interim provisions of the Act and to

begin planning for the technology and

systems decisions central to the

national instant criminal background

check system required by the Act.2

• OLA, the Office of Legislative

Affairs, to try to obtain funding for

this effort.

• INS, the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to get access

to databases concerning illegal aliens.

• EOUSA, the Executive Office of the

United States Attorneys, which I talk

to about planning a training program

for U.S. attorneys all over the country

that will train them on how to bring

forth Brady prosecution actions and

prepare them for wrongful denial and

record correction litigation that is

authorized under the Act.

• OPD, the Office of Policy

Development, which handles much of

the intergovernmental and

interorganizational efforts of the

Justice Department.

• Finally, I work with OPA, the Office

of Pardon Attorney, on issues

associated with how civil rights

2 The interim provisions of the Brady Act

require that a 5-day waiting period for

handgun purchases be instituted nationwide

on February 28, 1994, to allow for

background checks of prospective purchasers

by the chief law enforcement officer of the

purchaser’s place of residence. The Act also

specifies that by November 30, 1998, an

automated system be in place whereby

national criminal background checks of

firearms purchasers can be completed

instantaneously.
Page 8 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

restorations will impact Brady

background checks.

All of that is just a sense of what is going

on in the Justice Department.

The other part of my charge is to be

the liaison with the other Federal

government agencies and with the State

governments on issues associated with

Brady Act implementation. Again, on

almost a daily basis (and sometimes

more frequently), I deal with my friends

at the Treasury Department and the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF). They have done

absolutely yeoman’s work in making

sure that everything is in place for the

implementation of the interim provisions

of the Brady Act. They deserve to be

recognized for having gone above and

beyond the call of duty within the short

time frames they faced.

I also deal with the State Department

regarding their databases which contain

information on “citizenship renunciates”

(people who have renounced their United

States citizenship). Believe it or not, one

of the categories in the Brady Law

prohibits these people from purchasing

handguns.

I also deal with the Defense

Department regarding persons who have

been dishonorably discharged from the

military. I expect to be dealing soon with

other Federal agencies, and even some

State agencies, about other categories of

persons prohibited from purchasing

handguns under provisions of the Brady

Law.

That provides a sense of the many

types of activities that are going on at the

Federal level. Between the efforts of the

Justice and Treasury Departments, the

ATF and the FBI, there is a fair amount

of activity going on within the Federal

government to get ready for the interim

provision implementation on February

28, 1994.

I recognize that all of this pales in

comparison to the work that is going on

out in the world beyond the Beltway. We

all recognize that the State and local

criminal justice agencies have the real

work to be done, in terms of making the

Brady Act and the National Child

Protection Act work. We recognize that

we need you a lot more than you need us.

Our pledge is to do everything we

possibly can to make your jobs easier.

Brady implementation

Let me explain where things stand

with regard to the upcoming Brady Act

deadline.

On February 28, 1994, gun dealers in

those States which do not have an

existing State law which requires a

background check for handgun purchases

— that is, a background check at the time

the gun license or permit is granted, or

some other kind of background check as

described in the Brady Law — will, for

the very first time, be obligated to wait

for background checks prior to the sale

of a handgun. The Treasury Department

has been working steadily with the States

to determine which States have statutes

that are acceptable alternatives to the

Brady-mandated procedures and which

States will be guided by the Brady Act

provisions. So that proper categorizations

can be absolutely finalized before

February 28, the ATF has placed each

State in preliminary categories, and

discussions between the various States

and ATF are ongoing. We recognize, of

course, that even those categorizations

will change over time as States pass new

laws and as procedures change. But as

far as February 28 is concerned, we

should know exactly where every State

stands when the Brady Law goes into

effect.3

In order to provide guidance to the

regulated community — the gun

dealers— ATF has promulgated

Treasury Regulations, which will be

published in the Federal Register and

widely distributed within the next few

weeks.4 In addition, ATF has been

3 A preliminary list was prepared by ATF

which categorizes all 50 States (1) as subject

to the Brady Law’s 5-day waiting period, or

(2) as having alternative systems which meet

the Brady Law requirements, or (3) as not

falling fully within either category. This list,

dated January 19, 1994, is included in this

report as Appendix 2.

4 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

“Implementation of Public Law 103-159,

conducting planning meetings at the

local level and providing practical

information about how Brady is intended

to work, in an effort to resolve State-byState questions regarding the officials

who will fulfill the Chief Law

Enforcement Officer function within

each State.

The FBI has been working hard to

make sure that they are ready to conduct

competent Brady checks through the

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) system. The FBI is currently

preparing relevant updates of the NCIC

user manual and is conducting training

sessions for law enforcement personnel

focusing on the technology involved in

implementing the Brady Act.

Finally, leading up to the February 28,

1994, deadline, the Justice Department,

the FBI, the Treasury Department and

the ATF have been working to ensure

that we are in sync in terms of the advice

we provide to the law enforcement

agencies throughout the country. Some

mailings have gone out, and there are

more to come. The Justice Department

will soon be able to provide some kind of

manual or written guidelines to ease the

implementation crunch, which we know

is coming to the States for which

background checks are new. We remain

confident, however, that on February 28,

gun dealers will know their obligations

and the law, as will law enforcement

agencies.

We recognize that it is all of you and

your colleagues who will actually

implement this law. We also recognize

that February 28 is only the beginning.

While background checks will become

the national rule for handgun purchases

on that date, we all know that the records

needed to support the computerized

instant record check system — which

must be in place by November 30, 1998

— are woefully inaccurate and

incomplete.

Including the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act,” Federal Register (14

February 1994) vol. 59, no. 30, pp. 7110-

7115. (To be codified at 27 C.F.R. §178.)
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 9

Record improvements

Our commitment at the Justice

Department is to do everything we can to

assist the States in improving the quality

of, and the access to, their criminal

history records. There are a number of

steps being followed in the Brady Law

which will result in improved records. To

those who are skeptical about the value

of the Brady Law as a crime-fighting

tool, I encourage them to remain openminded and enthusiastic about the

opportunities it provides for myriad

criminal history record improvements.

Through this legislation, $100 million

has been included in the President’s

budget for fiscal 1995 for criminal

history record improvements. I recognize

that the President’s budget, which was

released this week, did not include good

news for everybody. The budget did not

include the Bureau of Justice Assistance

Byrne formula grant money that, in

previous years, had required a 5 percent

set-aside for criminal history record

improvements. So although these funds

were not included in the President’s

budget, the budget does include

dramatically more funds than ever before

targeted for such improvements. Thus,

for those who considered this issue a

priority, criminal history record

improvements were a winner in the

President’s budget. It is our expectation

that those funds will be used for

improvements which will advance the

goals of the Brady Act, advance the

goals of the National Child Protection

Act, and advance all the other purposes

for which criminal histories are used.

What are the steps the Federal

government is taking toward improving

criminal history records?

(1) BJS, the Justice Department and

SEARCH will be conducting a

needs assessment survey — finding

out where the States are and what

needs to be done. The survey will

help us gather information so we

can ascertain the status of State

records systems in order to

appropriately move forward.

(2) Once the survey is completed, we

will work with the States to

establish the timetables for records

improvement which the Brady Law

requires the Attorney General to

establish for each State.

(3) Then, we will begin planning the

dispersal of Brady Act grant funds

in accordance with the timetables.

It is our clear intention to ensure

that those timetables are developed

through discussion and negotiation

with the States, and that they are

not just dropped down on the States

as a mandate from the Justice

Department.

(4) In addition and simultaneously to

these tasks, the effort has begun to

determine the technology and the

systems protocols that will be used

for the national instant criminal

background check system (NICS).

By the mandates of the Brady Act,

by June 1, 1994, the Attorney

General must make a declaration of

the system and the technology that

will used.5

(5) Finally, we will continue to work

toward gaining access to other

databases that will provide more

specific information about persons

prohibited from purchasing

handguns. We want those databases

to be checked in the most simple of

ways; we do not want to worry

about calling multiple sources in

order to check multiple databases.

Making Brady work

This is what is happening on the

Federal front, while operational criminal

justice agencies are trying to make all of

this work out as a reality at the State

level. You will be conducting

background checks and updating

criminal records; you will be tracking

down dispositions when a computer

shows an arrest but nothing more; and

you will be gathering statistics and data

5 The Attorney General issued the NICS

declaration in the Federal Register. U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney

General, “National Instant Criminal

Background Check System,” CAG Order No.

1882-94), Federal Register (1 June 1994) vol.

59, no. 104, p. 28423.

to respond to surveys and support your

grant requests. I also believe that you

will be keeping guns out of the hands of

those who should not have them, and

guaranteeing more reliable criminal

history information to those who need it.

You will be actively helping to prevent

crime in your community, making it a

safer place to live.

We have a lot of work to do here at

the Federal level to make the Brady Act

work, to make the National Child

Protection Act work, and to improve the

quality of criminal history records across

this country. At the same time, we

understand that the work we have to do

does not compare to what the States face.

So, as February 28 and June 1 come and

go, please do not hesitate to ask for help

— to demand help — when you think

there is something we can do to make

your jobs easier.

Thank you for your interest and your

commitment to this effort.
Page 10 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Brady Act: The Department of Treasury perspective

REBECCA L. HEDLUND

Legislative Policy Advisor to the

Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

U.S. Department of the Treasury

At the U.S. Treasury Department, we

have been very active and concerned

about the implementation of the Brady

Act.1 We have been working very hard

and closely with our Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and with

the Department of Justice. We have been

reaching out to State and local

governments, law enforcement agencies,

a number of interest groups and trade

associations. The Secretary of Treasury

and the Assistant Secretary for

Enforcement have both spoken a number

of times about the importance of the

Brady Act implementation. They fought

very hard to get it enacted, as did many

of you, no doubt, and they are now

anxious for us to move forward toward

February 28, 1994, with a good system in

place.2

Key to this effort, of course, are the

criminal history records that the States

must have in place. I think the Justice

Department and the States have a rough

5 years ahead of them as they work

toward development of a national instant

check system.

ATF, of course, has the authority and

responsibility to actually implement the

5-day waiting period. A number of

notices have been sent to agencies, to

law enforcement officials, and to other

interested parties concerning what will

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993).

The text of the Brady Act is included in this

report as Appendix 1.

2 Beginning February 28, 1994, the Brady

Act requires all States to begin conducting

pre-sale criminal history background checks

of handgun purchasers and imposes a 5-day

waiting period to enable those checks to be

completed.

be involved and what they are going to

have to do on February 28.

Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen has

stated that he wants to have the

regulations available before the February

28 deadline. ATF has been working

diligently to meet that deadline, and I

think the regulations will be available

next week — 2 weeks ahead of

schedule.3 Given the very tight time

frame, we are very pleased and very

proud of ATF for doing such a terrific

job.

In any event, I am going to keep my

presentation short and turn it over to Bob

Creighton. He is the Special Agent in

Charge of ATF’s Florida Field Division,

and was recently appointed to serve as

the National Brady Law Coordinator for

ATF. He has a lot of background in

terms of State and local government

cooperation, in management and in field

firearms enforcement work. We are

extremely pleased to have had him head

up the effort at ATF for the last few

months.

3 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

“Implementation of Public Law 103-159,

Including the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act,” Federal Register (14

February 1994) vol. 59, no. 30, pp. 7110-

7115. (To be codified at 27 C.F.R. §178.)
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 11

Brady Act: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms perspective

ROBERT J. CREIGHTON

ATF Brady Law Coordinator

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

U.S. Department of the Treasury

In looking at the tasks facing us after

the Brady Law was passed, we realized

that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF) would have a

tremendous education process to go

through — and, as such, a tremendous

information-sharing process. Of course,

any time a law is passed, one of the first

things that must be done is for

regulations to be developed and

produced. I must say, the Treasury

Counsel who works on a daily basis with

ATF has done an outstanding job in

writing them. Certainly these regulations,

which have just been written, will

probably set a new regulations

completion deadline record in the

Federal government.

After the regulations were written,

they had to go through a full review at

the U.S. Treasury Department. We also

have asked the Justice Department to

give us comments. They were able to

give us some excellent feedback which

we were able to include in the

regulations. I am happy to report that, as

we speak, the regulations are being

delivered to the Federal Register, and we

have a commitment that they will be

published by February 14.1

Upon issuance of the regulations, we

felt there were many more things that

had to be done. We had to look at just

who was affected by these regulations.

1 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

“Implementation of Public Law 103-159,

Including the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act,” Federal Register (14

February 1994) vol. 59, no. 30, pp. 7110-

7115. (To be codified at 27 C.F.R. §178.)

We now realize that the group which is

affected — that is, the group which must

actually implement the regulations — is

huge: about 280,000 licensed Federal

firearms dealers in the United States. In

addition, about 22,000 law enforcement

officials nationwide are affected as

well.2

Information process

As the regulations were being

developed, we felt we had to go forward

and start the information analysis

process. One of the first things everyone

wanted to know was: “Where do I fall in

Brady? How will Brady affect my

State?” To help with this, ATF has

developed a number of forms,

instructions and letters.

To begin this process, we issued a

one-page list titled “Preliminary list of

States subject to the Federal five day

waiting period or States having

alternative systems as defined in the

law.”3 This is just a preliminary list; this

list is likely to change, and it may very

well continue to change right up through

1998, when the Brady-mandated national

instant check system must be ready.

To develop this list, we asked our

Field Counsel to visit all the States and

obtain copies of whatever regulations

they found for instant check or permit

approval systems. After reviewing those

regulations with the various legal counsel

and our staff, we compiled this list. The

2 These figures were obtained from the

Uniform Crime Reporting lists provided by

the FBI.

3 This list, dated January 19, 1994, is

included in this report as Appendix 2.
Page 12 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

States are actually divided into three

categories:

(1) “States Which Must Comply With

the Federal 5-day Waiting Period.”

We define those as the “Brady

States.”

(2) “States Which Meet One of the

Alternatives to the Federal 5-day

Waiting Period.” We define those

as the “Alternative States.”

(3) “States Which May Not Fall Fully

Within Either Category.” For these

few States, there are some areas in

their State law which we do not

view as an acceptable “full

alternative” to the Brady Act. For

instance, a State’s handgun permit

law may not cover all felony

convictions; it may only cover

felonies involving violence. Of

course, since the Brady Law

addresses all felonies, the list stands

as it is.

After the State list was finalized, we

worked on disseminating the information

quickly. Keep in mind, with a group size

of 280,000 recipients, we felt we had to

get something into the hands of the

licensed firearms dealers as soon as

possible. The only way to accomplish

this major task was through the use of

mass mailings.

For that purpose, we developed two

separate informational letters to send out.

We decided it was necessary to break our

communication into these two

categories:

(1) Brady States were sent an “Open

letter to all Federal firearms

licensees subject to the waiting

period provisions of the Brady

Law,”4 and

(2) Alternative States were sent an

“Open letter to all Federal firearms

licensees not subject to the waiting

period provisions of the Brady

Law.”5

ATF then developed a form titled

“Statement of intent to obtain a

4 This letter is included in this report as

Appendix 3.

5 This letter is included in this report as

Appendix 4.

handgun(s).”6 Most people refer to this

as the “Brady Form.” It collects all the

information from the purchaser which is

required by the Brady Law. However,

after we developed the original form, we

talked to officials at the FBI National

Crime Information Center (NCIC) and

with terminal managers throughout the

country. They convinced us that still

more information was needed. So we

included certain “optional information”

boxes on the form: Social Security

Number, height, weight, sex and place of

birth. Not only is it advantageous to have

this additional information on the Brady

Form for those law enforcement officials

who will conduct the criminal records

checks, but it is also beneficial for the

sale of the gun because it can clear up

any questions of identity. At the very

least, it will speed up the process to

completion.

Disseminating Brady information

— Licensed firearms dealers

With the development of the Brady

Form and the two informational letters,

we have been able to disseminate Brady

information to licensed firearms dealers

in both Brady States and Alternative

States. In the Brady States, the licensed

firearms dealers were sent an

informational package containing the

letter and a list of States subject to the

Brady Law provisions. This put them on

immediate notice as to where they fall

within Brady Law requirements. The

packet also included Brady Form

instructions, and information on how to

obtain more forms. The licensed firearms

dealers in the Alternative States — those

which already require background

checks of handgun purchasers — were

sent the letter regarding the requirements

imposed on them by the Brady Law.

Multiple sales of firearms now have to

be reported to the State and local police

and to the Chief Law Enforcement

Officer (CLEO) in the purchaser’s place

of residence. For years, ATF has been

receiving the “Multiple Sales” form and

has found it to be quite an interesting

6 This form is included in this report as

Appendix 5

document. As a law enforcement tool, it

gives us a good indication as to who is

trafficking in firearms. For instance, if

someone is going from gun dealer to gun

dealer to gun dealer, buying five, six or

10 firearms in a short period of time, you

can almost be certain that the person is

involved in a trafficking scheme. This

tracking tactic has been a strategy for us

in enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968

for many years, and it certainly is going

to be of value to State and local law

enforcement as they join us in

eliminating firearms trafficking.

— State and local law enforcement

Also, we realized that not only do we

want to get immediate information out to

the licensees — the dealers — but we

also had to get information out quickly to

the law enforcement community as well.

In January 1994, we sent out an “Open

letter to State and local law enforcement

officials,” which provides an overview of

the Brady Act, and walks through the

particulars of the Act in finer detail,

noting what is going to be required of

State and local law enforcement by

February 28, 1994.7

Generally, up until now, a handgun

transaction in most States was between

the purchaser and the dealer. Then, if the

person committed a horrendous crime or

a series of violent crimes, the role of the

law enforcement officials, at that point,

was reactive. Law enforcement would

deal with the situation after it occurred.

But after February 28, 1994, that will

change with respect to handguns. The

law enforcement community is going to

be involved proactively. Before the

handgun is even sold, there will be an

up-front involvement by the law

enforcement community through the

conduct of a criminal records check.

Because of the many differing

circumstances covered by the Brady

Law, the new compliance information

needs to be conveyed. Again, in the case

of 22,000 State and local law

enforcement officials, we had to do that

quickly.

7 This letter is included in this report as

Appendix 6.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 13

Input from the States

The key part of ATF’s information

strategy was not simply a mass mailing.

We held meetings with State and local

law enforcement agencies and officials

throughout the United States. Early in the

development process, we were making

contact with the ATF Special Agents

who were in charge of our law

enforcement field divisions, our Regional

Directors of Compliance Operations

(whose job it is to regulate the industry

and assist law enforcement in firearms

matters), and the Legal Counsel we are

fortunate to have in the various regions.

We asked them to join together and form

a team; to familiarize themselves with

the Brady Law; and to read both the Law

and all the information we had prepared

and distributed to date. From there, they

made contacts with the State and local

law enforcement community.

In conjunction with that strategy, ATF

sent a letter to all State Attorneys

General explaining the Brady Law and

asking them to get involved in this

process at the State level. I am very

pleased to report that in the past 2 weeks,

we have had hundreds of worthwhile

meetings throughout the United States —

good meetings where we have been able

to discuss the Brady Law, talk about

what it means, discuss what an excellent

tool it can and will be for law

enforcement, discuss the needs out there,

and, finally, recognize that it is out there

doing good and that checks should be

done.

When discussing the area of criminal

record checks, we must realize that the

only check that is universal right now —

that is, the only check that can be done in

every State — is the check for a criminal

record. At the same time, however, we

must also recognize that there are some

States which can conduct a check in

other areas, such as mental health

records, to see if the individual has been

committed, adjudicated or declared

mentally defective. If States can conduct

checks that extend beyond criminal

history records, we encourage them to do

so.

There are a couple of issues we are

exploring and trying to resolve in those

meetings. One is that there is still much

to be done to educate the States about the

requirements of the Brady Law. Most

importantly, before February 28, we need

to identify those officials in each State

who will serve as Chief Law

Enforcement Officers (CLEO) and who

will be responsible for conducting the

Brady handgun sale checks.

As mentioned, we have been requiring

ATF field personnel to report in

concerning the results of our Brady Law

information effort. From information we

have received thus far, it appears nine of

the Brady States (those which must

comply with the Federal 5-day waiting

period) have already made a decision as

to how they will work.

The next step will be to produce

another informational letter. This time,

we plan to send the letter to the CLEOs

and to all the firearms dealers, advising

the dealers (1) who the CLEO is in their

area, and (2) where they should go after

February 28, 1994, to request the Brady

background check. Meanwhile, the

dealers in the Alternative States, such as

Florida, Delaware, Maryland and

Wisconsin, will continue to do business

as usual, using the records check or

permit systems already in place in their

particular State.

Final preparations

As the next 2 weeks unfold, we hope

to be issuing letters on a daily basis to

each State in order to assist them in

ascertaining whether they are functioning

correctly. Because we want to be

absolutely certain these letters are correct

in content, we will send the letters back

out to our field entities and ask them to

verify the following: “Is this the result of

the meetings, conversations and

discussions which you had in your

particular State?” Once the letter is

confirmed, we will then be able to send it

to the firearms dealers. When February

28 comes, we feel confident that the

dealers in a Brady State will have a

supply of Brady Forms on hand with

instructions on where it should be sent.

By way of our contact with law

enforcement, we also intend to use aids

like the National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System and other

means of communicating messages to

every State and the law enforcement

community about what our current

situation is and what they can expect. We

believe that when the law goes into effect

on February 28, there will be good

compliance in virtually every State.

As the date draws nearer, we are

asking our Compliance Operations

personnel to continue to hold meetings.

We plan to start conducting firearms

seminars which we will invite all the

licensed firearms dealers to attend. This

is the process we have used for many

years. These meetings will explain the

Brady Law process even more fully and

will answer any questions individuals

may have.8

We also have instructed our field

personnel to be as prepared as possible.

If we must employ several thousand

people to go out into the field, make

these contacts and solve problems (that

is, answer telephones, give advice to a

firearms dealer or help a law

enforcement official), we are going to do

it. And, as time goes on, if we see that a

particular State is not resolving its

particular issues or problems, we plan to

visit that State, hold additional

information meetings, and make the

Brady process work.

We are committed to a process which

we believe, on February 28, 1994, will

ensure that a good quality criminal

history record check will be done on

every handgun sale in the United States.

Further, as new systems are developed

and technological advances are made, we

are committed to support State- or

national-level use of any other record

check which may be possible.

8 ATF also developed, continually updated

and distributed a “Questions and Answers”

sheet on the Brady Act. A copy of this, dated

March 18, 1994, is included in this report as

Appendix 7.
I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Setting the stage

Requirements, regulations and procedures

of the Brady Act: Panel

Moderator’s remarks

Robert R. Belair

Brady Act regulations and requirements

Stephen R. Rubenstein

FBI operational status report and

Felon Identification in Firearms Sales Program

Virgil L. Young Jr.

Report of study on identifying persons,

other than felons, ineligible to purchase firearms

Thomas F. Rich
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 17

Panel on requirements, regulations and procedures

of the Brady Act: Moderator’s remarks

ROBERT R. BELAIR

General Counsel

SEARCH

First, let me say a brief word about

this panel. They are experts and excellent

speakers, and each has worked hard to

prepare informative material and

illustrations to enhance his presentation.

We plan to talk about what the Congress

did not do in terms of the Brady Act.1

And that is not so much a criticism of the

Congress as it is an expression of the

extremely difficult issues the Congress

faced — difficult from a policy

standpoint and difficult from a political

standpoint. As you know, it took the

Congress 7 years, and the instant check

system provision was really an

afterthought. The Brady Bill started out

being a “waiting-period” bill. So, right

from the beginning of the introduction of

the background check discussions, there

was significant confusion and

misinformation, a great deal of debate

about timetables, architecture and

Federal help. Yet with the bill now in

place, many if not most of those

questions still remain unresolved.

Today we will talk about (1) what is a

reasonable effort in a pre-instant check

environment; (2) what should the

national instant check design look like;

and (3) what about other Brady-type

databases? It seems to me the reason the

Congress left so much unresolved is that

the Brady Act is truly ambitious. I think

that most proponents and opponents

would say it may not be ambitious from

the standpoint of curing the problems of

gun violence. However, the notion that

there could be a national point-of-sale

system, with checks on a name basis and

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993).

which could be initiated by noncriminal

justice, is unprecedented.

Many of you know that in 1988, the

Congress directed the Attorney General

to “develop a system for the immediate

and accurate identification of felons who

attempt to purchase” firearms.2 The

Brady Bill is really a follow-up to that

legislation. Now, 6 years later, we are

still a long way from having a system (at

least on a national basis) for the

immediate and accurate identification of

felons who attempt to purchase firearms.

From an information standpoint, the

reason for that is that the implementation

of such a mandate requires extensive

automation, telecommunications, a

felony flagging or identification

capability, adequate disposition

reporting, on-line identification

capability, and strategies for sharing this

information on a national basis. For some

States, this is a tremendously ambitious

undertaking.

There is also controversy associated

with a national system. For instance,

once the system is in place, how long

will it be before other potential users

come along with compelling needs to

say, “We have to get into an instant

national background check system.” We

already see shades of that possibility

with the National Child Protection Act.

At the same time, there has been a

significant learning curve for the

Congress. This has turned out, however,

to be a benefit, in that Congress is far

more educated today about criminal

record systems, about problems which

arise in these record systems and about

2 Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, §6213,

Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181.
Page 18 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

the importance of these record systems.

We see real evidence of that benefit in

what happened with the Brady Act: the

Brady Act originally had a $100 million

authorization, but the Senate changed

that, and now the law has a $200 million

authorization.

Let me close by providing an

overview of the panel presentations:

Stephen Rubenstein from the Treasury

Department will discuss checks that are

done in a pre-national instant check

environment, as well as the draft Brady

regulations being developed by the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms. Virgil Young from the FBI

will focus on Federal capabilities for a

national instant check system. And

Thomas Rich from QED is going to look

ahead at the databases that would be

tapped if you were to do a complete

check (under the 1968 Gun Control Act)

to identify all the individuals who, under

Federal law, are disabled from

purchasing firearms (such as illegal

aliens, those who are dishonorably

discharged from the military, drug users

and mental-defectives).
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 19

Brady Act regulations and requirements

STEPHEN R. RUBENSTEIN

Senior Counsel, Firearms and Explosives Unit

Office of the Chief Counsel

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Before I discuss the Brady Law

regulations which will be published in

the Federal Register on February 14,

1994, I want to talk briefly about how the

Brady Law generally fits in terms of the

Federal firearms laws.1 Many of you are

aware that the Brady Law amended the

Gun Control Act.2 Perhaps for some of

you, the Brady Law is your first contact

with the Federal firearms laws.

