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

Survey of State Criminal

History Information Systems,

1999

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Criminal Justice Information Policy
 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary 

 Acting Assistant Attorney General

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Homepage:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Statistics

World Wide Web Homepage:

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

For information contact:

BJS Clearinghouse

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

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Survey of State Criminal

History Information 

Systems, 1999

A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report

October 2000, NCJ 184793
U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

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

Justice Information and Statistics, Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director and author of the report was Sheila J. Barton, Deputy Executive Director. Support for the project was provided by Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Specialist,

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

History Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

This report of work was performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 95-RU-RX-K001, 

awarded to SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311

Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145, Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document 

do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. 

Department of Justice.

Copyright  SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics 2000.

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.

ii Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 iii

Contents

List of data tables iv

Foreword v

Glossary of terms vii

Introduction 1

Major findings 1

Level of automation of master name indexes and criminal

history files 1

Level of disposition reporting 2

Level of felony flagging 2

Timeliness of trial court disposition data 2

Detailed findings 3

Status of State criminal history files 3

Completeness of data in State criminal history

repository 4

Disposition data 4

Correctional data 5

Timeliness of data in State criminal history repository 5

—Arrests 5

—Disposition data 6

—Admission to correctional facilities 6

Procedures to improve data quality 6

Linking of arrests and dispositions 7

Other data quality procedures 8

Audits 8

Data tables 13

Methodology 60
iv Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

List of data tables

1. Overview of State criminal history record systems,

December 31, 1999 15

2. Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State

criminal history file, 1995, 1997 and 1999 17

3. Number of final dispositions reported to State

criminal history repository, 1993, 1995, 1997,

and 1999 19

4. Automation of master name index and criminal

history file, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 21

5. Data required to be submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1999 23

6. Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993,

1995, and 1999 25

7. Notice to State criminal history repository of

release of arrested persons without charging,

1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 27

8. Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition

reporting to State criminal history repository,

1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 29

9. Policies/practices of State criminal history

repository regarding modification of felony

convictions, 1999 31

10. Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and

linkage to records maintained by State criminal

history repository, 1999 33

11. Probation and parole data in State criminal

history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997,

and 1999 35

12. Average number of days to process arrest data

submitted to State criminal history repository

and current status of backlog, 1999 37

13. Average number of days to process disposition data

submitted to State criminal history repository and

current status of backlog, 1999 39

14. Average number of days to process correctional

admission data submitted to State criminal

history repository and current status of backlog,

1999 41

15. Procedures employed by State criminal history

repository to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1999 43

16. Methods used to link disposition information to

arrest/charge information on criminal history

record, 1999 45

17. Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made

between court or correctional information in the

criminal history database, 1999 47

18. Strategies employed by State criminal history

repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal

history database, 1999 49

19. Audit activities of State criminal history

repository, 1989, 1993, 1997, and 1999 51

20. Data quality audits of State criminal history

repository, 1999 53

21. Criminal history records of Interstate

Identification Index (III) participants maintained

by the State criminal history repository and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 30, 1999

55

22. Estimated records with dispositions available through

the Interstate Identification Index (III), June 30 1999

57

23. Fees charged by State criminal history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes, 1999 59
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 v

Foreword

SEARCH conducted five previous

surveys in this series for the

Bureau of Justice Statistics,

covering 1989, 1992, 1993,

1995, and 1997. This year’s

report largely updates the

information collected in previous

years.

The National Instant Criminal

Background Check System

(NICS) mandated by the Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act

became operational November 30,

1998. This survey provides a

summary of quantitative

information at the end of 1999.

The levels of coverage,

completeness, accuracy, and

accessibility of the State criminal

history information systems

directly affect the effectiveness

and efficiency of the NICS.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

hopes that the information

contained in this report will assist

States as they continue to

improve their systems and to

remain vigilant in maintaining

the goals they have already

achieved.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Glossary 1

Glossary of terms

Automated Fingerprint Identification System

(AFIS): An automated system for searching

fingerprint files and transmitting fingerprint images.

AFIS computer equipment can scan fingerprint

impressions (or utilize electronically transmitted

fingerprint images) and automatically extract and

digitize ridge details and other identifying

characteristics in sufficient detail to enable the

computer’s searching and matching components to

distinguish a single fingerprint from thousands or

even millions of fingerprints previously scanned and

stored in digital form in the computer’s memory. The

process eliminates the manual searching of

fingerprint files and increases the speed and accuracy

of ten-print processing (arrest fingerprint cards and

noncriminal justice applicant fingerprint cards). AFIS

equipment also can be used to identify individuals

from “latent” (crime scene) fingerprints, even

fragmentary prints of single fingers in some cases.

Digital fingerprint images generated by AFIS

equipment can be transmitted electronically to remote

sites, eliminating the necessity of mailing fingerprint

cards and providing remote access to AFIS

fingerprint files.

Central Repository: The database (or the agency

housing the database) that maintains criminal history

records on all State offenders. Records include

fingerprint files and files containing identification

segments and notations of arrests and dispositions.

The central repository is generally responsible for

State-level identification of arrestees, and commonly

serves as the central control terminal for contact with

FBI record systems. Inquiries from local agencies for

a national record check (for criminal justice or

firearm check purposes) are routed to the FBI via the

central repository. Although usually housed in the

Department of Public Safety, the central repository

may be maintained in some States by the State Police

or some other State agency.

Criminal History Record Information (CHRI)

or Criminal History Record Information

System: A record (or the system maintaining such

records) that includes individual identifiers and

describes an individual’s arrests and subsequent

dispositions. Criminal history records do not include

intelligence or investigative data or sociological data

such as drug use history. CHRI systems usually

include information on juveniles if they are tried as

adults in criminal courts.

Most, however, do not include data describing

involvement of an individual in the juvenile justice

system. All data in CHRI systems are usually backed

by fingerprints of the record subjects to provide

positive identification. State legislation varies

concerning disclosure of criminal history records for

noncriminal justice purposes.

Data Quality: The extent to which criminal history

records are complete, accurate and timely. In

addition, accessibility sometimes is considered a data

quality factor. The key concern in data quality is the

completeness of records and the extent to which

records include dispositions as well as arrest and

charge information. Other concerns include the

timeliness of data reporting to State and Federal

repositories, the timeliness of data entry by the

repositories, the readability of criminal history

records and the ability to have access to the records

when necessary.

Felony or Serious Misdemeanor: The category

of offenses for which fingerprints and criminal

history information are accepted by the FBI and

entered in the Bureau’s files, including the III system.

Serious misdemeanor is defined to exclude certain

minor offenses, such as drunkenness or minor traffic

offenses.

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

criminal history records. Under III, the FBI maintains

an identification index to persons arrested for felonies

or serious misdemeanors under State or Federal law.

The index includes identification information, (such

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

and State Identification Numbers (SID) from each

State holding information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies nationwide

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

Information Center (NCIC) telecommunications

lines. Searches are made on the basis of name and

other identifiers. The process is entirely automated

and takes approximately five seconds to complete. If

a hit is made against the Index, record requests are

made using the SID or FBI Number, and data are

automatically retrieved from each repository holding

records on the individual and forwarded to the

requesting agency. As of September 30, 2000, 41

States participate in III. Responses are provided from

FBI files when the State originating the record is not

a participant in III.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Glossary 2

Participation requires that the State maintain an

automated criminal history record system capable of

interfacing with the III system and capable of

responding automatically to all interstate and

Federal/State record requests.

Juvenile Justice Records: Official records of

juvenile justice adjudications. Most adult criminal

history record systems do not accept such records,

which are frequently not supported by fingerprints

and which usually are confidential under State law.

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

now accepts, and will disseminate, juvenile records

on the same basis as adult records. States, however,

are not required to submit such records to the FBI

Master Name Index (MNI): A subject

identification index maintained by criminal history

record repositories that includes names and other

identifiers for each person about whom a record is

held in the systems. As of 1999, only one State did

not have at least a partially automated MNI; almost

all States (45) had fully automated MNIs. The

automated name index is the key to rapidly

identifying persons who have criminal records for

such purposes as presale firearm checks, criminal

investigations or bailsetting. MNIs may include

“felony flags,” which indicate whether record

subjects have arrests or convictions for felony

offenses.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC): An

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

includes the “hot files” of wanted and missing

persons, stolen vehicles and identifiable stolen

property, including firearms. Access to NCIC files is

through central control terminal operators in each

State that are connected to NCIC via dedicated

telecommunications lines maintained by the FBI.

Local agencies and officers on the beat can access the

State control terminal via the State law enforcement

network. Inquiries are based on name and other

nonfingerprint identification. Most criminal history

inquiries of the III system are made via the NCIC

telecommunications system. NCIC data may be

provided only for criminal justice and other

specifically authorized purposes. For criminal history

searches, this includes criminal justice employment,

employment by Federally chartered or insured

banking institutions or securities firms, and use by

State and local governments for purposes of

employment and licensing pursuant to a State statute

approved by the U.S. Attorney General. Inquiries

regarding presale firearm checks are included as

criminal justice uses.

National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact: An interstate and Federal/State compact

which establishes formal procedures and governance

structures for the use of the Interstate Identification

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

of criminal history data among States for noncriminal

justice purposes and to eliminate the need for the FBI

to maintain duplicate data about State offenders.

Under the compact, the operation of this system is

overseen by a policymaking council comprised of

Federal and State officials. The key concept

underlying the compact is agreement among all

signatory States that all criminal history information

(except sealed records) will be provided in response

to noncriminal justice requests from another State —

regardless of whether the information being

requested would be permitted to be disseminated for

a similar noncriminal justice purpose within the State

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

inquiring about the data — rather than the law of the

State that originated the data — governs its use.) In

some cases, ratification of the compact will have the

effect of amending existing State legislation

governing interstate record dissemination, since most

States do not currently authorize dissemination to all

of the Federal agencies and out-of-State users

authorized under the compact. At present,

noncriminal justice inquiries are handled by the FBI

from its files of voluntarily contributed State arrest

and disposition records. This requires that the FBI

maintain duplicates of State records and generally

results in less complete records being provided, since

FBI files of State records are not always complete

due to reporting deficiencies. The compact was

passed by Congress and signed into law by the

President in October 1998. The compact became

effective in April 1999, following ratification by two

State legislatures, those being Montana on April 8,

1999 and Georgia on April 28, 1999. Since that time,

six additional States have entered into the compact:

Nevada (May 1999); Florida (June 1999); Colorado

(March 2000); Iowa (April 2000); Connecticut (June

2000); and South Carolina (June 2000).

National Fingerprint File (NFF): A system and

procedures designed as a component of the III

system, which, when fully implemented, would

establish a totally decentralized system for the

interstate exchange of criminal history records. The

NFF will contain fingerprints of Federal offenders

and a single set of fingerprints on State offenders

from each State in which an offender has been

arrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Under

the NFF concept, States will forward only the firstarrest fingerprints of an individual to the FBI

accompanied by other identification data such as

name and date of birth.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Glossary 3

Fingerprints for subsequent arrests would not be

forwarded. Disposition data on the individual would

also be retained at the State repository and would not

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

FBI will enter the individual’s fingerprint

impressions in the NFF and will enter the person’s

name and identifiers in the III, together with an FBI

Number and a State Identification (SID) Number for

each State maintaining a record on the individual.

Charge and disposition information on State

offenders will be maintained only at the State level,

and State repositories will be required to respond to

all authorized record requests concerning these

individuals for both criminal justice and noncriminal

justice purposes. States would have to release all data

on record subjects for noncriminal justice inquiries

regardless of whether the data could be released for

similar purposes within the State. The NFF has been

implemented in four States: Florida, New Jersey,

North Carolina and Oregon.

Positive Identification: Identification of an

individual using biometric characteristics that are

unique and not subject to alteration. In present usage,

the term refers to identification by fingerprints but

may also include identification by retinal images,

voiceprints or other techniques. Positive

identification is to be distinguished from

identification using name, sex, date of birth, or other

personal identifiers as shown on a document subject

to alteration or counterfeit such as a birth certificate,

Social Security card or driver’s license. Because

individuals can have identical or similar names, ages,

etc., identifications based on such characteristics are

not reliable.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 1

Note to Readers: This is a

report of the results of the

Survey of State Criminal

History Information

Systems. In some of the

tables that follow, data

from earlier data quality

surveys are included.

Caution should be used in

drawing comparisons

between the results of

earlier surveys and the

survey reported here.

Since the last national data

quality survey, the U.S.

Justice Department has

continued to implement

assistance programs

dedicated to improving

criminal history records.

As a result, some States

are focusing new or

additional resources on the

condition of their records

and in many cases, know

more about their records

today than in the past. A

number of State

repositories have suffered

fiscal cutbacks and have

had to shift priorities away

from certain criminal

history information

management tasks. For

these and other reasons,

trend comparisons may

not as accurately reflect

the status of the Nation’s

criminal history records as

the current data considered

alone.

Introduction

This report is based upon the

results from a two-part survey

conducted of the administrators

of the State criminal history

record repositories in January

–September 1999. Fifty-three

jurisdictions were surveyed,

including the 50 States, the

District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses were received to at

least one part of the survey from

52 jurisdictions. Only Puerto

Rico did not complete either part

of the survey. Throughout this

report, the 50 States will be

referred to as “States”; the

District of Columbia, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands will

be referred to as “territories,”

consistent with prior surveys;

“Nation” refers collectively to

both the States and territories.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation was the source for

information relating to the

number of criminal history

records of the States participating

in the Interstate Identification

Index (III) system that are

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories and the

number of records maintained by

the FBI for the States, as of June

30, 1999. The number of

dispositions available through III

in each State also are reported.

Major Findings

Level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal

history files

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1999 (Table 1):

• Fifty States and the District of

Columbia have automated at least

some records in the criminal

history record file.

• Twenty-one States (Arizona,

Colorado, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan,

Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,

Utah, Washington and Wyoming)

have fully automated criminal

history files and master name

indexes.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1999

(Table 4):

• Forty-five States have fully

automated master name indexes.

The Virgin Islands does not

maintain a master name index.

• The Virgin Islands has no

automated criminal history files.
Page 2 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

• Of those States maintaining

partially automated criminal

history files, when an offender

with a prior manual record is

arrested, the prior manual record

is subsequently automated in 22

States. In four States (California,

Delaware, Minnesota and

Pennsylvania) and the District of

Columbia, only the new

information is automated. In

Maine, the new information is

added to the manual file.

