Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary, House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

February 2004 NATIONAL CRIMINAL 

HISTORY 

IMPROVEMENT 

PROGRAM 

Federal Grants Have 

Contributed to 

Progress 

GAO-04-364 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-364.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at 

(202) 512-8777 or ekstrandl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-364, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives 

February 2004

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY 

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Federal Grants Have Contributed to 

Progress 

States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting 

presale background checks of firearms’ purchasers. BJS data show that over 

75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded in fiscal 

years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes. These uses 

encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting manual records 

to automated formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized 

systems or upgrade existing systems. All other uses of program grants, 

according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an 

infrastructure of nationally accessible records. 

Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal grants, 

states have made progress in automating criminal history records and 

making them accessible nationally. As the figure shows, the percentage of 

the nation’s criminal history records that are automated increased from 

79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to BJS’s most recent data. 

Also, the number of states participating in the Interstate Identification 

Index—a “pointer system” to locate criminal history records anywhere in the 

country—increased from 26 at year-end 1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, 

progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. A national 

system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as 

of May 2003, only 10 states had made mental health records available to 

NICS, and only 3 states had provided substance abuse records. 

Percentage of Criminal History Records Automated (as of calendar year-end) 

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when debating 

the future of the program is the extent of cumulative progress (and 

shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While states 

have made progress, more work remains. Also, the demand for background 

checks is growing, and technology is not static, which necessitates periodic 

upgrades or replacements of automated systems. Continued progress toward 

establishing and sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve 

long-term commitments from all governmental levels. Justice commented 

that GAO’s report fairly and accurately described the program and its 

accomplishments. 

Public safety concerns require that 

criminal history records be 

accurate, complete, and accessible. 

Among other purposes, such 

records are used by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 

National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS) 

to ensure that prohibited persons 

do not purchase firearms. 

Initiated in 1995, the National 

Criminal History Improvement 

Program represents a partnership 

among federal, state, and local 

agencies to build a national 

criminal records infrastructure. 

Under the program, the 

Department of Justice’s Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS) annually 

provides federal grants to states to 

improve the quality of records and 

their accessibility through NICS 

and other national systems 

maintained by the FBI. 

GAO examined (1) how states have 

used program grant funds, 

particularly the extent to which 

such funds have been used for 

NICS-related purposes; (2) the 

progress—using program grants 

and other funding sources—that 

states have made in automating 

criminal history and other relevant 

records and making them 

accessible nationally; and (3) the 

various factors that are relevant 

considerations for policymakers in 

debating the future of the program. 
Page i GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS 7

Progress Has Been MadeUsing State, NCHIP, and Other Federal 

Fundsin Automating Records and Making Them Accessible 

Nationally 11

Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in 

Debating the Future of NCHIP 20

Conclusions 24

Agency Comments 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27 

Objectives 27

Scope and Methodology 27

Data Reliability 30

Appendix II Overview of National Criminal History Records 

Systems 32 

NCIC 33

III 33

NICS 34

National Sex Offender Registry 34

NCIC Protection Order File 35

IAFIS 35

Appendix III Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States 37 

Overview of 5 States’ Use of NCHIP Funds 37

California 38

Maryland 41

Mississippi 43

Texas 44

West Virginia 46

Appendix IV NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority 

States; No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics 

Registration Systems 48 

Priority States’ Use of NCHIP Grant Funds 48

Priority States’ Progress in Automating Records 49

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, 

According to BJS 51

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Justice 52 

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56 

GAO Contacts 56

Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables 

Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2003 8

Table 2: NCHIP Awards by Spending Category and States’ 

Participation Status in NICS, Fiscal Years 2000 through 

2003 10

Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had 

Final Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001) 15

Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information 

Available Nationally (as of May 2003) 18

Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP 

Funds 28

Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States’ Use of NCHIP Funds by 

Spending Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 38

Table 7: California NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2002 40

Table 8: Maryland NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2002 42

Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 

1995 through 2002 43

Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2002 45

Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 

1995 through 2002 47

Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending 

Category, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 49

Table 13: Trend in Automation Status of Priority States’ Criminal 

History Files 50
Page iii GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Figures 

Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal 

History Records 12

Figure 2: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint 

Submissions Received by the FBI (fiscal years 1992 

through 2002) 22

Abbreviations 

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 

 System 

III Interstate Identification Index 

NCHIP National Criminal History Improvement Program 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check 

 System 

NSOR National Sex Offender Registry 

RQI records quality index 

USA PATRIOT ACT United Strengthening America by Providing 

 Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 

 Obstruct Terrorism Act 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

February 27, 2004 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Public safety concerns require that criminal history records and the 

systems that maintain them be accurate, complete, and accessible. Such 

records and systems are important for traditional criminal justice 

purposes, such as positively identifying, prosecuting, and sentencing 

repeat offenders. Moreover, they are used to conduct background checks 

for various noncriminal justice purposes,1

 such as (1) ensuring that 

prohibited individuals do not purchase firearms, (2) preventing convicted 

pedophiles from working with organizations that serve children, and 

(3) meeting requirements associated with evolving homeland security 

concerns. For most purposes, the background checks are conducted using 

fingerprints. An exception is presale background checks of firearms’ 

purchasers, who are screened by a name-based system—the National 

Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). 

Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program 

(NCHIP) represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies 

to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under NCHIP, the 

Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually 

provides federal grants to states to improve the quality and availability of 

criminal history records and their accessibility through various national 

systems maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Such 

systems include NICS—which has electronic links to (1) the National 

Crime Information Center (NCIC), which contains information on fugitives 

or wanted persons and individuals subject to court protection orders and 

(2) the Interstate Identification Index (III), which serves as a “pointer 

system” to locate criminal history records anywhere in the country—as 

well as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

 1

The term “noncriminal justice purposes” refers to the uses of criminal history records for 

purposes authorized by federal or state law other than purposes relating to criminal justice 

activities. For example, authorized purposes may include employment suitability, licensing 

determinations, and national security clearances. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

(IAFIS), which is a computerized system for storing, comparing, and 

exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. 

As agreed with your office, this report presents information on 

• how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to 

which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes; 

• the progressusing NCHIP grants and other funding sourcesthat 

states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant 

records and making them accessible nationally; and 

• the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in 

debating the future of NCHIP. 

As further agreed with your office, appendix IV of this report presents 

summary information on two supplemental topics: (1) the use of NCHIP 

funds by the 5 “priority states”2

 and their progress in automating records 

and (2) whether any of the 50 states have used NCHIP funds to develop or 

implement a ballistics registration system—that is, a system that stores 

digital images of the markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when 

firearms are discharged. 

To address the primary objectives, we (1) reviewed BJS documentation 

that describes NCHIP spending activities, (2) analyzed BJS’s biennial 

national survey data or reports on the automation status of all states’ 

criminal history records, and (3) interviewed NCHIP managers at BJS and 

NICS managers at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division 

(Clarksburg, W.Va.). In addition, given that NCHIP consolidates criminal 

records improvement funding authorized by various federal laws, we 

reviewed these laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,3

and related legislative histories. Also, to provide supplemental and more 

in-depth perspectives, we conducted case studies of 5 recipient states—

California, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia. We selected 

these states to reflect a range of various factors or considerations—that is, 

the amounts of grant funding received, status of NICS participation, and 

levels of automation, as well as to encompass different geographic areas of 

 2

In 1994, BJS identified 5 statesMaine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West 

Virginiaas having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation. These 5 states 

were designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an additional 

$1 million in funding during NCHIP’s first year. 

3

Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993). 
Page 3 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

the nation.4 We conducted our work from April 2003 to January 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and 

methodology. 

States have used NCHIP grants primarily to support NICS in conducting 

background checks of firearms’ purchasers. According to BJS data, of the 

total $165.2 million in NCHIP grants awarded in 4 recent fiscal years 

(2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003), over 75 percent was used for NICS-related 

purposes.5

 Such uses or purposes encompassed a broad range of activities, 

such as converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing 

equipment to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing 

systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants, according to BJS, also had either 

direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally 

accessible records, such as implementing technology to support the 

automated transfer of fingerprint data to IAFIS. 

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal 

funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records 

and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of the 

nation’s criminal history records that are automated increased from 

79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to 

89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS’s most recent biennial 

survey of states. To facilitate national compatibility and accessibility of 

records, BJS requires that all enhancements funded under NCHIP conform 

to the FBI’s standards for national data systems—including, as applicable, 

NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Such conformance is important, for example, 

because III is the primary system used to access state-held data for NICS 

checks. The number of states participating in III increased from 26 at the 

end of 1993 to 30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003. On the other 

 4

Regarding status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes states as follows: (1) Full 

participant states are those where a designated state agency conducts background checks 

of persons purchasing any firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial participant 

states designate a state agency to conduct presale background checks for handgun 

purchases, with the FBI conducting background checks for long gun purchases; and 

(3) nonparticipant states are those where the FBI conducts presale background checks for 

purchases of both handguns and long guns. Sometimes, these categories are referred to as 

point-of-contact states, partial point-of-contact states, and FBI states, respectively. 

5

The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal years. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

hand, progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For 

example, automated information on the disposition of older felony and 

other potentially disqualifying arreststhat is, information regarding 

whether the criminal charges against the arrested individual were dropped 

or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or acquittalis 

critical for conducting background checks of persons purchasing firearms 

but is not always widely available. Also, automated information is not 

always available to identify other prohibited purchasers, such as persons 

convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, adjudicated as 

mental defectives, or who are unlawful users of controlled substances. 

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when 

debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and 

shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While states 

have made progress, more work remains—such as for the NICS-related 

purposes mentioned above. Another relevant factor to consider is that the 

demand for background checks is growing, with increases in recent years 

driven by screening requirements for employment and other noncriminal 

justice purposes. Furthermore, technology is not static, which necessitates 

periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems to remain 

functional. 

Each state has a central repository for receiving criminal history 

information contributed by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, 

courts, and corrections agencies throughout the state. Each repository 

compiles this information into criminal history records (commonly called 

“rap sheets”), which are to be made available to criminal justice personnel 

for authorized purposes. Typically, a criminal history record is created for 

each individual offender (each “subject”). The record is to contain relevant 

identifiers (including fingerprints) and information about all arrests and 

their dispositions, such as whether the criminal charges were dropped or 

resulted in an acquittal or a conviction. 

Efforts to improve criminal history records nationwide predate NCHIP by 

more than 2 decades.6

 For example, the development of computerized 

criminal history systems in the states was a priority of the Law 

 6

See Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of Alternatives for a National 

Computerized Criminal History System, October 1982. Also, see BJS, Use and 

Management of Criminal History Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 

2001 Update (NCJ 187670), December 2001. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Enforcement Assistance Administration, established by the Omnibus 

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Also, during much of the 

1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s—largely without specifically appropriated 

funds—BJS (or its predecessor, the National Criminal Justice Information 

and Statistics Service) took the lead in encouraging states to computerize 

criminal records and ensure conformity with evolving FBI standards. 