The Gun Control and Brady Acts

Since 1968 and the passage of the

Gun Control Act, the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has

licensed manufacturers, importers and

dealers in firearms. Under the Gun

Control Act, these persons generally can

sell firearms to residents of their own

States. They must abide by State and

local laws in making these sales. They

also must keep detailed records of all

their firearms transactions. Lastly, these

required records and forms inventories

are subject to inspection by ATF. In

addition, Federal firearms licensees are

prohibited from selling firearms to any

person they know (or have reasonable

cause to believe) might fit into one of

seven enumerated categories. (These are

the same categories which are now

applicable under the Brady Law.)

Since 1968, it has been unlawful for

licensees to sell firearms to persons who:

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993).

The text of the Brady Act is included in this

report as Appendix 1.

2 Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§

921-930.

• Are under indictment for, or who have

been convicted of, a crime punishable

by more than a year in jail;

• Are fugitives from justice;

• Are unlawful users of, or addicted to,

a controlled substance;

• Have been adjudicated as a mental

defective, or committed to a mental

institution;

• Are aliens who are illegally or

unlawfully in the United States;

• Were dishonorably discharged from

the military; and

• Have renounced their United States

citizenship.

Despite the existence of these

“prohibited” categories, there was only

one Federal requirement aimed at

preventing persons who fit in these

categories from purchasing a firearm: the

buyer had to complete the ATF Form

4473 (what is known as the “Firearms

Transaction Form”). On this form,

buyers certified their name and

residence, and stated that they did not

fall within any of those “prohibiting”

categories. In those States that have no

instant background check system, permit

procedure or waiting period for firearms

purchases, the licensee examined this

form and made a determination as to

whether the buyer had filled it out

correctly. If so, the licensee then made an

over-the-counter transfer of the handgun

or other firearm.

The Brady Law has now added an

additional means of screening out

prohibited purchasers by imposing a

waiting period of 5 business days.

During that time, the dealer is required to

notify the Chief Law Enforcement

Officer (CLEO) of the purchaser’s
Page 20 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

residence of the proposed sale of a

handgun.

As mentioned, the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act amended the

Gun Control Act of 1968. Thus, because

the ATF has authority to enforce the Gun

Control Act, it enforces the Brady Act as

well.

Since the Federal firearms licensees

have been working with the Gun Control

Act for many years, I believe they have

somewhat of an advantage over State and

local law enforcement agencies. They are

aware of the requirements of the Gun

Control Act and who they can and cannot

sell firearms to. They are aware of all the

recordkeeping provisions of the law, plus

the form requirements. To law

enforcement agencies, however, this is

all very new. Like others affected by

Brady, law enforcement agencies want to

(1) know what is required of them, and

(2) be sure they do all that is required of

them.

Brady regulations

In order to implement the Brady Law,

ATF has issued regulations which serve

to advise the firearms industry of what

the law requires them to do.3 These

regulations contain the nitty-gritty

specifics of what the law will require of

them. (In that regard, like other Federal

agencies, ATF issues regulations for the

regulated industry and the law stipulates

what is required.) Normally when we

issue regulations, we issue what is called

a “Notice of Proposed Regulation.” This

tells everyone involved that the ATF

intends to issue regulations to implement

a particular statute. The Gun Control Act

requires that we give at least a 90-day

period for “Notice and Comment” on

these regulations before we issue what

are called the “Final Regulations.” After

receiving the comments and input, we

evaluate whether the proposed

3 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

“Implementation of Public Law 103-159,

Including the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act,” Federal Register (14

February 1994) vol. 59, no. 30, pp. 7110-

7115. (To be codified at 27 C.F.R. §178.)

regulations should be modified in any

way to reflect that input.

Unfortunately, the regulations that

will be published on February 14, 1994,

could not go through the typical “Notice

and Comment” process because of the

tight time frame that was involved. Thus,

they will be issued as “Temporary

Regulations,” effective on February 28,

1994. At the same time, ATF will also

issue a “Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking,” which will serve to advise

the public that these regulations have

been issued, but to also indicate that we

are still requesting comments. There will

be a 90-day period during which those

comments can be received, and we will

solicit comments on these regulations

from criminal justice officials, firearms

licensees and the public at large. After

the comment period closes, the

comments will be evaluated and, at some

point, final regulations will be issued to

implement the Brady Law.

The regulations are directed primarily

at Federal firearms licensees. They are

the persons who must be licensed by

ATF in order to do firearms business.

The regulations present, in some detail,

what is required and imposed upon the

licensees under the new Brady Law.

Brady State requirements

The Brady Act itself is relatively

straightforward in stating what is

required of a licensee when a person

comes in to purchase a handgun after

February 28, 1994. Let us talk primarily

about the requirements imposed on the

“Brady States” (States in which firearms

licensees must comply with the Federal

5-day waiting period).

The Federal firearms licensee must

obtain a Statement of Intent to Obtain a

Handgun(s), the so-called Brady Form,

from the buyer.4 The Brady Form has

the buyer’s name, address and date of

birth on it. (This information must also

appear on a valid photo identification.)

The buyer must certify that he does not

fall within any of the categories which

prohibit him from purchasing the

4 The Brady Form is included in this report

as Appendix 5.

handgun. The dealer (or other type of

licensee) must then verify the buyer’s

identity by examining the photo

identification presented, and must note

on the form what valid form of

identification is used.

At that point, two things have to occur

within 1 day after the buyer furnishes the

Brady Form to the dealer:

(1) The dealer must provide notice of

the information on the form to the

Chief Law Enforcement Officer

(CLEO) of the buyer’s place of

residence.

(2) The dealer must transmit a copy of

the form to that particular CLEO.

These two requirements might be done at

the same time. For instance, the licensee

may fax a copy of the form to the CLEO.

This would provide not only notice of the

form being filed, but also would provide

the copy of the form. Or a licensee might

walk down to the local Police Chief and

hand-deliver the form within the 1-day

period. That would also qualify as

providing the actual notice along with a

copy of the form. On the other hand, the

dealer may do business a long distance

from the CLEO, so the Brady Act

contemplates that dealers can provide

notice of the Brady Form contents to the

CLEO via telephone. The dealer must

then note on the form that the CLEO was

notified via telephone, and then the

dealer also must send a copy of the form

to the CLEO.

Next, the dealer must wait 5 business

days (from the date the CLEO received

notice of the sale) before transferring the

handgun to the buyer. If the dealer

receives notice from the CLEO that there

is no information that indicates the buyer

would be violating the law by obtaining

the handgun, then the transaction can be

completed before the 5 days have

elapsed. Once that information is relayed

back to the dealer, the dealer can

complete the sale. If the dealer hears

nothing at all from the CLEO, the dealer

may complete the sale after the end of

the fifth business day.

Brady exceptions

There are certain exceptions or

alternatives to the 5-day waiting period
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 21

required by the Brady Law. In fact, many

States have permit, approval-type or

instant check systems in place which are

acceptable alternatives to the 5-day

waiting period.

— Permits

The first is the permit exception. In

those States that issue permits to persons

obtaining handguns, a records check of

the individual is conducted before the

permit is issued. And if a permit has been

issued to the buyer within the past 5

years, dealers in those States will not

have to fill out a Brady Form. However,

those dealers will have to keep a record

of the fact a permit was issued. (This

allows ATF to ascertain whether the

dealer has complied with the provisions

of the Brady Law.)

— Pre-sale background checks

The second alternative is systems

which conduct background checks at the

time of sale. This varies in different

States. In some States, like Virginia and

Florida, the system involves an

instantaneous criminal history record

check of the handgun purchaser. Other

States have systems in place in which

background checks are conducted at the

time of sale. That is, the buyer fills out

an application at the time of the firearm

purchase; the application is sent to

authorized government officials; and the

buyer faces a waiting period of a certain

number of days (typically five or seven)

so that a record check can be done.

— Threat to life

The third alternative involves a

“threat to life.” The buyer provides the

dealer with a written statement obtained

from the buyer’s CLEO, stating that the

buyer requires a handgun because of a

threat to the buyer’s life or any member

of the buyer’s household. This written

statement must be dated within the 10-

day period of the buyer’s most recent

proposal to acquire a handgun.

— Firearms “class”

The fourth alternative pertains to a

certain class of firearms which fall under

the National Firearms Act (which

controls certain types of weapons such as

machine guns, short-barrelled shotguns,

short-barrelled rifles and destructive

devices).5 A small class of handguns

falls within the purview of this Act. In

order to purchase one of those firearms,

the buyer must submit an application,

pay a tax and undergo a complete

criminal history record check. When that

application is approved by ATF, the

buyer can pick up the firearm from the

dealer. Buyers of these types of firearms

do not have to comply with the Brady

check.

— Geographic alternative

Finally, certain purchases fall within

what is known as the “geographical

alternative” to the waiting period. The

Brady Law anticipated that there may be

some areas of the Nation where, because

of the area’s remoteness, it would be

impractical to notify the CLEO of the

buyer’s intent to obtain a handgun. The

law says the ATF has to look at the ratio

of the number of law enforcement

officers in the State in relationship to the

number of square miles of land in the

State (not to exceed .0025); whether the

licensee’s business premises are

extremely remote relative to the location

of the CLEO; and whether there is an

absence of telecommunication facilities.

Dealers who believe they fall within

this “geographical alternative” have to

submit two things: a request to ATF

stating that they believe they fall within

the alternative, and relevant supporting

information. Should the dealers be

certified by ATF as meeting the

requirements of this alternative, they

would then be exempt from the 5-day

waiting period requirements.

Brady transactions

Typical Brady transactions will go

like this: the dealer will call or send the

Brady form to the CLEO. In many cases,

the dealer will not hear back from the

CLEO, and at the end of the fifth

business day, the handgun can be

transferred. It will be business as usual.

The dealer is still required to keep both

5 26 U.S.C. §5801-5849.

the Firearms Transaction Form (ATF

Form 4473) and a copy of the Brady

Form indicating that the dealer has

complied with the requirements of the

Brady Law.

We anticipate that, in most situations,

this type of transaction will occur on a

daily basis. Of course, on February 28,

1994, we hope to have copies of the

regulations, the forms, and the list of the

CLEOs within each respective

jurisdiction in the hands of all licensees.

We understand what can happen when a

new law is implemented. Obviously,

ATF stands ready, along with the

Treasury Department, the Justice

Department and, most importantly, the

local police organizations, to help ensure

that the law is implemented in as smooth

a manner as possible.

We all recognize there will be unique

situations in which a dealer simply will

not know who to call. He or she will

believe the correct contact has been

made with the right CLEO. But that

person might say, “I’m not the right

CLEO” or “You need to talk to someone

else.” We recognize these

inconveniences will probably happen

during the first part of the

implementation of the Brady Law. We

also recognize, however, that a vast

majority of Federal firearms licensees

want to make sure that they comply with

the law. Like law enforcement agencies,

the dealers want to ensure that people

who should not obtain handguns, do not

obtain them. They have as big a stake in

this as those of us who work for the

Federal government and those of you

who work for State and local

government.

Thus, on February 28, 1994, and the

days that follow, we stand ready to assist

the licensees and law enforcement

officers within the country, to ensure that

the Brady Law can be implemented as

smoothly as possible. We want to work

together to meet the goal of the Brady

Law: to ensure that those persons who

are not entitled to handguns do not get

them, and yet those persons who are

entitled to handguns can receive them.
Page 22 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

FBI operational status report and Felon Identification

in Firearms Sales Program

VIRGIL L. YOUNG JR.

Section Chief

Programs Development Section

Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

First, I would like to comment on the

remarks made previously by my learned

colleague, Kent Markus. Kent said he

thinks the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF) has done a

tremendous job in completing their

assigned tasks in a very short period of

time. I, too, have dealt on almost a daily

basis with ATF since the Brady Law was

passed, and I can say they have done a

tremendous job.

The FBI has been a bit more fortunate

than ATF, in that we have not been given

the assignment to do things in such an

expeditious manner. But I think that what

the FBI will have to do is going to be just

as important in the long run, as what

ATF has to do is important in the shortterm.

Of course, one of the things we must

do is to develop a design for the national

instant criminal background check

system (NICS) which must be in place

within 5 years of the passage of the

Brady Law.1 Unfortunately, we have to

come up with a design for that system by

June 1, 1994. We also have to be able to

tell the gun dealers how they are going to

contact the national system, and we have

to tell law enforcement what the system

is going to look like. So we do have a big

task ahead of us in the next few months

as well.

My discussion today covers the

following:

• The system requirements of the NICS;

1 The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention

Act, Pub. L. 103-159, was passed November

30, 1993. The text of the Brady Act is

included in this report as Appendix 1.

• Activities the FBI will undertake in

the next few months to develop a

design for the system;

• The current status of the Interstate

Identification Index (III), which is

going to be the foundation for the

instant check system; and

• The Felon Identification in Firearms

Sales (FIFS) Program, an ongoing

effort to try to flag convicted felons in

III.

NICS requirements

Let me begin with a discussion of

what the system requirements are for

NICS. First, the Brady Law requires that

the Attorney General establish a national

instant criminal background check

system by November 30, 1998. It

requires each dealer and Chief Law

Enforcement Officer (CLEO) to know

about the system and how to contact it.

Keep in mind, we are not just talking

about handguns at that point but all

firearms transactions. The most recent

figures that I am aware of indicate that

there are approximately 7.5 million

firearms transactions in this country

every year. This means that by 1998, the

system will have to be able to handle a

tremendous number of contacts.

One of our problems in designing this

instant check system is going to be to

figure out how we are going to take the

current State systems — systems that the

States are very pleased with — and retrofit those into a national system. At this

time, it is our belief that we probably will

not have a completely uniform system

throughout the country. By that, I mean
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 23

that the way the system is contacted may

vary from one State to another.

The FBI held a planning conference

yesterday with over 150 people from all

the States. We talked briefly about some

of the requirements of the system,

including things like response times,

security, how to ensure that only

approved gun dealers have access to this

system, how we can give them only the

information they need to know, and

whether or not someone is approved to

make the firearms purchase. We also

discussed the timetable the FBI has

established for developing and

implementing a design for the NICS.

System design timetable

As mentioned, by June 1, 1994, the

Attorney General must determine the

type of computer hardware and software

that will be used to operate the national

instant criminal background check

system mandated by the Brady Law, and

the means by which State records

systems and Federal firearms licensees

will communicate with the national

system.2 We have established the

following timetable for the next few

months that will help us meet this

deadline.

• During February 1994, we are going

to issue a Request For Information to

industry so they can tell us what

hardware and software has been

developed which might be used by the

dealers to contact this national system.

We are going to take the information

we collect, review it, and try to

determine appropriate hardware and

software for the instant check system.

• In March 1994, we are going to run a

topic paper by our regional working

groups for the National Crime

Information Center Advisory Policy

Board (NCIC APB). This will help us

collect ideas from the control terminal

2 The Attorney General issued the NICS

declaration in the Federal Register. U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney

General, “National Instant Criminal

Background Check System,” CAG Order No.

1882-94), Federal Register (1 June 1994) vol.

59, no. 104, p. 28423.

officers and the State identification

bureau chiefs regarding what elements

they believe should be part of the

NICS design.

• In the second week of April 1994, we

are going to host a get-together of

State identification bureau chiefs and

others who are experts in these

systems to help us try to assess our

needs and capabilities, and to develop

a design for the overall system.

• During the second week in May 1994,

we will present the results of all our

efforts at a meeting of the NCIC APB,

and then make our recommendations

to the Attorney General so that she

can publish the design of this system

by the deadline of June 1, 1994.

That is our intended schedule. It is an

ambitious one, I can assure you. I hope

that we can do as well in meeting that

schedule as I believe ATF is doing in

meeting their more immediate schedules

here.

III status

I am going to address the status of the

Interstate Identification Index (III),

which is going to be the basis for the

instant check system required by the

Brady Law.3 I believe that we are doing

3 The Interstate Identification Index (III) is

a national index that draws upon the

combined criminal history record databases

of the State repositories, allowing for the

interstate and Federal-State exchange of

criminal history record information. Under

III, the FBI maintains an identification index

to persons arrested for felonies or serious

misdemeanors under State or Federal law.

The complete records, meanwhile, remain in

each State’s criminal record repository or in

the criminal files of the FBI. The index —

which contains only identification

information, FBI numbers and State

identification numbers (SIDs) — serves as a

“pointer” to refer inquiries to the State or

Federal files where the complete records are

maintained.

Search inquiries from criminal justice

agencies nationwide are transmitted to III

automatically via State telecommunications

networks and the FBI’s NCIC

telecommunications lines. Searches are made

on the basis of name and other identifiers.

The process is entirely automated and takes

very well with the III, and I am very

pleased with the passage of the Brady

Law because it is going to focus attention

on the III. More importantly, for the

States, it is going to focus funds on

improving existing criminal history

records in State systems.

Why do we need the Interstate

Identification Index? This chart (Figure

1) shows that two-thirds of the persons

who are arrested have a prior criminal

history. At every stage of contact, the

criminal justice community must know

what the prior arrest record is, what the

conviction record is, and so forth, for that

person who is arrested.

Why do we need something like III on

the national level? Because 20 to 30

percent of persons with a prior record

have been arrested in more than one

State. There has been a lot of talk in the

last few months about the fact that the

States hold over 50 million records on

people who have been arrested. The

problem is this: just because information

is available in one State does not mean it

is available to other States. One

particular State could have a tremendous

approximately 5 seconds to complete. If a hit

is made against the Index, record requests are

made using SIDs or FBI numbers and data are

automatically retrieved from each State

repository holding records on the individual

and forwarded to the requesting agency.

(Responses are provided from FBI files where

the State originating the record is not a

participant in III.)

III ensures high-quality criminal justice

responses because, in most cases, data are

supplied directly by the State from which the

record originates. At present, the system

operates for criminal justice inquiries only.

Participation in III requires that a State

maintain an automated criminal history

record system capable of responding

automatically to all interstate and

Federal/State record requests.

For more complete information about the

III and national criminal history record

checks, see Use and Management of Criminal

History Record Information: A

Comprehensive Report, U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

History Information Policy Series, by Robert

R. Belair and Paul L. Woodard, SEARCH

Group, Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1993) pp. 49-63.
Page 24 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

automated system available to people

within the State, but unless that system

can be accessed by an agency in another

State, it is literally worthless for doing a

national check. That is where III comes

in.

Twenty-six States currently

participate in the III (Figure 2). Nevada

joined III in December 1993, and we

anticipate that additional States are going

to join in the next several months.

The III States have coordinated — or,

if you will, “linked” — our computers so

that the records can be updated by the

State computer systems or by the III

system. Thus, information that comes out

of the State systems is the same

information that comes out of the Federal

system.

Almost 19 million individuals have

records in III. Some of those people,

obviously, have records in more than one

State. But we think that is a tremendous

number, since this system only became

operational in 1983. We have been

slowly progressing to make sure that our

computers are linked with the States.

Although we are very pleased with III,

we recognize we have a long way to go.

FIFS Program

The Justice Department was mandated

by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to

develop and report to Congress on a

system for the immediate and accurate

identification of felons who attempt to

purchase firearms.4 To comply with that

mandate, the Felon Identification in

Firearms Sales (FIFS) Program was

implemented. This program carries over

State record flags into the III for flagging

criminal records. In those States that use

III to conduct firearms-related checks,

and if proper programming has been

completed, operators conducting records

checks of individuals can immediately

see from the Index whether that person

has a felony conviction. They do not

have to look at the detailed criminal

history record. At that point, the State

operator knows he or she can deny the

sale because that person is disqualified

4 Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, §6213,

Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181.

from purchasing a firearm under Federal

law.

We began a pilot project with the

Virginia State Police in December 1992,

and it is currently being accessed by

police agencies all over the country.

There are three separate flags in the

system:

(1) The first is the “F” flag, which is

used when the subject’s record

contains one or more felony

convictions. Again, that means that

the operator conducting the check

does not have to look at the details

of the criminal history record. At

one glance, the operator can

immediately determine that the

person is prohibited from

purchasing the firearm.

(2) The “M” flag is used when the

subject’s record contains only a

misdemeanor conviction, and there

are no pending open charges. This

means that at that point, the

operator also would not have to

peruse the details of the subject’s

record. Rather, the operator can

immediately ascertain that the

subject is qualified to purchase a

firearm, even though the subject

does have a record in the system.

(3) The “X” flag covers the majority of

the records. Those are the records

in which (a) no flag has been

established (because no one has

reviewed the record yet to see if

there is a disqualifying felony

conviction) or (b) there is an open

charge, but no disposition is shown.

In these cases, the operator has to

pull up the details of that subject’s

criminal history record to see if it

contains a disqualifying conviction.

After we reviewed the results of the

pilot project with Virginia, we found that

it was working very well. At this point,

we have expanded the project so that two

other States (Illinois and Missouri) are

also providing their felony conviction

flags on-line to the system.

In late 1993, we conducted a survey

asking the other States when they would

be able to begin giving us their felony

conviction flags as well. Figure 3 shows

those States that have indicated that they

may be participating in FIFS by 1995 or

after. Figure 3 also shows those States

which have indicated that they have no

plans to participate in FIFS. (I believe

the one State which cannot participate is

New Jersey because a State law prohibits

disseminating some of that information.)

Finally, Figure 3 shows those States

which did not respond to our survey or

whose response was indeterminate. Still,

we are going to pursue this effort.

Figure 4 shows an example of the

type of record that law enforcement will

get back from a FIFS request. Basically,

the record provides the subject’s name,

some descriptive data, fingerprint

classifications, identifying information,

and so forth. It also says, “The following

criminal history record is maintained and

available from the FBI,” and includes the

FBI number. This particular record says,

“Court disposition is pending; conviction

status unknown.” It then lists

“Minnesota,” along with an SID and a

felony conviction flag, and “Delaware,”

along with an SID and an indication of

no felony convictions in that State. When

the operator accesses that information

from the Index, there is no need to call

Minnesota's computer and go into the

details of the record. Rather, the operator

can deny that sale immediately based

upon the existence of a felony conviction

in Minnesota.

That is basically what we are doing

with the Felon Identification in Firearms

Sales Program.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 25

INTERSTATE

IDENTIFICATION INDEX

JOINT FEDERAL/STATE PROGRAM FOR THE

RAPID INTERSTATE EXCHANGE OF

CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD

INFORMATION

• Two-thirds of persons arrested have

a prior record

• 20% to 30% of persons with a prior

record have been arrested in more

than one state.

Figure 1: Statistics which support need for the Interstate Identification Index
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 29

Report of study on identifying persons,

other than felons, ineligible to purchase firearms

THOMAS F. RICH

Senior Analyst

Queues Enforth Development, Inc.

In July 1989, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics selected Queues Enforth

Development, Inc. (QED) to conduct a

study to determine if an effective method

exists for the immediate and accurate

identification of persons, other than

felons, who attempt to purchase firearms

but who are ineligible to do so under

Federal law.1 I am going to provide an

overview of the persons who are in these

categories, established pursuant to the

Gun Control Act of 1968.2

These are the key issues we looked

into when we were doing our study:

• Who is and who is not covered under

these categories;

• What are the current sources of data

on persons in each of these categories;

• What is the category population; and

• What are the current legal restrictions

in accessing information on these

persons.

1 A document providing the highlights and

executive summary of this study was

prepared by QED and distributed at the

conference. It is included in this report as

Appendix 8.

2 Section 922(g) of Title 18, U.S. Code,

stipulates the categories of persons, other than

felons, ineligible to purchase firearms: (1) a

person who is an unlawful user of, or

addicted to, any controlled substance; (2) a

person who has been adjudicated as a mental

defective or who has been committed to a

mental institution; (3) an alien who is

illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

(4) a person who has been dishonorably

discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces; and

(5) a person who has renounced U.S.

citizenship. These eligibility categories also

apply to the Brady Act for purposes of

handgun purchase denials.

Ineligibility categories

There are five categories of persons,

other than felons, who are ineligible to

purchase firearms under Federal law.

The first two of these categories are

fairly straightforward, while the other

three present unique problems.

— Dishonorable discharges

The first category is persons who have

been dishonorably discharged from the

armed forces. The Defense Department

has an office in California that maintains

an automated database of all

dishonorably discharged persons. It is

estimated that since 1941, about 20,000

people have been dishonorably

discharged. It is a pretty small category.

In terms of accessing this information,

we were told that these records are

governed by the Federal Privacy Act,

which prohibits access to this

information, without the individual’s

permission, for any purpose for which it

was not intended.3

— Citizenship renunciates

The second category is persons who

have renounced their U.S. citizenship. In

this case, the State Department maintains

an automated database that lists all

persons in this category. Again, it is a

small population — about 10,000 people

have renounced their citizenship since

1941 or so. About 200 people are added

to this category each year. In terms of

accessing this information, the Federal

Privacy Act applies here as well, limiting

access to this information.

3 Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522a.
Page 30 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

— Drug users

A third category concerns unlawful

users of controlled substances. The one

problem with this category is that the

statute indicates that these persons

should be current users, as opposed to

former users. Unfortunately, when we

did the study, there were no

interpretations from different courts on

what this actually means. The Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)

has indicated that there has to be

evidence of some current use. One

possible way to obtain information on

current users is to access drug treatment

databases, which are actually protected

by some State confidentiality laws. One

point to make about this category,

however, is that there is some overlap

between persons in this category and

persons who are ineligible to purchase

firearms because they are convicted

felons. For example, the National

Institute of Justice’s Drug Use

Forecasting program has demonstrated

that a high percentage of arrestees test

positive for drug use. Thus, Federal and

State criminal history databases contain

many persons who are not only

convicted felons, but who are also

undoubtedly current drug users who are

not included in any of the drug treatment

or other drug-related databases.

— Illegal aliens

A fourth category is illegal aliens. Not

surprisingly, there is no single

centralized list of all the persons who are

in this country illegally. However, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

does maintain an automated database of

all persons entering legally which could

be used to obtain information on those

aliens who have overstayed their visa.

However, these “overstayers,” as we

might call them, probably constitute a

very small percentage of all illegal

aliens. Again, as with some of the other

categories, there is some overlap with

other persons whose records are already

in the State criminal history repositories.

— Mental health commitments

The fifth category is probably the one

of most interest. Here, the Gun Control

Act indicates that persons committed to

mental institutions cannot purchase

firearms. The ATF, along with a number

of different courts, has interpreted this to

be a commitment by courts, authorities,

commissions and boards with

jurisdiction over mental health matters. It

does not cover what are called

“voluntary commitments.” The reason

this is important to understand is shown

in Figure 1.

Periodically, the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services surveys

mental institutions regarding the status of

different persons who were admitted. At

the time we did this survey, this was the

most recent information they had. As

Figure 1 shows, out of the 1.5 million

persons admitted to mental institutions in

1986, about 75 percent came under the

category of voluntary commitments.