Level of disposition reporting

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1999 (Table 1):

• Eighteen States (Alaska,

California, Connecticut,

Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii,

Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,

Montana, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Vermont and Virginia)

and the District of Columbia

representing approximately 38%

of the Nation’s population (based

on 53 jurisdictions) and 41% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 80% or more

arrests within the past 5 years in

the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

• A total of 23 States and the

District of Columbia representing

approximately 46% of the

Nation’s population and 47% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 70% or more

arrests within the past 5 years in

the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

• A total of 32 States and the

District of Columbia representing

approximately 64% of the

Nation’s population and 66% of

the Nation’s criminal history

records, report that 60% or more

arrests within the past 5 years in

the criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

• When arrests older than 5 years

are considered, 15 States,

representing 25% of the Nation’s

criminal history records, report

that 80% or more arrests in the

entire criminal history database

have final dispositions recorded.

Twenty-three States, representing

43% of the Nation’s criminal

history records, report that 70%

or more arrests in the entire

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

Thirty-two States, representing

66% of the Nation’s criminal

history records, report that 60%

or more arrests in the entire

criminal history database have

final dispositions recorded.

Number of final dispositions

reported to State criminal history

repository, 1999 (Table 3):

Forty-eight States provided data

on the number of final

dispositions reported to their

criminal history repositories

indicating that over 7.6 million

final dispositions were reported

in 1999. The responding States

represent approximately 96% of

the Nation’s population.

Level of felony flagging

Overview of State criminal

history record systems,

December 31, 1999 (Table 1):

• Forty-two States currently flag

some or all felony convictions in

their criminal history databases.

• Eighteen States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands,

collect sufficient data to permit

them to flag at least some

previously unflagged felony

convictions.

Timeliness of trial court

disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1999 (Table

13):

• An average 30 days separates

the final court dispositions and

receipt of that information by the

State criminal history

repositories, ranging from 1 day

or less in Colorado, Delaware,

the District of Columbia and New

Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin.

The majority of responding

repositories receives the data in

30 days or less.

• An average 39 days separates

the receipt of final trial court

dispositions and entry of

disposition data into the criminal

history databases, ranging from

less than 1 day in States where

dispositions are entered either

directly by the courts or by tape

to 365 days in Ohio. Half of the

responding jurisdictions enter the

data in 10 days or less.

• Twenty-eight States and the

Virgin Islands indicate having

backlogs in entering disposition

data into the criminal history

database.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 3

Detailed findings

Status of State criminal history

files

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal

history file, 1999 (Table 2):

• Over 59 million criminal

history records were in the

criminal history files of the State

criminal history repositories on

December 31, 1999. (An

individual offender may have

records in several States.)

• Eighty-nine percent of the

criminal history records

maintained by the State criminal

history repositories are

automated. Approximately 6.2

million records, or 11%, are not

automated.

• The Virgin Islands has no

automated criminal history files.

Automation of master name index

and criminal history file, 1999

(Table 4):

• All of the reporting States and

the District of Columbia have

automated at least some records

in either the criminal history

record file or the master name

index.

• Of the responding jurisdictions,

45 States have fully automated

master name indexes. Six

jurisdictions do not have fully

automated master name indexes.

Of those six jurisdictions, three

States and the District of

Columbia have partially

automated master name indexes.

Maine’s master name index is not

automated, and the Virgin Islands

does not maintain a master name

index.

• Of those jurisdictions

maintaining partially automated

criminal history files, when an

offender with a prior manual

record is arrested, the record is

automated in 22 States. In four

States (California, Delaware,

Minnesota and Pennsylvania) and

the District of Columbia, only the

new information is automated. In

Maine, the information is added

to the manual file.

Data required by State law to be

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1999(Table

5):

• Thirty-five States require

prosecutors to report to State

criminal history repositories their

decisions to decline prosecution

in criminal cases. In Michigan,

arrest fingerprints are submitted

after the prosecutor’s decision to

charge a crime punishable by

over 92 days.

• Forty-seven States require

felony trial courts to report the

dispositions of felony cases to the

State criminal history repository.

• State prison admission on

felony cases must be reported to

the State criminal history

repository in 36 States. State

prison release information on

felony cases must be reported to

the State criminal history

repository in 31 States.

• Admission data on felons

housed in local correctional

facilities must be reported to the

State criminal history repository

in 25 States. Release data on

felons housed in local

correctional facilities must be

reported to the State criminal

history repository in 17 States.

• The reporting of probation

information is mandated in 26

States and the District of

Columbia, while 28 States and

the District of Columbia require

the reporting of parole

information.

Arrest records with fingerprints,

1999 (Table 6):

• During 1999, over 8.8 million

arrest fingerprint cards (or

electronic substitutes) were

submitted to the State

criminal history repositories.

• Thirty-seven States,

representing 72% of the Nation’s

population, have records that are

100% fingerprint-supported. A

total of 42 States, or an additional

10 States, representing 92% of

the Nation’s population have

records that are at least 90%

fingerprint-supported. In 6 States

and the District of Columbia,

some of the arrests in the

criminal history files, ranging

from 35% to 85%, are

fingerprint-supported. In

Massachusetts, there are no

fingerprint-supported criminal

history records.
Page 4 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Completeness of data in State

criminal history repository

Notice to State criminal history

repository of release of arrested

persons without charging, 1999

(Table 7):

• More than half of the States

(31) and the District of Columbia

require law enforcement agencies

to notify the State criminal

history repository when an

arrested person is released

without formal charging but after

the fingerprints have been

submitted to the repository.

Disposition data

Completeness of prosecutor and

court disposition reporting to

State criminal history

repository, 1999 (Table 8):

• Seventeen States (Connecticut,

Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine,

Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Nebraska, New Jersey, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota,

Utah, Vermont and Virginia)

report that criminal history

repositories receive final felony

trial court dispositions for 80% or

more of the cases.

Seven States (Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon,

Rhode Island, South Carolina and

Utah) estimate that they receive

notice in 100% of the cases.

A. A total of 21 States, or four

additional States (Arizona,

Arkansas, Delaware and Hawaii)

report that final felony trial court

dispositions in 70% or more of

the cases in their States are

received by the State criminal

history repositories.

B. A total of 23 jurisdictions, or

1 additional State (Oklahoma)

and 1 additional territory (Virgin

Islands), report that final felony

trial court dispositions in 60% or

more of the cases in their

jurisdictions are received by the

State criminal history

repositories.

• Of the respondents indicating

that there is either a legal

requirement for prosecutors to

notify the State criminal history

record repository of declinations

to prosecute or where the

information is reported

voluntarily, seven States and one

territory (Delaware, District of

Columbia, Illinois, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Jersey,

North Dakota and Utah) estimate

that they receive notice in 80% or

more of such cases. Three States

(Delaware, Massachusetts and

New Jersey) estimate that notice

is received in 100% of the cases.

All of the noted jurisdictions,

except Massachusetts and the

District of Columbia, report a

legal requirement to notify the

repository. (See Table 5.)

• Ten States were able to

estimate the number of

prosecutor declinations received.

The numbers ranged from 100 in

Mississippi to 213,000 in

California.

Policies/practices of State

criminal history repository

regarding modification of felony

convictions, 1999 (Table 9):

• Expungements: Twenty-one

States, the District of Columbia

and the Virgin Islands have

statutes that provide for the

expungement of felony

convictions. In 10 States and the

Virgin Islands, the record is

destroyed by the State criminal

history repository. In Minnesota,

although State law does not

provide for expungements, the

State repository does receive

orders issued pursuant to the

inherent authority of the court,

and records relating to such

orders are destroyed. In eight

States, the record is retained with

the action noted on the record.

Six States seal the record. In

Virginia, although State law does

not provide for the expungement

of convictions, orders are

received by the State repository,

and the records are sealed.

• Setting aside of convictions:

Forty-two jurisdictions have

statutes that provide for setting

aside felony convictions. In three

States, the record is destroyed. In

35 jurisdictions (33 States, the

District of Columbia and the

Virgin Islands), the record is

retained with the action noted. In

Nevada, the record is sealed.

Three States did not indicate how

the records are treated by the

State repository.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 5

• Pardons: All of the reporting

jurisdictions (49 States, the

District of Columbia and the

Virgin Islands) have statutes that

provide for the granting of a

pardon. In 43 States and the

District of Columbia, the criminal

history record is retained with the

action noted. In four

jurisdictions (South Dakota,

Tennessee, Vermont and the

Virgin Islands), the record is

destroyed. In Massachusetts, the

record is sealed. Two States did

not indicate how pardons are

treated by the State repository.

• Restoration of civil rights:

Forty-one States and the District

of Columbia have legal

provisions for the restoration of a

convicted felon’s civil rights. In

the majority of those jurisdictions

(33 States and the District of

Columbia), the record is retained

with the action noted. In three

States (South Dakota, Tennessee

and Vermont), the record is

destroyed. In Massachusetts, the

record is sealed. Restoration of

civil rights is not tracked in

Alaska, and in Missouri, no

action is taken. Two States that

have laws providing for the

restoration of civil rights did not

indicate how the records are

treated by the State repository.

Correctional data

Fingerprinting of incarcerated

offenders and linkage to records

maintained by State criminal

history repository, 1999 (Table

10):

• In 39 States, there is a legal

requirement (State statute or

State administrative regulation

having the force of law) that the

State prison system must

fingerprint admitted prisoners

and send the fingerprints to the

State criminal history repository.

• A total of 28 States have the

same legal requirement for

reporting by local jails.

• In States where State

correctional facilities are legally

required to report information or

the information is reported

voluntarily, the majority of States

(30) estimate that in at least 99%

of the cases, admission

information is reported to the

State repository. Twenty-nine of

those States estimate that 100%

of the admissions are reported to

the repository. Seven

jurisdictions estimate a reporting

rate of less than 99%, ranging

from 85% in Virginia to 0% in

Kansas.

• For reporting from local jails

where required by law or

completed voluntarily, 11 States

report that 95% or more of the

admissions are reported to the

State repositories. Three States

report rates of less than 95%

ranging from 40% in North

Dakota to less than 5% in

Pennsylvania.

• In 45 States, fingerprints

received from State and local

correctional facilities are

processed by the State criminal

history record repository to

establish positive identification of

incarcerated offenders and to

ensure that correctional

information is linked to the

proper records.

Probation and parole data in

State criminal history repository,

1999 (Table 11):

• Of the 16 States where

reporting of probation data is

legally required or voluntarily

reported, 11 estimate that at least

90% of the cases in which

probation is ordered are reported

to the State criminal history

repository. One additional State

reports that in at least 75% of the

cases, the State criminal

history repository receives

probation information. Four

States report that information is

received in 60% or less of the

cases.

• Sixteen States where reporting

of parole data is legally required

or voluntarily reported, estimate

that parole information is

reported in 90% of the cases.

Three States report receiving

parole information in less than

90% of the cases, ranging from

75% in Minnesota to 0% in

Idaho. In Colorado, 100% of

admission to parole information

is received; release from parole is

not reported.

Timeliness of data in State

criminal history repository

—Arrests

Average number of days to

process arrest information

submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1999 (Table

12):

• The average number of days

between arrest and receipt of

arrest data and fingerprints by the

State criminal history repositories

is 13, ranging from 1 day or less

in California, the District of

Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,

Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,

New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, South Dakota and

Virginia (most due to livescan)

to up to 93 days in Mississippi.

The majority (27) receive the

data in 14 days or less.
Page 6 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

• The average number of days

between receipt of fingerprints by

the State criminal history

repository and entry into the

master name index by the State

criminal history repositories is

21, ranging from 0 in Delaware

to up to as many as 150 days in

Texas. The majority of

jurisdictions (28) enter the data in

10 days or less.

• The average number of days

between receipt of fingerprints

and entry of arrest data into the

criminal history databases is 26,

ranging from less than one day in

Delaware, the District of

Columbia, Georgia, New

Mexico, New York and Virginia

to up to 180 days in Tennessee.

The majority of reporting

jurisdictions (24) enter the data in

14 days or less.

• Twenty-nine States indicate

that they have, or had at the time

of the survey, backlogs in

entering arrest data into the

criminal history database. The

number of person-days to clear

the backlogs range from 1-2 days

in New Hampshire to 3,600

person-days to clear an estimated

84,000 unprocessed or partially

processed fingerprint cards in

Washington. Initial fingerprint

classification is a more timeconsuming task than entry of

disposition data into the database.

—Disposition data

Average number of days to

process disposition data

submitted to State criminal

history repository and current

status of backlog, 1999 (Table

13):

• An average 30 days separates

the final court dispositions and

receipt of that information by the

State criminal history

repositories, ranging from 1 day

or less in Colorado, Delaware,

the District of Columbia and New

Jersey to 110 days in Wisconsin.

The majority of responding

repositories receives the data in

30 days or less.

• An average 39 days separates

the receipt of final trial court

dispositions and entry of

disposition data into the criminal

history databases, ranging from

less than 1 day in States where

dispositions are entered either

directly by the courts or by tape

to 365 days in Ohio. Half of the

responding jurisdictions enter the

data in 10 days or less.

• Twenty-eight States and the

Virgin Islands indicate having

backlogs in entering disposition

data into the criminal history

database.

—Admission to correctional

facilities

Average number of days to

process correctional admission

data submitted to State criminal

history repository, 1999 (Table

14):

• The average number of days

between the admission of

offenders to State correctional

facilities and receipt of the

information by the State criminal

history repository is 15, ranging

from 1 day in Delaware, Florida,

Illinois, New Jersey, New York,

Ohio and Tennessee to 60 days in

North Carolina.

• The average number of days

between the admission of

offenders to local jails and receipt

of the information by the State

criminal history repository is 17,

ranging from 1 day in New

Jersey and South Dakota to 30

days in California, Idaho,

Maryland, North Dakota and

Wyoming.

• The average number of days

between receipt of correctional

admissions information by the

State criminal history repository

and entry into the criminal

history databases is 53, ranging

from less than 1 day in

Mississippi, New York and

Virginia to approximately 365

days in Arkansas and Michigan.

The majority of responding

States (18) enter the information

in 10 days or less.

• Eighteen States indicate that

they have or had backlogs in

entering the correctional

information into the criminal

history databases. The number of

person-days to clear the backlogs

range from 2 in North Carolina

and Oklahoma to clear an

estimated 500-600 unprocessed

or partially processed custodysupervision forms in each to 780

person-days to clear an estimated

35,900 forms in California.

Procedures to improve data

quality

Procedures employed by State

criminal history repository to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting, 1999

(Table 15):

• The method most used to

encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting is telephone

calls conducted by 38 States and

the District of Columbia and the

Virgin Islands.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 7

• Twenty-six States and the

District of Columbia generate

lists of arrests with missing

dispositions as a means of

monitoring disposition reporting.

• Thirty-one States and the

District of Columbia report using

field visits to encourage complete

arrest and disposition reporting.

• Twenty-nine States generate

form letters as a method of

encouraging complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

• Other jurisdictions report using

such methods as training, audits

and electronic contact as methods

to encourage complete arrest and

disposition reporting.