In the 1990s, efforts to improve the accuracy, completeness, and 

accessibility of criminal history records received an impetus with passage 

of various federal statutes, particularly 

• the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”),7 which, 

among other things, authorized grants for the improvement of state 

criminal history records and amended the Gun Control Act of 1968;8

• the National Child Protection Act of 1993,9 which was enacted to 

provide national criminal background checks for child care providers; 

and 

• the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,10 which, 

among other things, strove to improve access to court protection 

orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking and domestic 

violence. 

With initial grant awards to states in 1995, NCHIP was designed by BJS to 

implement these federal mandates to improve public safety by enhancing 

the nation’s criminal history records systems. In 1998, NCHIP’s scope was 

expanded in response to federal directives to develop or improve sex 

offender registries and to contribute data to a national sex offender 

registry. 

 7

Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993). 

8

The Gun Control Act, as amended, prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by 

any person who (1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding 

1 year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of controlled substances, (4) has 

been adjudicated as a mental defective, (5) is an illegal or unlawful alien, (6) has been 

discharged dishonorably from the armed forces, (7) has renounced his or her U.S. 

citizenship, (8) has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or (9) is 

subject to certain outstanding court protection orders. 

9

Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (1993). Amendments in 1994 further provided for 

background checks of those caring for the elderly and individuals with disabilities. 

10Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994). 
Page 6 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Also, in 1998, the “permanent” provisions of the Brady Act went into effect 

with the implementation of NICS—the computerized system designed to 

instantly (as the name indicates) conduct presale background checks of 

purchasers of any firearm (both handguns and long guns). In contrast, the 

“interim” provisions of the Brady Act (effective from 1994 to 1998) applied 

to handgun purchases only, and law enforcement officers were allowed a 

maximum of 5 business days to conduct presale background checks for 

evidence of felony convictions or disqualifying information. The 

effectiveness of NICS depends largely on the availability of automated 

records—including the final dispositions of arrests, such as whether the 

criminal charges resulted in convictions or acquittals. In this regard, many 

criminal justice agencies, from police departments to the courts, are 

generators of records relevant to NICS. 

Over the years, BJS has tried to ensure that the use of NCHIP funds was 

closely coordinated with the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant 

Program, which requires that states use at least 5 percent of their awards 

for improving criminal history records. All 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the U.S. territories have been recipients of NCHIP grant 

awards, which totaled more than $438 million during fiscal years 1995 

through 2003. 

Also, as mentioned previously, to ensure national compatibility and 

accessibility of records, recipients’ uses of NCHIP funds must conform 

with the FBI’s standards for national data systems—including, as 

applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Regarding IAFIS, for example, most 

states have some type of automated fingerprint identification system 

(AFIS); a state can use NCHIP funds to enhance its AFIS by purchasing 

Livescan equipment, if the state has implemented (or is implementing) 

procedures to ensure that the AFIS is compatible with FBI standards.11

More details about the national data systems are presented in appendix II. 

 11Livescan equipment can record and transmit fingerprints in a digital format. The 

equipment is used to capture fingerprint images directly from an individual’s fingers, which 

are rolled onto glass scanning plates. 
Page 7 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

For the recent fiscal years we studied, states used NCHIP grants primarily 

to support NICS in conducting background checks of firearms’ purchasers. 

According to BJS data, a total of $165.2 million in NCHIP grants was 

awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2003.12 Of this total, a majority—

over 75 percent—was used for NICS-related purposes that encompassed a 

broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated 

formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or 

upgrade existing systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants during this 

period, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to 

building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as 

implementing technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint 

data to IAFIS. We found that a state’s participation status in NICS—

whether the state was a full participant, partial participant, or 

nonparticipant—made little difference in how NCHIP funds were used by 

states. 

As indicated in table 1, NCHIP award amounts can be grouped into six 

spending categories in which BJS awarded a total of $165.2 million in 

NCHIP grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. A majority of these funds 

was used for NICS-related purposes. For example, the two largest 

categories of spending—NICS/III/criminal records improvements and 

disposition reporting improvements—accounted for over 75 percent of 

total program awards during this period. Both categories directly affected 

NICS. The NICS/III/criminal records improvements category affected NICS 

by focusing on activities for improving records related to federal firearms 

disqualifiers and enhancing access to these records through III. 

Similarly, the disposition reporting improvements category provided 

access to information about the disposition of arrests—information that is 

critical for determining whether persons are legally prohibited from 

purchasing firearms. Regarding this category, BJS encourages states to 

focus on making systemic improvements rather than using staff to 

manually research records to determine dispositions. Nonetheless, 

according to BJS, states may use NCHIP funds to research arrest 

dispositions in response to specific NICS-related queries, if the 

information is subsequently added to the automated system. BJS officials 

could not quantify the NCHIP grant amounts that all states have allocated 

 12The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal years. 

States Have Used 

NCHIP Grants 

Primarily to Support 

NICS 

For the Recent Fiscal 

Years We Studied, the 

Majority of NCHIP Funds 

Was Used to Support 

NICS-Related Activities 
Page 8 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

for staff to research arrest dispositions. Officials in 2 of the 5 case-study 

states indicated that their states had used NCHIP funding to research 

missing arrest dispositions and update criminal history records in 

response to specific NICS-related queries. One of these states (Maryland) 

used $41,000 of its fiscal year 2002 NCHIP award to fund a full-time 

position for researching the state’s archived criminal history records. 

Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 

NCHIP spending 

category Examples of grant fund uses by spending category 

Total grant award 

amounts for 2000-03

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

4-year total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Purchase equipment for major automated criminal records 

systems or overall upgrades. 

• Convert and automate manual records, develop policies, and fund 

other activities required to bring states in compliance with the FBI’s 

standards for national data systems. 

• Develop nonfelony databases for mental health records. 

• Develop nonfelony databases for domestic violence related 

misdemeanor records. 

$68,625,673 42 

Disposition reporting 

improvementsa

• Upgrade and automate records management systems to capture 

data on dispositions from courts, district attorney offices, and 

parole/probation systems. 

• Develop protocols and standards for transferring disposition data 

to the state central repository, linking disposition data with arrest 

records. 

• Install electronic fingerprinting equipment in courts to identify 

defendants and facilitate record linkage. 

• Research missing dispositions in response to NICS inquiries. 

• Update “arrest only” records to include case disposition 

information. 

58,317,260 35 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Purchase and install electronic fingerprinting equipment that 

conforms to FBI technical standards. 

• Implement technology to support the automated transfer of 

fingerprint data to IAFIS. 

23,884,385 15 

Sex offender registry 

enhancements 

• Establish a state sex offender registry system that complies with 

FBI standards and supports an interface with the FBI’s National 

Sex Offender Registry. 

• Classify state legislation relevant to sex offender registration. 

• Continually review registrants’ addresses and status. 

5,638,410 3 

Protection order 

activities 

• Establish state-level protection order systems. 

• Establish protocols and record linkages to the NCIC Protection 

Order File. 

5,265,250 

3 
Page 9 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

NCHIP spending 

category Examples of grant fund uses by spending category 

Total grant award 

amounts for 2000-03

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

4-year total 

National 

security/antiterrorism activitiesb

• Develop linkages to the state repository used for background 

checks on persons employed in sensitive positions. 

• Purchase electronic fingerprinting equipment. 

• Develop policies governing the use of equipment to ensure privacy 

and compliance with applicable regulations regarding noncriminal 

justice background checks. 

3,472,141 2 

Total $165,203,119 100 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS data. 

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and 5 territories. As of January 2004, the recipients had not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There 

is overlap between some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included in only one 

category and were not double counted. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than 

one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the activity. 

Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

a

For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending categories—(1) funding to state 

courts, (2) funding to other judicial components, and (3) funding for disposition improvements not 

related to state courts. For purposes of this table, we combined these three into one spending 

category. 

b

BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until 2002 (after the events of 

September 11, 2001). 

Also, table 1 shows that BJS awarded 3 percent of NCHIP funding 

specifically for protection order activities to improve records related to 

this firearms-purchase disqualifier. The other categories in table 

1AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and 

national security/antiterrorism activitieswere for records improvement 

efforts that do not directly impact NICS. However, according to BJS, even 

if not NICS-related, each of the six spending categories in table 1 had 

either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of 

nationally accessible records, such as implementing technology to support 

the automated transfer of fingerprint data to IAFIS. 

Appendix III presents more information about the use of NCHIP funds in 

the 5 case-study states, and appendix IV presents information about the 

use of NCHIP funds in the 5 priority states.13

 13In 1994, BJS identified 5 statesMaine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West 

Virginiaas having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation. These 5 states 

were designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million 

in funding during NCHIP’s first year. 
Page 10 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

As mentioned previously, for purposes of NICS background checks of 

persons purchasing firearms, states are categorized as full participants, 

partial participants, or nonparticipants. As table 2 shows, we found little 

difference in the use of NCHIP funds by states based on their participation 

status in NICS. With relatively minor exceptions, the relative order of 

spending across categories was the same in all three types of states. Of the 

various spending categories, NICS/III/records improvements reflected the 

largest difference in percentage points—that is, a difference of 12 

percentage points between the partial participant states (47 percent) and 

the full participant states (35 percent). A BJS official stated that this 

difference is not substantial and might occur because some states have 

legislation with slightly different prohibitors for purchasing firearms. 

Table 2: NCHIP Awards by Spending Category and States’ Participation Status in 

NICS, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 

Full 

participant 

states 

Partial 

participant 

states

Nonparticipant 

states 

Number of states 14 10 26 

Total NCHIP awards $56,553,315 $34,533,439 $68,781,449 

NCHIP spending category (in 

percent) 

NICS/III/criminal records 

improvements 35 47 41 

Disposition reporting 

improvements 40 35 34 

AFIS/Livescan activities 15 12 16 

Sex offender registry 

enhancements 3 3 4 

Protection order activities 4 1 3 

National security/antiterrorism 

activitiesa

3 2 2 

Total percent 100 100 100 

Source: GAO summary of BJS data. 

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts. The recipients have not yet spent all of 

the funds awarded. There is overlap between some of the categories, but funds for any given activity 

were included in only one category and were not double counted. In cases where expenditures could 

be included in more than one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was most 

descriptive of the activity. 

a

BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until 2002 (after the events of 

September 11, 2001). 

No Apparent Differences 

in NCHIP Awards Based 

on States’ Participation 

Status in NICS 
Page 11 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal 

funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records 

and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of 

the nation’s criminal history records that are automated increased from 

79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to 

89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS’s most recent biennial 

survey of states. To ensure national compatibility and accessibility of 

records, recipients’ uses of NCHIP funds must conform with the FBI’s 

standards for national data systems—including, as applicable, NICS, NCIC, 

III, and IAFIS. Such conformance is important, for example, because III is 

the primary system used to access state-held data for NICS checks. The 

number of states participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 

30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003, indicating growth in 

compatible automated records. On the other hand, progress has been 

more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For example, automated 

information on the disposition of felony and other potentially disqualifying 

arrests is not always widely available. Also, automated information is not 

always available to identify other prohibited purchasers of firearms, such 

as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, 

persons adjudicated as mental defective, or persons who are unlawful 

users of controlled substances. In fiscal year 2004, BJS plans to begin 

using a new, performance-based tool for making NCHIP funding decisions. 