These persons, then, would not be

affected by the Gun Control Act.

Figure 1 also shows what are called

the “noncriminal commitments,” which

constitute a little under 25 percent of all

commitments. As it turns out, only about

half of these persons would be covered

by the Gun Control Act. Remember, the

commitment has to be by a court in order

for the person to be ineligible to purchase

firearms.

Finally, only about 2 percent of all

admissions to mental institutions are

“criminal commitments.” Almost all of

these persons are, in fact, covered by the

statute. It is important to understand the

bottom line: Only about 1 out of every

10 persons entering mental institutions in

1986 would actually be covered under

the Gun Control Act provisions.

If we are interested in accessing this

mental institution information, where do

we go? There are two different

approaches. One is to go through the

courts. It turns out that almost all persons

in this category went through the court

system. The State criminal history

repositories probably have information

on a lot of the criminal commitments. In

terms of the other kinds of noncriminal

commitments, there is an obstacle to

overcome: strong State confidentiality

statutes which apply to these records.

The other possible source of information

is the State mental health departments.

Unfortunately, at the time we did this

survey, almost all State databases only

contain data on those persons who are

admitted to State facilities (which leaves

out admissions to private psychiatric

facilities and veterans’ hospitals, for

example), and that constitutes about half

of all of the persons covered under this

statute. Again, in almost all States, there

are strict confidentiality statutes

protecting this information. Obviously,

there are a lot of obstacles one would

have to overcome to access this

information.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Existing systems

The Illinois experience: 25 years of firearms control

through comprehensive background checks

Gary D. McAlvey

Current presale firearms checks: Panel

The Virginia point-of-sale

Firearms Transaction Program

Capt. R. Lewis Vass

The Oregon system: Fingerprint checks

and the waiting period

Lt. Clifford W. Daimler

The California system: Access to other databases,

name searches and the waiting period

Edward J. (Jack) Scheidegger
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 35

The Illinois experience: 25 years of firearms control

through comprehensive background checks

GARY D. MCALVEY

Inspector, Division of Administration

Illinois State Police

During the past 25 years, Illinois has

attempted to control the purchase and

possession of firearms and firearm

ammunition through legislation. The

Firearm Owners Identification Card Act

and the Firearm Transfer Inquiry

Program have combined to provide an

effective firearms control program.

The Firearm Owners

Identification Card Act

The Firearm Owners Identification

(FOID) Card Act was enacted by the

Illinois General Assembly, effective July

1, 1968.1

The FOID Card Act, the first and only

of its kind in the country, provides a

means to identify persons who are not

qualified to acquire or possess firearms

and firearm ammunition. It provides for

the issuance by the Illinois State Police

(ISP) of a Firearm Owners Identification

card to all qualified persons. The card

has a term of 5 years.

The FOID Card Act requires a person

to have in their possession a currently

valid FOID card to acquire or possess

firearms (both long guns and handguns)

and firearm ammunition in the State of

Illinois.

— Exclusions and exemptions

The FOID Card Act defines a firearm

as “any device that is designed to expel a

projectile(s) by means of an explosion, or

an expansion or escape of gas.” Excluded

from the Act are the following:

1. Air guns, spring guns and BB guns

which expel a single globular

projectile which is not greater than

.18-inch in diameter and whose

1 ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 430, para. 65 (1968).

muzzle velocity is less than 700 feet

per second. Paint ball guns which

fire breakable paint balls are also

exempt from the Act. Thus, .22-

caliber pellet guns and those air and

pellet guns whose muzzle velocity

exceeds 700 feet per second are

firearms covered by the FOID Card

Act in the State of Illinois.

2. Signaling devices used on watercraft

and their cartridges.

3. Stud guns and their cartridges.

4. Antique firearms and ammunition

manufactured prior to 1898.

The FOID Card Act exempts

numerous individuals and groups from

its provisions. Included in the

exemptions are:

• Peace officers;

• Veterans groups during parades and

ceremonies as long as blank

ammunition is used;

• Members of the military while

engaged in official duties;

• Nonresident hunters;

• Nonresidents at a firing range or

firearms show recognized by ISP;

• Nonresidents whose weapons are

unloaded and cased;

• Nonresidents who are licensed to

possess a firearm in their resident

State;

• Unemancipated minors in the custody

of a parent or legal guardian; and

• Hunters exempted by the State

Department of Conservation.

The FOID Card Act provides

reciprocity for the purpose of obtaining,

possessing or using a rifle, shotgun and

ammunition in the contiguous States

(Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky

and Indiana) and for residents of those

States 18 or older who obtain, possess or
Page 36 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

use a rifle, shotgun and ammunition in

Illinois.

— FOID application process

A person acquires a FOID card by

submitting a notarized application which

includes the applicant’s name, sex, race,

date of birth, address, photograph and

signature, and which certifies that the

applicant (and his parent or guardian, if

the card-seeker is a minor) is not

prohibited by law from acquiring a card.

Persons are prohibited from obtaining a

FOID card if they:

• Have a felony conviction;

• Are a minor convicted of a nontraffic

misdemeanor;

• Are a minor adjudicated delinquent;

• Are addicted to narcotics;

• Were a patient in a mental institution

in the past 5 years;

• Are determined to be a clear and

present danger to themselves or

others; or

• Are mentally retarded.

A FOID card application must be

accompanied by a $5 fee, which is

allocated as follows: $3 to the Wildlife

and Fish Fund, $1 to the General

Revenue Fund, and $1 to the FOID

Notification Fund.

The information contained on a FOID

application is entered into the FOID

automated system. This information is

then used to initiate inquiries into the

Law Enforcement Agencies Data System

(LEADS) and the National Crime

Information Center (NCIC). The LEADS

inquiry queries the Illinois Computerized

Criminal History (CCH) file and Illinois

wanted persons files. The NCIC inquiry

queries the Interstate Identification Index

(III) and national wanted persons files.

Additionally, the data from the FOID

application are entered to a file which is

compared each day against a file of all

persons who have been a patient in a

mental hospital within the past 5 years.

All matches are verified and if

confirmed, result in a denial of the

application.

The Illinois State Police has 30 days

to approve or deny an application, and

must provide written notice of the reason

for denial.

— FOID revocation process

The revocation process is an ongoing

series of checks against files containing

information which would disqualify a

person from possessing a FOID card and

from possessing firearms and

ammunition. The entire FOID file is run

each day against the statewide mental

patient file maintained by the Illinois

Department of Mental Health and

Developmental Disabilities. All verified

matches against current FOID cardholders result in revocation. The ISP

must provide written notice of the reason

for revocation of a FOID card, and also

has authority under the Act to seize a

revoked FOID card.

In the late 1980s, Illinois encountered

a situation which had not been

anticipated by the authors of the FOID

Card Act. The Laurie Dann incident, in

which a mentally ill young woman

obtained firearms and used them to kill

and maim a number of children in an

elementary school, led to a reevaluation

of the FOID Card Act. Ms. Dann had not

been hospitalized in Illinois, was eligible

to obtain a FOID card, and could legally

purchase firearms and firearm

ammunition. This incident led to the

“clear and present danger” amendment of

the Act. The amendment allows ISP to

deny the application or revoke the FOID

card of “A person whose mental

condition is of such a nature that it poses

a clear and present danger to the

applicant, any other person or persons in

the community.” Mental condition is

defined as “a state of mind manifested by

violent, suicidal, threatening or

assaultive behavior.” Reports on

individuals thought to be a clear and

present danger are reported to ISP by

police officers, family members, the

clergy, psychiatrists, psychologists and

members of the community.

A person whose application is denied

or whose card is revoked may request

relief from ISP. However, persons

convicted of forcible felonies as defined

in the Illinois Criminal Code may not

apply for relief until 20 years after

conviction or at least 20 years have

passed since the end of any period of

imprisonment imposed in relation to that

conviction. The first step in the relief

procedure is a fact-finding conference

conducted by ISP. Following that, the

person may request an administrative

appeal hearing before an administrative

law judge. Finally, if the administrative

appeal hearing results in a denial, the

person may appeal that decision directly

to the Circuit Court pursuant to the

Administrative Review Law.

— Other facts

• The FOID Card Act requires ISP to

provide written notice of expiration at

least 30 days prior to the card’s

expiration date.

• There is no preemption provision in

the FOID Card Act and local units of

government may and have imposed

greater restrictions on the possession

and acquisition of firearms and

firearm ammunition.

• The FOID file is available for access

by peace officers through the LEADS

system. This allows a peace officer to

immediately verify the status of a

FOID card encountered in the line of

duty.

• Violations of the FOID Card Act are

Class A misdemeanors.

The Firearm Transfer Inquiry

Program

Although the FOID Card Act was

pioneering and effective in the control of

firearms and firearm ammunition, it was

not without its weaknesses. One of the

major weaknesses was the inability to

conduct a daily criminal history check of

all legal card-holders to determine their

continued eligibility. The FOID file is

run monthly against the CCH files

maintained by ISP. This still creates a

30-day window during which a convicted

felon can still acquire firearms and

firearm ammunition without being

detected. Likewise, there is no provision

to allow Illinois to run a tape of the

automated FOID files against the III

files. Individuals convicted in other

States or by the Federal courts go

undetected until they reapply for a FOID

card at the end of 5 years.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 37

— FTIP amendment

During the 1991 legislative session,

the Illinois General Assembly amended

the FOID Card Act to create the Firearm

Transfer Inquiry Program (FTIP). This

Act was signed into law on September

19, 1991, and became effective on

January 1, 1992.2 The legislation

provided that “the Department of State

Police shall provide a dial-up telephone

system which shall be used by any

federally licensed firearms dealer who is

to transfer a firearm under the provisions

of the Act (the FOID Card Act).” It

further provided that “the Department

shall utilize existing technology which

allows the caller to be charged a fee

equivalent to the cost of providing this

service but shall not exceed $2.” The bill

also provided that the fees shall be

deposited in the State Police Services

Fund and used to operate the program.

Further, ISP is to provide an immediate

response or notify the dealer of a

disqualifying objection within the

waiting periods found in the Deadly

Weapons Act — 24 hours for long guns

and 72 hours for handguns.

The legislation defined the FTIP

inquiry as an “automated search of the

ISP computerized criminal history files,

those of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation Interstate Identification

Index and the files of the Department of

Mental Health and Developmental

Disabilities.” The purpose of the

inquiries is to identify any felony

convictions or patient hospitalizations

which would disqualify a person and

require the revocation of a currently

valid FOID card.

— FTIP process

The ISP allows any federally licensed

firearms dealer to register and be

enrolled in the FTIP program. Each

enrolled dealer is provided a unique

enrollment number.

FTIP is unique in that it uses a “900

number” telephone system connected to

2 ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 430, para. 65/3.1

(1991).

an automated call director which

manages the calls as they are received

and routes them to the next available

operator. Dealers may also inquire using

their touch-tone telephone to access a

voice response unit (VRU) and complete

a fully automated FTIP inquiry.

An FTIP inquiry requires the dealer to

initiate the call, provide the unique

Federal Firearm License number, the ISP

enrollment number and the FOID card

number of the transferee. Upon initiation

of the inquiry, the FOID card number is

used to verify the validity of the FOID

card and to obtain the necessary data

elements from the FOID file to allow

inquiries to be launched to criminal

history and wanted persons files. These

inquiries include the NCIC III and

wanted persons files, and the Illinois

CCH and wanted persons files.

The FTIP system receives all

responses, evaluates the response

information and formulates a response

message which is sent to the operator’s

terminal or the dealer connected to the

VRU. Three responses are possible: (1)

an approval, (2) a denial, or (3) a “not at

this time” message. Each response

message also includes a response number

which is provided to the dealer for future

audit and inquiry purposes. Felony

arrests without dispositions or hits on

wanted persons both result in “not at this

time” responses and start the clock of the

statutory waiting period within which

ISP has to respond to the inquiry. The

system has a 30-second timer and

although most inquiries are completed

within this time period, those which are

not result in a “not at this time” message.

Dealers are contacted and provided an

approval or denial of “not at this time”

inquiries as soon as the necessary data

are obtained. In the event the response is

not provided to the dealer within the

statutory waiting period, the dealer may

legally complete the transaction at the

end of the applicable time period.

— FTIP benefits

One of the major benefits of the FTIP

program is the identification of persons

wanted on warrants. The local law

enforcement agency having jurisdiction

over the location of the firearms dealer is

immediately notified of the warrant

information. It is then left to the local

law enforcement agency to carry out the

apprehension of the subject if the warrant

is verified as valid.

Firearms dealers are allowed to use

either method of accessing the FTIP

system. The use of the “900” telephone

system requires a new call for each FTIP

inquiry. The use of the “900” telephone

number significantly increases the

effectiveness of the program as it

eliminates the need for ISP to account for

calls and then bill and receive funds from

enrolled dealers. Instead, a check and a

detailed printout are received from the

“900” service provider each month.

The legislation which created the

FTIP amendment to the FOID Card Act

has a sunset provision which repeals the

FTIP language on September 1, 1994.

— Firearms control committee

The ultimate future of firearms

control in Illinois rests with a committee

created by the amendment. The

amendment contains a requirement for

the Governor to appoint a nine-member

committee to “study and make

recommendations to the Governor and

the General Assembly regarding the

continuation or abolition of the ‘dial up

system’ or the ‘Firearm Owners

Identification Card Act’ or any

combination thereof ... .”

Membership on the committee is

comprised of “the Mayor of Chicago, or

his representative; a State’s Attorney; an

individual representing a private

organization that opposes strict

regulation of firearms; an individual

representing a private organization that

supports strict regulation of firearms; and

four members of the General Assembly,

one each nominated by the President and

Minority Leader of the Senate and the

Speaker and Minority Leader of the

House of Representatives.”

Felon Identification in Firearm

Sales

Illinois is a participant in the NCIC III

Felon Identification in Firearm Sales

(FIFS) Program. All persons entered into
Page 38 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

the III by the Illinois State Police who

are felons have a “felon” flag entered in

their record. Additionally, the Illinois

CCH files also flag the records of all

felons. The felon-flagging process

expedites inquiries made into both III

and CCH as part of the FOID application

screening process and the FTIP screening

process. The III felon-flagging is also

available to all criminal justice users to

assist in expediting firearms-related

inquiries.

Facts and Figures

— FOID

The total number of active FOID

records as of December 31, 1993, was

1,234,621. Each year the FOID section

processes approximately 250,000

applications, including those of both new

and renewal applicants. For the first 24

years of the program, the size of the

FOID active file stayed at approximately

1 million. However, since the inception

of FTIP on January 2, 1992, the number

of active FOID records has increased

each year.

During 1992, 2,896 applications for a

FOID card were denied for failure to

meet the requirements of the Act.

Included in these denials were 2,019 for

felony convictions, 235 for minors with

misdemeanor convictions, 598 for mental

hospitalization, 18 for a “yes” answer to

disqualifying questions on the

application, and 2 as a result of perjury

on the application.

During 1992, a total of 3,001 FOID

cards were revoked. Included in these

card revocations were 772 for felony

convictions, 92 for misdemeanor

convictions by minors, 2,074 for mental

hospitalization, and 17 as a result of

perjury on the application.

The total number of applications

denied for 1993 was 4,409. Included in

these denials were 3,382 for felony

convictions, 715 for mental

hospitalization, 274 for minors with

misdemeanor convictions, 18 for a “yes”

answer to disqualifying questions on the

application, and 9 as a result of perjury

on the application.

During 1993, a total of 3,311 FOID

cards were revoked. Included in these

card revocations were 1,442 for felony

convictions, 120 for misdemeanor

convictions by minors, 1,689 for mental

hospitalization, and 17 as a result of

perjury on the application.

— FTIP

At the end of 1993, there were

approximately 10,500 federally licensed

firearms dealers in the State of Illinois.

Of this number, 6,653 dealers were

enrolled in the FTIP program. The

difference between the total number of

dealers and those enrolled in FTIP is the

difference between those dealers

operating as a business and those dealers

who deal for their own collection and

those of friends. If dealers deal for

anyone other than themselves, they are

required to be enrolled in the FTIP

program. The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) indicates

that since January 1, 1994, there has been

a dramatic increase in the number of

firearms licenses being surrendered. The

FTIP program was notified by ATF of 10

license cancellations during the first

week of January 1994.

During 1992, FTIP processed 171,940

inquiries from firearms dealers, which

resulted in 1,234 denials. Of the total

denials, 46 were for persons whose FOID

card had been revoked for a felony

conviction and the card had not been

returned; 45 were persons whose FOID

card had been revoked as a result of

mental hospitalization and the card had

not been returned; and 23 were convicted

felons identified by FTIP.

The 1992 FTIP inquiries also

identified 367 persons as being wanted

on warrants. The majority of these

warrant hits were for traffic- and motor

vehicle-related offenses. However, 66

were individuals wanted for criminal

offenses. ISP was advised that 34

individuals were apprehended as a result

of local law enforcement officials being

notified of the FTIP contact.

During 1993, the total FTIP inquiries

increased to 203,936, which resulted in

1,160 denials. Of the total 1993 denials,

63 were for persons whose FOID card

had been revoked for a felony conviction

and the card had not been returned; 94

were persons whose FOID card had been

revoked as a result of mental

hospitalization and the card had not been

returned; and 63 were convicted felons

identified by FTIP.

The 1993 FTIP inquiries identified

437 persons as being wanted on

warrants. Of these, 96 were wanted for

criminal offenses. Local authorities

apprehended 94 individuals as a result of

the FTIP warrant notices.

A comparison between 1992 and 1993

FTIP activity shows a 19 percent

increase in the total number of inquiries,

and a six percent decrease in the total

number of denials. The denial rate during

1992 was .72 percent, which decreased

in 1993 to .57 percent. Forty more

convicted felons were identified and

denied during 1993, an increase over

1992 of 174 percent. The number of

persons identified as wanted on warrants

increased 19 percent, and the total

warrant apprehensions increased by 176

percent.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 39

The Virginia point-of-sale Firearms Transaction Program

CAPT. R. LEWIS VASS

Records Management Officer

Records Management Division

Virginia State Police

The Virginia Firearms Transaction

Program, which became operational on

November 1, 1989, provides for a timely,

point-of-sale, approval/disapproval

decision regarding the sale of certain

firearms, based upon the results of a

criminal history record information

check concerning the prospective

purchaser.

This program authorizes properly

licensed and registered gun dealers to

request criminal history record

information checks on prospective

purchasers by calling the Department of

State Police via a toll-free number,

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.,

7 days a week, including all holidays.

The purchaser’s name and certain

personal descriptive data are

immediately entered into a computer

system while the dealer remains on the

telephone.

Our clientele consists of the firearms

dealers and prospective firearms

purchasers in Virginia and other States.

The program currently serves 6,487

firearms dealers and an unknown number

of individuals who purchase firearms in

Virginia.

Initially, the weapons requiring presale approval in Virginia were:

(1) Any handgun or pistol having a

barrel length of less than five

inches; or

(2) Any semiautomatic center-fire rifle

or pistol that is

(a) provided by the manufacturer

with a magazine which will

hold more than 20 rounds of

ammunition, or

(b) designed by the manufacturer

to accommodate a silencer or

bayonet, or

(c) equipped with a bipod, flash

suppressor or folding stock.

Effective July 1, 1991, the pre-sale

approval was extended to include all

guns sold in Virginia, except antique

firearms as defined in the Code of

Virginia Section 18.2-308.2:2.

Approximately 1,000 new dealer

registrations were processed for the

Firearms Transaction Program due to this

legislation and the annual volume of

firearms transactions increased about 250

percent.

The 1993 General Assembly amended

and reenacted Section 18.2-308.2:2 to

require firearms dealers to report to the

Virginia State Police the number of

firearms by category intended to be sold,

rented, traded or transferred and to

prohibit any person who is not a licensed

firearms dealer from purchasing more

than one handgun within any 30-day

period without approval from the State

Police.

Statistics captured by category during

the firearms transactions from July 1,

1993, through December 31, 1993,

support the following totals of firearms

sold or transferred during that period:

• Rifles — 52,262;

• Shotguns — 29,906;

• Pistols — 35,293;

• Revolvers — 14,139.

The Virginia State Police is

responsible for accepting and processing

Multiple Handgun Purchase Applications

and approving Multiple Handgun

Purchase Certificates, when purchases in

excess of one handgun within a 30-day

period can be justified. As of December

31, 1993, 155 applications had been

processed supporting the issuance of 123

Multiple Handgun Purchase Certificates.
Page 40 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Instantaneous checks

The design of the Virginia program

eliminates the traditional waiting periods

associated with other programs of this

type by electronically accessing criminal

history records and “wanted” databases

at the National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) and the Virginia Central

Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) and

providing an almost instantaneous

approval/disapproval decision to firearms

dealers concerning the firearms sale.

The computer simultaneously

accesses five national and/or State

databases. Three of the databases are

maintained by the Virginia State Police,

two of which are accessed through the

Virginia Criminal Information Network:

Virginia’s wanted persons files and

criminal history record files. The third

Virginia State Police database accessed

is a calendar file of handgun purchases

required to monitor and enforce lawful

handgun limitations. The fourth database

accessed during this background check is

the NCIC, which contains the national

wanted persons files. The fifth database

accessed is the Interstate Identification

Index (III), which contains the national

criminal history record files maintained

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If an identification is not made in one

or more of these files, the computer

responds “YES,” the sale is approved

and a unique computer-generated

approval number is provided to the

firearms dealer for that transaction. If an

identification is made, however, the

computer responds “NO, THE SALE IS

NOT APPROVED AT THIS TIME,”

and review of criminal history

information is required to determine

lawful eligibility of the prospective

firearms purchaser to possess or purchase

a firearm. Since the program began in

1989, there has been a daily average of

4.03 denials.

This program was the first of its type

in the Nation. On the average, it takes 2

minutes to provide a firearms dealer with

an approval/disapproval decision. With

the exception of replicated programs in

other States, all other programs require

waiting periods varying from 3 to 15

days or longer before an

approval/disapproval decision is made.

Virginia was able to implement this

program because the CCRE maintained

by the Virginia State Police is one of the

most complete records repositories in the

Nation and provides the database for the

Firearms Transaction Program.

As of January 1, 1994, the CCRE had

919,000 individual records in the

criminal history record files. All records

are flagged as felony or misdemeanor

records and are contained in the

computerized name file. Over 90 percent

of these records contain court

dispositions. Virginia is a participating

State in III and has contributed over

286,000 records in this file.

Firearms transaction checks

Virginia’s approach to firearms

records checks does not infringe on an

individual’s ability to purchase or

possess a firearm, while those

individuals who are prohibited by State

or Federal law are denied legal access to

firearms. One of the most significant

problems experienced in operating the

instant point-of-sale program is

interpreting the varied methods of

recording and reporting arrest and court

disposition information by other States or

foreign countries.

The State Police Bureau of Criminal

Investigation Virginia-Interpol Liaison

Network has been instrumental in

helping to query and interpret foreign

criminal history records accessed during

the Firearms Transaction Program’s

criminal history record check process.

Recently, Virginia-Interpol assisted in

determining dispositions of felony

charges reported in Canada, England,

France, Spain and Guam.

Since its inception on November 1,

1989, through December 31, 1993,

603,324 firearms transactions have been

processed through the Firearms

Transaction Program. Of this amount,

6,135 were disapproved because the

prospective purchaser was prohibited by

State or Federal law from purchasing or

possessing a firearm. A total of 343

fugitives have been identified, with 143

(approximately 42 percent) apprehended

as a result of this program.

Firearms Investigative Unit

As an aggressive initiative to curtail

illegal firearms activity and to prosecute

individuals who violate firearms laws,

effective August 1, 1992, the Virginia

State Police implemented a Firearms

Investigative Unit (FIU) to supplement

the Firearms Transaction Program. The

FIU is a centralized, statewide program

to enforce firearms legislation and

investigate alleged illegal firearms

transactions. It works in cooperation with

local, State and Federal authorities to:

 (1) Reduce the number of guns

illegally purchased in Virginia and

transferred to other States where

stricter gun control laws are in

effect;

(2) Track cases where felons have

attempted to purchase weapons;

(3) Contact registered gun dealers to

monitor compliance with Section

18.2-308.2:2 of the Code of

Virginia to ensure that this statute is

being enforced; and

(4) Enforce firearms laws at gun shows

throughout Virginia.

Since its inception, the FIU has been

involved in task forces, in conjunction

with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, that oversee investigations and

prosecutions involving intrastate and

interstate gun-running activities. In

addition, beginning July 1, 1993, the

Virginia State Police found it necessary

to become the leading agency for all

investigations of illegal attempts to

purchase firearms. As of that date, all

illegal attempts to purchase a firearm

based on State and/or Federal

prohibitions are assigned to a sworn

officer of the Virginia State Police for

investigative purposes. Since the

program’s inception in November 1989,

the State Police has confirmed 718

arrests for falsifying documents related

to the sale of firearms; 154 of these

arrests have been made since July 1,

1993.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 41

Costs and funding

Legislation requires that the $2 and $5

fees collected by firearms dealers be

used to offset the cost of the Firearms

Transaction Program. Start-up costs of

the program in fiscal 1990-91 were

projected as follows: $314,600 in salaries

and benefits, $18,800 for postage, and

$123,500 for telecommunications,

totaling $456,900.

The Firearms Transaction Program

has been expanded to include databases

for processes required by 1993

legislation:

• A central repository, known as the

Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse, of

information regarding all firearms

seized, forfeited, found or otherwise

coming into the possession of any law

enforcement officer which are

believed to have been used in the

commission of a crime;

• A repository of concealed weapons

permits issued by all Virginia Circuit

Courts; and

• A calendar file of handgun purchases

to monitor and enforce lawful

purchase limitations and Multiple

Handgun Purchase Applications and

Certificates.

This expansion increased staffing of the

Firearms Transaction Program from 15

to 28 employees, and also increased the

current expenditure to $696,341 annually

(see Figure 1). The fee mandated by

statute falls short of covering

expenditures of this program.

Total personnel services.............. $425,147

Total contractual services............... 133,665

Total supplies and materials............... 2,700

Total continuous charges................. 11,225

Total equipment ................................... 876

[Total subprogram...................... $573,613]

Additional full-time positions

and fringe/related costs ............... $122,728

Adjusted projected costs..........$696,341

Figure 1: 1993-94 expenditure

projections

Conclusion

The Virginia Firearms Transaction

Program has begun its fifth year of

operation in Virginia and significant

success has been noted:

• Virginia no longer has the street or

media reputation of being the chief

East Coast gun supplier for crimes

committed elsewhere.