Linking of arrests and

dispositions

Methods used to link disposition

information to arrest/charge

information on criminal history

record, 1999 (Table 16):

• Thirty-six States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands

utilize methods for linking

disposition information and

arrest/charge information which

also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges

and/or specific counts.

• All responding jurisdictions

report using at least one method

for linking disposition

information and arrest/charge

information on criminal history

records, and nearly every

jurisdiction indicates multiple

mechanisms to ensure linkage:

– Thirty-one States and the

District of Columbia employ a

unique tracking number for the

individual subject. 

– Thirty-nine States and the

District of Columbia use a unique

arrest event identifier.

– Twenty-one States and the

District of Columbia utilize a

unique charge identifier.

– Thirty-five States, the District

of Columbia and the Virgin

Islands use the arrest date; thirtyfive States, the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands

use the subject’s name.

– Twenty-four States and the

District of Columbia report using

the reporting agency’s case

number.

– Individual jurisdictions also

report using other methods, such

as the originating agency (ORI)

number, the booking number and

unique combinations of numbers.

Procedures followed when

linkage cannot be made between

court or correctional information

and arrest information in the

criminal history database, 1999

(Table 17):

• Forty-three jurisdictions report

that they sometimes receive final

court dispositions that cannot be

linked to arrest information in the

criminal history record database.

The jurisdictions vary in the

percentage of court dispositions

that cannot be linked to arrest

cycles in the criminal history

database from less than 1% in

Nevada to 70% in Maine. Three

States (Massachusetts, Vermont

and Wyoming) report that all

final court dispositions can be

linked to the arrest cycle in the

criminal history database.

 • Twenty-seven jurisdictions

report that they sometimes

receive correctional information

that cannot be linked to arrest

information in the criminal

history record database. The

percentage of correctional

dispositions that cannot be linked

to arrest cycles in the criminal

history database range from less

than 1% in Nevada to 60% in

Tennessee.

• The jurisdictions use a variety

of procedures when a linkage

cannot be established. Eight

States create “dummy” arrest

segments from court disposition

records; four States create

“dummy” court segments from

custody records. Eight States

enter court information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior arrest; and 16 States enter

custody information into the

database without any linkage to a

prior court disposition. Twentyfive States do not enter the

unlinked court information. Eight

jurisdictions do not enter

unlinked custody information.

Fourteen States utilize other

procedures, such as contacting or

returning the information to the

originating or contributing

agency or using temporary or

pending files until a match can be

established.
Page 8 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Other data quality procedures

Strategies employed by State

criminal history repository to

ensure accuracy of data in

criminal history database, 1999

(Table 18):

• To prevent the entry and

storage of inaccurate data and to

detect and correct inaccurate

entries in the criminal history

database, a large majority of the

jurisdictions, a total of 46 States,

the District of Columbia and the

Virgin Islands complete a manual

review of incoming source

documents or reports.

• Other methods used most

frequently include computer edit

and verification programs

employed by 42 States and the

District of Columbia.

• Manual double-checking

before data entry is completed in

28 jurisdictions. Manual review

of transcripts before

dissemination is performed in 28

jurisdictions.

• Twenty-one States and the

District of Columbia perform

random sample comparisons of

the State criminal history

repository files with stored

documents.

• Eighteen States generate error

lists that are returned to the

reporting agencies.

• Eleven States use various

methods, such as audits and

contacting contributing agencies

for additional information.

Audits

Audit activities of State criminal

history repository, 1999 (Table

19):

• Forty-seven States and the

District of Columbia maintain

transaction logs to provide an

audit trail of all inquiries,

responses and record updates or

modifications.

• More than half of the

repositories, a total of 33

jurisdictions report that the State

criminal history repository or

some other agency performed

random sample audits of user

agencies to ensure accuracy and

completeness of repository

records and to ensure that the

agencies comply with applicable

laws and regulations.

Data quality audits of State

criminal history repository, 1999

(Table 20):

• During the 5 years before the

survey, an audit of the State

criminal history repository’s

database (other than ongoing

systematic sampling) was

conducted in 22 States and the

District of Columbia to determine

the level of accuracy and

completeness of the criminal

history file.

• Of the jurisdictions where

audits were performed, in 20

States and the District of

Columbia, another agency

conducted the audit; in 1 State,

the repository conducted its own

audit; and 1 State indicated that

auditing was conducted by both

an outside agency and the

repository.

• Twenty-one jurisdictions in

1999 reported not having

conducted an audit during the

previous 5 years, and 17

responded that they are not

planning to audit in the coming 3

years. Four States gave no

indication of plans for the next 3

years.

• In 17 of the jurisdictions where

audits were conducted, changes

were made as a result of the audit

to improve data quality of the

records.

• Twenty States and the District

of Columbia had data quality

audits planned or scheduled for

the next 3 years.

• Forty-seven States and two

territories had initiatives

underway at the repository or

contributing agencies to improve

data quality. Initiatives included

audit activities (28); automation

changes (40); disposition or

arrest reporting enhancements

(43); felony flagging (21);

fingerprint enhancements (33);

agency interfaces (37); legislation

(19); plan development (24);

establishment of task

forces/advisory groups (20);

implementation or improvement

of tracking numbers (21); and

training (30).

Criminal history records of

Interstate Identification Index

(III) participants maintained by

the State criminal history

repository and the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1999

(Table 21):

• As of June 30, 1999, over 21.3

million III records are indexed

with the State’s identification

(SID) pointers. Approximately

12.3 million records are

maintained by the FBI for the

States.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 9

Estimated records with

dispositions available through

the Interstate Identification Index

(III), June 30, 1999 (Table 22):

• Over 21.5 million records with

dispositions were available

through III as of June 30, 1999.

This number means that 64% of

the total records in III had

dispositions, as of June 30, 1999.

Fees charged by State criminal

history repository for

noncriminal justice purposes ,

1999 (Table 23):

• Almost all of the responding

States (46), the District of

Columbia and the Virgin Islands

currently charge fees for

conducting criminal history

record searches for noncriminal

justice requesters. Mississippi

and Vermont do not charge fees.

• Fees for fingerprint-supported

searches range from $6 in

Arizona to up to $52 in

California. In some cases,

California does not charge a fee

for the search.

• Fees for name searches range

from $1 in Texas to $25 in

Alabama, Connecticut,

Massachusetts and South

Carolina. Nine States

(California, Delaware, Georgia,

Maryland, New York, Ohio,

South Dakota, Tennessee and

Wyoming) do not conduct names

searches for noncriminal justice

purposes.

•Fourteen States (California,

Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana,

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,

Washington and Wyoming) and

the Virgin Islands charge

different fees for volunteer

searches.
March 2000

Participants

Interstate Identification Index Program

National Fingerprint File

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Interstate Identification Index States

National Fingerprint File States

Washington

Minnesota

Interstate Identification Index (III) States

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida*

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey*

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina*

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon*

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

*Also a National Fingerprint File (NFF) State.

Page 10 • Introduction Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999
July 2000

Compact States

California

Oregon

Nevada

Utah

Colorado

Wyoming

Idaho

Montana North Dakota

South Dakota

Iowa

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

Arkansas

Illinois

Michigan

Ohio

Pennsylvania

New York

Virginia

North Carolina

Alabama Georgia

South

Carolina

Florida

Arizona

New Mexico

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Indiana

Kentucky

Tennessee

Mississippi

Louisiana

Maryland

Washington D.C.

Delaware

New Jersey

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

West

Virginia

Vermont

New

Hampshire Maine

Hawaii

Alaska Compact States

Washington

Minnesota

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Introduction • Page 11

Iowa

Montana

Nevada

South Carolina
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 13

Data Tables
Page 14 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 1

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

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

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

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

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

not include release by police without charging, declinations to proceed

by prosecutor, or final trial court dispositions.

... Not available.

*The flag is set:

** At both arrest and conviction.

✝ When conviction information is entered.

✝✝ When arrest information is entered.

 

a For the five year period of 1994-98.

b Through 1997.

c 1992-97 felonies and misdemeanors.

d As of January 21, 2000.

e As of January 24, 2000.

f

 Iowa law requires that all open arrests without dispositions must be

expunged after four years; therefore the percent of arrests in the

database with final dispositions is the same for the last five years and

for the entire database.

g Response is for last four years.

h Figure is for period of 1994-98 and does not include dispositions of

“released without charging” or “decline to prosecute.”

i

 Since 1993.

j

 At arraignment and conviction.

k Also when Department of Corrections entries are made.

l

 Automated files only.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 15

Table 1: Overview of State criminal history record systems, December 31, 1999

State

Criminal history

records

automated in

whole or in part

Number of subjects (individual

offenders) in State criminal history

file– 

Total Automated

Percent of arrests in database that

have final dispositions recorded–

 Arrests within

All arrests past 5 years

System flags

subjects with

felony

convictions*

System has

information to

identify

unflagged felony

convictions

Total 59,065,600 52,814,000

Alabama Y 1,077,000 747,400 40% 65%a All**

Alaska Y 251,100 221,300 86 85 All†

Arizona Y 915,100 915,100 50 ... All**

Arkansas Y 499,800 285,800 58 77 All†

California Y 6,166,000 5,287,000 75 85 Some† All

Colorado Y 886,300 886,300 12% 12% Some** Some

Connecticut Y 825,600 595,400 90 90 All†

Delaware Y 713,300 665,600 81 92 All

District of Columbia Y 532,000 425,500 46 84 All

Florida Y 3,754,200 3,754,200 68b 68c All**

Georgia Y 2,132,600 2,132,600 69 80 All†

Hawaii Y 379,400d 379,400d 89e 81e All†

Idaho Y 180,600 150,300 70 75 All**

Illinois Y 3,280,000 3,080,000 61 67 All†

Indiana Y 900,000 850,000 6 5 All**

Iowa Y 401,900 370,700 91% 91%f Some†

Kansas Y 821,000 380,600 46 57 Some** Some

Kentucky Y 850,900 734,700 69 59 Some

Louisiana Y 1,654,000 980,000 40 55 Some† Some

Maine Y 359,500 153,300 90 90 Some†

Maryland Y 1,053,700 1,053,700 ... ... Some

Massachusetts Y 2,530,000 1,825,000 100% 100% All

Michigan Y 1,259,500 1,259,500 76 76g Some†

Minnesota Y 384,000 326,500 72 63h Some† Some

Mississippi Y 250,000 250,000 40 40 All†

Missouri Y 914,500 748,800 64% 62%a All†

Montana Y 141,800 141,800 85 85 Some

Nebraska Y 197,600 197,600 55 29 All†

Nevada Y 305,600 305,600 38 27 All

New Hampshire Y 409,900 409,900 80 90 Some** Some

New Jersey Y 1,304,300 1,304,300 85% 95% All†i

New Mexico Y 352,000 327,000 33 35 Some† Some

New York Y 4,765,700 4,721,400 85 84 All**

North Carolina Y 793,500 793,500 94 95 Some†

North Dakota Y 230,400 85,400 86 78

Ohio Y 1,600,000 1,500,000 56% ... All**

Oklahoma Y 782,000 579,600 35 47% Some† Some

Oregon Y 965,200 965,200 50 50 Some† Some

Pennsylvania Y 1,667,800 1,277,500 60 31 All**

Puerto Rico

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

South Carolina Y 1,002,600 948,600 72 85 Some† All

South Dakota Y 159,500 138,100 97 99 Some† Some

Tennessee Y 826,700 826,700 6 ... All††

Texas Y 6,157,100 6,157,100 55 ... Some**

Utah Y 392,800 392,800 60% 62% All†

Vermont Y 164,900 85,500 ... 96 Allj

Virgin Islands N ... 0 50 15 All

Virginia Y 1,245,900 1,073,300 83 82 All†k

Washington Y 974,800 974,800 79 70a All**

West Virginia Y 488,100 109,800 69l 70l Some† Some

Wisconsin Y 828,100 702,500 76 67 All†

Wyoming Y 97,300 97,300 79 65 All†
Page 16 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 2

Except for Utah, for which corrected data was submitted, the data in

the columns for 1995 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1995 (May 1997), Table 2. Except for Nebraska

and Kentucky, for which corrected data were submitted, the data in the

columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 2.

Percentages and numbers are results of estimates. Numbers have

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

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

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

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

not include the master name index.

... Not available.

 

a As of July 1, 1996.

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

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

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

records.

c The recidivism rate for the District of Columbia is 70%; therefore, as

subjects with manual records are re-arrested, their files are partially

automated and the manual file size decreases as the automated file

size increases.

d As of January 21, 2000.

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

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

records with multiple state identification numbers and incomplete

records.

f

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

deceased individuals.