In recent years, with the use of state and federal funds, criminal history 

record automation levels in the states and the accessibility of these 

records nationally have improved. BJS survey data from the end of 1993 to 

the end of 2001 (the most recent data) show that increases in automation 

levels have outpaced increases in the number of criminal history records. 

Specifically, while the number of total records increased 35 percent during 

this period, the number of automated records increased 52 percent—

which indicates progress in automating older criminal history records. 

Also, the number of records accessible by the III system increased 

196 percent (see fig. 1). 

Progress Has Been 

MadeUsing State, 

NCHIP, and Other 

Federal Fundsin 

Automating Records 

and Making Them 

Accessible Nationally 

Progress Made in 

Automation and 

Accessibility of Criminal 

History Records 
Page 12 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History Records 

Note: Data for total records and automated records are as of calendar year end for the respective 

years. Data for III-accessible records are as of the following respective dates: December 31, 1993; 

December 31, 1995; September 30, 1997; June 30, 1999; and March 1, 2003. 

Overall, the percentage of the nation’s criminal history records that are 

automated increased from 79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at 

the end of 1995 and to 89 percent at the end of 2001. The number of states 

participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the end of 

1995 and to 45 by May 2003. 

Also, according to BJS, other indicators of improved automation levels 

and accessibility are as follows: 

• In 1997, the FBI established the NCIC Protection Order File to provide 

a repository for protection order records. As of May 2003 (within 

6 years of implementation), 43 states and 1 territory had contributed 

more than 778,000 records to this system. 

• In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments14 to the Jacob 

Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender 

Registration Act,15 the FBI established a national sex offender database 

for states to register and verify addresses of sex offenders. As of May 

2003 (within 5 years of implementation), 50 states, the District of 

 14Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

236, 110 Stat. 3093, (1996).

15Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).
Page 13 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Columbia, and 3 territories had contributed all of their then-applicable 

records (over 300,000 records) to the National Sex Offender Registry. 

• In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFISa computerized system for 

storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. 

As of April 2003 (within 4 years of implementation), 44 states, the 

District of Columbia, and 3 territories had submitted some portions of 

their fingerprint files electronically to the FBI for entry into IAFIS. 

BJS officials told us that NCHIP funds played a role in leading states to 

these and other accomplishments. Similarly, officials in the 5 case-study 

states we visited told us that the criminal history record improvements in 

their states would not have been possible without NCHIP funds. According 

to BJS officials, NCHIP is best viewed as being an “umbrella” program that 

pools or coordinates various streams of monies. The officials noted that 

NCHIP grants generally should not be viewed in isolation, apart from 

funds that the states themselves spend for these initiatives. That is, the 

NCHIP grants generally provide the seed money or the supplemental funds 

that the states need to undertake major system upgrades or to implement 

an overall plan for modernizing their information systems. While NCHIP 

requires that states provide a 10 percent match to the federal funds 

awarded, officials in the case-study states told us that their states typically 

have invested much more than the required 10 percent. For example, 

1 state that has received over $5 million in NCHIP funds estimated that 

over $20 million of its own funds have been invested in system 

improvements since 1995. Another state, receiving almost $7 million in 

NCHIP grants, estimated that $35.4 million in state resources have been 

spent on improving and automating its systems. 

In addition to NCHIP and state-provided funds, other federal programs 

provide funds that can be used to improve criminal history records. For 

example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance provides funds to states 

through Byrne grants, a block grant program that requires states to set 

aside 5 percent of any award for criminal justice information systems to 

assist law enforcement, prosecution, courts and corrections organizations. 

In addition to criminal history record improvements, Byrne grants may be 

used for a variety of other system-related activities that are not related to 

NCHIP. Examples include activities involving systems to collect criminal 

intelligence and systems to collect driving-under-the influence data. 

According to Bureau of Justice Assistance data for fiscal years 2001 

through 2003, almost $73 million in Byrne grants were set-aside to improve 

criminal justice information systems. 
Page 14 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Grants are also now available for antiterrorism purposes under the Crime 

Identification Technology Act of 1998,16 as amended by the United 

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001.17

Besides characterizing NCHIP as an umbrella program, BJS officials also 

described it as being a “partnership” program—among BJS, the FBI, and 

the states and localities—for building a national infrastructure to facilitate 

the interstate exchange of information. The officials explained that such 

exchanges or accessibility are needed to support a variety of both criminal 

justice purposes (e.g., making decisions regarding pretrial release, 

sentencing, etc.) and noncriminal justice purposes (e.g., conducting 

background checks of firearms’ purchasers, child-care providers, etc.). 

The BJS officials noted that NCHIP funds often are spread across a variety 

of long-term initiatives undertaken by the states’ executive and judicial 

branch agencies to upgrade the architecture and coverage of criminal 

records information systems. 

For some NICS-related purposes, limited progress had been made in the 

automation and accessibility of relevant records. For example, automated 

information on the disposition of older felony and other potentially 

disqualifying arreststhat is, information regarding whether the criminal 

charges against the arrested individual were dropped or proceeded to be 

prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or acquittalis critical for 

conducting background checks of persons purchasing firearms but is not 

always widely available. Also, automated information is not always 

available to identify other prohibited purchasers, such as persons 

convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, adjudicated as 

mental defectives, or who are unlawful users of controlled substances. 

In conducting background checks of firearms’ purchasers, automated 

information on whether the criminal charges against arrested individuals 

were dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction 

or acquittal is not always widely available. For example, 23 of the 38 states 

that responded to a question on final dispositions in BJS’s most recent 

biennial survey reported that 75 percent or less of their arrest records had 

final dispositions recorded (see table 3). 

 16Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1870 (1988). 

17Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). 

Limited Progress for Some 

NICS-Related Purposes 

Information on Dispositions of 

Arrests Not Always Widely 

Available 
Page 15 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had Final 

Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001) 

Percent 

Number of 

states States 

0 to 25 3 Colorado, Indiana, and Mississippi 

26 to 50 6 Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

and Oklahoma. 

51 to 75 14 California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 

Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Utah 

76 to 99 14 Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, 

Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming 

100 1 Massachusetts 

Not reporteda 12 Alabama, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New 

Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and 

West Virginia 

Source: BJS data. 

Note: The percentages are based on all arrest records in state respositories, whether maintained in 

automated or manual formats. 

a

Percentages are “not reported” by states for various reasons, including a lack of state personnel 

and/or computer program time to submit survey responses, or states’ inability to track the data 

needed to respond to the survey. 

It is important to draw a distinction between old and new arrest records 

with respect to disposition reporting. The BJS Director told us that, given 

limited resources, the agency has always emphasized to the states the 

importance of making certain that records of recent criminal activity are 

updated and compatible with FBI standards. In this regard, the Director 

explained that many states adopted a “day 1” approach in using NCHIP 

funds to improve records—that is, improve new records first—and left a 

number of old, inactive records archived in state repositories. The 

Director noted that BJS research, with FBI assistance, has indicated that 

older arrest records account for much of the “open arrest” problem. That 

is, of the criminal history records for which missing disposition 

information was never recorded, about one-half involve arrests that 

occurred before 1984 and three-quarters pre-date NCHIP. 

Nonetheless, while states have made progress in automating newer 

disposition information—and automating disposition information 

discovered when conducting research of older records—achieving 
Page 16 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

universal automation of disposition information continues to present 

challenges, as table 3 indicates. 

BJS has recognized that, whenever criminal history records show arrests 

without final dispositions, there is the potential for delays in responding to 

presale firearms inquiries because, in most instances, disqualifications 

result from convictions rather than arrests. Since 1995, BJS has 

encouraged states to contact court representatives and determine how 

NCHIP funds can be used to improve disposition reporting. Further, since 

2000, BJS has required that such contacts be documented in the states’ 

application packages for NCHIP funds. For example, in the Fiscal Year 

2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS specified that “all 

applications will be required to demonstrate that court needs have been 

considered, and if no funds for upgrading court systems capable of 

providing disposition data are requested, applicants should include a letter 

from the State court administrator or Chief Justice indicating that the 

courts have been consulted in connection with the application.” 

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended,18 specifies four nonfelony or 

noncriminal categories that prohibit an individual from owning or 

purchasing a firearmthat is, persons who (1) have been convicted of a 

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, (2) are subject to certain 

outstanding court protection orders, (3) have been adjudicated as mentally 

defective, or (4) are unlawful users of controlled substances. Generally, 

states have used NCHIP funds to provide information for only one of these 

four categories—court protection orders. For fiscal years 2000 through 

2003, states received a total of approximately $5.3 million in NCHIP funds 

to develop systems for reporting information to the FBI to be included in 

the NCIC Protection Order File as indicated in table 1. As of May 2003, 

states had made more than 778,000 records of court protection orders 

available to the national file. 

However, the availability of information regarding domestic violence 

misdemeanor convictions, mental health commitments, and controlled 

substance abusers is problematic for various reasons. For example,

according to BJS, problems in identifying domestic violence misdemeanor 

convictions are twofold—(1) misdemeanor data traditionally have not 

been maintained at the state level in an automated format and 

(2) misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender 

 18Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968). 

Automated Information Not 

Always Available to Identify 

Other Prohibited Purchasers 
Page 17 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged. That is, 

domestic violence-related offenses can be difficult to distinguish from 

misdemeanors broadly classified as assaults. Since fiscal year 1996, BJS 

has encouraged states to use NCHIP funds to improve access to domestic 

violence records. BJS has provided direction, for example, to the states to 

set “flags” on the records of persons known to have a conviction for 

domestic violence. 

Records regarding mental health commitments are often not available 

nationally for reasons beyond the control of NCHIP. For instance, state 

mental health laws, privacy laws, or doctor-patient considerations may 

preclude federal law enforcement officials from routinely accessing some 

of these records. According to BJS, the area of mental health records and 

their shareability is a very difficult area—and is an area in which BJS has 

encouraged states to do more with NCHIP funds since fiscal year 1996. 

The FBI’s strategy—which BJS encourages the states to use—has been to 

create a Denied Persons File in the NICS Index where the reason for 

denial is not given unless the denial is appealed. 

In reference to substance abuse, BJS noted that federal law is very unclear 

regarding who is a prohibited person, which makes it very difficult for 

states to make records available to the FBI for NICS checks. Also, BJS 

noted that states have no central registries of active drug users or addicts. 

Given the complications of federal definitions, BJS emphasized that it 

would be a very challenging undertaking to develop such registries and 

keep them current. 

Overall, as table 4 indicates, a national system for domestic violence 

misdemeanor records is not available, only 10 states have provided mental 

health records to the NICS Index, and only 3 states have provided 

substance abuse records. According to BJS, most states have chosen to 

use NCHIP awards to automate criminal history records overall and 

improve criminal history record systems, rather than focus on improving 

access to these four specific types of records. BJS recognizes that ensuring 

the availability of additional nonfelony or noncriminal records involves 

various considerations or challenges that extend beyond simply providing 

more money to improve records. For example, as mentioned previously, 

BJS noted that federal law is very unclear regarding who is a prohibited 

person in reference to substance abuse. 
Page 18 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available Nationally (as of May 2003) 

Nonfelony or 

noncriminal 

disqualifying factor 

Systems providing 

information and number of 

records available 

Challenges affecting the 

availability of additional records 

Examples of state actions to 

address challenges 

Persons convicted 

of domestic violence 

misdemeanors 

• National system for domestic 

violence misdemeanor 

records is not available. 