• The General Assembly has repaired

weaknesses to strengthen and support

its intent to fight crime.

• 143 fugitives have been apprehended

who might not have been otherwise.

• Citizens who have the right to own a

gun are not inconvenienced with

delays because of the criminal

element.

• Over 6,000 individuals, prohibited by

law from owning, possessing or

transporting firearms, have been

denied access to firearms.

• Aid has been provided in solving

previously unsolved crimes.

Virginia is the acknowledged Nation’s

leader in point-of-purchase firearms sales

record checks. Virginia’s system is what

lies beyond the Brady Bill.
Page 42 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

The Oregon system: Fingerprint checks and the waiting period

LT. CLIFFORD W. DAIMLER

Director, Identification Services Division

Oregon Department of State Police

My intent is to briefly describe the

Oregon presale firearms check system to

provide an overview of what we are

doing.

The Oregon law went into effect

January 1, 1990, and is enforced in

addition to the current Federal statutes.1

The Federal firearms licensee (FFL, also

known as the firearms dealer) has to

comply with the Oregon statute, as well

as the paperwork requirements imposed

by the Federal firearms statutes.

Firearms sales checks

Oregon designed a new triplicate form

that the firearms dealers must use.2

Similar to other pre-sale check systems,

the prospective firearms purchaser must

present two pieces of identification, and

one piece must have a photograph on it.

This is normally accomplished by the

purchaser presenting a driver’s license or

identification card obtained through the

Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles.

The dealer must fill out the form so

that everything is completed correctly,

and then the dealer and the purchaser

must sign on three parts of the form.

Then, what is somewhat unique for

Oregon, the law requires that the

purchaser’s thumbprints be imprinted on

the third part of the form. The firearms

dealer retains the original part of the

form and keeps this on file, as is also

required by Federal law. The duplicate is

either hand-delivered or mailed on the

day of the sale to the local law

enforcement agency in the jurisdiction

where the sale occurred. So if a dealer

from the southern part of the State travels

1 ORS 166.420.

2 Oregon’s “Dealer’s Record of Sale of

Handgun” is included in this report as

Appendix 9.

to a gun show in Portland (the northern

part of the State) and sells a handgun, the

duplicate has to be delivered to either the

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office or

the Portland Police Bureau, depending

on which jurisdiction the dealer is in.

The triplicate part of the form — which

contains the applicant’s thumbprints —

has to be mailed or hand-delivered to the

Oregon State Police Identification

Services Section on the day of the sale.

Local law enforcement has 15

calendar days to check to see if the

purchaser is disqualified from purchasing

a handgun. The Oregon State Police has

10 working days to run a fingerprint

check, using only the thumbprints,

through the Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS). Sometimes

the 10-day deadline is pretty tight. We

are a 5-day-a-week operation, 8 hours a

day, and we are closed Saturdays,

Sundays and most holidays. Thus, if a

handgun sale occurred on a Thursday

and there is a holiday on Friday, we lose

several working days for accomplishing

that check. So far, we have been able to

stay in compliance with the law.

After the 10 days, or whenever we

finish processing the fingerprints at the

State level, we send the triplicate part of

the form to the local law enforcement

agency (which had received the duplicate

part of the form from the dealer). During

the time the local authorities have had

the duplicate form, they will have made

all the appropriate checks into the “hot”

files to see if the applicant is wanted, and

into their local files or the files of the

applicant’s residence to see if there are

any court indictments. They also check

the mental health records in Oregon. The

only check done at the State level is the

fingerprint check inquiry; local law
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 43

enforcement does the actual criminal

history and hot file inquiries, based on all

the data given to them, as well as on

what we may find at the State level. For

most applicants, we do not find a

criminal history record.

Waiting period exceptions

There are very few exceptions to the

15-day waiting period. In Oregon, people

can obtain a concealed handgun license,

which allows them to carry any type of

lawful handguns in the State of Oregon

— the same as any police officer, with

very few exceptions. A concealed

handgun license-holder cannot, of

course, carry that firearm onto Federal

property or into an Oregon courthouse

that has been restricted by a judge. Thus,

the person who holds that valid Oregon

Concealed Handgun License can go into

an FFL dealer and purchase a handgun

without undergoing the waiting period.

The paperwork must still be filled out

and processed as previously described,

including thumbprints from the

purchaser. However, the handgun dealer

can give that concealed handgun licenseholder the firearm at the time of the sale,

and the 15-day waiting period does not

apply.

Obviously, Oregon is going to have to

shift gears here and comply with the

Brady Law. At the very least, concealed

handgun license-holders in Oregon may

have to wait the 5 days, as mandated by

the Federal law. On the other hand,

Oregon may possibly fall within that part

of the Brady Bill that exempts permitholders from the waiting period. In that

case, we may still be able to continue as

we have.

Penalties, disqualifications

Oregon’s penalty for violating the

firearms waiting period law is very

similar to penalties under the Brady Law:

We classify it as a “C” felony, which has

a penalty of 5 years and/or a $100,000

fine.

Regarding purchase disqualifications,

persons under age 18 are not allowed to

purchase firearms in Oregon. Obviously,

Federal law sets it at age 21. We do

comply with Federal law requiring the

firearm seller to be age 21. Handgun

dealers in Oregon are put in a bad

position, in that Oregon law allows them

to sell handguns to persons 18 and older,

while the Federal law restricts the sale to

persons aged 21 and over.

Other obvious disqualifications are if

the person has been convicted of a

felony; found guilty (except for insanity)

of a felony; has any outstanding felony

arrest warrants; and is free on any form

of pre-trial release from a felony, and so

forth. (These disqualifications include a

felony citation. That is important because

felony citations are issued quite often in

Oregon, to the point where a lot of

people are not taken into full-custody

arrest for the lower-grade felonies.)

If a person was committed to the

Mental Health and Developmental

Disabilities Services Division and was

found to be mentally ill and subject to an

order by a court, the person is prohibited

from purchasing or possessing a firearm

as a result of that mental illness. And,

when these court orders are issued, they

are sent to the Department of State Police

Law Enforcement Data System, and we

put those orders into the computer

system so we can track them.

Other disqualifiers under the Oregon

firearm statute are if a person has been

convicted of a misdemeanor involving

violence, or found guilty (except for

insanity) of a misdemeanor involving

violence within the previous 4 years.

Oregon law describes those violent

misdemeanors as follows: assault in the

fourth degree (normally domestic

situations where people are beating up

each other); menacing (where the

perpetrator threatens physical force);

recklessly endangering another person;

assaulting a public safety officer; or

intimidation in the second degree (based

upon a person’s race, color, religion,

national origin or sexual orientation).

As mentioned, Oregon uses a

triplicate form to record handgun sales.

Oregon uses many of the same questions

used by the Federal government,

although we put an “Oregon” twist on

them. For example, we allow multiple

handgun sales (that is, we do not restrict

how many handguns can be purchased in

any given period of time).

On the back side of the triplicate form

that is sent to the State Police, there is an

area for the thumbprints and for the plain

impressions. Oregon State law requires

only the thumbprints on the handgun

sales form; it does not require all 10

impressions. However, we do encourage

the gun dealers to put the simultaneous

or plain impressions on the handgun

sales form anyway. It does help us be

more efficient. This reduces the number

of rejects that we will get in. If we get in

the triplicate, and a thumbprint is of such

a poor quality that we cannot make an

AFIS search, then we reject the handgun

sales form, notify the law enforcement

agency getting the duplicate, and nullify

the handgun sale. Then, the applicant has

to start the process all over again. If this

happens on the 14th day of the waiting

period, it really upsets the gun dealers.

Thus, it is very important that the

thumbprint quality is high. To their

credit, the gun dealers in Oregon are

doing a pretty good job of getting good

quality thumbprints and fingerprints on

the form.

Workload levels

Figure 1 is a bar chart that depicts our

monthly workload since the Oregon

firearms sales check law was enacted

over 4 years ago. We averaged about

3,500 inquiries up until January 1993,

when the Brady Bill was discussed very

actively. By looking at this chart, I

wonder if anyone can tell when the

Brady Bill was enacted into law. The

growth in January 1994 is the same as

that of December 1993. We are hoping

this is just a “feeding-frenzy” situation

and that people will relax soon. We

cannot sustain this level of service and

hope to survive using our current

technology.

Figure 2 is another chart that

demonstrates our workload. The handgun

sales just keep climbing year by year, as

well as the issuance of concealed

handgun licenses. In 1990, the Oregon

law affecting concealed handgun licenses

was changed. The licenses were good for

2 years, after which they were
Page 44 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

renewable. That is why there is a dip in

1991. One would expect the license

issuance level to be high again in 1992,

and to dip down again in 1993. However,

the level of issuing concealed handgun

licenses has not decreased, and so the

law was once again amended to make the

licenses good for 4 years. Despite this,

the level of license issuances continues

to go up. This is very similar to what

Illinois has experienced. Even though

there is a concealed handgun license, the

person is checked out quite thoroughly at

both the State and national level before

being issued this license.

The chart in Figure 3 shows the

impact of the workload. This only speaks

to the total gross number of fingerprint

cards the Oregon State Police receives.

Handgun sales are 28 percent of our

workload, the concealed handgun license

issuances are nearly 12 percent, and the

criminal work is 56.4 percent. Our

workload previously was much greater in

the criminal area; however, it is shifting

more toward regulatory work quite

rapidly.

The chart in Figure 4 depicts only

those fingerprint cards that have gone

through the name and date of birth search

and that actually make it to the AFIS for

a search. This is where our workload

dramatically changes. Because of the

recidivism rate of criminals, most of their

records are found with a simple

name/DOB check, with a quick

confirmation on the prints. But with the

handgun sales, the majority of the

applicants need to be searched all the

way through to the AFIS because they

have no prior record. The same applies

with the concealed handgun licenses.

Now the workload shifts to where 34

percent of the AFIS workload is

allocated to handgun sales and almost 21

percent to concealed handgun licensing.

During the 1993 legislative session,

Oregon passed a law that gives the State

and private child care facilities the

authority to make criminal history record

inquiries at both the State and national

levels. We project that the regulatory

impact of what we call the “Teachers’

and Children’s Bill” (House Bill 1078) is

going to take 33 percent of our resources

(Figure 5). Combined with the handgun

sales at 22.8 percent, the criminal work

percentage is lowered to 23 percent. This

gives an idea of who our customers will

be in the future, and what the impact is

on the Oregon State Police.

In Oregon, we are trying to firmly

remind our policymakers that without the

criminal segment of our workload,

without the appropriate dispositions

being recorded, the concealed handgun

licensing and other regulatory work is of

no value. Right now, in fact, I am being

impacted by being required to do the

regulatory work in a mandated time

frame, while we do not have similar

requirements for the criminal work. It is

very easy to build criminal history record

information backlogs while your agency

is trying to address other problems.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Page 50 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

The California system: Access to other databases,

name searches and the waiting period

EDWARD J. (JACK) SCHEIDEGGER

Chief, Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information

California Department of Justice

To provide some perspective of what

the California Department of Justice

(DOJ) is dealing with in terms of its

firearms transactions, last year we

processed about 642,000 Dealers’

Record of Sale transactions in our State.1

One of the interesting statistics we have

from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms is that California

is in the reverse position of the rest of the

Nation: we process about two-thirds

handgun purchases and one-third long

gun and shotgun purchases. This is

exactly the reverse of the rest of the

States.

We experienced about a 19 percent

increase in our transactions from 1992 to

1993, and 1992 had about a 31 percent

increase over 1991. So like my friend in

Oregon, our business is booming.

Firearms transactions

Basically, our firearms transaction

process starts with a form. We have two

different forms: one for revolver and

pistol transactions, the other for long gun

and shotgun transactions. Each form

consists of four parts, and we sell

supplies of these forms to firearms

dealers in the State.

Following a revolver or pistol

transaction, the firearms dealer sends one

copy of the form to the local law

enforcement agency, sends two copies to

the California DOJ, and keeps one. In

addition, the dealer sends in a $14

processing fee for each form. This

process is also required for private

transactions. If I want to sell a weapon to

a friend, I have to go to a dealer,

1 California’s firearms transaction statute is

P.C. 12071.

surrender the weapon, and go through the

records check process.

When the California DOJ receives

these firearms forms, it conducts the

records check process; microfiches the

information; and enters the information

into an Automated Firearms System. Our

turn-around time to complete these

records checks is statutorily required to

be 15 days.

In 1991, the California Legislature

added long guns and shotguns to our

processing requirements. Following the

transaction, one copy of the sales form is

sent to the local law enforcement agency,

two to the California DOJ, and the dealer

keeps one. These transactions also

require a $14 processing fee. Unlike the

pistol/revolver form, however, State

statute requires that we destroy these

forms within 5 days after the request to

purchase is processed. The form is

destroyed, and the registration

information is not recorded into any

system.

Name checks, other databases

California’s records check process is

all name-based. We start with a check of

our State and national criminal history

files and our wanted-persons system, and

we also check restraining order and

mental health files.

Performing checks in these other

areas, specifically the restraining order

file, started in 1993. It is predicated upon

a victim securing a restraining order

from a court. (For example, it could be a

restraining order someone gets based

upon domestic violence.) After the

subject secures a restraining order, the

subject must place a request with a local

law enforcement agency that the
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 51

restraining order information be entered

into California’s wanted-persons system.

Then, when we do an inquiry into our

wanted-persons system as part of the

name-check process, we can find out not

only if the prospective firearms

purchaser is a fugitive but also if a

restraining order has been issued against

the individual.

In 1993, in the first year of operating

the restraining order file, we entered

about 34,000 orders. These are retained

for 3 years. There is an interesting side

benefit that occurs here. Because the

restraining order is in our wantedpersons system, if an officer in the field

should conduct an inquiry, that

information is available immediately.

That is a good tool for a police officer

who may be responding to a domestic

violence call.

On the mental health side, we have

had about 410 denials based on mental

health reasons. This is about two-thirds

of the mental health denials noted for the

State of Illinois. In any event, mental

health information is reported to us by

certified California Department of

Mental Health facilities. The criteria are

as follows: (1) the individual must be

evaluated by either a certified psychiatric

technician or a physician; (2) the

individual must be judged a “5150,” a

danger to themselves or others, or have

told a psychiatrist that he or she is

contemplating killing someone; and (3)

the individual must be admitted into a

mental health facility. If these criteria are

met, the Department of Mental Health

facilities are required by law to report

that information to the California DOJ.

This information is placed in a separate

file which is not accessible to anyone

else but us. Interestingly enough, we then

pay the facilities $5 for each report they

give us. Right now, there are about

300,000 notations in this file, which are

purged after 5 years.

Waiting period

If there is no hit on any of our namebased checks, the California DOJ does

not provide any notice to the dealer. That

is it. If you purchase a firearm in

California, you fill out the form, the form

is submitted, the 15 days elapse, and then

you return to pick up the firearm.

However, you are not allowed to pick up

the weapon before the 15-day waiting

period has elapsed. It is a joint “cooling

off” period, as well as time for us to

process the background checks. Even if

the California DOJ manages to clear the

purchase in 2 days, the buyer cannot pick

up the weapon from the dealer until after

the 15 days have passed.

Handgun purchase information is

entered into the Automated Firearms

System. This has a tremendous value to

law enforcement agencies. The serialized

information on the weapons is logged in

there, so if a crime is committed using a

particular weapon, we are able to track

the registration of that weapon. If a cache

of stolen property including weapons is

discovered, we are able to link the

weapons to the original owner, and it

helps in solving crimes. Interestingly

enough, this does a lot of good for our

investigators in terms of the “person

orientation.” In other words, if you are

assigned to investigate an individual in

California, one of the first things you

might do is run a fingerprint check, and

determine if the individual has any

registered weapons. (If it is a long gun,

none of that occurs. As I mentioned

earlier, the information is destroyed

immediately, or within 5 days, whichever

comes first.)

Purchase denials

A record hit occurs in about 1 percent

to 1.5 percent of the cases. Last year we

had a little over 6,500 denials in the

State. We do our best to determine that

the hit is actually on the applicant

without having to resort to fingerprint

identification. Many times, of course,

doing this plus securing additional

disposition information is laborintensive. We then notify the dealer, via

telephone, that we have a hit, and he has

a prohibited status on that purchase and

may not release that weapon. That

telephone conversation is tape-recorded.

We then follow that up by notifying the

dealer, the local law enforcement agency

and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms in writing of the purchase

denial.

In some cases, we discover that

someone who was sold a firearm after

the 15-day waiting period had elapsed is

actually in a precluded class. In that case,

we notify the local law enforcement

agency and ask them to have the joyful

experience of finding the firearm owner

and securing the weapon.

There is an interesting point that

coincides with this. Prior to the passage

of the Brady Law, California’s

Legislature determined that we should

speed up our firearms-check process. By

1996, our turn-around time on rifle and

shotgun inquiries will be 10 days. Of

course, we are looking at possibly

implementing various models — such as

an instant-check system — as well as

designing a positive identification

imaging process, which I hope we will

be doing within the next couple of years.
I. Criminal history records: Where we are

Existing systems

Role of the courts: Panel

Disposition reporting:

The perspective from the courts

Sally T. Hillsman, Ph.D.

Collecting and accessing court disposition

information for the criminal history record

James F. Shea
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 55

Disposition reporting: The perspective from the courts

SALLY T. HILLSMAN, Ph.D.

Vice President, Research

National Center for State Courts

Complete and accurate criminal

history records have long been an

important issue for the criminal justice

system. Increasingly, however, the focus

has expanded to include an emphasis on

both the timeliness of their delivery (that

is, real time access) and an expansion of

our understanding of who key users of

this information are and should be.

Clearly, both the Brady Law and the

National Child Protection Act reflect this

expanded focus, and provide both a

further impetus to and opportunity for

realizing these criminal history record

objectives. The courts have also long

been a key user of criminal history

records and, like the newer users targeted

by Brady and the Child Protection Act,

they need the information rapidly,

especially for the tens of thousands of

pretrial release decisions that courts

across the country make daily with their

significant implications for public safety.

Achieving data quality goals

Since the 1970s we have made

considerable progress in realizing the

goals of complete, accurate and timely

criminal history records. As the research

by SEARCH and the Bureau of Justice

Statistics (BJS) indicates, however, our

efforts have been uneven, and this is a

serious issue for meeting the needs of

State law enforcement and court users, as

well as for realizing a national instant

criminal background check system.

There is great disparity across and within

States with regard to disposition

reporting. In the past, there have been

significant technical barriers to

improvement. Yet in the last decade, the

remarkable progress in the development

of information and telecommunications

technologies has reduced the number and

scope of these technical issues. The

greater impediments to progress have

been — and remain — organizational

and structural ones that are deeply rooted

in the decentralized nature of our

governmental structure, not just

State/Federal and State/local, but also

interbranch and interagency.

I was reminded of this forcefully

yesterday when a leading State court

administrator reminded me that his State

had long had a fully integrated criminal

justice information system from which

they obtained very little useful

information. Why? Because although

there were four or five pockets of very

good quality, up-to-date information,

there were no effective linkages among

them because the key parties had never

sat down at the same table to make it

happen.

Partly because the issue of criminal

history records has too long been viewed

as primarily a law enforcement effort, we

have tended to overlook the fundamental

need for serious cross-branch, crossorganization collaboration in planning,

resource allocation and implementation

as a tool (much as technology is a tool)

to achieve our goals. This lack of equal

partnership has not only significantly

impeded progress in the last 25 years, but

it will also continue to do so in the future

if it remains unaddressed as we seek to

improve criminal history records in the

context of implementing the mandates of

Brady and the Child Protection Act.

Criminal history data principles

There are two principles that I would

like to focus on today. These principles

have not changed much over the last 25

years and, if taken seriously, they will

significantly enhance our efforts over the
Page 56 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

next 5 years to improve criminal history

records and disposition reporting.

The first is that, with respect to

complete and accurate criminal history

records, the judicial branch is the sole,

direct provider of a key source

document: the case disposition. As a

result, any serious effort to improve

disposition reporting, and to make

criminal history records electronically

available real time, must include the

judicial branch as an equal partner in

development, problem-solving and

maintenance.

To realize this partnership, however,

the second principle must also be

acknowledged: the courts want to

collaborate because they are, and need to

be, a major user of an electronic, real

time criminal history record

communication system. The courts want

the repositories to succeed, but to

accomplish this, the repositories must

recognize the courts as a central client

for their criminal history record services.

Let me go back to the first principle

for a moment — the patently obvious,

yet often overlooked, notion that the

judicial branch is a key partner in

successful change because the courts

hold essential information. While this

observation is not only obvious but also

simple, it has not often been acted upon.

While some States have taken this

collaborative approach, it was not until

1990 that, at the national level, the courts

came together with the other key actors

from State and local law enforcement,

the State repositories and others in a

highly productive effort at common

dialogue.

Common dialogue on

disposition reporting

Under the auspices of SEARCH, BJS

and the National Center for State Courts,

and chaired by the Honorable Robert C.

Murphy, Chief Judge of the Maryland

Court of Appeals, the National Task

Force on Criminal History Record

Disposition Reporting began meeting in

1990. It placed on the table, clearly and

in great detail, the positions, needs and

operating realities of all the institutional

parties at the State and local level.

As singular as it was, what was

particularly remarkable was not the

meetings themselves, but how surprised

the parties were at what they learned

about the real facts of life for the other

parties in the disposition reporting and

dissemination process. Clearly, for most,

this cross-branch, cross-agency dialogue

to improve criminal history records had

not been going on (or at least not

effectively) at the State and local levels

in many, although not all, jurisdictions.

One of the surprising realities for

some members of the Disposition

Reporting Task Force was that, for the

courts, the relationship between police

arrests (that is, individual fingerprint

documents) and dispositions (that is,

court case records) is very complex, and

that this can make the matching process

very difficult for courts. For example:

• Some arrests (with fingerprint

records) never result in a court case;

• Other fingerprint records do not arrive

at a court until after the defendant’s

case has been bound over to another

court’s jurisdiction;

• Still other court cases have no arrest

(or fingerprints), or at least not until

mid-case or until its end; and

• Some court cases have multiple

arrests, and some none at all.

A second reality that was surprising to

some Task Force participants is that few

court cases follow the rather

straightforward, linear model of case

processing upon which much criminal

history disposition reporting is built.

Instead of sequential processes, courts

are organized on multiple subprocessing

routines that can happen many times, in

any order, or not at all. Equally as

important is the fact that courts deal with

many other case types besides criminal

and, for both criminal and noncriminal

cases, the court must communicate —

like the hub on a wheel — with many

official partners in the public and private

sectors, at the local, State and Federal

levels. Criminal history reporting is only

one of many important, often mandatory,

communications that courts must carry

out and, therefore, the court’s key

communications functions must be built

to accommodate all the official demands

for information.

Courts as major users

of criminal history records

That said, we should return to the

equally important reality mentioned

earlier, one that was even more

surprising to many of the members of the

Disposition Reporting Task Force: The

courts are, need to be, and want to be

treated as a major user of electronic real

time transmissions of criminal history

record data. This reality, while not

always easy to achieve, is a significant

benefit for collaborative efforts to

improve criminal history records. This is

because a key principle in automation is

that when the provider of data wants and

needs to use it, there is a strong incentive

to produce accurate and timely

information. In many States, however,

courts have not been viewed as a major

client or user of the system, and the

content, format and timeliness of

criminal history records is rarely

designed to be adequate for the court’s

purposes.

To make all the decisions Larry

Greenfeld identified this morning, courts,

as criminal history users, need historical

data on all dispositions, not just felonies

and gross misdemeanors, and they need

information on failures to appear, violent

behavior and other incidents. For pretrial

release decisions, the courts need this

information within 24 hours of arrest.

As the criminal history reporting

systems of States begin to expand their

roles to serve the courts better and to

respond to the interstate needs of the

Brady Law and the National Child

Protection Act, a full partnership with the

judicial branch is not only necessary and

possible, it will also be effective.

The Disposition Reporting Task Force

report is well worth studying because it

outlines what a productive equal

partnership at the State level can and

should be built upon.1 Brady and the

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Report of the National Task Force on

Criminal History Record Disposition
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 57

Child Protection Act make this

collaboration imperative. The report

recommends first that the highest level

court and executive branch officials in

each State establish a high-level task

force representing all components of the

criminal justice system. This interbranch

State task force should identify all users

of the criminal history record

information, and address the issue of

how best to link the State repository

database to the data maintained by the

courts, as well as how to provide timely

and effective access to criminal history

record information by the courts.

The report also recommends that

funding improvements in disposition

reporting must be a priority, and it

emphasizes that funding must be

apportioned in a manner that is

commensurate with the responsibilities

that each component of the criminal

justice system assumes in establishing

and maintaining complete and accurate

data. The Task Force report recognizes

that in most States the central repository

will receive a substantial percentage of

available funds, but that such a

collaborative approach will also mean

that courts will receive significant

resource support. As the Task Force

report notes, “The courts’ problems are

the repositories’ problems, and the

repositories’ problems are the courts’

problems.”

Reporting, Criminal Justice Information

Policy series, by SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, June 1992).

I would also like to add that we

should consider the wisdom of reserving

at least a small slice of Federal dollars

available under Brady to experiment with

technologies that could revolutionize the

criminal history reporting process for the

21st century, focusing on technologies

that can begin to do so within the next 5

years. For example:

• What if a court equipped with a

scanner could send electronic prints

and/or mug shots to the repository

along with the disposition? This

would mean no more matching!

• What if the justice system adopted

universal standards for

communication (that is, for

transmission)? This is not fantasy —

the beginnings of an electronic data

and document interchange project for

the courts is on the launch pad as we

speak, and we will be ready shortly

for liftoff.

Our criminal history reporting system

is not good enough yet, but with

collaboration, a focus on all its users and

transformational technology, it can be —

and sooner than we think.
Page 58 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Collecting and accessing court disposition

information for the criminal history record

JAMES F. SHEA

Assistant Director

Integrated Systems Development

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

With the passage of the Brady Bill,

attention has turned to the availability

and quality of criminal justice records to

be used as part of the background check

required before a person can purchase a

handgun. Of particular interest is the

automation of these records for use in a

national instant criminal background

check system.

Improving automated court

disposition reporting

Over the past 8 years, New York State

has dedicated considerable resources to

improve and expand the level of

automated disposition reporting by the

courts to the central criminal history

repository at the New York State

Division of Criminal Justice Services

(DCJS). The largest effort to date is the

development and implementation of the

Criminal Records Information

Management System (CRIMS) by the

Office of Court Administration (OCA).