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

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

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

subjects for whom charge, disposition or supervision information is

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

subjects in the criminal history file has decreased from the responses

of the previous years for which data were submitted.

h This number reflects a current backlog, which will be automated

upon processing.

i

 Decrease between 1995 and 1997 is due to a major purge of manual

records completed by the Office of Operations.

j

 Figure represents total as of July 1996.

k Figure represents total as of August 7, 1996.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 17

Table 2: Number of subjects (individual offenders) in State criminal history file, 1995, 1997 and 1999

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

manual and automated files automated files, 1999 Percent of automated files total files 

1999 Manual Automated

State 1995 1997 total file file 1995 1997 1999 1995-97 1997-99

Total 49,697,000 54,059,400 59,065,600 6,251,600 52,814,000

Alabama 1,800,000 1,091,000 1,077,000 329,600 747,400 100% 100% 69% -39% -1%

Alaska 195,100 201,900 251,100 29,800 221,300 77 85 88 3 24

Arizona 711,600a 798,700 915,100 0 915,100 ... 100 100 12 15

Arkansas 395,000 484,700 499,800 214,000 285,800 46 55 57 23 3

California 4,630,800 5,349,700 6,166,000 879,000 5,287,000 88 84 86 17 15

Colorado ... 900,000 886,300b 0 886,300 100% 100% 100% ... -2%

Connecticut 744,000 811,200 825,600 230,200 595,400 56 61 72 9% 2

Delaware 476,600 566,500 713,300 47,700 665,600 90 92 93 9 26

District of Columbia 507,000 507,000 532,000 106,500 425,500c 30 30 80 0 5

Florida 3,172,700 3,369,500 3,754,200 0 3,754,200 100 100 100 6 11

Georgia 1,700,600 1,922,200 2,132,600 0 2,132,600 100% 100% 100% 13% 11%

Hawaii 338,300 359,700 379,400d 0 379,400d 100 100 100 6 5

Idaho 152,000 159,700 180,600 30,300 150,300 73 79 83 5 13

Illinois 2,613,600 3,042,600 3,280,000 200,000 3,080,000 92 93 94 16 8

Indiana 1,200,000 850,000 900,000 50,000 850,000 100 94 94 -29 6

Iowa 349,500 363,400 401,900 31,200 370,700 83% 91% 92% 4% 11%

Kansas 697,100 748,400 821,000 440,400 380,600 33 41 46 7 10

Kentucky 574,700 644,200 850,900 116,200 734,700 85 85 86 12 32

Louisiana 1,651,000 1,730,000 1,654,000e 674,000 980,000 45 51 59 86 -4

Maine 350,000 350,000f 359,500 206,200 153,300 0 0 43 0 3

Maryland 908,300 723,500g 1,053,700 0 1,053,700 100% 100% 100% -20% 46%

Massachusetts 2,100,000 2,344,800 2,530,000 705,000 1,825,000 75 69 72 12 8

Michigan 1,074,100 1,155,200 1,259,500 0 1,259,500 100 100 100 8 9

Minnesota 294,100 333,600 384,000 57,500 326,500 78 82 85 13 15

Mississippi ... 368,000 250,000 0 250,000 ... ... 100 ... -32

Missouri 738,600 824,300 914,500 165,700 748,800 77% 80% 82% 12% 11%

Montana 133,900 152,700 141,800 0 141,800 100 100 100 14 -7

Nebraska 149,800 173,300 197,600 0 197,600 100 95 100 16 14

Nevada 204,500 245,500 305,600 0 305,600 100 100 100 14 24

New Hampshire 163,300 392,900 409,900 0 409,900 67 100 100 141 4

New Jersey 1,800,000 1,300,000 1,304,300 0 1,304,300 100% 100% 100% -38% <1%

New Mexico 260,000 310,000 352,000 25,000h 327,000 100 100 93 19 14

New York 4,851,100 4,563,800i 4,765,700 44,300 4,721,400 89 99 99 -6 4

North Carolina 623,000 697,400 793,500 0 793,500 95 99 100 12 14

North Dakota 227,200 223,900 230,400 145,000 85,400 30 34 37 -1 3

Ohio 909,700 1,483,000 1,600,000 100,000 1,500,000 88% 81% 94% 63% 8%

Oklahoma 656,700 710,000 782,000 202,400 579,600 63 70 74 8 10

Oregon 788,600 879,200 965,200 0 965,200 100 100 100 11 10

Pennsylvania 1,431,400 1,550,700 1,667,800 390,300 1,277,500 66 71 77 8 8

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 213,400 225,000 240,000 0 240,000 100% 100% 100% 5% 7%

South Carolina 843,700 902,400 1,002,600 54,000 948,600 93 100 95 7 11

South Dakota 130,800j 138,600 159,500 21,400 138,100 74 82 87 6 15

Tennessee 655,400k 727,700 826,700 0 826,700 100 61 100 11 14

Texas 4,912,100 5,556,200 6,157,100 0 6,157,100 100 100 100 13 11

Utah 311,400 346,400 392,800 0 392,800 86% 100% 100% 11% 13%

Vermont 133,500 150,900 164,900 79,400 85,500 0 36 52 13 9

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

Virginia 1,015,400 1,124,200 1,245,900 172,600 1,073,300 81 84 86 11 11

Washington 782,000 885,000 974,800 0 974,800 60 100 100 13 10

West Virginia 362,800 478,900 488,100 378,300 109,800 <1% 13% 22% 32% 2%

Wisconsin 666,200 752,400 828,100 125,600 702,500 76 81 85 13 10

Wyoming 82,700 89,500 97,300 0 97,300 100 100 100 8 9
Page 18 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 3

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Final dispositions include release by police without charging,

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

Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates. Numbers

have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have been

rounded to the nearest whole number. Except for Connecticut,

Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina and Utah, for which corrected

data were submitted, the data for 1993 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

Criminal History Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 3.

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

data for 1995 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal

Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information

Systems, 1995 (May 1997). Except for Connecticut, for which

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

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

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

... Not available.

 

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

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

reported to the repository.

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

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

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

the process of eliminating a backlog of submitted disposition reports.

This backlog elimination project accounts for the significant decrease

from 1993 to 1996.

d Kentucky no longer enters dispositions for the courts and

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

a count to include in the dispositions figure.

e The Bureau of Identification previously was unable to process

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

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

increased disposition reporting.

f

 Police release and prosecutor declinations are reported on the arrest

card.

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

backlogged dispositions.

h Figure represents court dispositions. Although prosecutor

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

dispositions decreased from 1997 to 1999 because in 1997 the state

repository was working on an NCHIP project to resolve missing

dispositions. The count provided in 1997 includes the dispositions

provided in this project during that year.

i

 Court dispositions only.

j

 Final charge dispositions entered in 1997.

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

to assist in reducing the backlog.

l

 The decrease in dispositions is due to lack of staffing. The focus of

the Nebraska criminal history repository has been on automating the

arrests being received and filing the dispositions being received. This

allows Nebraska to at least establish identity. The dispositions are not

being automated until a request is made. Although the disposition

ratio continues to decrease relative to the number of arrests being

received, the dispositions are available for quick automation.

Nebraska also is working on automating the dispositions from the

courts, so that they may be attached electronically, allowing Nebraska

to increase the disposition ratio.

m During 1997, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

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

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

dispositions received in 1997 than in 1999.

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

four additional temporary employees were hired to process delinquent

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

than the number reported for 1999.

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

(King County) to obtain disposition reports by downloading the

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

65,000 disposition reports. As a result, the number of dispositions

received during 1999 shows a decrease from the 1997 figure.

p Represents counts of 1999 arrest dispositions posted to the

computerized criminal history. Previous years are counts of charge

dispositions.

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

increased civil card processing created a backlog that resulted in

reduced disposition form collections.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 19

Table 3: Number of final dispositions reported to State criminal history repository, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999

 Number of dispositions Percent change 

State 1993 1995 1997 1999 1993-95 1995-97 1997-99

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

Alaska 31,300 38,200 41,200 43,000 22% 8 4

Arizona 117,500 140,800 170,100 190,500 20 21 12

Arkansas 21,000 32,000 40,100 93,700 52 25 134

California 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,134,500 1,381,000 0 3 22

Colorado ... ... ... 5,900 ... ... ...

Connecticut 107,500 111,200 107,400 102,200 3% -4% -5%

Delaware 80,000 64,900 ... 78,700 -19 ... ...

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

Florida 162,000b 174,300 ... 259,800 8 ... ...

Georgia 545,000 265,000c 303,600 371,100 -51% 15% 22%

Hawaii 51,700 57,800 87,300 70,500 12 51 -19

Idaho 19,300 ... ... 10,600 ... ... ...

Illinois 95,600 115,000 98,700 393,700 20 -14 299

Indiana 23,500 26,500 ... 40,000 13 ... ...

Iowa 54,200 48,200 45,300 70,700 16% -6% 56%

Kansas 34,300 ... ... 40,000 ... ... ...

Kentucky ... ... 18,000 6,200d ... ... -66

Louisiana 21,400 ... 16,300 36,200e ... ... 122

Maine 29,000 20,400 34,500 36,700 -30 69 6

Maryland ... ... 210,400 ... ... ... ...

Massachusetts 300,000 ... ... 417,700 ... ... ...

Michigan 178,100f 207,200f 240,600g 214,200h 16% 16 -11

Minnesota 60,000 2,500 84,000i -96 ...

Mississippi ... ... ... 10,000 ... ... ...

Missouri 65,100 62,800 72,000j 132,200k -4% 15% 84%

Montana 26,200 78,400 ... 30,400 ... ... ...

Nebraska 23,000 22,300 24,400 19,100l -3 9 -22

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

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

New Jersey 260,000 280,000 285,000 287,500 8% 2% 1%

New Mexico 11,100 12,000 12,500 16,000 8 4 28

New York 383,500 399,900 523,900 698,900 4 31 33

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

North Dakota 6,500 3,200 4,600 6,000 -51 44 30

Ohio ... ... ... 100,000 ... ... ...

Oklahoma 15,000 37,200 57,700 152,000 81% 53% 163%

Oregon 36,900 ... ... 116,300 ... ... ...

Pennsylvania 203,700 274,300 ... 167,600 35 ... ...

Puerto Rico 24,300 ... 21

Rhode Island 10,000 ... ... 18,000 ... ... ...

South Carolina 212,600 194,100 282,400 211,200n -9% 45% -25%

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

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

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

Utah 17,800 22,900 26,300 35,800 29% 15% 36%

Vermont ... ... 22,300 25,900 ... ... 16

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

Virginia 211,500 231,500 211,100 272,400 9 -9 29

Washington 157,800 178,000 277,800 246,300o 13 56 -11

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

Wisconsin 99,000 103,600 123,000 55,900p 5% 19% -55%

Wyoming 6,000 5,700 7,800 5,500q -14 37 -29
Page 20 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 4

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

provided by the respondent.

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

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

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

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

Table 4. The data for 1993 were taken from Bureau Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 4. Except for South

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

were taken from Bureau Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April

1999), Table 4.

Y Yes

N No

P Partial

* State is fully manual.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

aOnly the new information is automated.

bThe new information is added to the manual file.

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

index (MNI).

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

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

time due to lack of personnel.

f

The manual file is not in the automated MNI.

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

hAlthough the criminal history database that is utilized in Nebraska is

fully automated, there are approximately 6,000 partially automated

records that are in the process of being deleted.

i

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

the automated MNI.

j

 The automated MNI contains all arrest subjects since 1972.

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

conversion project is underway.

l

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

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

have been automated; upon receipt of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint

Identification System) quality fingerprints, the record will be automated.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 21

Table 4: Automation of master name index and criminal history file, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

Prior manual record is automated

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

State 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999

Alabama Y Y Y Y P P Y P Y Y ...

Alaska Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Arizona Y YYYPPYYYY

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

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

Colorado Y Y YYYY

Connecticut Y YYYPPPPYYYY

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

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

Florida Y YYYPYYYY

Georgia Y YYYYYYY

Hawaii Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Idaho Y YYYYPPP YYY

Illinois P Yd YYPPPPYYYY

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

Iowa Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

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

Kentucky P Pf YYPPYPYYYY

Louisiana Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Maine N Pg Pg NNNNP Nb

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

Massachusetts Y YYYPYPPY YY

Michigan Y YYYYYYY

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

Mississippi N P P Y N P P Y N N

Missouri Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Montana Y YYYYYYY

Nebraska P Y Y Y PYh PYYY

Nevada Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

New Hampshire Y Y Y YPYYYY

New Jersey Y YYYPPYYYY

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

New York Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

North Carolina Y YYYPPPYYYY

North Dakota P Pi Pi Pi PPPPYYYY

Ohio P Pj P Pk PPPPNNYY

Oklahoma Y Y Y Y P P P P Y Y Y Y

Oregon Y YYYYYYY

Pennsylvania Y Y Y Y P P P P YNl Y Na

Puerto Rico Y Y Y Y

Rhode Island Y Y Y YYYYY

South Carolina Y YYYPPPPYYYY

South Dakota Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Tennessee P Y Y Y N P P Y N

Texas Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y YYm

Utah Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y

Vermont Y Y Y Y N N P P Y Y

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

Virginia Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Washington Y YYYYYYY

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

Wisconsin Y YYYPPPPYYYY

Wyoming Y Y Y Y P Y Y Y Y
Page 22 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 5

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

information was provided by the respondent.

* Admission information only.

** Release information only.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Reporting will be addressed in the developing Offender Based

Tracking System (OBTS).

b By statute, arrest fingerprints are submitted after the prosecutor's

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

Prosecutor dispositions are reported on the arrest fingerprint card.

c This data is maintained by the State Department of Corrections and

has been accessible via a link between the State criminal history

repository and the Department of Corrections since 1995.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 23

Table 5: Data required to be submitted to State criminal history repository, 1999

 Data required to be submitted to repositories 

Felony dispositions

Prosecutor by courts with Admission/release of felons Probation Parole

State declinations felony jurisdiction State prisons Local jails information information

Alabama X X X

Alaska X XXXXX

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X X X X

California X X X X X

Colorado

Connecticut X X*a X*aa a

Delaware X X X X X

District of Columbia X X

Florida X X X X

Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii X X X X X X

Idaho X X X* X X

Illinois X XXXXX

Indiana X X

Iowa X X X X X X

Kansas X XXXXX

Kentucky X X

Louisiana X X X X X

Maine X X NA

Maryland X X X X

Massachusetts X X X

Michigan Xb X X* c c

Minnesota X X X X X X

Mississippi X X X X X X

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X XXXXX

Nevada X X

New Hampshire X X*

New Jersey X X X X* X X

New Mexico X* X*

New York X X X X* X X

North Carolina X X X X X

North Dakota X XXXXX

Ohio X X X* X*

Oklahoma X X X X X X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X X X X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina X X* X*

South Dakota X XXXXX

Tennessee X X

Texas X X

Utah X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands

Virginia X X X X X

Washington X X X**

West Virginia X X

Wisconsin XXXXX

Wyoming X X X X* X X
Page 24 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 6

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number. The total number of

arrest fingerprint cards submitted to State criminal history repositories

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

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

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

State criminal history repositories by arrest fingerprint cards only.

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

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

were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information

Systems (March 1991), Table 6. Except for Alabama, for which

corrected data were submitted, the data in the columns for 1993 were

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1993

(January 1995), Table 6. The data in the columns for 1997 were taken

from Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal

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

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Figure is for fiscal year 1999.

b Arrest information is reported by fingerprint cards, judgments and

computers.

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

from final dispositions that are not fingerprint-supported.

d Figure is for fiscal year 1997-98.

e Arrest information is entered from final dispositions that are not

fingerprint-supported.

f

Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and on uniform

arrest reports that may not have included fingerprints.

g Some arrest information is entered from final dispositions that are not

fingerprint-supported.

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

require arrest information to be supported by fingerprints; and arrest

information is entered from final dispositions and from criminal

summonses that are not supported by fingerprints.

i

 Figure is for fiscal year 1989.

j

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

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

supported by fingerprints.

l

 Figure includes adult and juvenile records.

m Arrest information is reported by computers.

n The small percentage of arrests that are not supported by

fingerprints are assigned State identification numbers with a "U"

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

exceptions. Unsupported arrests sometimes occur when an offender

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

fingerprinted.

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

dispositions, FBI abstracts and other documents.

p Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

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

other ways, such as diversion agreements, are unsupported by

fingerprints.

q Arrest information for older records was entered from final

dispositions that were not fingerprint-supported.

r

 Arrest information is entered from criminal summonses that are not

fingerprint-supported.

s Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and criminal

summonses that are not fingerprint-supported.

t

 The increase in volume is due to live scan and fingerprints submitted

for identification purposes only.

u Figure includes felony and most misdemeanor arrest cards.

v Pre-1968 arrests are supported by FBI fingerprints.

w Arrest information was reported by fingerprint cards and court

abstracts.

x New York law requires that fingerprints associated with sealed

records must be purged.