• States rely on criminal history 

records for information 

pertaining to domestic 

violence misdemeanor 

convictions. 

• Definition in federal statute is 

complex.a

• States report domestic violence 

misdemeanors as assaults and 

often do not include information 

regarding perpetrator’s 

relationship to victim. 

• Arrest may lack disposition 

information. 

• Eight states have begun developing 

systems designed to identify 

domestic violence records during 

background checks. 

• One case-study state plans to install 

a domestic violence flagging 

capability when its computerized 

criminal history system is 

reprogrammed during fiscal year 

2004. 

Persons who are 

subjects of court 

protection orders 

• NCIC Protection Order File 

contains more than 778,000 

court protection orders 

submitted by 43 states. 

• Difficult to keep protection order 

information up-to-date because 

orders can be rescinded and/or 

reinstated. 

• Most states are providing this 

information to national systems. 

Persons who have 

been adjudicated as 

mentally defective 

• NICS Index contains a 

filethe Mental Defective 

Commitment Filewhere 

mental health records are 

maintained.b

• Ten states have provided 

58,721 mental health records 

to the NICS Index Mental 

Defective Commitment File. 

• State privacy and doctor/patient 

confidentiality laws prohibit 

contributing this information to 

national systems. 

• States that have applicable privacy 

or doctor/patient confidentiality laws 

have begun considering using the 

NICS Index Denied Persons File.c

Persons who are 

unlawful users of or 

addicted to 

controlled 

substances 

• NICS Index contains a 

filethe Controlled 

Substance Abuse File 

where substance abuse 

records are maintained. 

• Three states have provided 

66 substance abuse records 

to the NICS Index Controlled 

Substance Abuse File. 

• The associated definition of the 

term “addict” contains various 

criteria that are subjective in 

nature. 

• State privacy and doctor/patient 

confidentiality laws may prohibit 

contributing this information to 

national systems. 

• No states are developing systems to 

track substance abusers. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI data. 

a

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as 

an offense that is a misdemeanor under federal or state law and has, as an element, the use or 

attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by (1) a current 

or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; (2) a person with whom the victim shares a child 

in common; (3) a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, 

or guardian; or (4) a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. 

b

The NICS Index was created solely for presale background checks of firearms’ purchasers and 

contains disqualifying information contributed by local, state, and federal agencies on individuals who 

are prohibited from purchasing firearms for various reasons, such as being (1) dishonorably 

discharged from the armed forces, (2) involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or (3) an 

unlawful user of a controlled substance. 
Page 19 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

c

The NICS Index Denied Persons File allows a state to flag an individual as prohibited from 

purchasing a firearm without providing the specific reason for the prohibition. 

BJS has recognized that the absence of widely accessible information on 

domestic violence misdemeanors and noncriminal disqualifying factors is 

among the most important issues affecting the accuracy and timeliness of 

presale background checks of firearms purchasers. Thus, for several years, 

BJS has been encouraging states to use NCHIP funds to make 

improvements. Recently, for example, in providing NCHIP guidance in the 

Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS encouraged 

states to develop systems that would make this information available 

nationally. 

As mentioned previously, NCHIP’s goal is to improve public safety by 

enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation’s 

criminal history and sex offender record systems and the extent to which 

such records can be used and analyzed for criminal justice and authorized 

noncriminal justice purposes. To better measure progress toward this 

goal, BJS is developing a tool—a criminal history records quality index 

(RQI)—to uniformly characterize and monitor performance across 

jurisdictions and over time. RQI is to be based on a series of key indicators 

or outcome measures, such as the proportion of fully automated criminal 

history records in a state’s repository, the proportion of court dispositions 

transmitted electronically to the repository, and the extent to which the 

state submits data electronically to the FBI. According to BJS, RQI will be 

used to assess the progress of records quality at both the state and 

national levels, identify critical records improvement activities by 

pinpointing areas of deficiency and permit BJS to target specific problems 

and deficiencies for allocating future funding at the individual state level. 

After RQI is operationalized, BJS plans to begin using it for NCHIP funding 

decisions. Initial RQI development—and pilot testing in 10 states—was 

completed in 2003. As of January 2004, according to BJS, collection of the 

underlying RQI measures data from the other 

46 jurisdictions (40 states, the District of Columbia, the 5 U.S. territories) 

was still ongoing. BJS hopes to receive RQI data submissions from all 

jurisdictions by April 30, 2004. 

BJS Is Developing a Tool 

for Measuring NCHIP 

Performance 
Page 20 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when 

debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and 

shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems that cover all 

needed types of information. While states have made progress, more work 

remains. For NICS-related purposes, as discussed previously, automated 

information is not always widely available on the disposition of felony and 

other potentially disqualifying arrests, nor on other prohibited purchasers, 

such as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 

Another relevant factor to consider is that the demand for background 

checks is growing, with increases in recent years driven by screening 

requirements for employment and other noncriminal justice purposes. 

Furthermore, technology is not static, which necessitates periodic 

upgrades or replacements of automated systems for them to remain 

functional. 

As discussed previously, much progress has been made in automating 

records in recent years. On the other hand, some areas reflect a continuing 

need for improvements. For instance, the availability of and access to 

arrest disposition informationnecessary for timely presale background 

checks of persons purchasing firearms—continues to be problematic. 

Such information is important for preventing or minimizing the sale of 

firearms by “default proceed.” That is, by statute, if a background check is 

not completed within 3 business days, the sale of the firearm is allowed to 

proceed by default, sometimes to prohibited persons. 

In 2000, we reported that default proceeds occurred primarily due to a 

lack of arrest dispositions in states’ automated criminal history records 

and that many of these transactions involved individuals—2,519 

purchasers during a 10-month period—who were later determined by the 

FBI to be prohibited persons.19 We further reported that firearms being 

transferred to prohibited persons presented public safety risks and placed 

resource demands on law enforcement agencies in retrieving the firearms. 

More recently, according to the FBI, over one-third (1,203) of the total 

3,259 firearms retrieved in 2002 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

 19U.S. General Accounting Office, Gun Control: Options for Improving the National 

Instant Criminal Background Check System, GAO/GGD-00-56 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 

2000). 

Various Factors Are 

Relevant 

Considerations for 

Policymakers in 

Debating the Future 

of NCHIP 

Progress Has Been Made, 

but More Work Remains 
Page 21 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Firearms, and Explosives occurred because disposition information for 

felony arrests could not be determined within 3 days.20

Another one-third (1,052) of the total retrievals in 2002 involved 

background checks whereby FBI examiners were unable to timely 

determine from available records that misdemeanor assault convictions 

involved domestic violence. A national system for domestic violence 

misdemeanor records is not available (see table 4). To further support 

NICS, table 4 also indicates that there is still much opportunity for 

improving the availability of records regarding persons who have been 

adjudicated as mentally defective and persons who are unlawful users of 

controlled substances. 

Additional examples (not exhaustive) of opportunities for further progress 

in automating records and/or enhancing national systems include the 

following: 

• 5 states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont), the 

District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands) still do not participate in III; 

• 7 states (Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, and 

West Virginia), the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories 

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico) 

have not contributed any data to the NCIC Protection Order File; and 

• 6 states (Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Nevada Vermont, and 

Wyoming) and 2 U.S. territories (Northern Mariana Islands and 

Puerto Rico) have not submitted any files electronically to IAFIS. 

In debating the future of NCHIP, another relevant factor for policymakers 

to consider is that the demand for background checks is growing, with 

increases in recent years driven by screening requirements for 

employment and other noncriminal justice purposes. Generally, 

background checks for these “civil” purposes are based on fingerprint 

submissions—in contrast to the “name-based” searches conducted under 

NICS. The number of civil fingerprint submissions to the FBI has increased 

 20Generally, the number of default proceeds (including those that subsequently involve 

retrievals of firearms) represents a small fraction of total NICS transactions. For example, 

the 3,259 firearms retrieved in 2002 constituted about 0.04 percent of the approximately 

8.4 million NICS transactions conducted that year. Also, BJS noted that the number of 

retrievals in 2002 was about 33 percent fewer than in 2000, which indicates that NICS is 

becoming more effective with improvements in record keeping. 

Demand on Systems Is 

Increasing, Especially for 

Noncriminal Justice 

Purposes 
Page 22 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

substantially in recent years. As figure 2 shows, for 5 of the 7 years during 

1996 to 2002, the number of civil fingerprint submissions exceeded the 

number of criminal fingerprint submissions (i.e., fingerprints of criminal 

suspects or arrestees). In the most recent year (2002), civil fingerprint 

submissions totaled 9.1 million, whereas criminal fingerprint submissions 

totaled 8.4 million. 

Figure 2: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions Received 

by the FBI (fiscal years 1992 through 2002) 

The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to 

1993 federal legislation that encouraged states to have procedures 

requiring fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history records of 

individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with organizations serving 

children, the elderly, or the disabled.21 As of February 2004, according to 

BJS, 47 states had enacted legislation authorizing these record checks. 

Further, in 2003, federal legislation was enacted that establishes, in 

general, a pilot program in 3 states to conduct fingerprint-based 

background checks on individuals seeking volunteer positions involving 

 21National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (1993), as 

amended. 
Page 23 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

interactions with children.22 Within 6 months of the date of the 2003 Act’s 

enactment, the Attorney General is to conduct a feasibility study to 

determine, among other things, the number of background checks that 

would be required if the pilot were implemented nationwide and the 

impact these additional checks might have on the FBI and IAFIS. If this 

pilot program is implemented nationally, BJS officials estimate that 

millions of additional background checks would be required annually. 

Homeland security concerns are another factor that has increased the 

demand for fingerprint-based background checks. Since the events of 

September 11, 2001, Congress passed legislation to protect the nation from 

future terrorist attacks. These laws require that individuals employed in 

sensitive positions undergo background checks to qualify for employment. 

FBI and BJS officials expect the number of applicant background checks 

to be in the millions, as homeland defense laws are fully implemented. 

Examples of federal homeland defense legislation and the number of 

checks anticipated follow: 

• USA PATRIOT Act of 200123—Requires background checks on 

commercially licensed drivers who transport hazardous materials.24

Officials from the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division 

estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 individuals held commercial 

licenses at the time the USA PATRIOT Act was passed. Under the act, 

license renewals, in addition to new licensees, will need background 

checks to qualify for commercial licenses. 

• Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 200125—Requires 

background checks of those individuals in security screener positions 

or other positions such as those with unescorted access to aircraft or 

secured areas of an airport. New background checks are required for 

those employees already hired at the time of the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act’s passage as well as for individuals seeking 

employment. This act further requires background checks of foreigners 

 22Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 

2003 (PROTECT Act), Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). 

23Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). 