— CRIMS

CRIMS is an automated case

management system used by courts with

high case volumes and by select courts of

criminal jurisdiction. CRIMS is more

than a simple mechanism for automated

disposition reporting. It handles all

stages of case-related recordkeeping,

from case initiation through final

disposition and appeal, as well as court

calendaring.

CRIMS is a mainframe-based system

that has been operational since July

1989. It was initially installed in the five

criminal courts of New York City and

later expanded to include a total of 21

sites. (Figure 1 illustrates the data

transmission between CRIMS, various

courts, DCJS and OCA.) CRIMS

currently processes approximately 60

percent of all dispositions in the State.

CRIMS was designed to provide

additional and more specific disposition

information than the automated

Offender-Based Tracking System

(OBTS) that it replaced. It was also

intended to provide disposition data to

the criminal history system in a more

timely manner. Within OBTS,

transmission was limited to the reporting

of docket numbers, warrants issued and

returned, and final charges and

dispositions. The transmission of

disposition data occurred only after a

case was completed in court and all court

paperwork was finished. This approach

resulted in the lapse of weeks, and in

some cases many months, before

dispositions were updated in a batch

mode to the criminal history system.

A wider range of data (as seen in

Figure 2) was made available to the

criminal history system through CRIMS.

Unlike OBTS, CRIMS transmits

information to the criminal history

repository on-line, in real time. Data

transmission occurs at intermediate

processing stages at the same time that it

is entered into the court’s own database.

For example, the disposition related to

the most serious charge will be

transmitted to the criminal history system

before more detailed records are

available. This preliminary transmission

of the most significant case-related

information has resulted in timely access

to partial disposition data for hundreds of

thousands of cases.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 59

CRIMS also supports the OCA’s

paper-based criminal disposition

reporting process. Under this system, the

remaining courts in the State submit

disposition reporting forms to data entry

units for posting to CRIMS and the

automated criminal history file. These

forms, which are generated by 119

upstate city and county courts from a PCbased case tracking system, are shipped

to a data entry unit within OCA.

Approximately 25 percent of the State’s

dispositions are processed through these

courts. Over 2,000 town and village

courts submit the same forms to DCJS

for data entry. Although a handful of

these courts possess PC-based systems

capable of generating the disposition

reporting form, most of them submit

manually prepared forms.

— Impact of automated reporting

I believe that the positive impact of

automated disposition reporting, in terms

of more timely and complete

dispositions, is quite clear. (Figure 3

illustrates a distribution of disposition

delivery times in days for the upper

courts that process felony cases and

report to CRIMS. The disposition

delivery time is the period between the

date when the disposition occurred and

when it was posted to the criminal

history file at DCJS.) In New York City,

two of the five counties transmit over 90

percent of disposition cases within a day.

None of the counties transmits less than

92 percent of their cases within 5 days.

Within the upper courts of upstate New

York, five of the eight courts transmit

better than 90 percent of felony

dispositions within the 6- to 10-day

range.

By contrast, the nonautomated

criminal disposition reporting system is

experiencing data entry backlogs. There

is an approximately 1-month backlog at

DCJS where the data entry of

dispositions for town and village courts

are performed. Likewise, the unit at

OCA, which is responsible for the data

entry of the upstate city and county

courts, is experiencing a 2-month data

entry backlog. Furthermore, these

backlogs do not factor in the time period

required to generate the paper disposition

reporting form or mail the form to the

data entry site.

In terms of missing dispositions,

automated reporting sites handily

outstrip the performance of

nonautomated courts. Statistics for the

past 15 years indicate that on-line,

automated sites report a missing

disposition level of approximately 8

percent. For the same period, the level of

missing dispositions for city and county

courts — those that are automated but

which report computer-generated

disposition reporting forms to the OCA

— stands at 17 percent. For town and

village courts, where little automation

exists, the level of missing dispositions

hovers around 26 percent.

— Additional automation benefits

Given the benefits of automated

disposition reporting, the New York

State strategy calls for more automation.

The OCA is considering the distribution

of a scaled-down version of CRIMS to

other city and county courts in the State.

The system would operate in a personal

computer environment and probably

have dial-up capability to the CRIMS

mainframe system.

At the town and village court level,

OCA is working with private software

vendors that have developed court case

management and tracking systems for

small courts. The OCA has recently

published a Request For Proposal

inviting vendors that meet specifications

defined by both DCJS and OCA staff to

demonstrate their systems. Those

systems that are capable of meeting data

standard requirements, and generating

disposition information that passes

CRIMS edits, will be recommended by

OCA to town and village courts.

To further support this effort, New

York State expects to award $230,000 to

approximately 50 town and village

justice courts for personal computers and

software using Bureau of Justice

Assistance (BJA) funds earmarked for

the improvement of criminal justice

records.

In addition to CRIMS, there are other

automated efforts to improve disposition

completeness using Federal funds from

BJA and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

DCJS is creating an automated PC-based

system to enable remote updating of the

criminal history file. The first phase of

this project provides disposition

contributors in the field with a method to

update missing dispositions. This system

will provide probation departments with

the capability to transmit missing

dispositions, collected during the presentence process, to the criminal history

system. It will also provide town and

village courts without vendor systems a

mechanism to report dispositions on-line

to the criminal history system.

Another initiative designed to

improve disposition reporting is the online transmission of decline-to-prosecute

information from prosecutors to the

criminal history repository. Using BJA

funds, DCJS is negotiating a plan to

implement this project with the New

York County and Kings County District

Attorney’s Offices. This effort is

expected to result in the capture of

several thousand declinations to

prosecute each year, accelerate the

receipt of this information by the

criminal history system, and improve the

quality of the data by eliminating a layer

of data entry. If these pilot projects prove

successful, the initiative may be exported

to other prosecution offices.

Reporting dispositions to the FBI

Thus far I have described the current

and future automated processes for

receipt of dispositions at New York’s

criminal history repository. The second

part of the disposition reporting equation

is the means by which we remit this

information to the FBI. This mechanism

is of particular interest to those States

that do not participate in the Interstate

Identification Index (III) and which

access disposition information directly

from the FBI system rather than from the

contributing State. For nearly 3 years we

have been sending tapes of dispositions

to the FBI on a weekly basis. On

average, each tape includes roughly

4,000 dispositions.

The revamping of this process is a

good example of the efficiencies realized
Page 60 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

through automation. (See Figure 4 for an

illustration of this process.) Under the

previous process, DCJS mailed criminal

history rap sheets to the FBI which they

then used to manually key disposition

information into their system. At the time

that the new tape process was initiated,

the FBI had an approximate 3-year

backlog of dispositions to enter. The new

process has eliminated the need for data

entry at the FBI and the backlog of

disposition information no longer exists.

Process and practice

infrastructure

For even more significant

improvement in the area of disposition

reporting, New York State needs to

harness its existing technical

infrastructure of automation and

communications capabilities with an

infrastructure of “standard processes and

practices” capable of coordinating the

flow and linkage of criminal justice

information reported to the State criminal

history repository.

This infrastructure development issue

poses a major challenge to a State like

New York, which operates in a highly

decentralized criminal justice system.

Past studies of the New York State

criminal justice system have underscored

the poor fit between the process and

structure of criminal justice as a key

obstacle to system coordination and

integration. While criminal justice is a

single process that begins with an arrest

and ends with release from custody or

supervision, the system’s administrative

structure is very decentralized. Over

3,000 criminal justice agencies operating

at the State, county, city, town and

village levels of government in New

York are responsible for the

administration of justice. Within this

type of administrative landscape, it is

inevitable that variations in processes,

practices and mechanisms for reporting

dispositions will evolve.

Over the past year, DCJS staff, funded

by a BJA grant to improve criminal

justice records, have visited criminal

justice agencies in five counties to

examine how those agencies collect,

transfer and report criminal history

information.

— Practices which interfere

with disposition reporting

Here are a few examples of what we

found to provide an idea of the varied

practices that interfere with disposition

processing.

For example, variations in agency

data collection procedures can lead to

incomplete or inaccurate disposition

information. (One scenario is illustrated

in Figure 5.) During our study, two law

enforcement agencies interviewed

indicated that they typically issued

appearance tickets for fingerprintable

crimes. In these jurisdictions, the arrested

party is not fingerprinted until after the

first court appearance. The agencies

follow this practice, which is permissible

under New York State law, to save

police officers the time of taking these

individuals into custody and transporting

them to the station house for

fingerprinting. However, as those

agencies admitted, this practice makes it

more likely that individuals will not be

fingerprinted if they do not return for the

first court appearance. Without an arrest

fingerprint card, a subsequently reported

disposition cannot be effectively reported

on the criminal history system.

Another scenario is illustrated in

Figure 6. Often, police agencies with

authority in multiple court jurisdictions

arrest persons who have committed

offenses in several of these jurisdictions.

Sometimes all of the offenses are posted

to a single fingerprint card. Under this

scenario, only one of the courts will

receive the single fingerprint stub, which

includes the court control number, which

is used to link the disposition with the

arrest event posted on the criminal

history system.

Our field work also found examples

of how inadequate communications

among criminal justice agencies

contributed to incomplete or inaccurate

disposition reporting. This scenario is

illustrated in Figure 7. This problem

occurred most often in reporting

dispositions where multiple arrests or

multiple incidents spanning several

courts were involved. The district

attorney’s office was frequently involved

in closing out these cases by presenting a

plea bargain in one court to cover

outstanding charges in other courts. In at

least one county visited, the district

attorney did not notify the other courts

involved when multiple incidents were

closed out in a single court. Thus, these

courts were unable to report a disposition

for that case, leaving the appearance of a

missing disposition on the criminal

history record.

— Solving weaknesses

in the infrastructure

The data quality problems that I have

mentioned reflect weaknesses in the

criminal history information

infrastructure. While additional

automation may increase reporting and

reduce the amount of inaccurate or

incomplete disposition information, the

full potential of this technology will not

be realized unless an infrastructure of

standard processes and practices is

developed. To that end, a major BJAfunded project for New York State is the

development of a Standard Practices

manual. Working with State and local

criminal justice agencies, DCJS plans to

promulgate a manual organized by type

of criminal justice agency. For each

agency, the manual would specify the

types of criminal history processing

functions performed. For each function,

the manual would provide:

(1) An overview of the significance

and importance of the function to

criminal history processing and to

the operations of that agency and

other criminal justice agencies.

(2) The answers to what, when and

how information, required by an

agency to carry out its processing

and reporting functions, should be

received.

(3) Answers to when and how an

agency should collect information

for which it is the original source.

(4) What steps the agency should take

to process criminal history

information in order to address

timeliness, completeness, accuracy

and quality control concerns.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 61

(5) How, what and when the agency

should transfer information to local

criminal justice agencies.

(6) How, what and when the agency

should report criminal history

information to the repository and

other State criminal justice

agencies.

The manual will include examples to

illustrate how processing should occur. I

see the manual’s development as an

opportunity to review and revise, or

overhaul, existing practices though a

dialogue between the repository and

reporting criminal justice agencies. This

exercise should allow us to re-engineer

some aspects of the process and make

substantial improvements in criminal

history availability and quality.

System cost

I would like to briefly touch upon two

of the big questions raised by the Brady

Act — how long will it take and how

much will it cost to automate criminal

history records?

On a State-by-State basis, the answers

obviously will vary according to the

State size and the technical level on

which it currently operates. In New York

State, the development and

implementation of the CRIMS automated

disposition reporting system and the online interface to the automated criminal

history file at DCJS has taken 8 years to

date and other system features are still in

development. In terms of cost, here are

some ballpark figures. The OCA

estimates that the development of

CRIMS to date has cost approximately

$10 million, which includes the cost of

equipment and programming. They

estimate the annual maintenance budget

to run in the area of $1.6 million. In

terms of developing the CRIMS interface

with the criminal history system, DCJS

estimates its manpower costs at

approximately $1 million for

development and an annual maintenance

cost of approximately $125,000.

So as not to overstate costs, I should

reiterate that CRIMS is much more than

a disposition reporting system. It is a

comprehensive case-tracking and court

calendaring system as well. On the other

hand, to avoid understating costs, these

figures only reflect the cost of reporting

dispositions for 60 percent of the States’

cases and do not factor in the cost of

developing and maintaining the criminal

history system and existing

communications infrastructure or the

cost of an existing knowledge base.

In closing, I hope that I have imparted

a sense of the magnitude of current and

future effort, as well as the cost, of

improving disposition reporting in New

York State.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 63

CRIMS

Additional Data Elements

Arraignment Date

Arraignment Charges

Added Charges

Charge Reductions

Jury Trial Indicator

Release Status

Attorney Type

Attorney Name & Address

OCA Personal Demographics

Conditions of Discharge

License Suspension Time

Drug Type

Judge’s Name

Figure 2: Additional data elements in CRIMS
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Page 66 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Arrest Scenario

Appearance Tickets

Court Appearances

Fingerprints (often not done)

Dispositions

Without a fingerprint card, an arrest event is not

posted to the criminal history file. Therefore, there is

no event to which to attach the dispositions.

Figure 5: Arrest scenario #1
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
II. Current decisionmaking and future policies

Day two opening address

Laurie O. Robinson

Keynote address

Janet Reno
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 71

Day two opening address

LAURIE O. ROBINSON

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

It has been almost exactly a year since

President Clinton announced his

intention to nominate Janet Reno as his

Attorney General. When he made that

announcement, the President said his

nominee would bring a sense of pride,

integrity and new energy to the Justice

Department, and that she would be an

innovator for law enforcement in this

country. I think you will agree with me

that the Attorney General has done all of

that, and more.

In the 6 months that I have been at the

Justice Department, I have had the

opportunity to see up close how

committed she is to doing something

about the violence in this Nation and, in

her words, to “put people first.” When

you look at her background, it is not

surprising that Janet Reno has done an

enormous amount in a short period of

time to help focus the Nation’s attention

on the proliferation of guns in our

society, problems with child abuse, the

scourge of domestic violence, and the

crisis of violence in our streets.

As the State’s Attorney for Dade

County, Florida, for 15 years, she was

bold in implementing innovative

programs on domestic violence, victimwitness assistance, child support and

juvenile justice. They have become

models for her State and for the Nation.

At the Office of Justice Programs, we are

trying to replicate many of those same

programs today around the country.

She spearheaded the establishment of

a Children’s Assessment Center to assist

child victims of sexual and physical

abuse. She established a Drug Court,

now so famous that it has become the

forerunner of many similar programs

around the country which we hope,

through Crime Bill funding and

programs, to see spread across this

Nation.

In Washington, Janet Reno has built

on her Florida experiences to translate

broad policy objectives into practice,

finding practical solutions to the

problems faced by communities across

the country. She has worked hard to

bring everyone to the table in this effort:

Federal, State and local criminal justice

agencies, human services officials,

community groups, schools, public

health and law enforcement.

As the Attorney General said in her

first address to Justice Department

employees, we must use our limited

resources to build real partnerships with

State and local governments —

partnerships that are built on mutual

regard and respect. Because of her own

background at the State and local level,

she has a unique understanding of the

frustrations which State and local

officials face in dealing with the Federal

government. She often says that as a

local official, she has sat “across the

table” in dealing with the Federal

government. For that reason, she is

pledged to make this Justice Department

more responsive and user-friendly to

those of you on the State and local side. I

hope we are making steps in that

direction. Obviously, one of the main

reasons for holding this conference is to

bring us all together as we look at new

challenges with the implementation of

the Brady Act and the National Child

Protection Act.

We know all too well the problems

caused by the proliferation of illegally

obtained firearms. Our National Institute

of Justice and Office of Juvenile Justice
Page 72 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

and Delinquency Prevention recently

completed a study which found that

handguns of all types — even militarystyle rifles — are readily available, even

to young people. More than one out of

five male high school students surveyed

in crime-ridden urban neighborhoods in

four States reported owning a gun. A

similar survey of male juveniles behind

bars in those same States found that 83

percent said they had at least one gun at

home. The Attorney General has

grappled with these tough issues

throughout her career as State’s

Attorney, when she worked on revising

the State’s criminal code for the Florida

Senate Criminal Justice Committee, and

as Staff Director of the Judiciary

Committee of the Florida House of

Representatives.

Before I present her to you, let me

turn to something more personal. I am

often asked by friends or family

members to describe what Janet Reno is

really like. In every sense, she has a

presence that is larger than life.

She is also determined, wanting to

press forward on a project when

everyone else in the room may secretly

want to give up and go home. That kind

of commitment and determination is a

virtue when it comes to getting things

done.

She also is one of the most

straightforward people I have ever met.

She does not mince words. Many years

ago, a Florida friend of hers told me that

Janet Reno always speaks her mind. I

saw that side of her in the 1980s in bar

association work, when she never

hesitated to state her views — even if

they were unpopular ones.

She is also deeply committed. It is

that commitment that has been a

mainstay for her throughout her career,

and which characterizes her approach as

she tackles the tough problems all of us

face today.

I have also seen how much she cares

about people. I have seen that in the

personal notes she sends to families of

slain police officers, in the time she takes

to visit children in inner-city public

schools to read to them, and in the fact

that she does not want to be an Attorney

General who is isolated behind a desk;

she would rather be someone who gets

out, talks with the employees at the

Department, visits U.S. Attorneys

Offices, and talks with people who are

doing something about crime in their

own neighborhoods. That caring attitude

touches everything she does.

I hope you will join me now in

welcoming Janet Reno, the Attorney

General of the United States.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 73

Keynote address

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO

Thank you very much, Laurie. I spoke

to the State Supreme Court Chief

Justices yesterday and as I explained to

them and as I will explain to you, I am a

product of a local system — of a State

court system. I am now here at the

Federal government, and I do not want to

forget where I came from and how

difficult it is to deal with the issues of

technology, of constitutional issues, of

policing on the streets of America. Local

and State law enforcement have the

hardest single job of anybody in law

enforcement, and they do an incredible

job considering all the Federal

regulations that we impose and all the

unfunded Federal mandates that are often

imposed on local government. I want to

do everything I can to work with you on

the issues that we discussed today, and

on the issues of the future, to make sure

that there is a real partnership so that the

Federal government does not come to

town to say, “Hey, we know better,” but

that “We understand the difficult

problems that you face, and we will work

with you to use whatever Federal

resources are available to solve them.”

There are scores of legitimate reasons

for needing to know whether a certain

individual has ever committed a crime

and, if so, what crime? Yet, as I will

discuss today, our current ability to do

that is distressingly inadequate. I think

about my own experience of trying to

develop a career criminal program and

trying to get sound and immediate prior

records to prove what we were doing and

to focus our priorities on the true career

criminal. I think in terms of trying to get

information to court for pre-sentence

investigations. Every time I turned

around, criminal records were keyed to

everything we were doing and the issues

involved were very, very difficult. But I

also had a sense of hope. I used to sit

there in Miami, as I struggled with the

Metro-Dade Police Department’s

identification and records section, and

tried to understand what the issues were.

To think, in 10 years, I am going to be

looking at this and thinking, “We did

what? We were able to provide that

much information with that kind of

technology?” I am convinced that if we

work together and use technology in the

right way — if we avoid duplication and

if we all go in the same direction

developing the best we can with the

resources we have — criminal history

informations are going to be easily

accessible and law enforcement’s efforts

will be far enhanced by that effort.

It is all too easy to forget how often

we need to know about a person’s

criminal history. For example, when

bond is set in a criminal case, how many

of you have stood before a bond judge

saying, “Well, we really don’t know

about the defendant’s criminal history.”

How many of you have picked up the

paper a day after a bond hearing to find

that a man whom you let out because you

thought he had no priors, had killed

somebody? I have been there, and it

hurts. A defendant’s criminal history

may indicate whether there is a serious

risk of flight when a judge prepares to

sentence an individual convicted of a

crime. The judge is entitled to know the

past criminal behavior of the person

standing before the bench. When our

government is trying to decide whether

an individual can be trusted to have

access to our Nation’s military secrets, a

history of criminal behavior also may

shed light on that question.

Yet the legitimate uses for criminal

history background information go well

beyond the needs of criminal justice and

other agencies. In various States,

criminal background checks are done

before individuals may be hired as bank

tellers, day-care workers, retirement
Page 74 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

home aides and school bus drivers. I

know how difficult it is to balance the

rights of individuals to work in day-care

centers with the desperate need to make

sure that people who work with our

children can be trusted enough to do so.

Checks are done before licenses are

issued to sell insurance, run an auction,

or serve food to the general public. In

some States, we check backgrounds

before people can take leadership roles

with public organizations. Now the

Brady Law provides that we should

check for a criminal history before we

sell someone a gun. And we must make

sure that the National Child Protection

Act is implemented. We need to have

accurate criminal history record

information to do so.

The business of criminal histories is a

tricky one. Our society believes that

people can make mistakes and that those

mistakes should not necessarily be held

against them forever. Our society also

believes that we should respect people’s

privacy. Our society also understands

what happens to a person when they get

unfairly labeled with inaccurate

information and how disastrous that can

be in this era of automation. That

inaccuracy can follow a person through

one credit check or background check

after another, and it sometimes takes an

act of God to erase it from the automated

system.

Our society has learned that we must

take steps to protect ourselves from those

who have not just made a mistake, but

who have broken the law repeatedly or

with malice, those who by their actions

have demonstrated that they are

dangerous. It is, unfortunately, because

of these people — those who have

demonstrated that they cannot be trusted

— that we must check the backgrounds

of all people who wish to engage in

occupations or activities in which only

the people that society trusts should be

allowed to engage. But we must make

sure the information is accurate and wellmaintained, and we must do so consistent

with due process.

Given the new miracles of technology

which emerge every day, our current

ability to conduct reliable background

checks is abysmal. (Figures 1 and 2 help

to illustrate the current state of affairs.)

Figure 1 shows records held by States

and the FBI in 1992. Referring to this

chart, which uses the best data available

from 1992, we can see that, at that time,

there were just over 53 million criminal

history records scattered throughout the

country. This chart shows that of those

53 million, just 17.5 million of them, or

33 percent, were available through the

Interstate Identification Index (III), the

only real multi-State database of criminal

records. Thus, in 1992, a computer

search would not even have had access to

two-thirds of the criminal history records

in the country. But it gets worse.

 Of the 17.5 million records available

in III, only about 9 million of them had

information about the ultimate

disposition of the case. How many

criminal histories have you looked at

where there is an arrest for a very serious

crime and no disposition? The judge is

about to sentence the defendant or place

the defendant on probation. You are

grappling with the hard issue that the

judge will not give you a continuance,

and you just wish you had the

dispositions there. What is the result?

This means that for about 8 million of

those 17.5 million records available in

III, we can see that an arrest is made, but

we do not know what happened. We do

not know if the person was convicted,

acquitted, had the charges dropped, or

pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. For

purposes of evaluating a person’s

background, almost half the records

available in III do not tell us what we

need to know.

 So where does that leave us? It leaves

us with only 9.2 million records in III

with case dispositions out of a total of 53

million records — just 17 percent. Just

17 percent of the criminal records in this

country are complete enough and

accessible enough to be instantaneously

useful to our law enforcement

community and the rest of society. And

17 percent is so far away from a passing

grade — let alone the A-plus quality

work to which Americans are entitled —

that we must make improvements in this

area on a national, State and local basis,

and as a priority.

To be fair, there has been

considerable improvement in recent

years. I think back to 1978 when I took

office as State’s Attorney, and see a

distinct difference.

Figure 2 shows the percent of criminal

records accessible through the III.

Federal and State funds have been

invested in the effort to improve criminal

histories. Some have started to recognize

the critical nature of improvement in the

area. Thus, the percent of criminal

records accessible through III has risen

slowly, but steadily, through the first half

of this decade. We are now up to 39

percent of all criminal records included

in III. Twenty-six States now participate

in III and by the end of 1994, between 30

to 35 States will be participating in III.

And disposition reporting has been

improved, too. Through tremendous

efforts on your part, we are making

progress, but we still have a very long

way to go. I recognize that it is an

extraordinarily difficult task to automate

all of the those records that are still

manual, to link the data that are

contained in different automated

systems, and to make those records

immediately available. Nonetheless, the

American people expect no less of us,

and we cannot let them down.

Fortunately, when the Congress

passed the Brady Bill, it understood that

we were not ready to rely on an instantcheck system starting at the end of

February 1994. There was a recognition

that computerized records with case

dispositions were not sufficiently

complete to prevent sales to prohibited

buyers. That is why the Congress gave

all of us involved in conducting

background checks 5 working days to

complete the checks.

Because of the current state of

computerized records, the background

check burden will fall even more heavily

on local law enforcement. When the

computer shows an arrest without a

disposition, you will have a few days to

find out what happened in that case.

When there is a question about which

“John Smith” is seeking to buy a gun —
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 75

and whether it is the same John Smith

convicted of aggravated battery last year

— you will have a few days to find out.

Without the 5 working days which

law enforcement agencies have been

granted to conduct background checks,

you would be forced to rely exclusively

on that computer system that is so far

away from a passing grade right now.

The 5-day waiting period is a critical tool

for law enforcement officials. That gives

you at least some of the time you need to

conduct a reliable background check.

At the end of 5 years, we must be

ready to conduct background checks, not

in 5 days, but instantaneously. That, too,

will be a substantial challenge. I believe

that working together, we can meet that

challenge. And I look forward to trying

to do everything I can to support your

efforts and to use the Federal

government in ways that can be most

helpful to you.

Those of you here today are on the

front line. You maintain the records. You

use the records. You have prosecutors

hollering at you. You have judges telling

you to be in court 5 minutes before you

are supposed to be over there. I have

been there. I have been called

downstairs, from the sixth floor to the

fourth floor, and asked why I did not

have the criminal history records of the

defendant. I understand. You are court

administrators, probation officials, police

officers and judges. You work for

organizations concerned with crime

victims, child abuse and sensible gun

laws. When I talk about the importance

of criminal background checks to the

people assembled here today, I think,

“You know it better than anybody else.”

And it falls on those of us who

understand the problem to make it a

priority for our Federal, State and local

governments.

The politicians love to build jails, and

at times they love to provide operating

expenses for jails. But when we consider

the difficult issues of technology,

technology that can make law

enforcement so much more effective, it

becomes incumbent upon those of us

who understand how important it is to

appear before county commissions, State

legislators and governors’ cabinets and to

let them know how critical this

information is, and what we can do with

a relatively small investment to make

law enforcement so much more effective.

We can explain it to them in these terms:

“Technology is a wave of the future; if

you make this investment now, you are

going to save us dollars in re-arrests that

have to be made because a dangerous

offender was let out of prison

prematurely because we didn’t have

criminal records.” You are going to be

able to explain to them that we could put

a career criminal away, and keep him

away, because we had the up-to-date

disposition information, rather than

seeing the offender released on

probation, only to be recycled back into

the system — both a tragic injury to a

victim and a considerable expense to

arresting and prosecuting authorities.