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

fingerprints.

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

arrest event are not fingerprint-supported.

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

index fingerprint.

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

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

cc Arrest information was reported on an arrest/custody form, which

does not need to be accompanied by fingerprints.

dd Arrest information is entered from final dispositions and citations

that are not supported by fingerprints. The State regulations requiring

fingerprints also are not enforced.

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

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

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

ff Arrest information is entered from arrest forms submitted to the

Records Bureau by the Police Department. Fingerprints are taken and

retained in the Forensic Bureau.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 25

Table 6: Arrest records with fingerprints, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

Number of arrest fingerprint cards and livescan

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

repository change change change history files that are fingerprint-supported 

State 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989-93 1993-97 1997-99 1989 1993 1997 1999

Total 6,012,400 6,255,800 7,625,900 8,852,400 4% 22% 16%

Alabama 292,900 192,300 253,500 290,600 -34% 32% 15% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Alaska 15,900 14,000 18,700 25,100a -12 34 34 75b 39 48c 62c

Arizona 101,900 114,800 192,500 209,000 13 68 9 100 100 100 100

Arkansas 23,000 36,000 82,000 68,800 57 128 -16 100 100 100 100

California 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,170,600d 1,456,000 10 6 24 100 100 99e 99e

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

Connecticut 97,100 115,000 139,500 138,000 18 21% -1% 75f 100 70 90g

Delaware 40,000 44,700 49,200 52,000 12 10 6 95h 90h 90h 90h

District of

Columbia 10,000i 41,800 38,900 33,200 318 -7 -15 95j 100 80k 80k

Florida 585,400 500,600 637,500 831,700 -14 27 30 100 100 100 100

Georgia 330,000 350,000 397,500 441,300 6% 14% 11% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Hawaii 52,700 53,200 66,900 67,000l 1 26 <1 98m <100n 100 99n

Idaho 27,300 34,300 59,200 54,800 26 73 -7 100 100 100 100

Illinois 200,300 336,700 448,700 530,000 75 33 18 100 100 100 100

Indiana 46,400 50,400 75,000 86,600 9 49 15 100 100 100 100

Iowa 30,000 53,100 61,800 66,600 77% 16% 8% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Kansas 46,800 64,500 79,900 84,000 38 24 5 70-75o 80p 85q 85q

Kentucky 22,500 ... ... 46,600 ... ... ... 98 ... 48 ...

Louisiana 135,900 154,700 206,400 307,800 14 33 49 100 100 100 100

Maine 6,500 5,500 4,800 7,200 15 -13 50 30r 30r 30r 30r

Maryland 103,000 162,400 228,700 115,100 58% 41% -50% 100% 75%r 100% 100%

Massachusetts 50,000-

55,000

65,000 85,000 87,500 38 31 3 0 0 0 0s

Michigan 116,800 114,800 131,200 159,900t -2 14 22 100 100 100 100

Minnesota 26,500 40,000 48,500 60,000 51 21 24 100 100 100 100

Mississippi 9,000 9,000 12,000 43,600 0 33 263 100 100 0 100

Missouri 92,000 89,500 135,000 139,900u -3% 51% 4% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana 13,000 ... 28,700 25,600 ... ... -11 100 100 100 100

Nebraska 13,700 16,500 44,400 21,600 20 169 -51 100 98v 100 100

Nevada 36,300 49,600 50,300 78,500 37 1 56 100 100 100 100

New Hampshire 9,300 20,100 17,500 18,500 116 -13 6 25-35w 100 65e 75e

New Jersey 145,700 110,900 129,400 150,400 -24% 17% 16% 100% 100% 100% 100%

New Mexico 26,200 34,800 38,000 46,000 33 9 21 98 100 100 100

New York 520,100 492,900 611,200 583,600 -5 24 -5 90 70x ...y 99z

North Carolina 63,200 76,300 141,900 145,100 21 86 2 100 100 100 100

North Dakota 5,000 7,200 9,300 10,800 44 29 16 100 94aa 90e 100

Ohio 114,500 149,200 165,000 158,000 30% 11% -4% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Oklahoma 60,000 46,000bb 71,900 79,000 -23 56 10 100 100 100 100

Oregon 92,100 91,400 141,000 148,200 -1 54 5 100 100 100 100

Pennsylvania 166,700 143,700 191,500 305,900 -14 33 60 100 100 100 100

Puerto Rico ... 15,800 ... ... ... ... ... ... 17 ...

Rhode Island 30,000 25,000 ... 33,000 17% ... ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

South Carolina 154,400 167,300 180,400 200,400 8 8% 11% 100 100 100 100

South Dakota 17,600 19,000-

20,000

27,800 26,700 11 46 -4 100 100 100 100

Tennessee 75,000 83,200 ... 198,300 11 ... ... 100 100 ... 100

Texas 398,400 581,400 575,800 588,000 46 -<1 2 100 100 100 100

Utah 35,200 44,400 ... 61,800 26% ... ... 100% 100% 100% 100%

Vermont 9,000 5,000 7,800 11,300 -44 56% 45% 35-40cc 25dd 30l 35ee

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

Virginia 110,000 136,400 196,200 216,700 24 44 10 100 100 100 100

Washington 131,600 168,300 199,400 211,800 28 18 6 100 100 100 100

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

Wisconsin 78,600 100,000 125,400 119,900 27% 25% -4% 100 100 100 100

Wyoming 11,100 9,800 8,300 11,000 -12 -15 33 100 100 100 100
Page 26 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 7

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

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

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

1989 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice

Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History Information Systems

(March 1991), Table 7. Except for Louisiana, Pennsylvania and

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

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

Information Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems,

1993 (January 1995), Table 7. The data in the column for 1997 were

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

Policy: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April

1999), Table 7.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

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

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

same unit.

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

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

therefore, no statistics are maintained.

d Police must release or charge an individual before sending

fingerprints to the repository.

e Notification is accomplished by disposition forms.

f

 Police departments report dispositions.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 27

Table 7: Notice to State criminal history repository of release of arrested persons without charging, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

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

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

State 1989 1993 1997 1999 1999

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Alaska No No Yes Yesa ...

Arizona No Yes Yes Yes ...

Arkansas No Yes Yes Yes ...

California Yes Yes Yes Yes 66,000

Colorado Yes Yes Yes

Connecticut No No No No NA

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes 5-10

District of Columbia ... Yesb ... Yes 1,700

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Hawaii Yes Yes Yes Yes 10,800

Idaho Yes Yes Yes No NA

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes 400

Indiana Yes Yes No No NA

Iowa Yes Yesc Yes Yes NA

Kansas Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Kentucky No ... No No NA

Louisiana Yes No No No NA

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Massachusetts No No No No NA

Michigan ... Yes Yes Yes ...

Minnesota Yes Yes No No NA

Mississippi No No Yes Yes ...

Missouri No Yes Yes Yes ...

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Nebraska Yes Yes No No NA

Nevada Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

New Hampshire No No Yes Yes ...

New Jersey No No No No NA

New Mexico No No No No NA

New York No No Yes Yes ...

North Carolina No Yesd Yesd Yesd ...

North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Ohio No Yese Yes No NA

Oklahoma No No No Yes ...

Oregon No Yes No No NA

Pennsylvania No No Yes No NA

Puerto Rico No No ...

Rhode Island No Nof No No NA

South Carolina No No No No NA

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Tennessee No No ... No NA

Texas No Yesa Yesa Yesa ...

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Vermont No No No No NA

Virgin Islands ... NA No No NA

Virginia No No No No NA

Washington No Yes Yes Yes ...

West Virginia Yes No No Yes ...

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes ...

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes ...
Page 28 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 8

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

provided by the respondent.

Note: Percentages and numbers reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

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

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

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

from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy:

Survey of Criminal History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 8.

Except for South Carolina and Georgia, for which corrected data were

submitted, the data in the columns for 1993 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

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

The data in the columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 8.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

a Based on audit sample of one jurisdiction.

b Estimate as of April 1994.

c Through current monitoring procedures, the number of delinquent

prosecutor disposition cases existing on the system is 6,800. However,

it is unknown how many of these are actual decisions not to prosecute.

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

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

repository.

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

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

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

percentage reflects the worst case scenario.

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

previous response was an estimate.

f

 Fifty-one percent of the 1993 arrests have dispositions.

g Seventy-one percent of 1999 arrests have dispositions recorded.

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

St. Louis Police Department, stopped reporting dispositions for the

courts, and the courts subsequently did not begin reporting.

i Felony case dispositions entered in 1997.

j

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

When the current backlog is processed, the reporting level will

increase.

k Percentage represents final dispositions for 1993 felony arrests

received as of February 15, 1994.

l

 All actions, including prosecution actions, are reported as final

dispositions to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

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

current figures were unavailable.

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

the Pennsylvania Courts, with no separation between felony and other

grades of offenses.

o Requirement for reporting prosecutor dispositions was relatively new.

p Percentages are estimated based upon the number of arrests

received at the State criminal history repository.

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

voluntarily submitted.

r

 Due to computer conversion and no report writing ability at this time.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 29

Table 8: Completeness of prosecutor and court disposition reporting to State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

Number of

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

declinations Prosecutor declinations Felony trial court dispositions 

State 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999

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

Alaska ... NA ... 57%a ... 85 90 100%a ...

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

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

California 213,000 ... ... 68 72% 85 47 80 77

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

Connecticut NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100

Delaware ... ... ... 100% 100% 60 72 95 75

District of Columbia 800 0 50 90 90 5 ... 84 ...

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

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

Hawaii 6,800 ... ... ... ...c ... 74% 84%d 76

Idaho NA 100% NA NA NA 80 70 95 95

Illinois 33,300 50 ... 95% 95% 50 ... 68 ...

Indiana NA 50 NA ... NA 75 12e 25 25

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

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

Kentucky NA NA NA NA NA 75-80 60 20 ...

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

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

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

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

Michigan ... NA ... ... ... 64 ...f ... ...g

Minnesota 5,400 70 ... ... ... 99 98 99 99

Mississippi 100 30 NA NA ... 25 NA NA ...

Missouri 25,000 80% 10% 20% ... 60% 35%h 60%i 45%j

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

Nebraska 8,000 100 NA 75 75% 50 75 95 95

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

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

New Jersey 2,600 90% 95% 100% 100% 95% 90% 98% 98%

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

New York ... ... ... 100 ... ... 59k ... ...

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

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

Ohio ... NA NA ... ... 55% 35% 31% 42%

Oklahoma 6,500 NA NA NA ... 80 60 65 65

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA 60m 100 100 100

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

Puerto Rico NA NA NA 14 17

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

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

South Dakota ... 1 5% ... ... 75 81 84 97

Tennessee NA NA NA 5 NA NA

Texas ... 0 ...o 60% 50% 40 50 60p 50

Utah ... 0% 64% 70% 80% 55% 91% 64% 100%

Vermont NA 100 95 NA NA 100 95 95 95

Virgin Islands NA ... NA NA NA ... NA ... 60q

Virginia ... NA NA 96 ... 95 96 96 96

Washington ... 40 ... ... ... 7 78 57 ...r

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

Wisconsin NA ... NA NA NA ... 58% 98% 39%

Wyoming ... 60 ... 100% ... 60 ... 28 ...
Page 30 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 9

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

provided by the respondent.

... Not available.

✝ 1 Record is destroyed by State criminal history repository.

2 Record is retained with action noted.

3 Record is sealed.

4 No action is taken.

5 Other.

 

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

b Record is destroyed only upon request of the subject.

c Although State law does not provide for destroying conviction data,

the State repository does get orders issued pursuant to the inherent

authority of the courts.

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

e Law provides for expungements in very limited cases.

f

 Although State law does not provide for expungement of convictions,

if expungement orders are received, the files are sealed.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 31

Table 9: Policies/practices of State criminal history repository regarding modification of felony convictions, 1999

 Expungements Set-asides Pardons Restoration of civil rights 

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Alaska Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 5a

Arizona Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Arkansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

California Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Colorado

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

Delaware Yes 2 Yes 2 ... ...

District of

Columbia

Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Florida Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Georgia Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Hawaii Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Idaho Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Illinois Yes 2 Yes 2

Indiana Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Iowa Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kansas Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Kentucky Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Louisiana Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Maine Yes 2

Maryland Yes 2 Yes 2 ... ...

Massachusetts Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes 3

Michigan Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Minnesota 1c Yes 2d Yes 2d Yes 2d

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

Missouri Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 4

Montana Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Nebraska Yes 2 Yes 2

Nevada Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Hampshire Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 ... ...

New Jersey Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

New Mexico Yes 2 Yes 2

New York Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Carolina Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

North Dakota Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Ohio Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oklahoma Yes 3 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Oregon Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Pennsylvania Yese 1 Yes 2 Yes 2

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Yes 2 Yes ... Yes ... Yes ...

South Carolina Yes 2

South Dakota Yes 2 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Tennessee Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Texas Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Utah Yes 3 Yes 2

Vermont Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1

Virgin Islands Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 1 ... ...

Virginia 3f Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Washington Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

West Virginia Yes 2 Yes 2

Wisconsin Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2

Wyoming Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2
Page 32 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 10

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

fingerprint cards received from State prisons and local jails both in

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

fingerprint incarcerated individuals and send the fingerprint to the

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

The absence of a response indicated that the information is neither

mandated by a State legal requirement nor is it voluntarily submitted.

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

 

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

b Information is transmitted automatically.

c Fingerprints are requested only when online data cannot be

matched.

d Only to those offenders convicted of certain crimes, such as sexual

and violent offenses.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 33

Table 10: Fingerprinting of incarcerated offenders and linkage to records maintained by State criminal history repository, 1999

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

admitted prisoners and sending whom State repository receives fingerprints to make

fingerprints to State repository fingerprints positive identification

and to link correctional

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

Alabama Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Alaska Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Arizona

Arkansas Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

California Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Colorado

Connecticut Yes Yes 100% a Yes

Delaware Yes 100 Yes

District of Columbia ... ... ... ... ...