24The USA PATRIOT Act defines “hazardous materials” as any material defined as a 

hazardous material by the Secretary of Transportation and any chemical or biological 

material or agent determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the 

Attorney General as being a threat to the national security of the United States. 

25Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001). 
Page 24 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

seeking enrollment in flight schools. The Transportation Security 

Administration has requested over 105,365 background checks since 

passage of the act in November 2001. In addition to these checks, FBI 

officials estimated that flight school checks alone could result in up to 

50,000 fingerprint checks annually. 

• Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 

Act of 200226—Requires the Attorney General to conduct background 

on persons possessing, using, or transferring various toxins and 

biological agents. FBI officials estimated that this law could result in 

30,000 checks annually. 

Another factor for consideration is that technology is not static and can 

change rapidly, which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of 

automated systems. For example, 1 case-study state used fiscal year 

1995 NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for its major 

metropolitan areas. According to state officials, this equipment is now 

outdated and fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funds will be used to purchase new 

equipment. According to state officials, the 1995 machines will be retained 

for installation in other areas, such as the state’s less populous or more 

rural counties. 

Another relevant factor is how long-term funding needs will be met. 

Replacing outdated equipment and automating records can be expensive. 

States advocate that steady or long-term funding streams are important for 

implementing technological advances. In this regard, states do not rely 

entirely on NCHIP grants for system improvements. That is, states view 

NCHIP funding as “seed” or supplemental money and contribute from 

their own coffers to fund these upgrades. For instance, as noted 

previously, officials in the case-study states told us that their states 

typically have invested much more than the 10 percent matching funds 

required by NCHIP. 

The overarching goal of NCHIP—building a national infrastructure to 

facilitate the interstate exchange of criminal history and other relevant 

records—is important for many purposes. Without such an infrastructure, 

individuals who are, in fact, prohibited but whose records are inaccessible, 

or do not reflect such a prohibition may be allowed to purchase firearms, 

creating safety concerns not only for the general public, but also for the 

 26Pub. L. No. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594 (2002). 

Technology Is Not Static 

Conclusions 
Page 25 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

law enforcement officials responsible for retrieving these firearms after 

the prohibited status is ascertained. Further, inaccurate, incomplete, or 

inaccessible records and systems do not help to prevent persons who have 

been convicted of crimes to be hired in paid or volunteer positions with 

organizations serving children, the elderly, or the disabled, putting these 

populations at risk for abuse or worse. Also, accurate, complete, and 

accessible records and systems are necessary to respond to the needs and 

requirements of homeland security and to avert terrorism, particularly 

with respect to individuals employed in sensitive positions. 

Since its initiation in 1995, NCHIP has provided more than $438 million in 

federal grants nationwide. Using their own funds, as well as NCHIP and 

other federal grants, states have made much progress in automating their 

records and making them accessible nationally by conforming with the 

FBI’s standards for applicable national data systems—such as NICS, NCIC, 

III, and IAFIS. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a 

national infrastructure inherently will involve a partnering of federal, state, 

and local resources and long-term commitments from all governmental 

levels. 

On January 28, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for comment to the 

Department of Justice. In a response letter, dated February 13, 2004, the 

Assistant Attorney General (Office of Justice Programs) commented that 

the report fairly and accurately described NCHIP, its accomplishments, 

and the continued need to promote state and local participation in national 

criminal history records systems. Also, the Assistant Attorney General 

commented that the following issues mentioned in the report should be 

highlighted: 

• Given limited resources, it is important to draw the distinction 

between old and new arrest records with respect to disposition 

coverage. BJS has always emphasized to the states the importance of 

making certain that records of recent criminal activity were updated 

and compatible with FBI standards. 

• In many cases, state laws prohibit sharing mental health information 

because of confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy laws. The 

strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the states to 

use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index 

where the reason for denial of a firearm purchase is not given unless 

the denial is appealed. 

• Most states do not fingerprint misdemeanants, and misdemeanor 

assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender relationship (unless 

Agency Comments 
Page 26 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

domestic violence is specifically charged). BJS has given strong 

direction to the states to set flags on the records of persons known to 

have a conviction for domestic violence. 

• No state has a central registry of active drug users or addicts. It will 

be challenging to develop such registries and to keep them current. 

• In perspective, the number of problematic firearms sales—that is, 

default proceeds that result in a need to retrieve firearms from 

prohibited purchasers—is very small compared to the 8 million to 

9 million background checks conducted each year. 

• RQI, a metric developed by BJS, is a major step forward and may 

provide a significant opportunity for evaluating performance over time 

and establishing a basis for targeting future assistance to state and 

local participants in federal funding programs. 

The full text of the Assistant Attorney General’s letter is presented in 

appendix V. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the 

date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

interested congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also 

make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss 

the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Danny Burton at 

(214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Laurie E. Ekstrand 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

As requested by the Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, our 

overall objective was to broadly review the National Criminal History 

Improvement Program (NCHIP). Managed by the Department of Justice’s 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NCHIP is a federal grant program to 

build a national infrastructure to facilitate the interstate exchange of 

criminal history and other relevant records—that is, to improve the 

accuracy, completeness, and accessibility of records used by various 

national systems. One of the primary systems is the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used to conduct presale 

background checks of persons purchasing firearms. As agreed with the 

requester’s office, this report presents information on 

• how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to 

which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes; 

• the progressusing NCHIP grants and other funding sourcesthat 

states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant 

records and making them accessible nationally; and 

• the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in 

debating the future of NCHIP. 

Regarding the use of NCHIP grant funds, as further agreed with the 

requester’s office, this report also presents information on (1) the use of 

such funds by the priority states 1

 and their progress in automating records 

and (2) whether any of the 50 states have used NCHIP funds to develop or 

implement a ballistics registration systemthat is, a system that stores 

digital images of the markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when 

firearms are discharged. 

In addressing the objectives, to the extent possible, we focused on 

obtaining national or programwide perspectives. For example, we 

reviewed BJS’s biennial national survey data or reports on the automation 

status of all states’ criminal history records. Further, we interviewed 

NCHIP managers at BJS and NICS managers at the FBI’s Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division (Clarksburg, W. Va.). Also, we reviewed BJS 

program documentation that describes allowable NCHIP spending 

 1

In 1994, BJS identified 5 statesMaine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West 

Virginiaas having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation. These 5 states 

were designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million 

in funding during NCHIP’s first year. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

activities. In addition, given that NCHIP consolidates criminal records 

improvement funding authorized by various federal laws, we reviewed 

these laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,2

 and 

related legislative histories. 

Also, to provide supplemental or more in-depth perspectives, we 

conducted case studies of 5 recipient states (California, Maryland, 

Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia). We selected these states to reflect a 

range of various factors or considerations—the amounts of grant funding 

received, status of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as 

to encompass different geographic areas of the nation (see table 5). 

Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds 

NCHIP funding for fiscal 

years 1995 through 2003

 

Selected states 

Amount (in 

millions)

Funding 

rank

 NICS participation 

statusa Priority state 

California $32.9 1 Full Participant No 

Maryland $7.4 20 Partial participant No 

Mississippi $5.9 29 Nonparticipant Yes 

Texas $22.9 3 Nonparticipant No 

West Virginia $5.4 35 Nonparticipant Yes 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI information. 

a

Regarding the status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes states as follows: (1) Full participant 

states are those where a designated state agency conducts background checks of persons 

purchasing any firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial participant states designate a state 

agency to conduct presale background checks for handgun purchases, with the FBI conducting 

background checks for long gun purchases; and (3) nonparticipant states are those where the FBI 

conducts presale background checks for purchases of both handguns and long guns. Sometimes, 

these categories are referred to as point-of-contact states, partial point-of-contact states, and FBI 

states, respectively. 

To obtain an overview of how all jurisdictions (the 50 states, District of 

Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories) have used NCHIP grant funds, we 

requested that BJS provide us information on total awards for each of the 

4 most recent fiscal years (2000 through 2003)—with the amounts 

disaggregated into applicable spending categories. Generally, NCHIP 

spending can be grouped into six spending categories: (1) NICS/Interstate 

 2

Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993). 

How States Have Used 

NCHIP Grant Funds, 

Including NICS-Related 

Purposes 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Identification Index (III)3/criminal records improvements, (2) disposition 

reporting improvements,4

 (3) Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

(AFIS)/Livescan activities,5

 (4) sex offender registry enhancements, 

(5) protection order activities, and (6) national security/antiterrorism 

activities. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than 

one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was the most 

descriptive of the activity. 

We reviewed BJS documentation and interviewed BJS officials to 

determine which of these spending categories involved NICS-related 

purposes. In addition, we analyzed the spending category information in 

reference to the 50 states’ participation status in NICS (full participant, 

partial participant, or nonparticipant) to determine any general differences 

in the types of NCHIP-funded projects undertaken. Similarly, we analyzed 

the spending category information to determine how the 5 priority states 

had used NCHIP grant funds (see app. IV). 

For more in-depth perspectives, we reviewed data on the use of NCHIP 

grant funds by the 5 states we selected for case studies. Preliminarily, we 

reviewed information in grant files maintained by the Office of the 

Comptroller (a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice 

Programs). Then, we visited each of the 5 states and interviewed state 

officials responsible for NCHIP-funded projects. At our request, using 

definitions provided by BJS, the officials grouped their respective state’s 

grant awards into applicable spending categories (see app. III). For some 

NCHIP-funded activities, officials in the case-study states indicated that 

expenditures could be included in more than one category. In these cases, 

based on input from state officials, we selected the category that was most 

descriptive of the activity. For each of the case-study states, these 

 3

The III system, maintained by the FBI, is a pointer system used to locate criminal history 

records anywhere in the nation. 

4

For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending categories: (1) funding 

to state courts, (2) funding to other judicial components, and (3) funding for disposition 

improvements not related to state courts. For purposes of our analyses, we combined these 

three into one spending category. 

5

Most states have some type of AFIS. A state can use NCHIP funds to enhance its AFIS by 

purchasing Livescan equipment, if the state has implemented (or is implementing) 

procedures to ensure that the AFIS is compatible with FBI standards. Livescan equipment 

can generate and transmit fingerprints in a digital format. The equipment is used to capture 

fingerprint images directly from an individual’s fingers, which are rolled onto glass 

scanning plates. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

spending category analyses covered NCHIP grant awards for fiscal year 

1995 (when the program was initiated) through fiscal year 2002 (the most 

current data available at the time of our visits). 

Regarding ballistics registration systems, we interviewed NCHIP managers 

to determine if NCHIP guidelines allow NCHIP funds to be used to develop 

and implement such systems and, if so, the extent to which states have 

used or are planning to use NCHIP funds for this purpose. In addition, in 

visiting the 5 case-study states, we asked state officials if NCHIP money 

had been or would be used to develop and implement ballistics 

registration systems. 

We reviewed BJS’s biennial survey data and/or reports (for 1993, 1995, 

1997, 1999, and 2001) on the automation status of states’ criminal history 

records. We contacted BJS managers to clarify (when necessary) the 

survey data and discuss automation progress, including the contributing 

roles played by NCHIP and other federal grants and by the states’ use of 

their own funds. Further, we reviewed BJS and FBI information regarding 

the progress of states in making criminal history and other relevant 

records accessible nationally by, for example, conforming with the FBI’s 

standards for national data systems—including, as applicable, NICS, the 

National Crime Information Center (NCIC), III, and the Integrated 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Also, in each of the 

5 case-study states, we discussed these issues with state officials. 