We can make a difference. We must

remind the public of the uses for which

they expect criminal history records to be

available, and we must be honest with

them about how far we have to go before

we can have a really reliable check to

determine someone’s criminal history.

Furthermore, the Federal government

must do its part to assist you in this effort

in every way we can. I am pleased that

President Clinton’s budget submitted to

the Congress on February 7, 1994,

requested $100 million for the

improvement of State criminal history

record quality and accessibility. This

money, if appropriated by the Congress,

will be distributed in grants based on the

priorities established in the Brady Law

and the timetables established by the

Justice Department, in consultation with

each State. The Justice Department does

not decide these priorities; we will set

these priorities working jointly with the

States. In addition to providing funding,

the Justice Department and the FBI will

continue our partnership with all of you

to make sure that we have a national

records system that works — one that

provides the type of complete, accurate,

timely information we and the criminal

justice community need. With your

dedicated efforts and with these critical

Federal funds, I have no doubt that

working together, we can make real

progress toward improving all of the

criminal history databases in this

country.

We have the Brady Law. And we now

have the National Child Protection Act,

or the “Oprah Winfrey Bill,” which will

improve the quality of our data regarding

those who commit crimes against these

children. But these laws are only a small

part of the mosaic of uses for criminal

histories.

The President has called for an

enactment of the “Three Strikes And

You’re Out Law,” and we are working to

define it carefully so that we go after the

truly violent offenders — the people who

I have long said should be put away and

kept away. But I understand, as I have

mentioned, what it is like to try to prove

that somebody is a career criminal — to

try to prove that somebody had “three

strikes.” How can such a sensible law

work if we do not know which people

have committed violent crimes in the

past? Right now, the computer can only

give us reliable information, in that

regard, for less than 25 percent of the

criminal histories in our country. For

“Three Strikes and You’re Out” to keep

violence off the streets, for the Brady

Law to keep handguns out of the reach of

those who should not have them, for the

National Child Protection Act to keep

our children safer from child abuse and

neglect, we must improve the quality of

criminal history databases, and we must

do it quickly.

I thank you all for your dedication to

law enforcement, whether it be in the

issue of criminal histories, community

policing, support that we can give you

for technology, or technical and expert

information that we can share with you.

We want to develop a mechanism for

truly sharing.

There is an interesting “face” to law

enforcement in the Federal government

now. We have, as Director of the FBI, a

man who was an FBI agent, who was a

Federal prosecutor, who was a Federal

judge. For the United States Marshal, we

have a man who was Deputy Director of

the Metro-Dade Police Department and

Chief of Police in Tampa, Florida, a man
Page 76 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

who came up through the ranks from

Patrolman to become the Director of the

United States Marshals Service. As the

leader of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, we have a man who

worked his way up through the ranks in

New York to become Commissioner of

the State of New York, who understands

the aspect of law enforcement from a

State perspective. And you have a local

prosecutor hanging around, too. Never

has there been, I think, such a chance for

cooperation. There is now a splendid

effort underway between the Federal

agencies and the Justice Department. The

DEA and the FBI have announced a

resolution of the intelligence sharing

aspect of their two agencies that, I think,

brings unparalleled efforts of cooperation

and coordination and an end to turf

battles.

More importantly, I think we now

have the chance to share with you as real

partners. You are the people on the front

line. You are also the people who are on

the front line of probably the greatest

burst of knowledge in all of human

history. You have to take what that street

officer knows and what that scientist

knows and marry them together so that

we can form an effort where law

enforcement is going to be ahead of the

sophisticated crooks, where law

enforcement is going to have up-to-date

information so that it can respond

immediately. We look forward to

working with you in that partnership.

Thank you.

Records held by States and the FBI, 1992

Total records

In III

In III with

dispositions

53.3

17.5

9.2

million

million

million

100%

33%

17%

0 20 40 60

Millions

Estimates were derived from FBI data on Interstate Identification Index 

(III) participation and a survey of State record holdings by SEARCH 

Group, Inc.

Figure 1: Criminal History records held by States and the FBI, 1992

Percent of criminal records accessible

through Interstate Identification Index (III)

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Estimates are based on surveys of State record holdings

by SEARCH Group, Inc. and data provided by the FBI.

30% 31% 33% 36% 39%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Figure 2: Percent of criminal records accessible through III
II. Current decisionmaking and future policies

National Child Protection Act of 1993

Requirements and systems of the

National Child Protection Act: Panel

Requirements of the National Child Protection Act

James X. Dempsey

Authorized record checks for screening

child-care and youth-service workers

Noy S. Davis

Report on national study of existing screening

practices by child-care organizations

Kimberly Dennis

Current child abuse crime reporting:

A State experience

David Eberdt
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 79

Requirements of the National Child Protection Act

JAMES X. DEMPSEY

Assistant Counsel

Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights

U.S. House of Representatives

I want to take a few seconds to

acknowledge our gratitude to SEARCH

Group, the organizer of this conference.

SEARCH is a tremendously useful

resource, one that our Subcommittee

relies on heavily. Gary Cooper, the

Executive Director, is always

immediately available to consult with us

over the telephone, to explain the likely

impact of particular proposals or to put

things in perspective for us. Bob Belair,

the General Counsel, is one of the

leading experts in Washington, D.C. on

privacy matters and records information

policy. He is always very helpful and

available to provide advice on issues

both large and small. Over the years, I

have had the pleasure to work with the

former Chairman, Gary McAlvey, who

has visited our office in Washington a

number of times and walked us through

important issues in the area of records

policy. Jim Martin, a SEARCH Board

Member, is someone I have talked to on

a number of occasions at the National

Crime Information Center Advisory

Policy Board (NCIC APB) meetings and

who has always been very helpful. P.J.

Doyle, Chairman of the NCIC APB and

a former SEARCH Member, is another

person we listen to and rely upon.

Congressman Don Edwards, the

Chairman of our Subcommittee, always

describes SEARCH as an important

friend of the Subcommittee.

Federal mandates requiring

criminal history records checks

We know that State and local criminal

justice practitioners are the ones who

have to implement the mandates that

come down from Washington. We know

that they are being pulled in hundreds of

directions at once. At the Federal level,

there are also a host of interests to be

balanced in trying to draft a piece of

legislation on any issue. I think this

conference is part of a continuing

dialogue that we need to have as we try

to work through these issues. The fact is,

the use of criminal history records for

background screening purposes in the

employment and licensing areas is a

trend that is going to continue in an

unabated manner.

We continue to see proposals

demanding that Federal legislation either

require or authorize criminal history

background checks in a host of areas. As

the Attorney General pointed out, and as

our Subcommittee recognizes, these

records are currently very limited as a

reliable screening device. The number

one problem, of course, is the lack of

disposition data. This is a problem that

we are increasingly trying to deal with in

legislation. Both the Brady Act and the

National Child Protection Act address

this issue head-on.1 In the course of that,

they impose significant responsibilities

on State and local officials who manage

these record systems.

When the Subcommittee approaches a

piece of legislation like the National

Child Protection Act, one of our primary

goals is to try to ensure that the

legislation fits into the existing system.

All too often, we see proposals put forth

which mandate criminal history

background checks for a particular area.

1 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,

Pub. L. No. 103-159 (November 30, 1993);

National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub.

L. No. 103-209 (December 20, 1993). The

text of both Acts are included in this report as

Appendixes 1 and 10, respectively.
Page 80 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

The proponents often are unaware that

there is an existing, working,

decentralized State-based system with

the FBI as the national focal point. The

legislation often proposes setting up a

new system (such as one that only checks

day-care workers or some other sector).

Our goal, at the very least, is to try to

bring that legislation within the existing

system and to avoid reinventing the

wheel.

As I said, the pressure for use of

criminal history records as a screening

device is not going to end any time soon.

There is a bill pending in the House right

now which would require the States to

conduct criminal history background

checks for all private security officers,

both those who carry weapons and the

vast majority who do not.2 Of course,

this is a sector that vastly exceeds sworn

law enforcement officers in numbers.

One interesting thing in that bill —

and it is another issue we will see

increasingly — is a desire to bypass the

State repository in conducting the

records checks in favor of going directly

to the FBI. That is born from a concern

that State criminal history records checks

are taking too much time. There is also

an obvious significant delay at the

Federal level. But the proponents of

these checks argue, “Sure there is a delay

at the Federal level, but why should we

also face a 6-week or longer delay at the

State level? Let us just jump right over

the State check and send the card straight

to the FBI without a local check.” That is

the argument about fingerprint-based

background checks that is going to be

made increasingly, given the time frames

involved.

National Child Protection Act

In terms of the National Child

Protection Act, I am going to review

what I think are the ways in which it

conforms to the existing system and then

highlight some of the differences. What

are the main elements of the Act?

2 H.R. 34, introduced by Rep. Matthew

Martinez (D-California).

— State law authorizing checks

The first element of the Act says that

each State that wants to conduct national

criminal history record checks of child

care or youth service workers must pass

a law. (It is important to note that the Act

tries to say that there is an existing

background check system, and that many

States already have some form of law

requiring a criminal history record check

on certain individuals having contact

with children.)

The main section of the Act, Section

3, is not self-activating: a State would

have to pass a law before the Act’s

provisions can be enforced. Thus, if the

States receive telephone calls, inquiries

or fingerprint cards from child care

providers and there is no State law

allowing the checks, the providers

cannot cite this Federal legislation as

authority for conducting those checks. If

the FBI receives fingerprint cards, I

believe they will turn those cards back

unless there is a State law defining what

categories of jobs or positions require

the background check.

In that context, we left it very wide

open to the States as to how broadly to

extend the coverage of such a law in

their particular State. We always try to

remain sensitive to the Federalism issue

and the question of how much we tell the

States to do as opposed to how much we

simply suggest to the States. (Such as

outlining goals or parameters for the

States to operate in, leaving the final

decisions as to how the laws will look to

the States.) At the Federal level, I do not

think we could specify for every State a

category of occupations (both paid and

volunteer) that would require a

background check. We left that decision

to the States. Therefore, just as the

system has always operated prior to the

Child Protection Act, there still must be a

State law that allows FBI criminal

history background checks of child care

providers.

— Fingerprint-based searches

The second element of the Act

stipulates that the criminal records search

must be based upon fingerprints. On the

employment side, there is tremendous

pressure to move toward name-checks or

to have name-checks followed up by

fingerprint checks. Again, this is born

largely from the frustration with the

waiting periods that are entailed with

fingerprint checks. But this Act makes it

clear that there must be a fingerprint

accompanying each request for a

criminal history background check.

— Searches processed through a

State agency

The third element of the Act is that

the fingerprint-based search request must

be submitted by, and the results are to be

returned to, a State agency. Again, an

objective of the Act was to keep the State

agencies involved in the process and not

have a situation where employers are

bypassing State agencies and going

straight to the Federal government.

— Entire record sent to States

Fourth, the Act intends that the entire

record, including arrests without

dispositions, would be made available to

the State agency. That is, once the

fingerprint card or the fingerprint images

are forwarded to the FBI, the entire

record goes back to the State agency.

— States determine disqualifying

offenses

Fifth, the State agency which has

responsibility for regulating child care in

that State must make a determination as

to whether the individual has been

convicted of a crime which would

negatively affect the person’s suitability

for contact with children.

Again, the Subcommittee tried to give

the States maximum latitude here. When

this legislation was originally introduced,

there was a list of so-called “background

check crimes,” the conviction of which

would render a person disqualified from

employment related to child care. As the

Act now stands, however, there is no

concept of what is considered a

background check crime and the Act

does not provide a specific list of

offenses which are disqualifying.

Ultimately, it is impossible to draw up

such a list: first, it is easy to forget to

include a particular crime; second,
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 81

subsequent statutes may be passed which

have a direct bearing on the list of

disqualifying crimes. There is always a

problem in compiling a list like that.

Instead, the Act uses a general term

that was drawn from an earlier Federal

statute on background checks: “...

convicted of a crime that bears upon an

individual’s fitness to have responsibility

for the safety and well-being of

children.” We try to keep that as broad as

possible and to give the State regulatory

agencies, either by statute, regulation or

practice, the ability to determine what

would be a conviction that would

disqualify a person from having

responsibility for children. This approach

also saved us from dealing with those

particular cases where, for example, an

agency might want to hire someone who

has a drug conviction to work as a drug

counselor in a youth program. For us to

say that a person with a prior drug record

is, per se, disqualified, would put a

straitjacket on some of those programs.

Thus, we leave some flexibility to the

States.

— Right to challenge

The sixth major element in the Act is

that an individual who is affected by the

criminal history record check has a right

to see the record and to challenge the

accuracy or completeness of any of the

information.

— Prohibition against

redissemination

Finally, the Act includes a catch-all

reference to Public Law 92-544, the

Federal law that governs State access to

the FBI’s identification records for

employment and licensing purposes.

New elements in the Act

What is new in the National Child

Protection Act? There are some new

elements in this law that go beyond

current practice and do impose some

mandates on the States.

— Mandatory reporting of child

abuse crimes

First, Section 2 of the Act requires the

reporting of child abuse crime

information to the national criminal

history system maintained by the FBI. To

my knowledge, this is the first time that

Congress has mandated the reporting of

criminal history records to the FBI. Up

until now — although there has been

widespread participation by the States for

decades — that technically has been a

voluntary system.

The Act singles out a narrow category

of records called “child abuse crime

records” for reporting. The law is a clear

indication by the Congress that it is

important to have a single system by

which we can conduct 50-State checks

on individuals seeking to work with

children. In a sense, we have taken one

category of employee, one category of

risk, and elevated it by requiring that the

States must submit those records to the

Federal government so that there is a

centralized location to conduct a 50-State

check.

The Act, in referring to this

mandatory reporting requirement, says

the States shall report or index their

records with the national system. The

reference to indexing was specifically

intended to anticipate the ultimate full

decentralization of State criminal records

systems through the Interstate

Identification Index (III).3 Until the III is

fully implemented and until there is

some way to resolve the conflicting State

laws that involve access to these records,

in most instances, most States will

continue to forward their full records to

the FBI. But in anticipation of a

decentralized system and in an effort to

promote the III, the Act says that States

must report or index child abuse criminal

records to the Federal government.

The Judiciary Committee Report

accompanying the legislation provides

some background information and may

help resolve some individual issues that

3 When the issues involving noncriminal

justice access to the criminal history record

information retained in III can be resolved,

the Federal and State governments will fully

implement the III system, in which the States

maintain the full criminal history records and

the FBI retains an index “pointing” to the

State which holds the actual records.

come up under the legislation.4 The

report makes it clear that neither the

States nor the FBI are required, under

this legislation, to create new databases.

We are not proposing, and I do not think

that the Act should be read as such, to

require States to establish separate

databases or files on child abuse

offenders. The purpose was to tell the

States that within their overall repository

system, they must put greater emphasis

on ensuring that arrests and convictions

in the area of child abuse crimes are

reported to or indexed with the Federal

system so that those records will be

available for a 50-State check.

— Disposition reporting

Second, the law sets an 80 percent

disposition reporting goal. It says that

States must, within 3 years from the date

of the law’s enactment, have an 80

percent disposition reporting rate for

records in which there has been activity

within the preceding 5 years. Although

this is a goal, it is also an effort by

Congress to say that disposition reporting

levels hamper the usefulness of these

records. We cannot continue legislating

the use of these records, we cannot

continue passing laws offering people

some promise of security through the use

of these records, when we recognize (but

sometimes not publicly) that these

records are often not useful because of

the lack of disposition data.

I think the Brady Law does

acknowledge that problem as well. I

know that all of you have acknowledged

it for many years. People who do not

work with these records systems tend to

forget the fact of so many of these

records lack dispositions. We just could

not move forward with legislation like

the National Child Protection Act

without having some very explicit

recognition that there is a problem with

data quality, and that it is something that

has to be dealt with. As we are going to

see continuing efforts to use these

4 House Report 103-393, Report of the

House Judiciary Committee to accompany

H.R. 1237, the National Child Protection Act

of 1993.
Page 82 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

records for more and more purposes, the

data quality issue must be addressed.

— 15-day response time

Third, the Act set a goal of 15

business days for responding to record

requests, and there is language in the law

that refers to “reasonable efforts” or

“best efforts” to meet the 15-day

turnaround time. We recognize that in

many jurisdictions that is unattainable. It

is a goal, and it is a recognition of the

fact that businesses and government

agencies are being adversely affected by

having to wait months, in many cases, to

get a response to a criminal history

record check.

— Tracking down dispositions

Fourth, the law specifically states that

the regulatory agency receiving back a

naked arrest5 on a record must make

efforts to complete that record. This

involves making telephone calls, sending

out written inquiries or doing any followup necessary to complete that

information instead of just ignoring it,

particularly where the record raises some

questions (such as where there are a

series of drunk-driving arrests or where

there is a single arrest for a violent

crime).

— Fees

Fifth, a very difficult issue for the

Subcommittee was the question of

imposing background check fees on

volunteer organizations, such as the Boy

Scouts, Girl Scouts, camp groups and

others that work with children and

depend upon volunteers to do their work.

One of the things that worried them the

most was the question of a $50 fee being

imposed upon the volunteer or

organization for a background check.

The law tries to strike a balance here

by stipulating that fees for conducting

background checks on volunteers be

limited to the actual cost of doing the

check. This will, I believe, require some

States to establish a two-tier fee

structure, particularly in those States that

are currently charging an increment that

5 An arrest record that has no disposition.

pays automation costs or goes to other

purposes not directly related to the cost

of the check. The FBI has long had a

segregated fee system and they know

what the cut-off figure is. I assume the

States do, as well. An actual-cost fee

may still be significant, but we tried to

provide some relief to volunteers.

Although there was significant

pressure on us to allow free criminal

history checks for volunteers, we did not

feel that we could do that. In effect, that

would force the business-users to

subsidize the volunteer organizations.

The legislation does, however, contain a

recommendation to the States that they

try to get that fee even lower, if they can,

in order not to discourage volunteers

from participating in child welfare

programs.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 83

Authorized record checks for screening child care and

youth service workers

NOY S. DAVIS

Project Manager/Attorney

American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law

When the American Bar Association

(ABA) first began the study on the

effective screening of child care and

youth service workers, the publications

of SEARCH and the Bureau of Justice

Statistics were tremendously important.

The lengthy review of the literature that

we did last year includes numerous

citations from both organizations.

I am the Project Manager on a study

by the ABA Center on Children and the

Law titled “The Effective Screening of

Child Care and Youth Service

Workers.”1 In an effort to further an

understanding of the impact of the

National Child Protection Act, my

colleague Kim Dennis and I will be

sharing information from the study

regarding several topics.

I will review the extent to which

criminal record checks are currently

authorized for the screening of child care

and youth service workers. Ms. Dennis

will discuss some of the major issues

raised in literature regarding criminal

record checks, as well as the extent to

which checks are currently used by

organizations and agencies that provide

care and other services to children.

ABA study background

First, I would like to provide more

information about the study. The 2-year

project is funded by the Justice

Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention and will be

1 The study was scheduled to be completed

and a final report issued in July 1994. A

memorandum from the ABA Center on

Children and the Law summarizing the

provisions of the National Child Protection

Act of 1993 is enclosed as Appendix 11.

completed in summer 1994. The Project

Director is Dr. Susan Wells. The main

goals of the project are: (1) to provide a

comprehensive overview and evaluation

of the effectiveness of current practices

used to identify potentially abusive

individuals, including the use of criminal

record checks, and (2) to make

recommendations regarding a national

approach to screening.

To accomplish these goals, we have

undertaken a number of specific tasks.

They include:

• Developing population estimates as to

the number of people in youth-serving

professions, as well as the number of

children served in those professions.

These estimates will assist in

identifying the potential universe of

those who work with children and in

analyzing the degree of risk to

children.

• Conducting a nationwide survey of

youth-serving organizations regarding

types, costs and the perceived

effectiveness of their screening

practices. Ms. Dennis will provide

some preliminary findings from this

national survey.

• Working with the U.S. Department of

Defense to evaluate its screening

practices. The department is one of

the largest providers of services to

youth and is subject to a 1990 law

requiring criminal record checks to be

done on all employees in federally

operated or federally contracted child

care facilities. To date, no formal

documentation exists evaluating the

implementation or effectiveness of

this law in screening out potential

offenders.
Page 84 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

• Reviewing the laws impacting the use

of certain screening practices,

including criminal record checks.

State statutes authorizing

child care records checks

I will now review the laws that

authorize access to State or Federal

criminal records to screen individuals

who work with kids.

Under the National Child Protection

Act, Federal criminal background checks

continue to be available to child- and

youth-serving organizations, provided

there is a State statute approved by the

Attorney General authorizing the Federal

checks. I want to clarify this last point,

because I have received numerous calls,

and I continue to receive calls, from

child care providers who think that they

are required or entitled to get criminal

background checks under the Act. The

Act simply does not do this. To obtain a

Federal criminal check on a person who

works with children, there still must be a

State statute that authorizes the Federal

check.

Our State law research, to date,

reveals that almost all States now have

statutes that authorize either a State or a

Federal criminal record check, or both,

for at least some category of person who

works with kids. The scope and reach of

these statutes is tremendously different,

however, on a number of points, as

shown in Figure 1.

— Type of check, work settings

State criminal record check statutes

differ by the type of check authorized

(Federal, State or both), with about 60

percent of the States currently

authorizing Federal checks for some kind

of child care or youth service workers.

Figure 2 lists some of the most

frequently authorized work settings for

criminal record checks. Day care is the

setting for which checks are most

frequently mandated: About 80 percent

of the States require some type of

criminal record check for at least some

categories of day care workers.

The next setting for which checks are

frequently authorized is foster or

adoptive homes. About 60 percent of the

States authorize criminal record checks

for foster or adoptive parents.

Approximately half of the States require

checks for school personnel, and about

40 percent authorize record checks for

social service or social welfare agencies.

Roughly one-third of the States’

authorized criminal record checks are for

school bus services and another one-third

are for juvenile-detention or youthresidential facilities. In addition, about

one-quarter of the States have enacted

what can be fairly broad provisions that

authorize criminal record checks for

persons having supervisory or

disciplinary power over a child.

Other settings that are sometimes

covered by State record check statutes

include youth camps, youth

organizations, public recreation or youth

programs. And one State specifically

authorizes State criminal checks for inhome babysitters.

— Type of workers

Within each of the work settings, the

types of workers to be screened differs

and, in some cases, may be quite limited.

In most States, statutes include all paid

employees who have contact with

children, and often include the licensed

operator, owner or administrator.

Volunteers, however, are not always

included. Approximately one-third of the

States that authorize checks for a

particular work setting do not include

volunteers. And a few States authorize

checks only on the licensed operator,

owner or administrator of a facility or

organization. Thus, checks for some of

the people who may actually be working

with the children are not included.

— Required or permitted check

Another point of difference regarding

the checks is whether the check is

required or permitted. Of the States that

allow criminal record checks, most

require the checks for some settings and

permit them in others. For example, one

State requires checks for school bus

drivers and family day care workers, but

permits them for licensed day care

workers and for prospective adoptive

parents and youth workers.

— Types of crime

The statutes also differ in the types of

crimes that the check is to focus on.

About one-third of the States focus on

violent crimes and/or sex offenses, and a

number of States include child abuse or

neglect crimes, while some add drug

offenses. About one-half of the States

look at all crimes.

— Effect on employment

Another point of variance is whether

the statutes require that the existence of a

criminal record bars employment. About

40 percent provide that whether

employment is barred depends upon the

type of crime involved and the position

which the person is seeking. Another 30

percent state that the criminal record is to

be a factor. Less than one-quarter state

that a criminal record is an outright bar

to employment.

— Fingerprint submissions

The last point of variance is whether

fingerprints are required to be submitted.

As you know, Federal checks require the

subject’s fingerprints. For State checks,

there is a fairly even split as to whether

or not fingerprints are required.

Conclusions

Given the lack of uniformity to the

laws, there can be few overall

conclusions. Because many of the

criminal record check laws are of fairly

recent vintage, there clearly is a trend

toward authorizing these checks. Given

the numerous ways in which the laws

vary, it is also clear that States have

made, and may continue to make, very

different judgments as to when and about

whom these checks must, or may be

made.

In determining whether to permit or

require criminal record checks,

competing policy considerations often

come into play — the tremendous desire

to protect children from out-of-home

child abuse, the desire to enable

convicted persons to rehabilitate

themselves, and privacy considerations.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 85

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK STATUTES:

SOME POINTS OF VARIANCE

1. State and/or Federal Check

2. Work Settings

3. Types of Workers

4. Criminal Check Required or Permitted

5. Types of Crimes of Interest

6. If/When Criminal Record is a Bar to Employment

7. Fingerprints Required?

Figure 1: Points of variance in criminal record check statutes

which allow screening of child care workers

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK STATUTES:

FREQUENTLY COVERED WORK SETTINGS

1. Day Care

2. Foster and Adoptive Homes

3. Schools

4. Social Service/Welfare Agencies

5. School Bus/Transportation Services

6. Juvenile Detention/Residential Facilities

7. Supervisory/Disciplinary Power Over Child

Other Settings: youth organizations, youth camps,

public recreation or youth programs

Figure 2: Frequently covered work settings in criminal record check statutes

which allow screening of child care workers
Page 86 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Report on national study of existing screening practices

by child care organizations

KIMBERLY DENNIS

Research Associate

American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law

My presentation switches the

discussion from the legislative nature of

the National Child Protection Act to its

practical application and focuses on

current screening practices, as indicated

by the preliminary findings from a

national survey conducted by the

American Bar Association Center on

Children and the Law.1

Before I discuss this study, I thought

it might be useful to first provide a

general overview of some of the major

issues concerning criminal record

checks, and then follow with a discussion

of the preliminary findings as they relate

to some of these broader issues.

Record check issues

As evidenced by the passage of the

National Child Protection Act and solid

turnout here today, there is currently a

strong movement toward an interest in

using criminal record checks as part of

the hiring and selection process for

employees and volunteers who work

with children.

The use of criminal record checks is

not without limitations, and it is from

this vantage point that I would like to

begin. While the Act seeks to rectify a

number of the major problems and

criticisms that have been identified with

record checks, I think it is useful to

briefly address these, keeping in mind

how these problems are going to affect

child- and youth-serving organizations in

particular.

I want to very quickly run through the

problems of criminal record checks for

1 A final report containing the results of the

survey was scheduled to be issued in July

1994.

employment or volunteer screening

purposes: their relevance and usefulness

(the likelihood of obtaining a “hit”); data

quality issues; timeliness; and cost.

— Effectiveness

First, how effective are criminal

record checks in identifying individuals

unsuitable to work with children?