Florida Yes 0b

Georgia Yes 100% Yes

Hawaii

Idaho Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Illinois Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Indiana Yes 75 Yes

Iowa Yes Yes 99% ... Yes

Kansas Yes 0 Yes

Kentucky Yes ... Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Maine ... ... ... ... Yes

Maryland Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Massachusetts Yes Yes 100 13 Yes

Michigan Yes 100 Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

Mississippi Yes ... Yes

Missouri Yes 100% Yes

Montana 100 Yes

Nebraska Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

Nevada 100 Yes

New Hampshire Yes 100 Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes 100% 95% Yes

New Mexico Yes Yes 100 ... Yes

New York Yes Yes <5 ...c Yesc

North Carolina Yes Yes 100 100 Yes

North Dakota Yes Yes 100 40 Yes

Ohio Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Oklahoma Yes Yes 100% ... Yes

Oregon 100 Yes

Pennsylvania <6 <5% Yesd

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina Yes Yes 100% 95% Yes

South Dakota Yes Yes 100 95 Yes

Tennessee Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Texas Yes

Utah Yes Yes 100%b ... Yes

Vermont Yes Yes 100 100% Yes

Virgin Islands

Virginia Yes 85 Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes ... ... Yes

Wisconsin Yes Yes 100% 100% Yes

Wyoming Yes Yes 100 ... Yes
Page 34 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 11

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

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

information must be reported to the State criminal history repository or

from States where the information is voluntarily reported. The absence

of a response indicates that the State neither statutorily mandates that

the information is reported nor is the information voluntarily reported.

See Table 5 for States that have a legal requirement that

probation/parole information must be reported to the repository.

Percentages reported are the results of estimates. Percentages are

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

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

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

taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information

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

Table 11. Except for Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts and North

Carolina, for which additional information was submitted, the data in

the columns for 1993 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 11. Except for

Massachusetts and Washington, for which corrected data were

submitted, the data in the columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of

State Criminal History Information Systems, 1997 (April 1999), Table 11.

... Not available.

 

a Probation information is no longer added to the criminal history

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

agencies. Currently 32 counties enter data into the supervised release

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

percentage of total probation actions cannot be determined.

b The reporting of probation and parole data is being addressed in the

developing Connecticut Offender Based Tracking system (OBTS).

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

d Probation and parole data are maintained by the Department of

Corrections (DOC). Its system is linked to the State criminal history

repository by the DOC client number and the Michigan State

identification (SID) number.

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

releases from, probation.

f

 The percentage was estimated due to being unable to determine all

probation orders assigned in 1993.

g The percentage reflects the data reported directly to the State

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

maintained by the Department of Criminal Justice.

h The probation and parole system is linked to the criminal history

system.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 35

Table 11: Probation and parole data in State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

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

 Probation Parole 

State 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999

Alabama

Alaska ... ...

Arizona 0% ...

Arkansas 10% 30 55% 60% ... 90% 95% 100%

California 85 30 a 100% ... 100 100

Colorado 0% <10% 100% 100%

Connecticutb

Delaware 100 100 100 100% 100 100 100 100%

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

Florida 85 ... ... 85 0 ...

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

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

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

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

Indiana 75 87 1 16c

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

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

Kentucky 100 80 90 100 80 90 ...

Louisiana 98 100 98 95 95 100 95 95

Maine

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

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

Michigand

Minnesota 99 75 75 75 99 75 75

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

Missouri 100% 50%e 100%e 100%e 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montana

Nebraska 50 20 100 ... 99

Nevada ...

New Hampshire

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

New Mexico

New York 100 ... 100 100 100 100 100

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

North Dakota 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

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

Oregon 25 25 100 100%

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

Puerto Rico 16 1 2 2

Rhode Island ... ... ...

South Carolina 98% 98% 100% 99%

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

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

Texas 50 50f 100 100 80 50g

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

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

Virgin Islands ... ...

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

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

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

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

Wyoming 10 10 10 10% 100 100 100 100%
Page 36 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 12

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

fingerprint cards have been rounded to the nearest 100.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable.

 

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

for manual reporting is 7 to 30 days.

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

time for manual data is 30 days.

c Arresting agencies’ reporting is automated via the arraignment

procedure and through the court.

d No backlog exists with respect to the processing of fingerprint cards;

however, a backlog of 159,000 records exists in the resolution of

pending criminal history records. The records are “pending” due to

incomplete arrest data.

e Fingerprint cards average 39 days; livescan is received from 30

minutes to 24 hours.

f

 Livescan, 24 hours; felony cards, 3 days; misdemeanor cards, 36

days.

g Booking agencies.

hLivescan is entered within 30 minutes; manual cards are entered

within 3 days.

i

 The average time for Honolulu Police Department and Honolulu

Sheriff’s Department, from which 67% of the arrests originate,

fingerprint cards is 3 to 5 days; arrest data is received from Honolulu

Police Department and Honolulu Sheriff’s Department in 1 to 4 days.

For the remaining arrests throughout the State, the average time for

receipt of fingerprint cards is 20 days; for arrest data, the average time

is 7 to 14 days.

j

 Livescan is received the same day.

kLivescan is received the same day; inked fingerprints are received

between 3 and 10 days.

l

 Current backlog is related to AFIS and the new criminal history

system.

m Automated cards are received within 1 day; manual cards are

received within 10 days.

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

within 2 days.

o Livescan data is entered immediately.

p Approximately 55 percent of the arrests in New York City are

received in less than 1 day. Approximately 5 percent of the arrests

throughout the rest of the State are received in less than 1 day.

q Livescan information is received and entered within 1 day.

r

 Livescan is received and entered within 1 day; manual cards are

entered within 150 days.

s Livescan is received and entered within 2 minutes; mail-in cards are

received and entered within 2-3 days.

t

 All current data is entered; the backlog consists of old records sent in

by a single agency in a single batch.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 37

Table 12: Average number of days to process arrest data submitted to State criminal history repository and current status of backlog, 1999

Percentage

Average of daily

number Average number of days Number of arrests

of days between receipt of arresting in State

between fingerprints and entry of agencies represented Backlog of Number of

arrest data into: reporting by arresting entering unprocessed Number of

and receipt arrest agencies data into or partially person-days

of arrest Criminal data by reporting by criminal processed needed to

data and Master name history automated automated database fingerprint eliminate

State fingerprints index database means means exists cards backlog

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

Alaska ... ... ... 1 25 ... ... ...

Arizona 3 2 14 178 89 No

Arkansas 10-14 3-5 30 19 58 Yes 14,500 300

California <1-30a 1-30b 1-30b 367 80 No

Colorado

Connecticut 3-5 30 90 211c 100% Nod

Delaware 3 0 0 65 100 No

District of Columbia 1 1 <1 23 100 No

Florida <1-39e 1-36f 1-36f 57g 62 Yes 161,400 140

Georgia 1 <1-3h <1-3h 150 60% No

Hawaii 1-20i 2 ... 1 58 Yes 300 35

Idaho 14 3 3 1 17 No

Illinois <1-5j 75 75 141 >60 Yes 41,900 60

Indiana 7-30 30 30 1 2 Yes 10,000 5

Iowa 10 2 2 7 19% No

Kansas 14 4 90 Yes 21,000 168

Kentucky 1-10k 90 Yes ... 90

Louisiana 1-3 1-3 1-3 88 89 No

Maine 14 2 2 <1 No

Maryland ... ... ... 25 60% Yes 28,900 96

Massachusetts 30 20 NA No

Michigan ... 30 30 13 8 No

Minnesota 26 5 5 2 10 Yes 7,500 15

Mississippi 93 ... ... ... ... Yes 5,000 20

Missouri ... 30 30 Yes 19,400 50

Montana 3-5 2 21l Yes 1,500 20

Nebraska 30-60 30-60 30-60 Yes 2,500 80

Nevada 2 2 2 No

New Hampshire 30 7 7 15 ... Yes 50 1-2

New Jersey 1-10m 1-2n 1-2n 21 42% No

New Mexico 15 <1-60+o <1-60+o 9 65 Yes 30,000 300

New York >1p <1 <1 45 90 No

North Carolina ... 5 5 Yes 4,500 10

North Dakota 7-10 6-10 6-10 6 40 No

Ohio 15 5 5 135 85% No

Oklahoma 5-7 38 38 1 15 Yes 12,500 90

Oregon ... 8 8 Yes 2,200 4

Pennsylvania 1q 1q 1q 68 65 Yes 9,000 33

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 21 7-10 7-10 10 50% Yes 300 2

South Carolina 3 12 12 No

South Dakota 1-10 1 1 2 30 No

Tennessee 18 180 180 70 30 Yes 20,000 70

Texas 7 1-150r 1-150r 28 60 Yes 100,000 150

Utah 3-7 30 30 1 50% Yes 1,000 5

Vermont 10 90 90 Yes 1,500 37

Virgin Islands 2 NA 5 No

Virginia <1-3s <1-3s <1-3s 60 60 No

Washington 25 65 65 Yes 84,000 3,600

West Virginia ... 3 7 Yes ... ...

Wisconsin 45 4 4 66 80% Yes 18,800t 90

Wyoming 10 ... ... Yes 13,400 210
Page 38 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 13

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

information was provided by the repositories.

... Not available.

NA Not applicable—no legal requirement mandates the reporting of

the information to the State criminal history repository.

 

a Due to backlog.

b The court disposition backlog reflects the number of delinquent court

cases that are identified through ongoing delinquent monitoring

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

purpose of ongoing data entry.

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

area, send disposition information to the Office of State Courts

Administrator, which in turn provides the information to the State

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

system is currently being designed that will replace this method.

d Automated information is supplied through the State Office of Court

Administration.

e Town and village court dispositions are entered manually.

f

 All disposition information is reported to the Administrative Office of

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

repository.

g Dispositions received electronically are applied within 1 day of

receipt; manually reported dispositions are applied within 60 days.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 39

Table 13: Average number of days to process disposition data submitted to State criminal history and current status of backlog, 1999

Average number

of days between Percent of

Average number receipt of cases disposed Number of

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama ... ... Yes ... 180

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

Arizona ... 30 1 >1% No

Arkansas 30 100a 30 ... Yes 14,750 60

California 75 70 145 45 No

Colorado

Connecticut 3-5 3-5 36 100% No

Delaware 1 1 29 100 No

District of Columbia 1 1 1 75 No

Florida ... 7 67 100 Yes ... ...

Georgia 45 30 100 20% No

Hawaii 14 1-14 14 80 Yes 114,000b 2,200

Idaho 15 2 44 100 No

Illinois ... 30 51 >60 No

Indiana 14 30 Yes ... 180

Iowa 35 2 Yes 500 3

Kansas 21 ... Yes 300,000 800

Kentucky ... 30 Yes ... 60

Louisiana ... ... Yes 30,000 300

Maine 14 2 No

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

Massachusetts 2 <1 83 100 No

Michigan ... 30 109 30 No

Minnesota 7 2 86 100 No

Mississippi 160 ... Yes 5,000 20

Missouri ... ... c Yes 25,000 80

Montana 15 180 Yes 12,000 120

Nebraska 30 >180 Yes 163,000 400

Nevada 60 10 No

New Hampshire 5 5 Yes ... 5

New Jersey 1 1 560 100% No

New Mexico 60 >90 Yes 35,000 200

New York ... 1 ...d ... Yes 5,000 30e

North Carolina ... 1 100 100 Yes 21,800 90

North Dakota 30 60 No

Ohio 21 365 30 47% Yes 148,000 120

Oklahoma 30 30 1 10-15 Yes 15,000 90

Oregon ... 60 26 65 Yes 10,900 68

Pennsylvania ... ... f 100 Yes 135,000 900

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 7-10 30 Yes 2,500 21

South Carolina 5 5 46 100% No

South Dakota 14 14 ... 100 No

Tennessee 63 5 No

Texas 30 1-60g 40 60 Yes 11,500 60

Utah 30 0 8 75% Yes 200 5

Vermont 10 90 Yes 9,600 63

Virgin Islands 60 ... Yes ... ...

Virginia 10 3 81 50 No

Washington 15 35 Yes 220,000 5,200

West Virginia ... ... Yes ... 10

Wisconsin 110 4 61 63% No

Wyoming ... ... Yes 800 10
Page 40 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 14

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages have been rounded to the nearest

whole number. Numbers of unprocessed or partially processed

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

* Admission information.

✝ Release information.

... Not available.

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

information to the State criminal history repository.

 

a For current backlog of 21,900 for 1999 only.

b Figure represents 100% of only the status change actions reported

by the California Youth Authority. Figure does not address Department

of Corrections at this time.

c State prison system admissions are received monthly.

d This information is automated.

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

f

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

g The information is received immediately when entered online. If

fingerprints are required, input time increases.

h Commitments are received on the same day; correctional status

reports are received within 3 days.

i

 Commitment cards are considered part of the felony backlog that

exists.

j

 All prison admissions are entered; backlog consists of prison release

notifications.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 41

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

1999

Average Percent of

Average number number of admission/

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

admission or release receipt corrections release activity entering unprocessed

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

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

entry into reporting by by agencies criminal custody- needed

State Local criminal history automated reporting by history supervision to eliminate

State prisons jails database means automated means database reports backlog

Alabama ...*✝ ...*✝ 10 1 ... No

Alaska ...*✝ ...*✝ ... ... ......

Arizona NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arkansas 7*/30✝ NA 365 Yes 6,000 180

California 30*✝ 30*✝ 180a ... 100%b Yes 35,900 780

Colorado

Connecticut ...*/NA✝ ...*/NA✝ ... No

Delaware 1*✝ NA 1 39 100% No

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

Florida 1-30*c/11✝ NA 1d 1 100 No

Georgia 10-15*/...✝ NA 3 1 100% No

Hawaii ...*✝ ...*✝ ... Yes 9,700 180

Idaho 14*/NA✝ 30*/NA✝ 3 No

Illinois 1-5*e/...✝ 28*/...✝ 5 1 70 Yes 1,100 9

Indiana 10*✝ NA 180 1 25 Yes 5,000 60

Iowa ...*✝ ...*✝ 2 No

Kansas ...*✝ ...*✝ ... No

Kentucky 30*✝ NA 60 Yes 10,000 120

Louisiana ...*✝ ...*✝ 30 1 10% Yes 1,100 30

Maine NA NA NA NA

Maryland 7*✝ 30*✝ 30 24 100% No

Massachusetts NA NA NA NA NA NA

Michigan 10*/NA✝ NA 365 Yes 9,700 30

Minnesota 10*/3✝ ...*✝ 3 150 80 Yesf ... ...

Mississippi ... ... 0 1 90 No

Missouri ...*✝ NA 20 Yes 15,000 520

Montana NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nebraska 7*/30✝ ...*✝ 20 Yes 60 5

Nevada NA NA NA NA NA NA

New Hampshire 14*/NA✝ NA 1-2 8 ... No

New Jersey 1*✝ 1-14*/NA✝ 3 25 90% No

New Mexico 15*/NA✝ 10*/NA✝ >60 Yes 400 3

New York 1*✝ ...*/ NA✝ 0-3g ... 100 No

North Carolina 60*/2✝ NA 5 ... 100 Yes 600 2

North Dakota 30*✝ 30*✝ 90 3 40 No

Ohio 1*/NA✝ 5*/NA✝ 1 3 100% No

Oklahoma 5*/30✝ 5*/30✝ 38 Yes 500-600 2

Oregon NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pennsylvania NA NA NA NA NA NA

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island NA NA NA NA NA NA

South Carolina 7*/NA✝ 7*/NA✝ 14 No

South Dakota 30*✝ 1-10*/...✝ 2-5 No

Tennessee 1* 9* 180 ... ... No

Texas NA NA NA NA NA NA

Utah NA NA NA NA NA NA

Vermont NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Islands NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia 42*/56✝ NA 0-3h 1 100% No

Washington NA*/1✝ NA 65 1 ... Yesi ... ...