To determine various factors that are relevant considerations for 

policymakers in debating the future of NCHIP, we interviewed NCHIP and 

NICS managers, as well as officials in the 5 case-study states. We also 

contacted officials from other organizations, such as SEARCH (The 

National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics) and the 

American Prosecutors Research Institute. Further, we relied on insights 

gained in addressing the objectives of this work. 

To assess the reliability of BJS’s data (by spending category) on NCHIP 

funds awarded to all jurisdictions for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 (see 

table 1) and to the 5 case-study states for fiscal years 1995 through 

2002 (see tables 6 through 11), we 

• reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources, 

States’ Progress in 

Automating Records and 

Making Them Accessible 

Nationally 

Relevant Considerations 

for Policymakers in 

Debating the Future of 

NCHIP 

Data Reliability 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 31 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

• electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with 

completeness or accuracy, and 

• interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. 

We determined that the NCHIP funds data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. 

To assess the reliability of data reported by BJS based on its biennial 

surveys of state criminal history information systems for 1993, 1995, 1997, 

1999, and 2001, we (1) reviewed the published survey results and 

(2) interviewed officials knowledgeable about the surveys. We determined 

that the biennial survey data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. 
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 

Page 32 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

BJS strives to create national criminal history records systems that contain 

accurate, complete, and accessible information. To accomplish this, since 

1995, BJS has awarded approximately $438 million in NCHIP grants to 

states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to help these 

jurisdictions improve their records and establish automated capabilities 

that enhance participation in national criminal history records systems. 

Each state operates a central criminal history records repository that 

receives information regarding individuals’ criminal histories from a 

number of sources throughout the state, including state and local law 

enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies. For 

each individual, the repository compiles the information from these 

sources into a comprehensive criminal history record for that person. 

These records are commonly referred to as “rap sheets.” By means of 

statewide telecommunications systems, the repositories make these 

records available to criminal justice personnel for authorized purposes, 

such as pretrial release and sentencing decisions. The repositories also 

provide criminal history records for authorized noncriminal justice 

purposes. For example, with increasing frequency, state and federal laws 

are requiring local law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal history 

background checks on persons seeking employment in sensitive positions 

(such as child and elder care) and for occupational license authorizations. 

The FBI has historically maintained criminal history record files on all 

federal offenders and on state offenders to the extent that states 

voluntarily submit state criminal history information. The FBI also 

maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that enables federal, 

state, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct national record 

searches and to obtain criminal justice related-information, for example, 

about individuals who are arrested and prosecuted in other states. 

Criminal record services are also provided to noncriminal justice agencies 

authorized by federal law to obtain such records. 

The practice of maintaining duplicative state offender records at both the 

state and federal levels is being replaced by efforts to build an automated 

infrastructure that will make all criminal history records accessible 

nationally. To fully participate in the national systems that are to comprise 

this infrastructure, a jurisdiction must have an automated criminal history 

record system that meets FBI standards for participation. For example, the 

state’s automated system must be compatible with the federal systems and 

be capable of responding automatically to requests for records. The 

principal national, federal systems are discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 

Page 33 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Prior to 1967, the FBI’s criminal history records were manual files. In 

1967, the FBI established NCIC, an automated, nationally accessible 

database of criminal justice and justice-related records. NCIC provides 

automated information on wanted and missing persons, as well as 

identifiable stolen property, such as vehicles and firearms. Each state has 

a central control terminal operator, who is connected to NCIC through a 

dedicated telecommunications line maintained by the FBI. Authorized 

local agencies use their state’s law enforcement telecommunications 

network to access NCIC through the respective operator. An investigator 

can obtain information on wanted and missing persons and stolen 

property by requesting a search by name or other nonfingerprint-based 

identification. Information provided can include graphics, such as mug 

shots, pictures of tattoos, and signatures in a paperless, electronic format. 

Using this system, an investigator can also perform searches for “sound 

alike” names, such as “Knowles” for “Nowles.” The system has an 

enhanced feature for searching all derivatives of names, such as Jeff, 

Geoff, Jeffrey. NCIC includes the National Sex Offender Registry and a 

Protection Order File (discussed later). NCIC data may be provided only 

for criminal justice and other specifically authorized purposes. For 

example, authorized purposes include presale firearms checks, as well as 

checks on potential employees of criminal justice agencies, federally 

chartered or insured banks or securities firms, and state and local 

governments. 

Maintained by the FBI, the III system is an interstate, federal-state 

computer network, which currently provides the means of conducting 

national criminal history record searches to determine whether a person 

has a criminal record anywhere in the country. This system is designed to 

tie the automated criminal history records databases of state central 

repositories and the FBI together into a national system by means of an 

“index-pointer” approach. The FBI maintains an identification index of 

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 from each state holding information about the individual. 

Criminal justice agencies nationwide can transmit search inquiries based 

on name or other identifiers automatically through state law enforcement 

telecommunications networks and the FBI’s NCIC telecommunications 

lines. According to the FBI, the III system responds to search inquiries 

within seconds. If the search results in a “hit,” the system automatically 

requests records using the applicable FBI and state identification numbers, 

and each repository holding information on the individual forwards its 

NCIC 

III 
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 

Page 34 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

records to the requesting agency. The FBI provides responses for states 

that are not yet participants in III. 

Under Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requirements, the FBI 

established NICS to provide instant background checks of individuals 

applying to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers. Federal law 

prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by any person who 

(1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding 

1 year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of controlled 

substances, (4) has been adjudicated as mental defective, (5) is an illegal 

or unlawful alien, (6) has been discharged dishonorably from the armed 

forces, (7) has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, (8) has been 

convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or (9) is subject 

to certain domestic violence protection orders.1

The three primary, component databases searched by NICS are III, NCIC 

(including the Protection Order File and a file of active felony or 

misdemeanor warrants), and the NICS Index. This third database was 

created solely for presale background checks of firearms purchasers and 

contains disqualifying information contributed by local, state, and federal 

agencies. For example, the database contains information on individuals 

who are prohibited from purchasing firearms because they are aliens 

unlawfully in the United States, are persons who have renounced their 

U.S. citizenship, have been adjudicated as mental defectives, have been 

committed to a mental institution, have been dishonorably discharged 

from the armed forces, or are unlawful users of or addicted to controlled 

substances. 

The FBI established the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) to enable 

state sex offender information to be obtained and tracked from one 

jurisdiction to another. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 

Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the Jacob 

Wetterling Act) required that states create sex offender registries within 

3 years or lose some of their federal grant funds.2

 The law further provided 

that—when any offender convicted of committing a criminal sexual act 

 1

18 U.S.C. § 922.

2

Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994). 

NICS 

National Sex Offender 

Registry 
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 

Page 35 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

against a minor or committing any sexually violent offense—is released 

from custody or supervision into the community, he or she must register 

with law enforcement agencies for a period of 10 years. The act was 

amended in 19963 to require the FBI to establish a NSOR and to register 

and verify addresses of sex offenders when a state’s registry does not meet 

the minimum compliance standards required by the Jacob Wetterling Act. 

According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, all 50 states currently 

have sex offender registration laws, and all states require a registration 

period of at least 10 years, with some states requiring lifetime registration.4

State registry information typically includes the offender’s name, address, 

Social Security number, date of birth, physical description, photograph, 

and fingerprints. NSOR is a component of NCIC that serves as a pointer 

system to identify a sex offender’s records in the III system. When 

agencies request authorized fingerprint-based criminal history background 

checks, NSOR will flag the subjects who are registered sex offenders. 

The FBI established the Protection Order File in 1997 to provide a 

repository for protection order records. The purpose of this NCIC 

component is to permit interstate enforcement of protection orders and 

the denial of firearms transfers to individuals who are the subjects of court 

protection orders. Such orders include civil and criminal court orders 

issued to prevent a person from committing violent, threatening, or 

harassing acts against another individual. A protection order can preclude 

the person from contacting, communicating with, and being in physical 

proximity to a named individual. State and federal law enforcement 

agencies can submit protection orders to the NCIC Protection Order File.5

In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS, a computerized system for storing, 

comparing, and exchanging digitized fingerprint data. Most fingerprint 

data submitted to IAFIS originate when a local or state law enforcement 

agency arrests a suspect. At that time, the agency takes the suspect’s 

fingerprints manually (using ink and paper fingerprint cards) or 

electronically (using optical scanning equipment). The agency forwards a 

 3

Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996). 

4

 Allan D. Scholle, M.S., “Sex Offender Registration Community Notification Laws,” FBI 

Law Enforcement Bulletin (July 2000): 17-24. 

5

28 U.S.C. § 534.

NCIC Protection 

Order File 

IAFIS 
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal 

History Records Systems 

Page 36 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

copy of the fingerprints—along with nonbiometric data such as name and 

age—through its state repository to the FBI. Electronic submissions are 

automatically entered into IAFIS, and paper submissions sent through the 

mail are scanned into an electronic format for entry. When a set of 

fingerprints is submitted, IAFIS searches for a prior entry in the system 

that matches the suspect’s nonbiometric personal identifying data. If a 

prior entry is not found, the system compares the submitted fingerprints 

with those previously stored in the computer’s memory to determine if the 

suspect has an entry under another name. This information can be used 

for a number of purposes, including positively identifying arrestees to 

prevent the premature release of suspects who use false names and are 

wanted in other jurisdictions. To support crime scene investigations, the 

system can also compare a full or partial fingerprint from a crime scene 

with the prints stored in the database to identify a suspect. 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 37 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

This appendix presents information about the use of NCHIP funds by 

5 case-study statesCalifornia, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and 

West Virginia—for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. As mentioned 

previously, we selected these states to reflect a range of factors or 

considerations—that is, the amounts of grant funding received, status 

of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as to encompass 

different geographic areas of the nation (see app. I). 

NCHIP funding amounts can be grouped into six categories of spending 

established by BJS to track the use of program funds. These six categories 

are (1) NICS/III/criminal records improvements, (2) disposition reporting 

improvements, (3) AFIS/Livescan activities, (4) sex offender registry 

enhancements, (5) protection order activities, and (6) national 

security/antiterrorism activities.1

Table 6 shows that since the inception of NCHIP in 1995, 4 of the 5 casestudy states have devoted the majority of their grant awards for the first 

two BJS spending categories—NICS/III/criminal records improvements 

and disposition reporting improvements. Expenditures in the first category 

include overall system upgrades, equipment purchases, database 

development, and other activities required to bring states in compliance 

with FBI standards so that the states may participate in national systems 

maintained by the FBI. Expenditures in the second category include 

efforts to automate disposition records and provide linkages for reporting 

these records to the state’s central records repository. Maryland, the only 

case-study state that did not devote the majority of its funds to the first 

two categories, still allocated nearly half (48 percent) of its total grant 

awards for these two areas. Maryland devoted a large amount (40 percent) 

of its NCHIP funding to AFIS/Livescan activities, as did Texas 

(45 percent). 