Although there are over 53 million

records on file with the FBI and the

States, the likelihood that one of those

records belongs to a child abuser is slim.

In fact, the likelihood of obtaining a

record hit of any kind on any individual

is often less than 1 percent and

sometimes is just above 5 percent.

The important thing to keep in mind

when you are contemplating hit rates is

that even if a hit does come back, the

probability that the criminal history

record is going to contain a child abuse

or child-specific offense is very rare.

Overall, low hit rates can be attributed to

the fact that child abusers are hardly ever

detected to begin with. If they are

detected, they are not necessarily

arrested. And if tried, convictions are

often difficult to come by, or the

individual may plead to a lesser,

unrelated offense.

— Data quality

The second commonly cited problem

has to do with the quality of criminal

history data. As was discussed earlier at

this conference, less than optimal quality

is due to the lack of final disposition

information. It is important to realize that

this also extends to the problem of

backlogs in simply entering records into

the computer systems, both at the State

and Federal levels.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 87

— Timeliness

Third is timeliness. The lengthy

turnaround time in receiving criminal

history information is especially

problematic with FBI and State

fingerprint checks, the results of which

may take 6 to 8 weeks to reach

organizations. State name-based and

local police checks are often much

quicker, ranging from several days to as

long as 2 to 3 weeks. Timeliness with

respect to child care and youth-serving

organizations is of special concern,

because they often have an immediate

need for staff, or a high volume of

seasonal or part-time employees. Take,

for example, a youth summer camp: The

camp may have a hundred counselors on

which it needs to do the checks very

quickly, yet it is not going to do much

good if the summer is already halfway

over when the FBI results come back.

One other concern for the child care and

youth-serving organizations is that they

often have a high turnover rate among

their employees — as high as 40 to 50

percent in some fields.

— Fees

The fourth common problem relates

to the fees. It now costs $24 to do an FBI

check, and State checks may range from

no-cost to about $27, depending on

whether it is name- or fingerprint-based.

I want to put this cost issue in

perspective. Figure 1 provides selected

estimates of the number of adults that

come into contact with children in

various settings. By no means is this list

exhaustive. I picked a couple of the

settings where we know there are a large

number of adults. There are almost 35

million employees and volunteers in just

these settings alone. If you take the

extreme and assume that you are doing

an FBI check at $24 a shot, it is going to

cost about $840 million to conduct

checks on all these individuals. I know

that is an extreme case, but it is really

presented just to provide an idea of how

the costs can add up. These numbers also

provide an indication of potential

demand on the States and at the Federal

level.

Policy issues

As with any issue, there are

advantages and disadvantages to weigh

when implementing policy. I am going to

begin with some of the disadvantages of

criminal record checks, which are

outlined in Figure 2.

— Disadvantages of record checks

First and foremost, critics say that

criminal record checks create a false

sense of security; that is, they often

foster complacency and over-confidence

in the selection of adults who work with

children. By creating this false sense of

security, organizations may neglect to

conduct additional, perhaps more

illuminating, screening, such as

extensive interviews of persons or

reference checks.

The second criticism involves

administrative and procedural

complaints, which can range from

increased bureaucracy and red tape, to

securing adequate financial and human

resources to conduct the checks.

The third critique extends to issues of

fairness and privacy. Our society has an

inherent belief that individuals deserve a

second chance or that they can be

rehabilitated. Unfortunately, this is often

in direct conflict with our desire to

protect children. Some opponents of

record dissemination seek to block

access to these records because they fear

that employers will not use the

information appropriately, resulting in

discrimination. In fact, many argue that

criminal record checks have an adverse

impact on low-income persons, AfricanAmericans or other minorities who

account for a disproportionate share of

those with criminal records.

— Advantages of record checks

Why conduct criminal record checks?

There are two primary advantages, as

shown in Figure 2. First, identifying even

one offender may save hundreds of

children, given the repetitive nature of

child abuse. Second, by conducting

checks, we are deterring individuals from

applying to positions where they can

gain access to children. The one problem

with the latter argument is that it assumes

there is, in fact, a record to be found.

The one additional advantage I want

to point out is that conducting such

record checks sends a message to

individuals that the organization will not

tolerate abusive behavior and that it is, in

fact, taking an active stand to prevent

abuse within the organization.

Preliminary survey findings

I want to turn now to the national

survey of screening practices that we are

conducting. First, I want to provide some

general information about the survey,

and then share some of the preliminary

findings as they relate to some of the

issues that I have just discussed.

Today we have been talking about

screening — primarily under the guise of

criminal record checks. While that is, in

fact, the focus of this conference, there

are a host of other screening practices

that can be used by child care and youth

serving organizations. Figure 3 illustrates

the existing screening mechanisms. They

range from the basic screening of

reference checks and interviews, to the

criminal record checks, and to other

methods such as drug or psychological

testing.

Our survey was sent out to

approximately 3,800 various youth

serving organizations, and we covered

categories such as day care centers,

youth development organizations, public

school districts, private schools, foster

care agencies, juvenile-detention and

correctional facilities, and hospitals and

psychiatric facilities that serve children

and youth. Our overall response rate was

approximately 46 percent, with wide

fluctuation among groups. At least 60

percent of youth development

organizations and juvenile facilities

responded, while only about one-third of

hospitals and private schools chose to

answer. Sample selection was designed

to be as representative of the national

picture as possible and proportionate to

the number of children served.

The survey instrument inquired not

only about the types of screening used,
Page 88 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

but also about how they may differ

between employees and volunteers, and

how effective organizations consider

such practices in weeding out unsuitable

applicants. We also inquired about the

cost and time associated with screening,

and whether the organization

experienced any allegations of abuse

involving employees and volunteers.

— Frequency of screening

Our respondents were asked about the

frequency with which they used some of

the various screening practices. As

shown in the graph in Figure 4, just less

than one-half (45 percent) choose to

conduct State criminal record checks on

employees, while approximately onefourth conduct State checks on

volunteers. The numbers drop off for the

local criminal record checks, and then

decline even further for the FBI checks,

where 26 percent of respondents say that

they use them on employees and 11

percent conduct them on volunteers.

I added one additional screening

practice for your information. Over onethird (35 percent) will check employees

against the State Central Child Abuse

Registry, which contains the civil — not

criminal — cases of child abuse.

In breaking down the use of criminal

record checks by type of youth-serving

organization, at least 50 percent or more

of all the groups, with the exception of

private schools, say that they conduct

record checks on potential and/or current

employees. Juvenile detention and

correctional facilities are at the high end

— overall, 97 percent said they use

criminal record checks on employees.

— Employee/volunteer screening

Figure 5 provides a breakdown

between the employees and the

volunteers. For certain types of

organizations, the differences are

significant. For example, about twothirds of day care centers will conduct

the checks on employees, but less than

one-half of those surveyed subject

volunteers to such checks. Foster care is

pretty consistent between the employees

and providers, and then it drops

somewhat for their volunteers.

This is a continuation with the other

settings. Figure 6 shows that the disparity

between employees and volunteers is

even greater for public school districts

and private schools. You can see that

about 30 percent less will conduct checks

on volunteers versus employees. And

while three-fourths of hospitals use a

criminal record check on employees,

only 28 percent do so for volunteers.

— Record check problems

We asked our respondents to tell us

about any of the problems that they

experienced as a result of their efforts to

screen using criminal record checks. The

good news is that many indicated that

they experienced few problems at all.

However, timeliness, both in conducting

the criminal record screening process as

a whole and in receiving the actual

information, were cited as the primary

difficulties. Certain types of

organizations — public school districts,

youth development organizations and

foster care agencies — did report

experiencing more problems than others.

As Figure 7 indicates, over half (51

percent) said that information is not

provided on a timely basis. According to

our respondents, their average wait for an

FBI check was about 49 days, which is

pretty consistent with what the literature

says and what we know. Their average

wait for State checks ranged from 27 to

29 days, and for local checks it was nine

days.

The second problem cited by 45

percent of our respondents — and also

related to the first — is that the process is

too time-consuming, often creating

delays in hiring for these organizations.

And while, overall, less than one-third

(30 percent) noted that information is

inadequate to make a decision, meaning

that it is either sometimes incomplete or

it lacks detail for them to make a

judgment, the majority of hospitals,

youth development organizations and

foster care agencies indicated this was a

problem.

On a more positive note, a strong

majority (82 percent) did not experience

problems with unsuitable applicants not

being identified (see Figure 8). And no

more than a quarter indicated that costs

or personnel time associated with

conducting the checks was a problem. In

fact, aside from the processing fees, only

about 10 percent indicated that they

incurred any additional expenses

associated with criminal record checks.

This would include hiring special staff or

providing training or workshops to

instruct people how to do checks.

— Effectiveness, usefulness

Our respondents were also asked that

of those screening mechanisms they

used, what do they perceive to be the

most effective in identifying individuals

who are unsuitable to work with children

and youth (see Figure 9). A full 85

percent of our respondents — whether

they use criminal record checks or not —

selected reference checks with past

employers as their most useful practice,

while 74 percent pointed to the personal

interviews. State records checks were

cited by just under half, 47 percent,

followed by personal reference checks

and on-the-job observation (both 44

percent).

What is it the organizations feel

would help them to more effectively

screen employees and volunteers? We

provided a list of 16 items and asked

respondents to select their top five

recommendations:

(1) Over half (58 percent)

recommended the development of a

national registry of child-abusers,

specifically for employment and

volunteer-screening purposes.

(2) Fifty-five percent would like

training on what background

screening techniques are available

and how to properly use them.

(3) Forty-nine percent would welcome

training on how to identify

potentially abusive staff.

(4) Forty-four percent would like to see

implementation of a more

centralized way to conduct criminal

record checks.

(5) Forty percent recommended

increased access to criminal history

and other relevant information.

Finally, when we asked how useful it

would be to access a National Registry of
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 89

Child Abusers for screening purposes,

less than half (46 percent) felt that access

to such a registry would be very useful,

while 30 percent indicated that such a

registry would only be somewhat useful

for their screening purposes.

At this point, I want to reiterate that

these are preliminary findings, and so I

caution anyone against making definitive

conclusions using these numbers. As

already mentioned, our final report will

be out this summer, which will provide a

more detailed analysis.

In conclusion, we hope this discussion

has been informative and has helped to

placed the use of criminal record checks

for child care and youth serving

organizations in the larger context of the

many screening practices that are

available to help keep children safe.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this page is not available.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 99

Current child abuse crime reporting: A State experience

DAVID EBERDT

Director

Arkansas Crime Information Center

My remarks will be in the area of

child care facility licensing legislation,

specifically an overview of the Arkansas

law that requires fingerprint-based

background checks for licensed child

care facilities, their owners, operators

and employees.1 My discussion focuses

specifically on child care facilities, not

on any other area like the Boy Scouts,

Girl Scouts or teachers.

In Arkansas, my agency is responsible

for the automated criminal history file.

We are the National Crime Information

Center control terminal agency, the

primary contact in Arkansas with the

Interstate Identification Index. Because

of that, the staff of the Arkansas Child

Care Facility Licensing Board came to us

a couple of years ago and asked what

they needed to do in order to conduct

national criminal history checks on

employees and owners of child care

facilities. We outlined, generally, our

understanding of what was required then:

that it would take a State law to authorize

the checks, that the checks would need to

be fingerprint-based, and that the law

would have to be approved by the U.S.

Attorney General.

Following that meeting, we did not

hear from them for almost 2 years. Then

last spring, near the end of the 1993

session of our legislature, we were asked

to look at and comment upon a bill that

this licensing board had introduced. We

looked at it, made a few comments, and

sent a copy to the FBI attorneys for an

unofficial review. They also made a few

comments. With those, a few minor

amendments were put on the bill, and it

1 The text of this law, Arkansas Code

Annotated §§20-78-601 to 604 (1993), is

included in this report as Appendix 12.

was approved by the State Legislature

and signed into law in April 1993.

Arkansas child care

records checks law

The law requires “each applicant for a

license to operate a child care facility”

and “anyone seeking employment in a

child care facility” to be checked through

the State Identification Bureau and have

a national check conducted through the

FBI. The check must be based on

fingerprints, and the results of the check

will be forwarded back to the Child Care

Facilities Review Board, a State agency.

The operators of the child care facilities

are required to maintain evidence that the

checks were made, and the fingerprint

cards are to be destroyed by the State

Identification Bureau following the

check.

The bill sets out 17 specific criminal

offenses, and a conviction on any of

those disqualifies the person from being

an owner, operator or employee in a

child care facility. After the bill was

signed into law, we submitted a copy to

the FBI; it was approved subsequently by

the U.S. Attorney General to enable us to

access the national system in order to

conduct these checks.

Soon after the bill was signed, a

statewide newspaper ran a story on it,

and the phone calls and questions began

to flood in. Initially, there were a lot of

questions regarding the fee because, up

until that point, the checks that had been

done (not based on any State

requirement) were done at no charge by

the Identification Bureau. But under

another law approved during the 1993

session, a fee was authorized for

noncriminal justice record checks.

Because of that, there were rumors it was
Page 100 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

going to cost $100 for every check,

including the FBI check.

Since our legislature had already

adjourned, a legislative interim

committee called a hearing to look into

this law that they had just passed. A lot

of misinformation about it was corrected,

and the question of the fee ($15 for the

State check and $24 for the FBI check)

was a little more palatable. Still, there

was a lot of concern as to who was going

to pay it — the facility owners or the

applicant employees.

The legislation was somewhat unclear

in several areas, and some questions

were submitted to our State Attorney

General for opinion. Here are just a few

of them:

• Who has to be checked when a license

is renewed each 2 years, if the owner

of the facility is a corporation, a

school or a church?

• Must these licensees be checked every

2 years when they renew their

license?

• Who must be checked “when seeking

employment” (the words in the bill)

— all applicants or only the

successful applicants?

• Are volunteer employees required to

be checked? What about bus drivers,

nurses, janitorial personnel, and so

forth?

• Are existing employees to be checked,

since the language in the bill specified

only those seeking employment?

Attorney General opinion

The State Attorney General, Winston

Bryant, released an opinion in November

1993 pointing out that the Child Care

Facilities Review Board had authority to

issue regulations, and those regulations

could deal with a lot of these questions.2

Those regulations should indicate who is

to be checked when the licensed owner is

a corporation, a school or a church. The

Attorney General also said background

checks must be done every time a license

is issued (every 2 years) because it is

actually a reapplication, not a renewal.

On the question about which

applicants must be checked, the Attorney

2 Opinion No. 93-324.

General said “seeking employment”

means receiving a conditional offer of

employment, subject to the check, and

does not refer to everyone who applies

for a position.

On the question of unpaid employees,

there is extensive wording in the opinion

regarding volunteers. The Attorney

General’s opinion states, “The fact that

they [the volunteers] are ‘not paid’ does

not mean that they are not employees”

within the intent of the legislation.

Rather, it is more determined by the

degree of control that the employer has

over the activities of the unpaid workers.

The opinion then discussed the amount

of contact and control that volunteers

may have over the children. But the

conclusion was that the regulations could

require background checks for unpaid

workers.

Finally, the Attorney General

indicated that current or existing

employees in child care facilities are not

required to submit to background checks,

since the wording in the law specifically

states that the checks are to be done on

those seeking employment.

For various reasons, including the

delay by the legislative committees and

waiting for the Attorney General’s

opinion, the regulations have not yet

been issued by this licensing board.

Criminal history checks are being made

in many cases, but not in all cases.

Remaining issues

A number of issues remain, including

where and when and by whom

fingerprints are to be taken, and so forth.

I thought it was interesting (and

somewhat of a surprise to me) that there

are over 2,000 licensed child care

facilities in our relatively small State, so

the numbers nationally, I am sure, are

going to be staggering.

Ours is certainly not a complex piece

of legislation, but it turned out to be a lot

more involved than anyone thought when

it was proposed. There are plans to

amend the bill in January 1995, and I am

sure that parts of it will be changed. I do

not think that the main thrust will be

changed that much, but certainly there

are questions about it right now (such as

whether existing employees should be

checked, and whether it is a good idea to

have a specific list of offenses that

disqualify people).

It is important to point out that if your

State does not already have such a law

and you want one, or you will be drafting

one, or you will be involved in any way

in the input — it will require a State

statute. It will have to be (or should be) a

fingerprint-based check, and the law

must be approved by the U.S. Attorney

General. Other than that, the particulars

will be unique to the various States.
II. Current decisionmaking and future policies

Grant agency perspective

Grant agency perspective on implementation of the

Brady and National Child Protection Acts

Lawrence A. Greenfeld
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 103

Grant agency perspective on implementation of the

Brady and National Child Protection Acts

LAWRENCE A. GREENFELD

Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

On behalf of the staff at the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS), I am delighted to

be here to both sponsor and participate in

this conference, which focused on the

implementation of the Brady and

National Child Protection Acts and on

improving criminal history records.

Improving the quality and usefulness of

records has been a principal goal of BJS

for the last 20 years. This is the sixth

major national conference we have

sponsored over the course of the years,

and we have sponsored numerous

training meetings on every topic from

auditing records to privacy concerns.

Over these two decades, BJS has

generated literally dozens of reports and

materials to help move the improvement

of criminal history records to become a

more prominent and visible concern to

everyone, regardless of whether they

work in the criminal justice system.

No one should ever doubt the

importance of our concern about

complete, accurate and accessible

records. For example:

• In a BJS follow-up study of a sample

representing 109,000 offenders

released from prisons in 11 States, we

learned how mobile criminals could

be. About 31 percent had arrests in

States other than the States in which

they had served time. Together, these

109,000 offenders compiled 1.6

million fingerprintable arrest charges

both before their imprisonment and

within 3 years afterward.

• A BJS survey carried out in State

prisons nationwide revealed that about

4 percent of the U.S. prison

population were non-U.S. citizens and

that nearly 80 percent of these aliens

were serving time for violent or drug

crimes.1

• That same BJS prisoner survey

revealed that one in five prisoners

serving time for violence had

committed their crime against a child,

and that nearly eight in 10 of these

offenders had raped or sexually

assaulted the child-victim.

• About 43 percent of prisoners said

they had owned or possessed a

firearm; of these, three out of four

owned or possessed a handgun and

one in five had owned or possessed a

military weapon such as an Uzi, AK47, AR-15 or M-16. While about one

in six prisoners admitted to carrying a

firearm during the crime they

committed, for 82 percent of these

armed offenders, the weapon was a

handgun and, for more than onequarter of them, the handgun was

obtained from a retail outlet such as a

gun shop, pawn shop, flea market or

gun show. About one-quarter of all

prisoners said that in the past, before

the current offense which brought

them to prison, they had used a gun to

commit a crime.

Handguns and murder

One useful way to look at the

importance of the criminal history record

and a record check at the time of a

handgun purchase is by looking at

imprisoned murderers and their

description of their offense and the

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991, by

Allen Beck, et. al. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office) March 1993.
Page 104 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

source for their weapons. In 1991, BJS

interviewed a nationally representative

sample of State prisoners drawn to

represent those offenders who had been

convicted of murder or non-negligent

manslaughter.2 Here is what we found:

• About 44 percent of these murderers

said they had used a handgun during

the commission of the murder.

• About 52 percent of the handgun

murderers had a prior adult record of

convictions for crimes.

• About 17 percent of the handgun

murderers said they had purchased the

handguns at a retail outlet.

Combining these characteristics,

about 6 percent of murderers interviewed

were recidivist offenders who purchased

the handgun which they used in their

crime at a retail outlet. About the same

number — 6 percent — were first-time

offenders who purchased their handguns

at a retail outlet. In other words, about a

third of those murderers who used

handguns acquired their weapons in a

retail outlet and half of these had a prior

adult record of convictions.

Today there are about 89,000 State

prisoners currently serving time for

murder. Of these, about 11,000

purchased their handgun in a retail outlet

and an estimated 5,500-6,000 had an

adult criminal conviction record at the

time of the handgun purchase. Since

about 15 percent of murderers reported

two or more victims, the number of

murdered and injured victims is

somewhat higher than the number of

offenders.

We may be able to “guesstimate” that

the current cohort of murderers (those

who are repeat offenders and who used a

handgun which they had purchased at a

retail outlet) may account for about 6,000

or more victims. It is somewhat more

difficult to estimate the size of the victim

pool affected by the other 302,000

violent offenders currently in State

prisons. What is amazing, however, is

that about half of those offenders who

carried a handgun during their crime

report that they discharged the firearm

2 Ibid, pp. 18-19.

during the offense.3 (This includes all

crimes whether they were violent or not.)

Researchers with the Virginia

Department of Criminal Justice Services

achieved nearly identical estimates in a

survey they recently conducted among

State prisoners — half of the prisoners

who carried a gun during their crime

fired their weapon during the crime.

Data from the FBI Uniform Crime

Reports indicate that the number of

firearms crimes is growing. In 1987,

there were an estimated 366,000

murders, robberies and aggravated

assaults with firearms.4 In 1992, the FBI

data indicate a 55 percent increase in the

number of these crimes involving

firearms, reaching about 566,000

incidents reported to law enforcement

agencies.5 In 1991, The National Crime

Victimization Survey showed that about

600,000 violent incidents occurred that

year involving handguns.6

Improving criminal history records

BJS is very excited about the Brady

and National Child Protection Acts. Both

give new and important visibility to what

is among the most important challenges

facing the infrastructure of the criminal

justice system — how to keep accurate

and timely records of criminal justice

transactions and make those records

available for not only justice system

purposes but also for noncriminal justice

purposes as well.

3 Thirteen percent of all prisoners reported

carrying a handgun during the commission of

their crime; of these, 6 percent report that

they discharged the handgun. Ibid, p. 19.

4 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United

States, 1987, Uniform Crime Reports,

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, July 10, 1988).

5 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United

States, 1992, Uniform Crime Reports,

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, October 3, 1993).

6 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

National Crime Victimization Survey, 1991,

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, 1992).

As most of you probably know, BJS

has undertaken two major efforts in

recent years: the Criminal History

Record Improvement Program, a 3-year,

$27 million program to fund State

projects to improve the quality of

criminal history records; and in 1992, a

nationwide survey of State criminal

history record repositories to assess the

quality of their criminal history record

information, to determine the

accessibility of the information, and to

examine the extent and frequency of data

quality audit activity.7

— Timetable survey

We are about to undertake a new

survey of State criminal history record

systems to estimate the time required for

each State to fully implement the

National Instant Criminal Background

Check System required under the Brady

Act and for each State to meet the record

quality expectations of the National

Child Protection Act. It is highly likely

that when Congress completes the

appropriations for the new assistance

programs to continue the upgrading of

criminal history records, it will be the

single largest Federal shot-in-the-arm

ever for records. The grant programs

which accompany the Brady and

National Child Protection Acts will help

move us along toward better linkage of

arrests and dispositions and will foster

greater shareability of records through

the Interstate Identification Index (III)

program.

As mentioned, the first stage of this

effort and one which we are in the

process of funding and fielding is a

survey of the steps needed in each State

to ensure participation in III and more

complete disposition reporting and the

ability to detect child-victim crimes.

Both Acts stipulate that those States

which have less-developed records

7 This survey was published in 1993. U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey

of Criminal History Information Systems,

1992, by Sheila J. Barton, SEARCH Group,

Inc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, November 1993).
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 105

systems will receive the most immediate

funding priority. The accurate and timely

completion of this timetable survey is

therefore a critical element to

establishing the foundation for the

subsequent assistance programs. We

have asked SEARCH to conduct the

survey and we are currently in the final

stages of working through the concepts

which will underlie a full grant

application.

— 1992 survey findings

The previous State survey, conducted

in 1992, will serve as the basis for much

of the new survey. That survey revealed

that although three out of four criminal

history records are now automated, there

is still a long way to go in terms of

obtaining disposition information and

making records available through III.8

Some of the most important points

found in the 1992 survey were:

• Forty-eight States have a Master

Name Index and most of these (40)

are automated.

• The Nation’s repositories hold 47.3

million criminal history records and

an estimated 77 percent (36.4 million)

are in automated form.

• The number of records is growing by

an average of 2 million annually.

• Sixteen States could not report the

percentage of arrests with

dispositions.

• Only 33 States could report the

number of arrest dispositions received

in 1992.

• Eleven States reported that at least 80

percent of the arrests in the preceding

5 years contained disposition

information; 12 States reported 60

percent-79 percent completeness; 11

reported that 40 percent-59 percent of

records were complete; and 19 States

reported lower levels of completeness

or that they did not know how

complete their records were.

• Twenty-three States do not require

notification to the repository if an

arrestee is not subsequently charged.

• Only 12 States systematically notify

the repository of prosecutor

8 Ibid.

declinations and most do not know or

report low percentages of cases in

which nonconvictions following

summonses are reported to the

repository.

• Only 15 States routinely receive

probation admissions and releases and

21 received parole admissions and

releases for entry into the criminal

history record.

• States reported wide disparities in the

time required to receive and post

entries to records ranging up to 2 to 3

years and many do not know how

long the process requires.

• About half the States have audited the

quality and completeness of their

record-holdings in the past 5 years.

• Only nine of 24 States make at least

80 percent of their criminal history

files available to the III, which will be

the primary vehicle for sharing such

records across jurisdictions.

• Nineteen States report firearms

presale records checks and 15 States

permit the sharing of such information

with firearms dealers.

With respect to the Child Protection

Act, we have little data that tell us how

many jurisdictions could identify a

person with prior convictions for

violence against children. Identifying

those who have such histories may be

difficult, if not impossible, in most

current record systems. Practically

speaking, however, it is unlikely that a

child-care job applicant who has a

history of rape convictions or convictions

for other violent acts would be cleared

for the job, regardless of whether the age

of the prior victims was known. This

does not mean that flagging the records

of violent predators who prey on

vulnerable victims can be avoided. In the

coming years, we will probably see

increasing interest among legislative

bodies at all levels of government to

broaden the range of record checks. Most

importantly, the Child Protection Act

defines a quality standard for records

which commonsensibly helps State and

local records administrators argue for

more and better resources.

Grant programs

The grant programs which accompany

the Brady and National Child Protection

Acts will do much to strengthen the

information base of justice system

decisionmakers. It is disturbing how

often important public safety decisions

are made without apparently adequate

information. A recent BJS study of

pretrial release practices in the 75 largest

counties nationwide illustrates what

surely must be a reflection of inadequate

information: among felony defendants

released pending trial, about 20 percent

were rearrested while on release and, of

these, two-thirds were re-released.9

The recent $27 million Criminal

History Record Improvement Program

reveals the types of activities of highest

priority: 41 States placed an emphasis on

improving disposition reporting, 25

States emphasized identifying felons by

flagging records, 18 States directed the

Federal funds to III participation, and 15

States wanted to reduce backlogs and

lessen the time required to post

transactions to records. I would expect

that the new grant programs in fiscal

1995 will build on these activities with

an additional emphasis, due to the

National Child Protection Act, on

improved and more rapid and efficient

fingerprint-based record checks. Some

jurisdictions may seek to use the Federal

funds to leverage their entry into

Automated Fingerprint Identification

System (AFIS) technology, for example.