West Virginia ...*✝ NA*✝ 3-5 Yes ... ...

Wisconsin 5*/46✝ ...*✝ 3 1 99 Yes 30,000j 100

Wyoming 30*/30✝ 30*/NA ... Yes 1,200 200
Page 42 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 15

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

information was provided by the respondent.

* Lists generated are used to provide notice to criminal justice

agencies in order to obtain the missing dispositions.

 

a Audits.

b Training.

c Report listing arrests with no dispositions.

d Joint education effort with the State court clerks.

e Court Net.

f

 Electronic reporting from the court system.

g Newsletter and training seminars.

h Contact courts as incomplete records are discovered and adjust

accordingly.

i

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

to find missing dispositions.

j

 Fax.

k Quarterly newsletters, training sessions and seminars.

l

 AFIS seminars.

m Conferences and workshops.

n Computer access to court database.

o Lists are used to research and locate missing record or to notify

courts of missing records.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 43

Table 15: Procedures employed by State criminal history repository to encourage complete arrest and disposition reporting, 1999

List of arrests with

no dispositions

generated to

monitor disposition

State reporting Field visits Form letters Telephone calls Other

Alabama X X X X

Alaska Xa

Arizona X X Xa

Arkansas X X

California X X X Xb

Colorado

Connecticut X

Delaware X* X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X* X X X Xb

Georgia X* X X X

Hawaii X* Xc

Idaho Xd

Illinois X* X X X

Indiana

Iowa X* X X X

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X X Xe

Louisiana

Maine X X X Xb

Maryland X Xf

Massachusetts

Michigan X* X Xg

Minnesota X X X Xb

Mississippi X Xb

Missouri X X X Xb

Montana X* X X Xa

Nebraska X X X

Nevada X X X Xa,b

New Hampshire Xh

New Jersey X* X X X Xi

New Mexico X X X Xb

New York X* X X X Xj

North Carolina X* X X X

North Dakota X* X X X

Ohio X X X X Xk

Oklahoma X* X X X Xa

Oregon X* X X X

Pennsylvania X X Xl

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X

South Dakota X* X X X

Tennessee X

Texas X X X Xm

Utah X* X X Xn

Vermont X* X

Virgin Islands X

Virginia X*o XX X

Washington X* X X X Xb

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X Xb

Wyoming X* X X
Page 44 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 16

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

utilized to link disposition information. Matching of several items of

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

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

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

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

information and arrest/charge information also permit the linking of

dispositions to particular charges and/or specific counts.

 

a Arrest agency and booking number.

b Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) case number.

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

Enforcement or FBI number, sex, race, date of birth.

d Submission of fingerprints.

e Probation control file (PCF) number.

f

 The record reflects an authorized criminal case providing whatever

charges are filed for the case by the arresting agency, prosecutor and

court.

g Date of birth and reporting agency’s ORI number.

h State Identification (SID) number.

i

 ORI number.

j

 Not in all cases.

k Warrant number arrest event identifier.

l

 Thumbprints.

m Arrest offenses and process control number.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 45

Table 16: Methods to link disposition information to arrest/charge information on criminal history record, 1999

Unique tracking Name and

number for reporting

individual Unique arrest Unique charge agency case

State subjects event identifier identifier Arrest date Subject name number Other

Alabama* X X X X

Alaska* X X X X X

Arizona* X X X X X X

Arkansas* X X X X X X

California* X X X X X X Xa

Colorado X

Connecticut* X

Delaware* X X X X X X Xb

District of Columbia* X X X X X X

Florida* X X X X X X Xc

Georgia X X

Hawaii* X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X X

Indiana* X X X X X X

Iowa* X X X X

Kansas* X X X X

Kentucky* X X

Louisiana* X X X X Xd

Maine* XXX

Maryland* X X X X X X

Massachusetts* X X X X Xe

Michiganf X

Minnesota XXXg

Mississippi* X X

Missouri* X X X X X

Montana X X X

Nebraska* X

Nevada* X X X

New Hampshire X X Xh

New Jersey*X X X X X X Xi

New Mexico*j X XXXX

New York* X X X

North Carolina X X X X

North Dakota* X X X X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma* X X X X X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania* X

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island* X X

South Carolina* Xk

South Dakota* X X X X X X

Tennessee X X X

Texas* X X X X

Utah X X X X

Vermont* X X X X X

Virgin Islands* X X

Virginia* X Xl

Washington* X X X X X X Xm

West Virginia* X

Wisconsin X X X X Xi

Wyoming* X X X X X X
Page 46 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 17

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

information was provided by the respondent.

Note: Numbers and percentages reported are results of estimates.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Percentages have

been rounded to the nearest whole number.

... Not available.

* All data received can be linked.

 

a Court information is held in an automated format and periodically

rerun for linkage to arrest.

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

c Court data only is entered into a suspense file and is applied to the

computerized criminal history system upon receipt of arrest.

d The court disposition is placed in a pending file and does not show

on the record.

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

information and disposition.

f

 Information is returned to the contributor.

g A database of court information is maintained.

h Unlinked court dispositions are not recorded on a criminal history

record until fingerprints are processed; 45% of the unlinked

dispositions were linked later through fingerprint processing.

i

 Agencies can query a file of court data that is not linked to an arrest.

j

 If supported by fingerprints.

k If no identification record exists.

l

 Information is entered into a non-fingerprint supported database.

m One last attempt is made to link the information by using the prison

fingerprints in lieu of the arrest fingerprints.

n Contact arresting agency to obtain fingerprint card with charges.

o Manually attempt to link court information; method is successful in

about 10% of the cases.

p Department of Corrections admissions are 100% fingerprint-based.

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

to the system if possible.

r

 Court disposition contains a fingerprint.

s Fingerprint-based reporting only.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 47

Table 17: Procedure followed when linkage cannot be made between court or correctional information in the criminal history database, 1999

Create a "dummy" segment 

Court Enter information

dispositions without linkage to Enter no information Estimated dispositions received which

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

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

from court correctional correctional correctional final court final court correctional correctional

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

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

Alaska X ... ...

Arizona X ... 20%

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

California X X X 112,000 28

Colorado

Connecticut X ... 2% ... 1%

Delaware ...5 ...5

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

Florida X Xa ...... ......

Georgia Xb Xc 18,000 5% 1,500 4%

Hawaii X ... ...

Idaho X X X 36,000 62 ... ...

Illinois X Xd ... ...

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

Iowa X ... ...

Kansas X X ... ...

Kentucky X ... ...

Louisiana Xe X Xf ...... ......

Maine X 4,100 70%

Maryland X Xg ... ...

Mass.* ... <4% ... ...

Michigan X Xh 84,300 39 ... ...

Minnesota X Xi 42,500 49 ... ...

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

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

Montana X Xk ...... ......

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

Nevada X X Xf ... <1 ... <1

New Hamp. X X ... ... ... ...

New Jersey X 4,000 4% ... ...

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

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

North

Carolina

X ......

North

Dakota

X X ... 10 ... 10

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

Oklahoma X X Xl ...... ......

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

Penn. X X Xm 43,000 36% ... ...

Puerto Rico

Rhode Is. Xn 500 4%

S. Carolina X Xo ... 25 ... 2%

S. Dakota Xp X ...5 ...1

Tennessee X X ... 30 ... 60

Texas X 40,000 <20 ... 50

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

Vermont*

Virgin Is. X ... ...

Virginia Xr X 20,000 10%

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

W. Virginia Xs X ...... ......

Wisconsin X 19,700 20%

Wyoming*
Page 48 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 18

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

information was provided by the respondent.

 

a Specified data elements are 100 percent verified.

b Synchronize with FBI tapes, biennial audit of random sample

records.

c State audit review program comparing arrest and court documents to

state repository record.

d Yearly audits.

e Local audits.

f

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

inconsistencies and/or secure missing information.

g Source agency is contacted by telephone for critical data missing or

incomplete data.

h Key data elements are verified.

i

 Synchronize with FBI tape.

j

 All data entry is dual-entered.

k Manual double-checking after data entry.

l

 Periodic audits by the Attorney General.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 49

Table 18: Strategies employed by State criminal history repository to ensure accuracy of data in criminal history database, 1999

Random sample

Manual review comparisons

of incoming Manual Manual review of of State criminal Error lists

source double-checking Computer edit criminal record history repository returned

documents before or and verification transcripts before files with to reporting

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

Alabama X X X X X

Alaska X X X X X

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X X X X

California X X X Xa

Colorado

Connecticut X X X

Delaware X X X X X X

District of Columbia X X X

Florida X X X X X X Xb

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X X X X X

Idaho X X X X Xc

Illinois X X X Xd

Indiana X X

Iowa X X X X X Xe

Kansas X X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X

Maine X X X Xf

Maryland X X X X X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan Xg Xh X

Minnesota X X X

Mississippi X X X X

Missouri X X X X X

Montana X X X X X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X X X X X Xi

New Mexico X X X X

New York X X X

North Carolina X X X

North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X X X Xj

Oregon X X X X Xk

Pennsylvania X X X Xl

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X X X Xk

South Dakota X X X X X X

Tennessee X X X

Texas X X X

Utah X X X

Vermont X X X

Virgin Islands X X X

Virginia X X X X

Washington X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X X X

Wyoming X X X X X
Page 50 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 19

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

information was provided by the respondent.

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

the data in the columns for 1989 were taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal

History Information Systems (March 1991), Table 18. Except for

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

columns for 1993 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January 1995), Table 19. Except for

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

columns for 1997 were taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Criminal Justice Information Policy: Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems. 1997 (April 1999), Table 19.

... Not available.

 

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

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

resources permitting.

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

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

procedure.

d The expungement process was audited for 1990-92.

e Expected completion date.

f

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

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

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) audit frequency

requirements.

g The program is in the testing stage.

h Record transaction log only.

i

 All court records are compared with arrest information, and any

inconsistencies are resolved before entry on the rap sheet. If

problems occur frequently with a particular department, a visit to

provide training is recommended.

j

 A formal audit was not conducted; an agency was provided

assistance on improving its procedures.

k In-house audits only.

l

 The State criminal history repository is currently working with the

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

reviewing the repository database and obtaining missing dispositions.

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

conjunction with the State repository, to review agency responsibilities

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

m The audit program is under development.

n Very limited.

o Law enforcement agencies that have terminals are audited every 18

months.

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

q Logs are maintained for inquiries and responses only.

r

 Field staff work with agencies on data quality.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 51

Table 19: Audit activities of State criminal history repository, 1989, 1993, 1997 and 1999

Period of

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

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

State 1989 1993 1997 1999 1989 1993 1997 1999 last audit by audit

Alabama Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Alaska Yes Yesa Yesa Yesa No No Yes Yes 6/99 6/97

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 11/99 1996-97

Arkansas No Yes Yes Yes No No No No

California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes continual continual

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesb Yesc

Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Delaware Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

District of

Columbia

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1996 1 mo.

Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes No Nod Yes Yes 7/00e 1989-99

Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nof Yes Yes ongoing

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

12/96

1/93-12/94

Idaho Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yesg

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes ongoing

Indiana Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes continual last 5 yrs.

Kansas No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Kentucky No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 1/00

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Maine Yesh Yesh Yesh Yes Noi Noi No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1999 1998

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 1993 1991

Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yesj No No

Mississippi No No Yes Yes No No No No

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesk No Yesl Yesl

Montana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1999 1993-98

Nebraska Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

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

New

Hampshire

Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

New Jersey No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes continual continual

New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

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

North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

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

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1999 1994-99

Oklahoma No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yesm

Oregon Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11/98 1997

Puerto Rico ... Yes ... No

Rhode Island No No Yes No No No Yes No

South Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yesn Yeso Yes ongoing 1 yr.

South Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1/00 ongoingp

Tennessee Yes No Yes No Yes No

Texas Yesp Yesq Yesp Yesp No Nor Yes Yes 1/96 5 yrs.

Utah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yearly 5 yrs.

Vermont Yes Yesp Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 1993 1992

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

Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1989 1984-89

Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1997 1994-96

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 1995 entire

database

Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 9/99 1998

Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7/96 7-9/97
Page 52 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 20

The notes below expand on the data in Table 20. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

... Not available.

* 1 Audit/audit functions/procedures

2 Automation conversion/redesign enhancements

3 Disposition/arrest reporting procedures/enhancements

4 Felony flagging

5 Fingerprint card/system conversion/enhancements

6 Inter-agency/local agency interface

7 Legislation

8 Plan/strategy development

9 Task force/advisory group establishment

10 Tracking number implementation/improvements

11 Training seminars/policy and procedures manuals

12 Other

 

a Data standardization projects.

b The last complete audit of the State repository's criminal history

record information system was conducted in August 1992 by another

agency. Although no subsequent audit has been done, the repository

continues to incorporate many of the audit recommendations.

c There are no immediate plans for data quality audits of the State

repository's records within the next three years. The State has

experienced severe budgetary cutbacks that resulted in reductions in

the data processing resources available in the Hawaii Criminal Justice

Data Center. The data quality audit program undertaken in 1994-95

will no longer be retained.

d Missing disposition research.

e The level of completeness is monitored by the annual system

reports.

f

 A new criminal history record system was developed and deployed in

December 1999.

g Standard practices and interagency legislative initiatives.

h Continuation of task force/advisory group.

i

 Felony flagging.

j

 Findings of the audit are pending publication.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 53

Table 20: Data quality audits of State criminal history repository, 1999

State criminal

history Data

repository quality

database audits

audited for Changes to planned or Initiatives

completeness Period of improve data scheduled underway

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

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

Alabama No No 2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11

Alaska No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,10,11

Arizona No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,10,11

Arkansas No Yes 1,2,3,5,6

California No No 2,3,6,7,12a

Colorado

Connecticut No No 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Delaware Yes 1997 1986-97 Other agency 1,2,3,6,8,9 No

District of Columbia Yes 1996 1995 Other agency 2,3,5,6,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

Florida Yes 1998;

2000

1988-97;

1989-99

Other agency;

repository

2,3,7,8,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Georgia No No 1,3

Hawaii Nob Noc 2,5,6,12d

Idaho No No 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11

Illinois Yes 1997 1996 Other agency 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11 Yes 1,2,3,6,8,9,10,11

Indiana Yes ... ... Other agency 2,3,5,6,10 No 2,3,5,6,8,10

Iowa Yes 2000 1998-99 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,11

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

Kentucky Yes Other agency ...