 1

These six categories are the same as those used in table 1 to categorize NCHIP awards to 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories for fiscal years 2000 through 

2002. For the tables in this appendix, we relied on state officials to categorize their NCHIP 

spending based on the definitions provided by BJS for these six categories. BJS originally 

grouped NCHIP awards into eight categories. However, we combined three similar 

categories into one (disposition reporting improvements)resulting in the six categories 

we present here. 

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Overview of 5 States’ 

Use of NCHIP Funds 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 38 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States’ Use of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

Case-Study States 

California Maryland Mississippi Texas West Virginia Total

Total NCHIP award amounts (in millions) $29.9 $6.8 $5.3 $19.5 $4.7 $66.2

NCHIP spending category (in percent)a 

NICS/III/criminal records improvements 66 36 76 52 50 58

Disposition reporting improvements 13 12 8 2 35 11

AFIS/Livescan activities 13 40 5 45 9 24

Sex offender registry enhancements 9 8 11 1 5 6

Protection order activities 0 3 0 0 1 0

National security/antiterrorism activities 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: BJS and state data. 

Note: The data are based on amounts reported by case-study state officials. For some NCHIP-funded 

activities, officials in the case-study states indicated that expenditures could be included in more than 

one category. In these cases, based on input from state officials, we judgmentally selected the 

category that was most descriptive of the activity. Details may not add to 100 percent due to 

rounding. 

a

Case-study state numbers represent percent of dollars spent for each state. 

For all 5 case-study states, the NCHIP funding detailed in table 6 

represented “seed” or “catalyst” money and, therefore, accounted for only 

a portion of the total criminal records improvement spending. For 

example, according to California officials, state resources accounted for 

85 percent of records improvement funding in California during fiscal year 

2002-03. The remaining 15 percent consisted of NCHIP grants (6 percent) 

and other federal sources (approximately 9 percent). Three of the other 

4 states provided data indicating that NCHIP grants accounted for less 

than a majority of the criminal records improvement funding in the 

respective state. 

More details on each case-study state’s use of NCHIP funds are presented 

in the following sections. 

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded California a total of 

$29.9 million in NCHIP fundsthe most of any state. As shown in table 7, 

California allocated approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of its NCHIP 

awards for NICS/III/criminal records improvements. For example, the 

state devoted over $4.9 million of program funds to projects for converting 

manual fingerprint and palm print cards to an electronic format and 

California 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 39 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

matching records maintained by the FBI’s III system to those maintained 

by the state repository. According to California officials, these efforts will 

improve overall criminal record keeping and benefit NICS by improving 

the state’s response to queries on prospective gun purchasers. 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 40 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 7: California NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

NCHIP spending 

category Grant fund uses by spending category 

Grant award 

amounts by 

spending 

category

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

state total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Matching of III and state records. 

• Reviewing manual criminal and applicant records up to 5 years old and 

adding any criminal activity to the automated system. 

• Converting manual fingerprint cards to automated format. 

• Flagging of each automated criminal record with firearms qualification 

status. 

• Programming to provide non-U.S. citizen background checks for firearms 

purchases. 

• Automating fingerprint/arrest records from the Department of Corrections. 

• Providing electronic access to booking photos. 

• Paying miscellaneous staff costs. 

• Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware and software, performing 

programming tasks, upgrading and enhancing systems, linking data, etc.). 

$19,586,722 66 

Disposition 

reporting 

improvements 

• Automating disposition reporting from courts to the central repository. 

• Updating automated criminal records with missing dispositions from manual 

records. 

• Assisting county courts report dispositions by magnetic tape. 

• Developing pilot project to provide real-time, automated reporting of court 

dispositions to the central repository. 

• Developing pilot project for courts to place thumbprints on disposition 

documents for proper identification. 

• Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware, etc.). 

3,899,414 13 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Purchasing Livescan devices for juvenile facilities, the courts, and law 

enforcement agencies. 

• Updating AFIS to support increased workload due to full implementation of 

electronic transmission. 

3,798,000 13 

Sex offender 

registry 

enhancements 

• Improving California’s sex offender registry database, in addition to 

programming and interface efforts to allow reporting to the FBI’s national 

registry. 

2,599,958 9 

Protection order 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 0 0 

National security/ 

antiterrorism 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 0 0 

Total $29,884,094 100 

Source: BJS and state data. 

Note: Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 41 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Officials also said that the state has used NCHIP funds to improve the 

reporting of case dispositions to the state’s central repository. For 

example, officials have used program funds to improve disposition 

reporting in the 28 counties that represent 70 percent of the disposition 

volume for the entire state. As a result, these 28 counties report 

100 percent of their dispositions to the state central repository via a 

magnetic tape batch process occurring three times a week. In addition, 

California officials are conducting an NCHIP-funded pilot project in one 

county to test the feasibility of moving to a real-time updating system for 

disposition reporting rather than the current batching approach. 

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Maryland $6.8 million 

in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 8, Maryland allocated the largest 

percentage (40 percent or $2.7 million) of its NCHIP awards for 

AFIS/Livescan activities. This category, together with NICS/III/criminal 

records improvement, accounted for over three-fourths (76 percent) of the 

state’s use of NCHIP funds. Regarding the first category in table 8, 

Maryland devoted a sizeable portion of its NCHIP award ($1.2 million) to 

make the state’s automated systems compatible with the FBI’s NCIC 

database, which was updated and expanded in 2000. In addition, Maryland 

is using nearly $200,000 of program funds to convert over 700,000 

historical arrest records (older than October 1998) to a format compatible 

with the FBI’s III system. This effort will make older records accessible to 

the FBI, which will improve NICS background checks. In the category of 

disposition reporting, Maryland has also implemented a $360,000 NCHIP 

project to automate reporting from the courts (including case 

dispositions) to the central records repository on a daily basis. Maryland 

currently reports dispositions from courts to the state’s central records 

repository through weekly magnetic tape updates. 

Maryland 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 42 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 8: Maryland NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

NCHIP spending 

category Grant fund uses by spending category 

Grant award 

amounts by 

spending 

category

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

state total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Converting older arrest records to III format to make them available 

nationally. 

• Developing audit program to identify missing criminal history records and 

making them available to III. 

• Implementing updates in Maryland to support the FBI’s NCIC system. 

• Conducting other activities (conducting design studies and system 

audits, training, paying indirect costs, etc.). 

$2,460,142 36 

Disposition 

reporting 

improvements 

• Developing automated capabilities for the courts to electronically 

transmit dispositions and other court data to the state’s central 

repository. 

• Researching disposition requests received from the FBI for NICS checks 

(Maryland State Archives). 

829,013 12 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Upgrading the state’s AFIS. 

• Establishing arrest booking system workstations (including Livescan 

devices) at local jurisdictions. 

• Establishing a system for transmitting fingerprint card images 

electronically from local jurisdictions to the central repository. 

2,743,428 41 

Sex offender 

registry 

enhancements 

• Automating Maryland’s sex offender registry. 

• Studying the feasibility of placing the state’s sex offender registry on the 

Internet. 

521,277 8 

Protection order 

activities 

• Entering protection orders (manually) into state database. 

• Providing statewide entry of warrant data (to include protection orders) 

by state police. 

224,219 3 

National security/ 

antiterrorism 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 0 0 

Total $6,778,079 100 

Source: BJS and state data. 

For purposes of NICS, Maryland is a partial participant state. That is, a 

designated state agency (Maryland State Police) conducts background 

checks for handgun purchases, whereas the FBI conducts such checks for 

long gun purchases. For both types of firearms purchases (handguns and 

long guns), another state agency (Maryland State Archives) provides 

support (researching the disposition results of arrests) for criminal history 

records generated before 1982. In fiscal year 2002, the Maryland State 

Archives received $41,000 in NCHIP funds to conduct disposition research 

for NICS queries from the FBI. Earlier, due to a lack of state funding, this 

state agency had discontinued such research for a period of approximately 

3-1/2 months (March 18 to July 2, 2002). According to Maryland and BJS 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 43 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

officials, the $41,000 award in 2002 was the first distribution of NCHIP 

funds to the Maryland State Archives since the inception of the grant 

program. 

As shown in table 9, for fiscal years 1995 through 2002, Mississippi 

allocated approximately three-fourths (76 percent) of its NCHIP funds for 

projects in the category of NICS/III/criminal records improvements. 

NCHIP projects in this category centered on creation of and support for 

the state’s computerized criminal history database. 

Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

NCHIP spending 

category Grant fund uses by spending category 

Grant award 

amounts by 

spending 

category

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

state total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Working with the vendor to provide systems support for the state’s 

computerized criminal history database. 

• Correcting the state’s data and making other changes to the data and 

software mandated by state and federal laws, policies, and procedures.

• Providing hardware/software for the computerized criminal history 

database. 

• Conducting other activities (paying travel expenses, purchasing 

supplies, automating backlogged manual records, etc.). 

$4,071,636 76 

Disposition 

reporting 

improvements 

• Acquiring hardware/software for automated disposition reporting. 

• Developing disposition reporting system for prosecutors. 

• Purchasing workstations for court clerks. 

405,000 8 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Purchasing Livescan devices for local and state agencies. 284,540 5 

Sex offender 

registry 

enhancements 

• Providing hardware and software for the state’s sex offender registry. 

• Working with consultants to design, test, implement, and support the 

sex offender registry. 

• Conducting other activities (e.g., purchasing supplies and providing 

copier support). 

581,620 11 

Protection order 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 

0 0 

National security/ 

antiterrorism 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 0 0 

Total $5,342,796 100 

Source: BJS and state data. 

Mississippi 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 44 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

According to state officials, prior to the rollout of the state’s new 

automated criminal history database in March 1998, Mississippi was 

without any type of arrest record automation. After the rollout, Mississippi 

was one of fewer than 10 states with an automated system whereby every 

arrest record was automatically associated with a fingerprint record and 

made available to authorized inquirers across the state and the nation. 

Mississippi officials told us that, without NCHIP, this advance in records 

automation would not have been possible. 

On the other hand, in responding to BJS’s latest biennial survey (2001), 

Mississippi reported that 3 percent of its automated criminal records 

included final dispositionsthe lowest among the responding case-study 

states. However, as indicated in table 9, Mississippi is using NCHIP funds 

for various projects to improve disposition reporting. 

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Texas $19.5 million in 

NCHIP fundsthe third highest total among all states, behind only 

California and New York. As shown in table 10, Texas allocated about half 

(52 percent) of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal records 

improvements. A significant project in this category is an ongoing upgrade 

of the state’s computerized criminal history system. According to state 

officials, this upgrade will “rewrite” the system to meet new demands and 

expectations. For example, the rewrite will allow Texas to “flag” domestic 

violence misdemeanors (a category for prohibiting firearms sales under 

NICS) at the arrest, prosecution, and court levels. 

Texas 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 45 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

NCHIP spending 

category Grant fund uses by spending category 

Grant award 

amounts by 

spending 

category

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

state total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Scanning old manual fingerprint cards into the state’s automated 

database for subsequent transmission to the FBI. 