The new grant program, for which the

Administration is requesting $100

million, will build on the goals and

objectives of the earlier Criminal History

Record Improvement Program. An

obvious priority of the program will be to

focus Federal funding assistance on those

arrest and other transactions which are of

the most recent vintage, say the last 5

9 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

National Pretrial Reporting Program,

Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1990,

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Series

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, November 1992) p. 2.
Page 106 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

years, with much less priority given to

records which have not had transactions

in many years. In addition, priority

probably will be given to those

applications which involve reducing

substantial backlogs of new records or

posting new transactions to old records

or implementing procedures to avoid

future backlogs.

— Eligible funding activities

Among the types of activities which

would be eligible for funding presumably

will be:

• Efforts to flag felony and child-victim

convictions in criminal history

records;

• Efforts to improve reporting to the

central repository of all arrests,

dispositions and other relevant

information;

• Initiating, automating or expanding

Master Name Indexes;

• Automating records, particularly

records with recent arrest transactions,

and reducing the time required to post

all transactions to records;

• Designing, developing or

implementing procedures to ensure

participation in III;

• Developing or acquiring technologies

to permit the electronic interchange of

data (for example, from courts to the

State repository);

• Implementing procedures or software

to monitor missing arrests and

dispositions, missing fingerprint

cards, and so on, and to notify

jurisdictions of their need to submit

missing information and for letting

them know exactly what is missing;

• Efforts to move toward the expanded

use of AFIS technologies that are

consistent with FBI technologies; and

• Efforts to link National IncidentBased Reporting System data with

criminal history record information

using a unique, fingerprint-supported

number.

The types of activities which would

probably not be eligible to receive

funding would be wholesale replacement

of hardware and software or systems

currently in use, extensive planning, or

conversion of old manual records to a

machine-readable format. If you had to

pin me down, the three most important

things to do would be (1) to gain

participation in III, (2) to improve the

coverage of disposition reporting and the

linkage to arrest transactions, and (3) to

put in place a set of procedures to

improve timeliness in posting entries to

the records and ensuring that missing

data are monitored, identified, sought

and recorded.

Other recordkeeping activities

There are other recordkeeping needs

which we will need to devote greater

attention to in the future and which could

perhaps be pushed along with Federal

funds. Accessible databases on illegal

aliens, persons with histories of

commitments for mental problems or

drug addiction, and the other prohibited

categories of firearms purchasers under

the 1968 Gun Control Act will need to be

developed, but these are probably lower

priorities at the moment.

One area that has always been of great

concern to me as a former probation

officer who used rap sheets to prepare

presentence reports, is that the rap sheet

is simply a record of criminal justice

transactions — it is not a record of the

public safety consequences of a person’s

criminal conduct. For example, rap

sheets tell us nothing about the number

of victims injured over a criminal career

or whether and what types of firearms

may have been used in crimes, the value

of property stolen or damaged, the age

and vulnerabilities of victims, and so

forth. The FBI’s National Incident-Based

Reporting System, which I expect will

cover 40 percent of the U.S. population

by the end of 1994 and which will

eventually replace aggregate Uniform

Crime Reporting statistics, offers a

potentially golden opportunity to crosswalk between a criminal record and an

incident record with perhaps a change as

simple as the addition of the State

identification number of the arrestee to

the incident record. It would permit the

criminal record to grow into a record of

community victimization.

I look forward to working with each

and every State as we move forward

toward this new program during the

coming fiscal year. The timetable survey

which we will be implementing shortly is

dependent upon State involvement in

order to measure what needs to be done

and how the available resources are to be

allocated. I am sorry to say that it will

require a rather short turn-around but I

am hopeful that it will not be excessively

burdensome.

I believe that the 20-year record of

BJS financial and technical assistance,

the FBI’s strong commitment to the

development of a national system of

accurate and shareable records, and the

skill and devotion of State and local

information managers represents a

partnership that benefits every citizen.

The Brady Act and the National Child

Protection Act enable this partnership to

gain the kind of visibility and importance

that all of us have known for many years

was sorely needed. These fresh new

resources, when they become available,

will create new opportunities to expand

and strengthen the partnership.
Contributors’ biographies
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 109

Contributors’ Biographies

Robert R. Belair

Mr. Belair, SEARCH General

Counsel, is a partner with the

Washington, D.C. law firm of

Mullenholz, Brimsek and Belair. The

principal emphasis of Mr. Belair’s

practice is privacy and information law

involving administrative, legislative and

litigation activity. His practice includes

counseling in all aspects of privacy and

information law; defamation; intellectual

property, including software copyright;

constitutional law; and criminal justice

administration.

As General Counsel, Mr. Belair has

participated in SEARCH’s security and

privacy programs and has authored many

studies in the area of criminal justice

information law and policy. He was

actively involved in the development of

SEARCH’s revised standards of criminal

history record information, Technical

Report No. 13: Standards for the

Security and Privacy of Criminal History

Record Information (Third Edition).

Mr. Belair has served as consultant to

numerous Federal agencies and

commissions on information policy and

law. He is former Deputy General

Counsel and Acting General Counsel of

the Domestic Council Committee on the

Right of Privacy, Office of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of Kalamazoo

College and the Columbia University

School of Law.

Robert J. Creighton

Mr. Creighton was recently appointed

to serve as the National Brady Law

Coordinator for the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), U.S.

Department of the Treasury. Prior to this

appointment, Mr. Creighton was Special

Agent in Charge of the ATF Florida

Field Division. In that position, he

directed the management of ATF’s law

enforcement activities in the State of

Florida.

Mr. Creighton joined the ATF as a

Special Agent in 1967 and has served in

New York, Boston, and New Haven and

Hartford, Connecticut. From 1977-80, he

was Resident Agent in Charge in

Hartford. In 1980, Mr. Creighton joined

the staff of the Assistant Director of Law

Enforcement as an Operations Officer in

the Explosives Enforcement Branch,

coordinating the reorganization and

development of ATF’s National

Response Teams. From 1981 to February

1983, he served as Special Agent in

Charge of ATF’s Explosives

Enforcement Branch. In this position, he

was responsible for managing the

National Explosives and Arson

Enforcement Programs. He coordinated

ATF’s role in training programs in the

Departments of Justice and Treasury, and

in State and local law enforcement

agencies.

Mr. Creighton serves on the Board of

Directors of Youth Crime Watch of

America, the Metro-Dade Chiefs

Association and the Florida Advisory

Committee for Arson Prevention. He is

also a member of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police, the

Florida State Chiefs of Police

Association, the International

Association of Bomb Technicians and

Investigators, and the International

Association of Arson Investigators.

A graduate of the University of

Connecticut, Mr. Creighton also has

attended graduate school at the

University of California, Berkeley, and

the University of New Mexico.

Lt. Clifford W. Daimler

Lt. Daimler has been Director of the

Oregon State Police, Identification

Services Section since 1991. Prior to this

assignment, he served as Assistant

Director for 7 years. He also served in

the Criminal Division for 8 years and in

the Patrol Division for 2 years.

Under the direction of Lt. Daimler,

the Identification Services Section is

responsible for the following: the State

computerized criminal history file,

firearms regulations, automated

fingerprint identification system,

regulatory background checks, forensic

latent print laboratory, questioned

document examination and forensic

photography laboratory. Lt. Daimler was

instrumental in implementing Oregon’s

handgun regulation laws that went into

effect in 1990.

Lt. Daimler is a Central Site Member

of the Western Identification Network

and is the Chair of its Policy and

Procedure Committee. He also is

involved in numerous State and Federal

criminal justice organizations.

Noy S. Davis

Ms. Davis is a Project

Manager/Attorney at the American Bar

Association (ABA) Center on Children

and the Law. She is currently working on

two projects: the Effective Screening of

Child Care and Youth Service Workers,

and the Program to Increase

Understanding of Child Sexual

Exploitation.

Ms. Davis received her Juris

Doctorate from the University of

California Hastings College of Law in

1984 and served as law clerk to the Hon.

Howard Turrentine, U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of California.

Prior to working at the ABA Center on

Children and the Law, Ms. Davis

represented children and their families in

civil child abuse and neglect cases in the

District of Columbia. Since 1990, Ms.

Davis has chaired the Child Advocacy

and Protection Committee of the Young

Lawyers Section of the Bar Association

of the District of Columbia. In 1992, she

received the association’s Marvin E.

Preis Award for outstanding committee

chair of the year.

In addition to her J.D., Ms. Davis has

a B.A. in political science from the

University of California, Davis.

James X. Dempsey

Mr. Dempsey is Assistant Counsel to

the U.S. House of Representatives’

Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on

Civil and Constitutional Rights, chaired
Page 110 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

by Rep. Don Edwards (D-California).

Mr. Dempsey’s areas of responsibility

include FBI oversight, privacy, and other

civil liberties and constitutional law

issues.

Prior to joining the Subcommittee

staff, Mr. Dempsey practiced with a law

firm in Washington, D.C.

Kimberly Dennis

Ms. Dennis is a Research Associate at

the American Bar Association (ABA)

Center on Children and the Law. She

received her Master of Public

Administration from the Columbia

University School of International and

Public Affairs in 1992.

Before joining the ABA, Ms. Dennis

had extensive experience as a Research

Assistant and Program Analyst on issues

including homelessness and substance

abuse. Her background includes

managing a project to survey public

policy experts in New York City

regarding necessary policy and

management changes for the City, as

well as conducting other significant field

work, data analysis, policy analysis and

writing for several nonprofit

organizations.

In addition to her M.P.A., Ms. Dennis

holds a B.A. in sociology from the

University of California, Berkeley.

David Eberdt

Mr. Eberdt is Director of the Arkansas

Crime Information Center (ACIC), a

position he has held since ACIC was

established in 1972. Under his direction,

this State agency administers the

computerized criminal justice

information system in Arkansas.

Mr. Eberdt is active in numerous State

and national criminal justice

organizations. He is currently serving his

second term as President of the National

Law Enforcement Telecommunications

System and is the Arkansas governorappointee to SEARCH.

Before becoming Director of ACIC,

Mr. Eberdt was a Circuit Court Reporter

from 1962-71. Mr. Eberdt has a

bachelor’s degree in business

administration from the University of

Arkansas, Monticello.

Lawrence A. Greenfeld

Mr. Greenfeld is Acting Director of

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

U.S. Department of Justice. He has

served in this position since early 1993.

Mr. Greenfeld previously served as

the agency’s Deputy Associate Director

and Chief of Correctional Statistics

Programs. He also has served as a

Statistician with BJS, a Social Science

Analyst with the National Institute of

Justice, a member of the technical staff

of MITRE Corporation, a Planning

Coordinator for the Maryland

Governor’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and the Administration of

Justice, and a probation officer.

Mr. Greenfeld has authored or coauthored more than 50 statistical

publications and analyses covering

probation, jails, prisons, parole, death

row populations and juveniles in

custody. He also has supervised the

development and publication of

numerous reports by BJS Corrections

Unit staff and BJS statisticians. He has

authored several chapters of books and

served as a reviewer for the Journal of

Quantitative Criminology. Mr. Greenfeld

also has overall responsibility for

planning, scheduling and editing the

publications produced annually by BJS

in all areas of crime and criminal justice.

Mr. Greenfeld has spoken at

numerous conferences and meetings on

corrections and criminal justice. In

January 1993, he received the Peter P.

Lejins Award for Research from the

American Correctional Association.

Mr. Greenfeld has a B.A. from the

University of Maryland with a

specialization in criminology. He also

holds an M.S. degree from American

University with a specialization in

correctional administration.

Rebecca L. Hedlund

Ms. Hedlund is the Legislative Policy

Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury for Enforcement, Ronald K.

Noble. The Office of Enforcement at the

Treasury Department oversees the

Customs Service; the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms; the Secret

Service; the Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network; the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center; and the

Office of Foreign Assets Control. In

addition to being responsible for the

Office of Enforcement’s legislative

policy, Ms. Hedlund is the key point of

contact in the Office on firearms issues,

including Brady Act implementation.

Prior to joining the Treasury

Department in October 1993, Ms.

Hedlund worked on Capitol Hill for 11

years. She was a professional staff

member of the now-defunct House Select

Committee on Narcotics Abuse and

Control. Her work at the Committee

focused on the international aspect of the

drug problem in source and transit

countries, including production,

alternative development, money

laundering, interdiction, intelligence,

organized crime, gun smuggling and

drug abuse prevention.

Dr. Sally T. Hillsman

In October 1991, Dr. Hillsman

became the Vice President of Research

and Technical Services for the National

Center for State Courts (NCSC). She

oversees all NCSC Federal grant

proposals and national scope projects.

Among other issues, these national

initiatives deal with caseflow

management for general civil, domestic

relations, felony, misdemeanor, drug,

traffic, small claims and appellate cases;

differentiated case management; and trial

delay and decisions. NCSC’s national

projects also focus on court applications

of technology, including statewide and

trial court automation, as well as such

topics as trial court accountability and

performance standards, human

management, and racial and ethnic bias.

From 1979-91, Dr. Hillsman was the

Associate Director of the Vera Institute

of Justice in New York City and its

Director of Research. She conducted

research using experimental and

nonexperimental designs in a wide range

of criminal justice areas, including

intermediate sanctions, case processing,

prosecution and court delay, pretrial

diversion and policing. Her past work

included research on narcotics law
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 111

enforcement in New York City, the

provision of criminal defense services in

the New York criminal courts, and fining

practices in criminal cases in the United

States and Western Europe.

Dr. Hillsman holds a Ph.D. in

sociology from Columbia University.

Kent Markus

Mr. Markus is Counsel to the Deputy

Attorney General of the United States.

His primary responsibility is to

coordinate all U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ) activity with respect to the

logistical, educational, technical, policy

and communications aspects of

implementing the Brady Act. In addition

to coordinating internal DOJ activity,

Mr. Markus also acts as the primary DOJ

liaison with other Federal agencies and

with the States with respect to Brady Act

implementation.

Prior to his service at the Justice

Department, Mr. Markus was the Chief

of Staff at the Democratic National

Committee and, before that, the Chief of

Staff for Ohio Attorney General Lee

Fisher. In each capacity, he had overall

management responsibility for the

budget, staff and operations of the

institution.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Markus

worked at law firms in Australia, Alaska

and Washington, D.C. before returning

to Ohio to practice law and teach at the

Cleveland State Law School. On Capitol

Hill, Mr. Markus also worked for U.S.

House Speakers Carl Albert and Thomas

P. (Tip) O’Neill and House Rules

Committee Chairman Richard Bolling.

Mr. Markus is a graduate of

Northwestern University and Harvard

Law School. He is also a graduate of the

Kennedy School of Government’s

Program for Senior Executives in State

and Local Government.

Maj. James V. Martin

Maj. Martin is Director of the

Criminal Justice Information and

Communications System, South Carolina

Law Enforcement Division, which is the

State’s central repository for criminal

history records. It also consists of the

Uniform Crime Reporting unit and the

Criminal Justice Data Center and

Intrastate Network.

Maj. Martin currently serves on the

National Crime Information Center

Advisory Policy Board and on the board

of the FBI’s National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System. He also is

a member of the Board of Directors of

SEARCH and chairs its Law and Policy

Program Advisory Committee.

Maj. Martin received his

undergraduate degree in industrial

management at Charleston South

University. He received an M.B.A. from

the University of South Carolina.

Insp. Gary D. McAlvey

Insp. McAlvey currently serves as

Special Assistant to the Deputy Director

of the Illinois State Police Division of

Administration and as Advisor to the

State Armed Felon Enforcement Task

Force of the Illinois State Police. From

1977-93, he held the position of Chief of

the Bureau of Identification, Illinois

State Police. Prior to serving as Chief,

Insp. McAlvey worked in various

positions within the Illinois State Police

and for the Pittsburgh and Allegheny

County Crime Laboratory, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania.

Insp. McAlvey has served as an

Editor of the Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology and Police Science and the

Journal of Police Science and

Administration. He also has served as an

instructor and lecturer at the University

of Louisville, Southern Police Institute

and Waubonsee Community College,

Aurora, Illinois. He is a member of

several professional organizations.

Insp. McAlvey is the most senior

member of the SEARCH Membership

Group, having been appointed in 1970.

He has served a total of five terms as

Chairman of SEARCH and in 1986 was

awarded its Board of Directors Award

for Meritorious Service.

Insp. McAlvey holds a B.S. in Police

Administration (Forensic Science) from

Michigan State University.

Janet Reno

The Honorable Ms. Reno was

appointed Attorney General of the

United States by President Clinton on

March 12, 1993. From 1978 until the

time of her appointment, Ms. Reno

served as the State’s Attorney in Miami,

Florida. She was initially appointed to

that position by the Governor of Florida

and was subsequently elected to that

office five times.

Ms. Reno was a partner in the Miamibased law firm of Steel, Hector and

Davis from 1976-78. Before that, she

served as an Assistant State’s Attorney

and as Staff Director of the Florida

House of Representatives’ Judiciary

Committee, after starting her legal career

in private practice.

Ms. Reno received her A.B. in

chemistry from Cornell University and

her LL.B. from Harvard Law School.

Thomas F. Rich

Mr. Rich is a Senior Analyst at

Queues Enforth Development (QED),

Inc., a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based

criminal justice consulting and software

company. He has been at QED since

1982 and has participated in a variety of

criminal justice studies, primarily for the

U.S. Department of Justice and for

various New York City agencies. His

work at QED also includes developing

geographic information systems for

public safety agencies.

Mr. Rich is co-author of the Justice

Department publication, Identifying

Persons, Other than Felons, Ineligible to

Purchase Firearms: A Feasibility Study.

He is currently Project Manager of the

Criminal History Records Improvement

project, funded by the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

Mr. Rich holds an A.B. in

mathematics from Cornell University

and an M.S. in engineering-economic

systems from Stanford University.
Page 112 National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond

Laurie O. Robinson

Ms. Robinson was named Acting

Assistant Attorney General of the U.S.

Department of Justice’s Office of Justice

Programs on August 23, 1993. Ms.

Robinson also serves as an Associate

Deputy Attorney General.

Prior to joining the Justice

Department, Ms. Robinson was Director

of the American Bar Association’s

(ABA) Criminal Justice Section since

1979. In that position, she was

responsible for special projects, policy

development and liaison with other

criminal justice and public interest

organizations in furthering the policy

goals of the ABA. During her tenure,

from 1986-93, Ms. Robinson also headed

the ABA’s Professional Services

Division, which included the Taxation,

International Law, Criminal Justice and

Individual Rights sections; the Center on

Children and the Law; the Standing

Committee on National Security; the

Central and East European Law Initiative

(CEELI); and the Commission on

Homelessness and Poverty.

From 1972-79, Ms. Robinson served

as Assistant Staff Director of the ABA

Criminal Justice Section. She also

worked as a reporter and editor for a

New York City Ford Foundation-funded

effort to provide better news coverage

for the city’s African-American and

Puerto Rican communities.

Ms. Robinson served as Chair of the

National Forum on Criminal Justice from

1991-93, and was a member of the Board

of Regents of the National College of

District Attorneys and the National

Committee on Community Corrections.

She also has sat on the Boards of

Directors for the National Association of

Women in Criminal Justice and the

Victim Assistance Legal Organization.

She currently serves on the Advisory

Board of the Federal Sentencing

Reporter.

Ms. Robinson graduated from

Pembroke College in Brown University

with a degree in political science.

Stephen R. Rubenstein

Mr. Rubenstein is Senior Counsel of

the Firearms and Explosives Unit in the

Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF),

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Among

his primary duties in this position are

acting as legal counsel to ATF on all

matters arising in the administration and

enforcement of the Federal firearms and

explosives laws; drafting legal opinions

concerning firearms and explosives laws

and regulations; providing technical

assistance to Congressional committees

in legislative drafting sessions relating to

firearms and explosives; and providing

legal advice and assistance to other

Federal, State and local agencies,

including United States Attorneys and

U.S. Justice Department officials in the

prosecution of ATF cases related to

firearms and explosives matters. Mr.

Rubenstein also teaches law enforcement

classes at the Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.

Mr. Rubenstein received his J.D. from

Boston College Law School and his B.A.

from Boston University.

Edward J. (Jack) Scheidegger

Mr. Scheidegger has been Chief of the

Bureau of Criminal Identification and

Information (BCII) in the California

Department of Justice (DOJ) since 1991.

He is responsible for administering

criminal identification and information

services to local and national criminal

justice systems from a complex

organization consisting of approximately

1,000 positions with a $47 million annual

budget.

Previous to his appointment as BCII

Chief, Mr. Scheidegger held the

following positions in the California

DOJ: Chief, Bureau of Forensic

Services; Director, Bureau of Medi-Cal

Fraud and Patient Abuse; Chief

Investigator, Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud;

Legislative Advocate, Attorney

General’s Office; Program Manager,

Statistical Analysis Center, Bureau of

Criminal Statistics; Manager, Automated

Latent Print System, Bureau of Forensic

Services; and Chief, Special Services

Bureau, Investigative Services Branch.

Mr. Scheidegger’s 25 years of

experience in the law enforcement field

also has included serving as Chair of the

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

on Identification and Information, a

member of the Los Angeles Police

Department Hillside Strangler Task

Force, and as a legislative advocate for

law enforcement. He is the California

governor-appointee to SEARCH and

currently serves on the SEARCH Board

of Directors. Mr. Scheidegger also chairs

the Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH

National Task Force on Improving the

Utility of the Criminal History Record,

which is reviewing the content of rap

sheets nationwide and will make

recommendations for improvements.

Mr. Scheidegger received a B.A.

degree in public administration from

California State University, Sacramento,

and an M.P.A. from the University of

Southern California. He has also

completed the Executive Management

Program at the University of California,

Davis.

James F. Shea

Mr. Shea is Assistant Director of

Integrated Systems Development (ISD)

at the New York State Division of

Criminal Justice Services. In addition to

coordinating the statewide criminal

justice data standardization project, ISD

staff is developing standard software and

forms for local law enforcement,

prosecution, jails and courts. The unit is

also funded by two Federal grants that

support efforts to improve the data

quality of criminal justice records. ISD

staff is completing an assessment of data

quality within the criminal justice system

in New York State.

Mr. Shea has over 20 years of

experience in the criminal justice field.

He holds a B.A. from Holy Cross

College and an M.B.A. from Union

College.
National Conference on Criminal History Records: Brady and Beyond Page 113

Capt. R. Lewis Vass

Capt. Vass is the Records

Management Officer of the Records

Management Division, Virginia

Department of State Police. His

responsibilities include overseeing the

Virginia Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS), Virginia

Central Criminal Records Exchange,

Virginia Firearms Transaction Program

(VFTP), Virginia Criminal Information

Network, Virginia Missing Children

Information Clearinghouse and the

Uniform Crime Reporting Section. He is

a representative on the National Crime

Information Center Southern Region

Working Group and the National Law

Enforcement Telecommunications

System, and is the Control Terminal

Officer for the State of Virginia. Capt.

Vass was instrumental in designing and

developing the VFTP, the first instant

check point-of-sale approval system in

the Nation for firearms sales, as well as

the design and implementation of the

Multiple Handgun Application/

Certificate Program.

Capt. Vass served as a member of the

Felon Identification in Firearms Sales Ad

Hoc Task Force for the U.S. Department

of Justice, and as a member of the

steering committee to assist the Bureau

of Justice Assistance in the design of a

methodology to evaluate criminal history

records programs. He currently serves on

the Bureau of Justice Statistics/SEARCH

National Task Force on Increasing the

Utility of the Criminal History Record; is

a member of the AFIS Internet; and

serves as a coordinator of legislative

liaisons to the Virginia General

Assembly for the State Police.

Capt. Vass graduated from the

Virginia State Police Academy in 1967.

During his 26-year service with the State

Police, he has received specialized

training in many areas of law

enforcement, including the handling of

explosive devices, terrorist activities and

civil disorders. He is a graduate of

Northwestern University Traffic

Institute, and is currently a student at

Virginia State University.

Virgil L. Young Jr.

Mr. Young is currently the Section

Chief, Programs Development Section,

Criminal Justice Information Services

Division, Federal Bureau of

Investigation. In 1991, he was also

designated as an Inspector-in-Place.

Mr. Young began his FBI career as a

Special Agent in 1970 and was assigned

to the Detroit Field Office. He was later

assigned to the San Francisco Field

Office to attend the Defense Language

Institute in Monterey, California. In

1972, he served as a “street agent” and

later a Squad Supervisor in the New

York Office.

Mr. Young has held various other

positions with the Bureau, including

supervisory duties in the Criminal

Investigative Division at FBI

headquarters; Unit Chief; Inspector’s

Aide; Assistant Section Chief; and

Section Chief in the Identification

Division. He also served in the

Richmond, Virginia Field Office as

Assistant Special Agent in Charge.

Mr. Young earned a B.A. degree in

political science from the University of

Kansas. Upon graduation, he was

commissioned a second lieutenant in the

U.S. Marine Corps, where he spent 4

years as an infantry officer, including 1

year in Vietnam. He later earned a

master’s degree in professional studies

from Long Island University.
Appendix 1

Public Law 103-159:

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Appendix 2

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

Preliminary list of States subject to the

Federal five-day waiting period or

States having alternative systems

as defined in the law

Appendix 3

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

Open letter to all Federal firearms licensees

subject to the waiting period provisions

of the Brady Law

Appendix 4

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

Open letter to all Federal firearms licensees

not subject to the waiting period provisions

of the Brady Law

Appendix 5

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Form 5300.35:

Statement of intent to obtain a handgun(s)

Appendix 6

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

Open letter to State and local

law enforcement officials

Appendix 7

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms:

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Questions and Answers

Appendix 8

Queues Enforth Development, Inc.:

Executive summary to Identifying Persons, Other

Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase Firearms:

A Feasibility Study

Appendix 9

State of Oregon

Dealer’s Record of Sale of Handgun

Appendix 10

Public Law 103-209:

National Child Protection Act of 1993

Appendix 11

American Bar Association

Center on Children and the Law

memorandum on the

National Child Protection Act of 1993

Appendix 12

Arkansas Code Annotated

§§20-78-601 to 604:

Background checks of child care

facility licensees and employees
Electronic Editor’s Note: An electronic version of this section is not available.