Louisiana No ... 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11

Maine No Yes 3,5,10,11

Maryland No Yes 2,3,5

Massachusetts No No 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Michigan Noe Yes 1,2,3,5,6,7,11

Minnesota No Yes 1,2,3,5,6,8,11

Mississippi No 1,2,3,5,6,11

Missouri Yes 1997-98 1991-96 Other agency 2,5 No 2,5,6,7,11

Montana Yes ... ... Other agency 12f No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11

Nebraska No No 1,3,4,7,11

Nevada No No 1,2,3,4,6,11

New Hampshire Yes 1995 1 year Other agency No 3,4,5,6,10

New Jersey No No 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9

New Mexico Yes 1994 random Other agency 4,6,8,9,10,11 Yes 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11

New York No No 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,11,12g

North Carolina No No 1,2,3,4,5,6

North Dakota No No 2,3,5,6,10

Ohio Yes 1999 ... Repository 11 Yes 3,5,6

Oklahoma Yes 1999 12/99 Other agency Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Oregon No No

Pennsylvania Yes 1998 1997 Other agency 8,9 Yes 2,3,6,8,9,10,11

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island No 2,3,4,11

South Carolina Yes 2000 1 year Other agency 2,3, No 2,3,5,6,7,11

South Dakota Yes 2000 1935-99 Other agency 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,

11

Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

Tennessee No ... 1,2,3,7,8,9,10

Texas Yes ... ... Other agency 2,3,5,11 Yes 1,2,3,4,6,8,9

Utah Yes 1999 All Other agency ... 2,11

Vermont No Yes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9h,10,1

1

Virgin Islands No No 2

Virginia Yes 1999 9-10/99 Other agency 1,8 Yes 1,2,3,6,7,8,11,12i

Washington Yes 1997 1994-96 Other agency No 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

West Virginia Yes 1995 entire

database

Other agency 2,4,8,9 No 2,5,9,10

Wisconsin Yes 1999 1998 Other agency j Yes 2,3,5,6,8,9

Wyoming No No 3,4,11
Page 54 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 21

The notes below expand on the data in Table 21.

Note: The information in this table was provided by the Criminal

Justice Information Services Division, FBI.

* State is a participant in the National Fingerprint File (NFF).

† State is a signatory of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy

Compact.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 55

Table 21: Criminal history records of Interstate Identification Index (III) participants maintained by the State criminal history repository and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 30, 1999

Percent of total Percent of total

III records indexed

with the State’s

records available

through III indexed

III records

maintained by

records available

through III

State Current III Status

Total III records on

6/30/99

identification (SID)

pointer 6/30/99

with SID pointer

6/30/99

the FBI for the

State 6/30/99

maintained by the

FBI 6/30/99

Total 33,756,793 21,383,884 12,372,909

Alabama Yes 466,744 67,455 14% 399,289 86%

Alaska Yes 114,719 43,472 38 71,247 62

Arizona Yes 722,967 72,148 10 650,819 90

Arkansas Yes 276,315 129,411 47 146,904 53

California Yes 4,428,629 3,706,886 84 721,743 16

Colorado† Yes 639,133 472,413 74% 166,720 26%

Connecticut† Yes 303,443 162,387 54 141,056 46

Delaware Yes 155,258 90,488 58 64,770 42

District of

Columbia

No 144,905 0 0 144,905 100

Florida*† Yes 2,931,725 2,394,420 82 537,305 18

Georgia† Yes 1,788,953 1,623,302 91% 165,651 9%

Hawaii No 125,919 0 0 125,919 100

Idaho Yes 150,474 114,219 76 36,255 24

Illinois Yes 1,603,942 425,073 27 1,178,869 73

Indiana Yes 424,793 58,339 14 366,454 86

Iowa† Yes 311,072 46,994 15% 264,078 85%

Kansas No 344,743 0 0 344,743 100

Kentucky No 285,954 0 0 285,954 100

Louisiana No 622,730 0 0 622,730 100

Maine No 57,649 0 0 57,649 100

Maryland Yes 754,738 33,477 4% 721,261 96%

Massachusetts No 249,001 0 0 249,001 100

Michigan Yes 892,879 788,263 88 104,616 12

Minnesota Yes 296,683 256,217 86 40,466 14

Mississippi Yes 184,952 6,976 4 177,976 96

Missouri Yes 578,441 364,554 63% 213,887 37%

Montana† Yes 115,136 64,177 56 50,959 44

Nebraska Yes 141,989 3,514 2 138,475 98

Nevada† Yes 349,181 138,903 40 210,278 60

New Hampshire Yes 142,104 47,368 33 94,736 67

New Jersey* Yes 1,138,437 1,081,712 95% 56,725 5%

New Mexico Yes 254,302 11,027 4 243,275 96

New York Yes 2,542,535 2,274,659 89 267,876 11

North Carolina* Yes 719,144 667,359 93 51,785 7

North Dakota Yes 44,920 13,803 31 31,117 69

Ohio Yes 925,624 723,201 78% 202,423 22%

Oklahoma Yes 366,894 120,693 33 246,201 67

Oregon* Yes 500,086 418,766 84 81,320 16

Pennsylvania Yes 1,139,638 775,543 68 364,095 32

Puerto Rico No

Rhode Island No 89,335 0 0 89,335 100%

South Carolina† Yes 800,123 750,333 94% 49,790 6

South Dakota Yes 127,904 42,914 34 84,990 66

Tennessee No 569,779 0 0 569,779 100

Texas Yes 2,293,703 2,095,559 91 198,144 9

Utah Yes 246,576 198,031 80% 48,545 20%

Vermont No 40,847 0 0 40,847 100

Virgin Islands No

Virginia Yes 856,983 598,531 70 258,452 30

Washington Yes 665,146 232,805 35 432,341 65

West Virginia Yes 129,122 5,423 4% 123,699 96%

Wisconsin Yes 623,022 207,674 33 415,348 67

Wyoming Yes 77,502 55,395 71 22,107 29
Page 56 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 22

The notes below expand on the data in Table 22.

Note: The information on the number of records with dispositions in

this table was provided by the Criminal Justice Information Services

Division, FBI.

* See Table 21 for total number of records in III for each State and

territory.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 57

Table 22: Estimated records with dispositions available through the Interstate Identification Index (III), June 30, 1999

State

Estimated records with dispositions

available through III, 6/30/99

Estimated percent of total records

in III with dispositions available,

6/30/99*

Total 21,586,173 64%

Alabama 243,490 52%

Alaska 72,575 63

Arizona 359,319 50

Arkansas 173,098 63

California 3,511,725 79

Colorado 140,050 22%

Connecticut 216,676 71

Delaware 115,634 74

District of Columbia 72,453 50

Florida 1,896,858 65

Georgia 1,381,467 77%

Hawaii 62,960 50

Idaho 103,792 69

Illinois 874,233 55

Indiana 186,144 44

Iowa 174,804 56%

Kansas 172,372 50

Kentucky 142,977 50

Louisiana 311,365 50

Maine 28,825 50

Maryland 390,425 52%

Massachusetts 124,501 50

Michigan 651,388 73

Minnesota 181,650 61

Mississippi 91,778 50

Missouri 332,967 58%

Montana 80,030 70

Nebraska 70,257 49

Nevada 142,643 41

New Hampshire 89,999 63

New Jersey 1,055,989 93%

New Mexico 125,497 49

New York 2,044,652 80

North Carolina 659,884 92

North Dakota 26,325 59

Ohio 470,044 51%

Oklahoma 179,826 49

Oregon 250,043 50

Pennsylvania 422,466 37

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 44,668 50%

South Carolina 662,678 83

South Dakota 84,980 66

Tennessee 284,890 50

Texas 1,251,629 55

Utah 147,052 60

Vermont 20,424 50

Virgin Islands

Virginia 620,021 72

Washington 379,134 57

West Virginia 65,646 51%

Wisconsin 346,816 56

Wyoming 47,060 61
Page 58 • Data Tables Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Explanatory Notes for Table 23

The notes below expand on the data in Table 23. The explanatory

information was provided by the respondent.

NA Not applicable.

 

a No fees are charged if the request is from a governmental,

noncriminal justice agency.

b The same fee schedule applies for volunteers, except volunteers for

non-profit agencies that work with children are exempt from paying

fees. In addition, there is a Public Access Authority facility available to

the general public at the State criminal history repository, the main

County Police Stations, and the Hilo District Court, through which

conviction information may be viewed free of charge, or for a fee of

$10 if a hard-copy printout is provided.

c The fee for a livescan search is $12; the fee for a cardscan

fingerprint search is $14.

d The fee for an automated name search is $7; a mail-in name search

is $12.

e State law mandates that no fee may be charged for checks of school

volunteers.

f

 If the results are returned by Internet, the fee is $10; if by mail, the fee

is $13; if the results are returned by facsimile, the fee is $15.

g Non-profit agencies.

h Proposed change to Administrative Code.

i Current New York State law does not provide for fingerprint checks of

volunteers.

j

 There is no fee for non-profit organizations that have a mentor or

tutoring program for either fingerprint-supported search or name

search.

k The fee for a non-profit agency is $2; for government agencies, $5;

and for all others, $13.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Data Tables • Page 59

Table 23: Fees charged by State criminal history repository for noncriminal justice purposes, 1999

State currently charges

fee for conducting Amount of fee charged is: Amount of fee charged for volunteers is:

criminal history record State charges

search for noncriminal Fingerprint- different fee FingerprintState justice requester supported search Name search for volunteers supported search Name search

Alabama Yes $25 $25 No

Alaska Yes 35 20 No

Arizona Yes 6 No

Arkansas Yes 15 15 No

California Yes 0-52 NA Yes Varies NA

Colorado

Connecticut Yesa 25 25 Yes 18 18

Delaware Yes 25 NA Yes 18

District of Columbia Yes 18 5 No

Florida Yes 15 15 No

Georgia Yes $15 NA No

Hawaii Yes 25 15 Nob

Idaho Yes 10 5 No

Illinois Yes 12-14c 7-12d No

Indiana Yes 10 7 Yes 0e 0e

Iowa Yes NA $10-15f Yes NA $5

Kansas Yes $17 10 No

Kentucky Yes 10 10 No

Louisiana Yes 10 10 No

Maine Yes 8 8 No

Maryland Yes $18 NA No

Massachusetts Yes NA $25 No

Michigan Yes 15 5 Yes $15 $0

Minnesota Yes NA 15 Yesg NA 8

Mississippi No No

Missouri Yes $14 $5 No

Montana Yes ... ... No

Nebraska Yes 10 10 No

Nevada Yes 15 15 No

New Hampshire Yes 24 10 Yes $18 $10

New Jersey Yes $25 $15 Yes $18 $10h

New Mexico Yes NA 7 No

New York Yes 50 NA NAi

North Carolina Yes 14 10 No

North Dakota Yes 20 20 No

Ohio Yes $15 NA No

Oklahoma Yes 19 $15 No

Oregon Yes 12 15 Noj

Pennsylvania Yes NA 10 No

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island Yes $24 $5 No

South Carolina Yes 25 25 Yes $18 $18

South Dakota Yes 15 NA No

Tennessee Yes 24 NA Yes 18 NA

Texas Yes 15 1 No

Utah Yes $15 $10 No

Vermont No No

Virgin Islands Yes 9 Yes $0

Virginia Yes 13 15 Yes $13 8

Washington Yes 25 10 Yesg 0 0

West Virginia

Wisconsin Yes 10 2-13k No

Wyoming Yes 15 NA Yes $10 NA
Page 60 • Methodology Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999

Methodology

This report is based upon the

results from a two-part survey

conducted of the administrators of

the State criminal history record

repositories in January – September

1999. A total of 53 jurisdictions

were surveyed, including the 50

States, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Responses for at least one part of

the survey were received from 53

jurisdictions. Puerto Rico did not

submit a survey response to either

part.

The survey instruments consisted

of 43 questions, having several

parts. The survey was designed to

collect comprehensive data relating

to State criminal history

information systems. Fifteen

topical areas are covered in this

report, as follows:

• current quality and quantity of

records in the criminal history

databases;

• level of automation of master

name indexes and criminal history

records maintained by the State

repositories;

• capacity of criminal history

system to flag convicted felons in

the database;

• level of fingerprint-supported

arrest reporting to the State

repositories and the processing and

timeliness of the information that is

entered into criminal history record

databases;

• notice to the State repository of

persons released without charging

following submission of

fingerprints to the State repository;

• level of prosecutor-reported

information in criminal history

databases;

• level and timeliness of

disposition reporting by the courts

to the State criminal history

repositories;

• types and timeliness of

information reported to the State

criminal history repositories by

State and local correctional

facilities;

• level of probation/parole-related

information in State criminal

history databases;

• extent to which the records in

State criminal history databases

contain final disposition

information;

• policies and practices of the State

repository regarding modification

of felony convictions;

• ability of the State repositories to

link reported disposition data to

arrest data in State criminal history

record databases;

• level of audit activity in the

States and the strategies employed

the State repositories to ensure

accuracy of the data in the criminal

history record databases; and

• participation of the States in III

and NFF; and

• fees charged by State criminal

history repositories for conducting

record searches for noncriminal

justice requesters.

The Federal Bureau of

Investigation also provided the

source of information in two areas.

The information includes the

number of criminal history records

of the States participating in the

Interstate Identification Index (III)

system that are maintained by the

State criminal history repositories

and the number of III records

maintained by the FBI for the

States. The number of III records

containing dispositions also is

taken from FBI data.

Following the receipt of the

responses, all data were tabulated.

Survey respondents were requested

to respond to particular questions

relating to the current data

compared to data from earlier

surveys. Respondents also were

permitted a final review of the data

after it was placed in the tables that

appear in this report.

Numbers and percentages shown in

the tables were rounded. In most

cases, numbers were rounded to the

nearest 100. Percentages were

rounded to the nearest whole

number.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 1999 Methodology • Page 61

In the analyses of the tables,

averages and totals were calculated

using the mid-point of the range

where ranges appear in the

underlying data. In instances

where the result is .5, when it

followed an even number, the

number was rounded down to the

even number (e.g., 4.5 became 4);

in instances where the .5 followed

an odd number, the number was

rounded up to the next even

number (e.g., 1.5 became 2).

Data reported for 1989 was taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems (March 1991).

Data reported for 1993 was taken

from Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Survey of State Criminal History

Information Systems, 1993 (January

1995). Data reported for 1995 was

taken from Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Survey of Criminal

State History Information Systems, 1997

(April 1999).