• Upgrading the state’s computerized criminal history database to 

meet new demands and expectations. 

• Expanding the state’s participation in the National Incident-Based 

Reporting System (an FBI system designed to collect data and 

compile comprehensive statistics on crime for use by law 

enforcement, researchers, governmental planners, students of 

crime, and the general public). 

• Conducting other activities (updating state records in III, providing 

file storage for incomplete criminal data, etc.). 

$10,095,000 52 

Disposition reporting 

improvements 

• Implementing pilot project in one county for the direct electronic 

transmission of disposition data from the courts to the central 

repository. 

400,000 2 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Purchasing Livescan devices for electronic reporting of arrest 

records to the central repository. 

• Upgrading state’s automated fingerprint identification system. 

• Conducting other activities (providing telecommunication lines, 

purchasing hardware and software, etc.). 

8,827,155 45 

Sex offender registry 

enhancements 

• Developing the state’s sex offender registry. 185,075 1 

Protection order 

activities 

No projects in this category. 0 0 

National 

security/antiterrorism 

activities 

No projects in this category. 0 0 

Total $19,507,230a 100% 

Source: BJS and state data. 

a

The total dollar amount reported by Texas state officials was $534,045 less than the total award 

amount reported by BJS ($20,041,275). Texas and BJS officials attributed this difference to two 

factors: (1) a $334,045 savings in the purchase of Livescan equipment in year one and (2) a 

$200,000 savings in year five by hiring temporary workers. 

During this period, Texas also allocated 45 percent of its NICHIP funds for 

AFIS/Livescan activitiesthe highest percentage for this category among 

the 5 case-study states. To implement electronic reporting of arrest data, 

Texas used NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for placement in 

4 major cities and 27 of the state’s 254 counties. According to Texas 

officials, these cities and counties account for a majority of the state’s 

total arrests. 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 46 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Also, as shown in table 10, Texas allocated 2 percent of its NCHIP awards 

for disposition reporting improvementsthe lowest among the 5 casestudy states. However, according to Texas officials, criminal case 

disposition reporting is recognized as an area in need of improvement and 

will be addressed by future projects funded by NCHIP. Also, as an 

example of recent progress in Texas, BJS noted that NCHIP funds were 

used to automate approximately 52,600 court disposition records from 

Harris County—which includes Houston, the most populous city in 

Texas—for inclusion in the state’s central repository.

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded West Virginia 

approximately $4.7 million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 11, 

West Virginia allocated half of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal 

records improvements. Also, the state allocated 35 percent for disposition 

reporting improvementsthe highest percentage for this category among 

the 5 case-study states. The purpose of the ongoing projects in this 

category is to automate the reporting of court data (including case 

dispositions) to the state’s central records repository. 

West Virginia 
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 CaseStudy States 

Page 47 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 

NCHIP spending 

category Grant fund uses by spending category 

Grant award 

amounts by 

spending 

category

Spending 

category as a 

percentage of 

state total 

NICS/III/ 

criminal records 

improvements 

• Reducing the backlog of manual criminal records submitted to the 

state repository by adding these data to the automated database. 

• Establishing a jail management information system for inmate 

tracking. 

• Conducting other activities (working with a contractor on records 

improvement, providing a data quality audit, establishing an offense 

code, purchasing software for jails, etc.). 

$2,320,442 50 

Disposition reporting 

improvements 

• Automating court records, including dispositions. 1,644,378 35 

AFIS/ 

Livescan activities 

• Purchasing Livescan devices for regional jails. 

• Purchasing hardware and software for Livescan reporting to the 

state’s central repository. 

• Conducting AFIS cost analysis/requirements study. 

419,762 9 

Sex offender registry 

enhancements 

• Upgrading the state’s sex offender registry. 236,744 5 

Protection order 

activities 

• Developing a database of domestic violence protection orders. 

41,660 1 

National security/ 

antiterrorism 

activities 

• No projects in this category. 0 0 

Total $4,662,986a100 

Source: BJS and state data. 

a

The total dollar amount budgeted for NCHIP projects, as reported by West Virginia officials, was 

$160,000 less than the total award amount reported by BJS ($4,822,986). A state official told us that 

this difference consisted of two components: (1) $60,000 not yet distributed by the West Virginia 

Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety (the agency designated to receive West Virginia’s 

NCHIP funds) to the state agency that was to spend these funds and (2) $100,000 deobligated and 

returned to BJS. 

According to its 2003 NCHIP grant application, West Virginia was the last 

state to implement an AFIS. NCHIP funding assisted the state to 

implement its system by financing a study to determine AFIS requirements 

and costs. West Virginia officials noted that plans call for placing Livescan 

equipment in each of the state’s nine regional jails, which are to be 

booking sites for all persons entering the state’s criminal justice system. 
Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to 

Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics Registration Systems 

Page 48 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

This appendix provides information on the 5 states that BJS identified as 

having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation in 

1994. Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia were 

designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an additional 

$1 million in funding during NCHIP’s first year. NCHIP was tasked with 

implementing statutory grant provisions that required the states with the 

lowest levels of criminal history record automation receive priority funds 

from the program to give them some extra help in automating their 

records. This additional funding for priority states applied to only the first 

year of NCHIP grant awards. 

Also, this appendix provides information about whether any of the 

50 states have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics 

registration system—that is, a system that stores digital images of the 

markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are 

discharged. 

For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, table 12 shows that the priority states 

allocated 70 percent of their NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal records 

improvements and disposition reporting improvements. The remaining 

30 percent of the priority states’ NCHIP award amounts was allocated for 

AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and 

protection order activities. None of the priority states allocated NCHIP 

award amounts for national security/antiterrorism activities. 

Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to 

Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics Registration Systems 

Priority States’ Use of 

NCHIP Grant Funds 
Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to 

Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics Registration Systems 

Page 49 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 

 NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year 

NCHIP spending category 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total grant 

award amounts 

for 2000-03 

Spending category 

as a percentage of 

4-year total 

NICS/III/criminal records 

improvements $929,651 $998,910 $562,466 $860,983 $3,352,010 33 

Disposition reporting 

improvements 647,346 920,189 1,019,070 1,278,917 3,865,522 37 

AFIS/Livescan activities 317,080 146,095 550,557 427,835 1,441,567 14 

Sex offender registry 

enhancements 574,637 225,427 186,036 224,983 1,211,083 12 

Protection order activities 158,807 114,415 70,557 98,863 442,642 4 

National security/antiterrorism 

activitiesa

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 0 0 0 0 

Total $2,627,521 $2,405,036 $2,388,686 $2,891,581 $10,312,824 100% 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS data. 

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, 

Vermont, and West Virginia. The recipients have not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is 

overlap between some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included in only one 

category and were not double counted. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than 

one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the activity. 

a

BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until 2002 (after the events of 

September 11, 2001). 

The priority states have made progress in automating their criminal history 

records. Prior to NCHIP, these states had approximately 1.4 million 

records in manual formats and very few automated records. By 2003, BJS 

estimated that these 5 states had over 1 million automated records. 

More specifically, as shown in table 13, biennial surveys of state criminal 

history record repositories also indicate the priority states have made 

progress in automating their records. For example, New Mexico and 

Mississippi progressed from little or no automation in 1993 to 100 percent 

automation in 2001. The other priority states also have made progress in 

automating their records but have not yet achieved full automation. 

Priority States’ 

Progress in 

Automating Records 
Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to 

Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics Registration Systems 

Page 50 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Table 13: Trend in Automation Status of Priority States’ Criminal History Files 

Percent of state’s criminal history records automated 

(as of Dec. 31) 

Priority state 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 

Maine 0 0 0 43 34a

Mississippi 

7 

Not

reportedb

7 100 100 

New Mexico 0 100 100 93 c 100 

Vermont 0 0 36 52 66 

West Virginia 

0 1 13 22 

Not 

reportedb

Source: BJS. 

Note: The data are based on biennial surveys of the administrators of state criminal history record repositories. The surveys are 

conducted by SEARCH (The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics), under a cooperative agreement with BJS. 

a

In Maine, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in automation percentages from 1999 to 

2001 was due to the transition from a manual to an automated system, which resulted in some 

records being rejected and/or deleted. 

b

Automation levels are “not reported” by states for various reasons, including a lack of state personnel 

and/or computer program time or the state’s inability to track the data needed to respond to the 

survey. 

c

In New Mexico, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in automation percentages from 

1997 to 1999 was due to a backlog in automating records. The officials noted that the backlog 

cleared in 2001 and that all records are now automated. 

According to Mississippi officials, NCHIP played a critical role in the 

state’s successes in automating and sharing criminal history information. 

The officials noted, for instance, that receiving the “priority” designation 

and the accompanying additional funds enabled Mississippi to begin 

automating its criminal history records and take advantage of the latest 

technology developments. Similarly, a West Virginia official commented 

that the additional priority funding helped the state establish and begin 

implementing an automated fingerprint identification system, the 

backbone of West Virginia’s entire records improvement and automation 

project. 

Another indicator of progress is participation in III, the system used for a 

number of law enforcement-related purposes, including background 

checks of persons purchasing firearms. As of May 2003, 3 of the 5 priority 

states participated in III, with New Mexico joining the program in 1997 and 

Mississippi and West Virginia joining in 1998. At the time of our review, 

Maine and Vermont were not participating in III. According to BJS, Maine’s 

participation may not occur until some time in 2004 because the state is in 

the process of undertaking a major revision of its entire criminal justice 
Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to 

Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics Registration Systems 

Page 51 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

information technology infrastructure. Vermont officials reported to BJS 

that the state is currently using NCHIP funds to install a new system that is 

fundamental to III participation and that the state will be III-compliant by 

January 2004. States must ensure that their computerized criminal history 

records systems meet specific FBI criteria and that these systems are 

compatible with the FBI’s national data systems before the FBI will allow 

states to provide records nationally through III. 

The 5 priority states have also increased their participation in other 

national systems. According to BJS officials, all 5 states participate in the 

National Sex Offender Registry, 4 of the 5 states have provided some 

portion of their criminal fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, and 3 states 

have submitted protection order records to the NCIC Protection Order 

File. 

BJS officials said that no NCHIP funds have been used to develop or 

implement a ballistics registration system—a system typically used as an 

investigative tool to compare crime scene evidence to the stored images. 

Also, according to BJS officials, NCHIP funds are to improve the 

availability of information on the “person,” rather than to improve 

investigative tools. BJS does not plan to expand the scope of NCHIP 

funding to include investigative tools because improvements are still 

needed in the ability to identify prohibited purchasers of firearms, such as 

individuals with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. Of the 

5 case-study states we visited, only 1 (Maryland) had developed a ballistics 

registration system. According to BJS and state officials, federal funding 

was not used to develop or implement this system. 

No NCHIP Funds 

Used for Ballistics 

Registration Systems, 

According to BJS 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 52 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 53 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 54 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 55 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 56 GAO-04-364 National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777 

Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5600 

In addition to the above, Grace Coleman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael H. 

Harmond, Kevin L. Jackson, Jan B. Montgomery, Jerome T. Sandau, Linda 

Kay Willard, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440194) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs